/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210208.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 8, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 22 Headlines 1250 BAYSHORE: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says 1701 PIZZA: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ramirez et al. Allege 2103 HONEYWELL LLC: Handymen Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Sousa Class Suit 9F INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 22 Deadline A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Grocery Staff's Unpaid Wages ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Sues to Recover Unpaid OT Pay, Withheld Tips ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal in Approval of Versetto Deal Pending ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Authorization to Proceed Class Suit ALMAVIA OF SAN FRANCISCO: Ballesteros Files Suit in California AMAZON.COM INC: Defends Price-Fixing Related Suits in USA & Canada AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over E-Book Pricing AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action AMERICAN NATIONAL: Smith Bid to Stay Scheduling Order Tossed APPLE INC: Altroconsumo Launches Lawsuit Over Planned Obsolescence ARIZONA: Feb. 19 Extension for Class Status Reply Brief Sought ASHCROFT: OBS Case Stayed Pending Court's Class Status Ruling ASTRAZENECA PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 29 Deadline ASTRAZENECA PLC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline ATLANTIC CONTRACTING: Loor Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of Hours Pay ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Claims AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway AXOS FINANCIAL: Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Ongoing AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court Grants RCWC Class Status Bid BIOGEN INC: Facing Aducanumab Securities Litigation BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 22 Deadline BMW NORTH AMERICA: Burbank Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey BOOZ ALLEN: Amended Langley Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice BOW PLUMBING: Faces Braswell Suit Over Defective Plumbing Tubes BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 25 BRISTOL BAY: Class Status Related Bids Must be Filed by Sept. 20 BROADWAY FRUIT: Faces Larios-Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Wages CBE GROUP: Pistone Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey CBS CORP: Claims in Stockholder Class & Derivative Suits Narrowed CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Ruiz Files Mislabeling Suit Over Energy Drink CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Court Seeks More Info on Urena's Counsel Costs CHAAC PIZZA: Asks Court to Stay Response Date to 'Send Notice' Bid CHARLES SCHWAB: Stipulation for Class Status Date Extension OK'd CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in Sonico Suit CHICK-FIL-A INC: Colorado Court Refuses to Remand Garitano Suit CINTAS CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hawkins ERISA Suit Denied CLEAN HARBORS: Smith Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court COMPLETE RESERVATION: Faces Fitzhenry Suit Over Unsolicited Calls CONSTRUCTION MONITOR: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Calls COOK COUNTY, IL: Cert. Petition Filed in Mays Suit to Supreme Court CORECIVIC INC: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Owino Labor Class Suit CREE INC: Cal. Court Denies Young's Renewed Bid to Certify Class CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants in Part Joint Bid to Dismiss Lee Suit DIAMOND NAIL: Response Time for Lu's Class Status Bid Extended DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Underpays Custodial Workers, Sorto Claims DIY STYLIST: Petite Blow Dryer Has Deceptive Labeling, Thur Claims DXP ENTERPRISES: FLSA Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice EARLY INTERVENTION: Underpays Tutors, Fields Suit Claims ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Extension of Class Status Reply Brief Sought ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Must File Class Status Opposition by Feb. 22 EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Wants Court to Modify Class Certification Order EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Rodriguez Bid for Final Class Cert. on Hold EVOQUA WATER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York EXXON MOBIL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 29 Deadline EXXON MOBIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in BIPA Related Suit Granted Initial OK FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Initial OK FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway FCA US: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Set for May 14 FEDERAL INSURANCE: Claims v. XenCall in Abramson TCPA Suit Tossed FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Brawley Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter FIRST ADVANTAGE: Garcia Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California FLEX LTD: Plaintiff Opening Brief Due April 19 FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Deadline For Class Status Bid Extended to April 2 FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Keating FLSA Conditional Status Bid Tossed FORBES MEDIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FUSION POWER: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona FUTURE MOTION: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Angeles Says GC SERVICES: Ct. Directs Parties to Seek Leave for Expert Discovery GEMMA BY WP DIAMONDS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GENERAL ELECTRIC: Gets Dismissal of Most of Shareholder Lawsuit GOJO INDUSTRIES: Hussin's Admission Pro Hac Vice in Aleisa Denied GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline GOOGLE LLC: Faces HD Media Antitrust Suit Over Digital Ad Monopoly GOOGLE LLC: JLaSalle Sues Over 'Display Ad Stack' Market Monopoly GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Deadline for Class Status Bid Extended GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Extension for Class Status Filing Sought GRAMMARLY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GREATBANC TRUST: Clare Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement GSC LIMITED: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Text Messages GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Grigore Suit Over Stock Price Drop HALL'S SOUTHERN: Noble FLSA Class Suit Gets Settlement Approval HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Files Suit in N.D. California HONEYDEW PRODUCTS: Palazzo Files Suit in E.D. New York HSN INC: Underhill Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court HUGHES WATTERS: Texas Court Narrows FDCPA Claims in Salermo Suit I.C. SYSTEM: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gilbert FDCPA Suit IKEA US: Court Directs Dukichs to File Class Status Bid by Feb. 25 IMAGINATION IND: Conditional Cert. of Exotic Dancers Class Sought INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Oklahoma Law Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IOWA DHR: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in CPX Civil Rights Suit IRHYTHM TECH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Suit Claims IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Luxama Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Court Enters Protective Order in Gibson Suit JEFFERIES FINANCIAL: Class Suits in Minnesota & New Mexico Underway JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action Under Advisement JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits JOS. A. BANK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims KANSAS: Class Settlement in M.B. v. Howard Has Final Approval KANSAS: M.B. Suit Gets Final Settlement Approval KANYE WEST: Harris & Ruble Files Second Labor Class Action Suit L&D LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LALUMINA LLC: Court Junks Bright et al. Class Suit w/o Prejudice LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing LONG M. NGUYEN: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona LOOMIS ARMORED: Gaskin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums LOVELY SKIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action MARIBEL'S SWEETS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MARYLAND: Forced Administration of Medications in Mercer Affirmed MCKESSON CORP: Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Dismissed MEAD JOHNSON: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MEARS GROUP: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought MEDNAX INC: Failed to Protect Patient Medical Info, Bean Suit Says MERCHANT CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls MERCURY GENERAL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Modified METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL: Inmates File COVID-19 Class Action Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Walden Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas MIDWESTERN PET: Carlson Claims Pet Foods Contain Toxic Ingredients MONTE GRAB: Velez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages MOUNTAIN STATE: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought NASHVILLE, TENN: Cayton Asks Court to Modify Class Definition NASHVILLE, TENN: Class Definition in Cayton Suit Modified NAT'L. ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Leeder Sues Over Broker Commissions NEW YORK: NYCTA Must Replace Agents, Court Rules in Espaillat Suit NEW YORK: Second Circuit Affirms Judgments in Munoz Class Suit NEWREZ LLC: Bryant Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Class Status Filing Deadline Extended NORTH DALLAS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due February 12 NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR: Summary Judgment in Convent Partly Affirmed NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Cohen FAC NORTHERN NATURAL: De Leon FLSA Conditional Status Bid Tossed NTN BUZZTIME: Brooklyn Merger Deal Lacks Info, Gallo Suit Says ONEOK INC: Lindsey's FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Junked OVINTIV USA: Buffington Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to Answer Stay Bid OVINTIV USA: Buffington Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to File Reply Brief PANERA LLC: Hilliard BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety's Conditional Certification Bid Tossed PATTERN ENERGY: Bid for Relief From PSLRA Discovery Stay Denied PATTERN ENERGY: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Securities Suit PEAK PROPERTY: 90-Day Extension for Class Status Filing Sought PEAK PROPERTY: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended PEL-STATE BULK: FLSA Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice PENUMBRA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Brewer Suit Over Biometric Data Collection PHILADELPHIA, PA: Restitutionary Class in Sourovelis Suit Certified PHILADELPHIA: K9 Officers Claim Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy's FLSA Conditional Status Bid Junked PLAINS ALL: Newman's FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Tossed POLR ELECTRIC: Underpays Electricians, Barnard Suit Alleges POLYFLUOROALKYL MAKERS: Wallace Slams Injury From Exposure Hazard PROBUILD COMPANY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought PULASKI COUNTY SSD: 30K Class Settlement in Lamb Suit Wins Final OK QIWI PLC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Pending QUALCOMM INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Bid Pending QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Ongoing in Canada QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline QUICKWAY: Tooley Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice RCI LLC: Bryan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio REALOGY GROUP: Facing Leeder Putative Class Action REALPAGE INC: Court Tosses Diane Jones' Bid to Certify Class REED'S INC: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Mason Consumer Suit REGIONS BANK: Faces Fisk Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RLJ C San Francisco: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Rios Says ROBERTA PLACE: Family of Home Care Resident Files $50MM Class Suit ROBERTA PLACE: To Join Mega Suit Against Ontario Care Homes ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Cobos Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Deprives Users to Trade Stocks, Gossett Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Diamond Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Gamestop Trading Halt ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Removed Stock "AMC" from Platform, Omanhe Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Investment in Free Market, Suit Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Tampers Stock Trading, Investments, Fresa Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Users Deprived From Buying Stocks, Suit Says ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Restricts Buying Shares of GME, Schaff Alleges ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Saliba Sues Over Refusal to Trade GME Stocks ROSEBOX LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ROUGH TRADE: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Bid to Dismiss in McCurley TCPA Suit Denied ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in McCurley Suit RUG DOCTOR: Stanley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Cleaning Kiosks RUSHMORE SERVICE: Pistone Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey SAGGIO RESTAURANT: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime/Minimum Wages SAIKABIR HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Lammey Says SARASOTA DOCTORS: Florida Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Day SCOTT SEMPLE: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for April 23 SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Cadecus Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Danford Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls SHURE INCORPORATED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SIMPLY NOURISH: Court Narrows Claims in Grossman Class Suit SIRIUS XM: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Class Action Stayed SKYWEST INC: Meek Suit Seeks to Certify Frontline Employees Class STATE FARM MUTUAL: Pete Slams Denied Insurance Coverage STATE FARM: Class Certification Bid Filing Due September 15 STERLING BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Michigan Suit STERLING BANCORP: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit STRIDE INC: Continues to Defend Lee and Baig Putative Class Suits SURGICAL CARE: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Collusion Allegations SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Wallen Suit Seeks to Certify Technicians' Class SYSCO JACKSONVILLE: A1A Burrito Suit Removed to M.D. Florida TAWKIFY INC: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Sept. 23 TELIGENT INC: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended TENCENT HOLDINGS: Lawyer to Represent in Breaches of Privacy Suit TEXLEY INC: Williams Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages TODAY'S HOTEL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Rios Suit Claims TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL: Bryant Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Short Suit Over Drivers' Misclassification UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit UNIT CORP: Settlement Deal Between Subsidiary & Cockerell Reached UNITED ENROLLMENT: Ailion Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia UNITED STATES FIRE: Epie Files Insurance Suit in W.D. Missouri UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss GCA et al. Class Action Tossed UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court UNITED STATES: Huisha-huisha Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Lambro Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Technicians UNITED STATES: Torres Files Suit in District of Columbia UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Lyvers Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky URS MIDWEST: Court Denies Bid to Remand Rodriguez Labor Suit VALVE CORP: Monopolizes Game Platform's Market Power, Suit Claims VIA QUANDRONNO: Cheng FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status VIKTOR BENES: Faces Cocka Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court VISA INC: Class Certification Bid in Interchange MDL Pending VMSB LLC: Morel Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA WALMART INC: Smith Suit Removed to S.D. Florida WEBULL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over GameStop Trading Restrictions WEBULL FINANCIAL: Restricts Buying Stocks From Platform, Suit Says WEBULL FINANCIAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WEINERT ENTERPRISES: Denial of Class Cert. in Anderson Affirmed WELLPATH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Hall Class Suit WELLS FARGO: D'Addio Sues Over Client Associates' Unpaid Overtime WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Stay Citizens Class Suit XILINX INC: AMD Merger Related Suits Underway XILINX INC: Murphy Challenges Merger Deal With Advanced Micro Y AND P: Bakery Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of Hours Pay ZOOM VIDEO: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action ZOUND INDUSTRIES: Romero Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website [*] SoCal Youth Baseball Group Hits Insurers With RICO Class Action [*] Two Cladding Class Actions Commenced in New Zealand ********* 1250 BAYSHORE: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garcia Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Orlando Garcia v. 1250 Bayshore Highway, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-10, Case No. 21GDCV00069 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated alleging violations of the Defendant of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act with respect to its reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide information on the hotel's reservation Website, https://www.greentreeinn.com/hotels/ca/pasadena, that would permit Plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for people with physical disabilities like him. As a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with its ADA obligations, 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 added. Mr. Garcia is a California resident with physical disabilities who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers from cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, walker, or cane for mobility. 1250 Bayshore Highway, LLC, a California limited liability company, owns and operates the GreenTree Pasadena Inn located at 400 S. Arroyo Pkwy., 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 1701 PIZZA: Fails to Pay Wages & Overtime, Ramirez et al. Allege ---------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENIO RAMIREZ, ESTEBAN CUAUTLE, and TEOFILO ALMONTE, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1701 PIZZA LTD. d/b/a LUIGI'S PIZZA, and SALVATORE ROMANO, individually, and LUIGI ROMANO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00792 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendant seeking for damages and equitable relief from the Defendants' alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in the position of counter person, Ramirez from on or about November 5, 2011 until July 30, 2019, Cuautle from on or about October 29, 2011 until July 30, 2019, and Almonte from in or around October 2013 until in or around late-April 2019. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants willfully failed to pay them their lawfully earned overtime wages at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the FLSA and NYLL. Specifically, throughout the relevant time period until on or about April 30, 2018, they were required by the Defendants to work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, but Plaintiffs Ramirez and Cuautle were only paid a flat weekly salary, while Plaintiff Almonte was paid at a regular hourly rate for all hours they worked in a week. Allegedly, the Defendants did not compensate them with an additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate during those days when their shifts exceeded ten hours from beginning to end. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate wage statements on each payday, the suit says. 1701 Pizza Ltd. d/b/a Luigi's Pizza operates a Manhattan pizzeria/restaurant owned by the individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Danielle E. Mietus, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 910 Franklin Ave., Suite 200 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 2103 HONEYWELL LLC: Handymen Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Agustin Antonio Hiciano Nunez and Jose Ayende, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 2103 Honeywell LLC, Lineage Properties LLC, Ephraim Fruchthandler and Eli Fruchthandler, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00601 (S.D. N.Y., January 22, 2021), seeks compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages, back pay and attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants own and/or manage various buildings located at 2103 Honeywell Avenue, Bronx, NY 10460 and 2115 Honeywell Avenue, Bronx, where Plaintiffs worked as handymen. They claim to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime compensation, denied spread-of-hours payments and wage notices and proper paystubs. They also claim to be denied meal/rest breaks and day-offs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Tel: (212) 571-0700 Fax: (212) 233-3801 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Sousa Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KARLA Y. SOUSA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Joint Motion for Protective Order. Disclosure and discovery activity in the action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. They acknowledge that the Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from Joint Proposed Protective Order No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS (BLM) public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties understand that nothing in the Stipulated Protective Order changes, amends, or circumvents any court rule or local rule. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by the Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of the Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by a separate agreement or order. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a Court Order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. The Court will retain jurisdiction for a period of one year after the conclusion of the action to enforce the terms of the Protective Order. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party's confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order as set forth. Furthermore, within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, the parties will move ex parte for an order authorizing the Court to destroy all Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material in the Court's possession. The Court may modify the terms and conditions of the Protective Order for good cause, or in the interest of justice, or on its own order at any time in these proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b4s2h9b from Leagle.com. 9F INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. 9F Inc. (NASDAQ:JFU) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/9f-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12557&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased JFU securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering; and/or (2) between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020. Allegations against JFU include 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 their 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. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] A & S VEGETABLES: Aguirre Sues Over Grocery Staff's Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Fernando Osorio Aguirre, Selan Villanueva, Salvador Montoya Ramirez, Neri Palacios and Jose Odin Canales Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A&S Vegetables Inc., Maharaja Asian Supermarket Inc., Jar 259 Food Corp., Krishna Holding Inc., Amandeep Singh, Narinder Singh Gahra and Kuljit Kaur, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:21-cv-00191-JMA-ST (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime premiums owed to the Plaintiffs and the Class pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants did not provide them with overtime premium pay for hours worked over 40 each week, and did not provide them with spread-of-hours premiums for days when they worked in excess of 10 hours. They also assert that the Defendants failed to provide them with accurate wage statements and wage notices. Mr. Aguirre worked for the Defendants at Maharaja New Hyde Park as a general grocery employee in the produce and bulk dried food departments, from on or about September 27, 2015 to on or about July 10, 2020. Mr. Villanueva was employed at Maharaja New Hyde Park and at Key Food Glen Oaks, as a general grocery employee in the diary, dried packaged foods, and bulk dried food departments, from on or about July 10, 2016 to in or around February 2019. Mr. Ramirez has also worked at Maharaja New Hyde Park, as a general grocery employee in the produce, canned food aisle, international and ethnic food aisle, and bulk dried food departments, from in or around August 2019 to the present. Mr. Canales worked for at Maharaja Bellerose, Maharaja New Hyde Park and Key Food Glen Oaks, as a general grocery employee in the produce and bulk dried food departments during three separate time periods: from in or around August 2017 to in or around December 2017, from in or around June 2018 to in or around August 2019, and finally from in or around November 2019 to in or around March 2020. The Defendants are engaged in the wholesale food distribution and grocery store business. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 ADELPHIA THREE: Hall Sues to Recover Unpaid OT Pay, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Hall, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Adelphia Three Corp., Petro Kontos and William Balis, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01106 (D. N.J., January 25, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New Jersey labor laws, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a diner located in Runnemede, New Jersey under the name "Phily Diner" where Hall were employed as a waitress. She claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite requiring her to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. She also claims to have never received wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Kocher, Esq. Matthew A. Luber, Esq. McOMBER McCOMBER & LUBER P.C. 39 E. Main Street Marlton, NJ 08053 Tel: (856) 985-9800 Fax: (856) 263-2450 ADTALEM GLOBAL: Appeal in Approval of Versetto Deal Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Adtalem Global Education Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated by Nicole Versetto, is pending. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the Court granted Defendants' motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to the one the Court previously dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled. The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on May 28, 2020. In conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account, which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Adtalem management determined a loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. As such, we also recorded a loss contingency accrual of $44.95 million on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2020 and charged the contingency loss within discontinued operations in the Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) for the year ended June 30, 2020. The company anticipates the potential payments related to this loss contingency to be made from the escrow account during fiscal year 2021. This loss contingency estimate could differ from actual results and result in additional charges or reversals in future periods. The Court issued an order approving the settlement on October 7, 2020, and dismissed the action with prejudice. On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of objector Jose David Valderrama a notice to appeal the Court's order approving the settlement. On November 5, 2020, objector Richard Peart filed a notice to appeal the Court's order approving the settlement. Those appeals have been consolidated before the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. Objector's brief is currently due to be filed on February 4, 2021. Plaintiffs' and the Adtalem Parties' briefs are due to be filed on March 11, 2021, and Objector's reply brief is due to be filed on March 25, 2021. Adtalem Global Education Inc. provides educational services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Medical and Healthcare, Professional Education, and Technology and Business. Adtalem Global Education Inc. was founded in 1931 and is based in Chicago, Illinois. ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Court Dismisses Authorization to Proceed Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas Sacha Nesviginsky, Esq., of Miller Thomson LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in litigation, particularly in the context of class actions. In 2020, applications for authorization to commence class actions have been made notably against nursing homes, insurers and airline companies. In 9369-1426 Québec inc. (Restaurant Baton Rouge), the respondent, Allianz Global Risks US Insurance Company ("Allianz"), asked that the Superior Court of Quebec decline jurisdiction in favour of mediation and arbitration proceedings, the whole in accordance with the policy. Facts The petitioner, Baton Rouge, sought to institute a class action to be indemnified by Allianz on the grounds of business interruption losses which it and the class members would have sustained due to the COVID-19 health crisis. This resulted in a shutdown of economic activities in the province of Quebec. However, Allianz denied coverage on the grounds that the policy did not cover such loss. Furthermore, the latter submitted that the parties were bound by the dispute resolution terms stipulated in the policy which prohibited Baton Rouge from commencing a class action in the Superior Court of Quebec. Analysis Should the Superior Court of Quebec decline to hear the matter and, instead, refer it to a mediator and arbitrator appointed in accordance with the dispute resolution process stipulated in the applicable insurance policy? The Superior Court, per the Honourable Gary D.D. Morrison, J.S.C., concluded that it should decline to hear this matter pursuant to the policy's provisions. While the latter provided certain terms regarding the jurisdiction and the commencement of proceedings, in the case of insureds located in Quebec, the Provincial Statutory Conditions Applicable to the Province of Quebec only clause was applicable: 5. Dispute Resolution In the event that the Insurer and the Insured(s) cannot agree concerning either the coverage or the quantum afforded by this Policy, it is agreed that the dispute shall be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution process hereinafter described: a. Mediation with a Mediator mutually agreed by the parties to the dispute. If the parties fail to concur on the choice of the Mediator, a Court shall appoint a Mediator on a Motion by one of the parties. b. If settlement at Mediation is not possible, the dispute will be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the applicable Arbitration legislation/regulations in the jurisdiction in which the Policy is issued. The decision of the Arbitrator will be binding on all parties to the dispute with no right of appeal. c. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses in connection with the dispute resolution process. The costs and expenses of Mediation and Arbitration shall be shared equally by the parties to the dispute. By agreement in writing, the Insurer and the Insured(s) may waive compliance with this section or any part thereof for purposes of a specified dispute. In light of the above, and pursuant to the rules provided in the Civil Code of Quebec, Courts are to abide by the contract's terms. The fact that the dispute concerned the interpretation of an insurance policy did not prevent it from being submitted to arbitration. In the case that parties are bound by an arbitration clause, Courts are to defer said dispute to arbitration, unless there is evidence that the arbitration agreement is null. The Honourable Gary D.D. Morrison concluded that "on its face, [the wording of the dispute resolution clause] is a mandatory, clear, unambiguous, final and binding arbitration clause." Furthermore, contrary to Baton Rouge's submission, the other clauses in the policy did not create any confusion as to its validity and enforcement. The Superior Court also dismissed Baton Rouge's argument as to the scope of the Policy Jurisdiction clause. The latter stipulated that "The Courts in the Court District in which the Named Insured is located shall have exclusive jurisdiction in case of a coverage dispute." The Court concluded that this provision did not concern subject-matter jurisdiction, but rather territorial jurisdiction. As such, it did not create any conflict with the other provisions of the policy. The dispute resolution clause, which was not illegal or contrary to public order, therefore limited any type of action before the courts. In addition, the Court addressed the validity of a dispute resolution clause considering the petitioner's application to commence a class action: "[42] The fact that the initial introductive application is one that seeks authorization to institute a class action is of no substantive relevance. [43] The class action provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure are merely of a procedural nature. They do not modify substantive law. Nor do they create competence for the Superior Court over certain disputes where the parties have lawfully decided to exclude it." According to the Court, the nature of the claim was not outside of the mediator or arbitrator's jurisdiction. Indeed, contrary to Baton Rouge's submission that Allianz's denial of coverage constituted an abuse of right, the Court concluded that this was insufficient to invalidate the dispute resolution clause. Baton Rouge contended that, in the event the Court granted Allianz's motion, the result would be that each insured would have to abide the dispute resolution process provided in the policy. However, this would discourage them given the length and costs involved. The Court stated that it "will not comment on all possible outcomes, however, the equity argument raised by Baton Rouge is insufficient to overcome what is a valid dispute resolution process. In fact, Baton Rouge does not actually plead that it is invalid per se. [Furthermore.], competence is a matter of public order. It is not a matter of equity." Should the Court immediately determine the competence of a mediator and arbitrator to act in the matter of Baton Rouge's personal claim? The Court concluded that it is within its jurisdiction to determine this issue. In general, pursuant to the principle of competence-competence, Courts will let arbitrators determine the issue of jurisdiction. However, "where the matter of jurisdiction is one of law or mixed fact and law, the court can, when possible on summary and superficial examination, immediately decide jurisdiction, and this in respect of the principle of proportionality." In this instance, the Court was already seized of this issue given the declinatory exception submitted by Allianz. The Honourable Gary D.D. Morrison concluded that this solution was in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure whereby a Court can intervene and determine the role of the mediator and the competence of the arbitrator. For this reason, the mediator and arbitrator were to be appointed in conformity with the dispute resolution clause provided in the policy. Conclusion In light of the above, the Superior Court of Quebec granted Allianz's motion and referred the parties to a mediator and arbitrator in accordance with the dispute resolution process stipulated in the policy. The application for authorization to institute a class action was therefore dismissed. In this case, the Superior Court concluded that in the presence of an arbitration clause, Courts are to decline jurisdiction. The takeaway here is that the fact that a party wishes to commence a class action is irrelevant when dealing with an arbitration clause. Indeed, class actions are a procedural vehicle which do not impact substantive law. In addition, insurance disputes regarding the interpretation of a policy may be submitted to arbitration. In its decision, the Superior Court dismissed the petitioner's argument that the length and costs involved in mediation/arbitration proceedings would discourage insureds from exercising their rights. While the Court ultimately dismissed Baton Rouge's argument, which was predicated upon equity, it stated that it would not comment on all possible outcomes. Arbitration clauses are to be enforced. However, it will be interesting to see if parties will attempt to set them aside by invoking principles of accessibility to justice. [GN] ALMAVIA OF SAN FRANCISCO: Ballesteros Files Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Almavia of San Francisco, et al. The case is styled as Marites Ballesteros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Almavia of San Francisco and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC21588913 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 13, 2021). The lawsuit arises from non-exempt complaints. A case management conference is set for June 16, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Almavia of San Francisco is an assisted living facility in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. OTTINGER EMPLOYMENT LAW 535 Mission St 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 508-7786 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Defends Price-Fixing Related Suits in USA & Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amazon.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is defending against several class action suits in U.S.A. and Canada related to alleged price-fixing arrangements between Amazon.com, Inc. and third-party sellers. Beginning in March 2020, a number of class-action complaints were filed alleging, among other things, price-fixing arrangements between Amazon.com, Inc. and third-party sellers in Amazon's stores, monopolization and attempted monopolization of an alleged market in online retail or other submarkets, and consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims. In March 2020, Frame-Wilson v. Amazon.com, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Beginning in April 2020, class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Quebec – Division of Montreal, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and the Federal Court of Canada against Amazon.com, Inc. and related entities. The complaints allege several distinct purported classes, including consumers who purchased a product through Amazon's stores and consumers who purchased a product offered by Amazon through another e-commerce retailer. The complaints seek billions of dollars of alleged actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Amazon.com said, "We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in these matters." Amazon.com, Inc., is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington that focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. It is considered one of the Big Four technology companies along with Google, Apple, and Facebook. AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over E-Book Pricing ----------------------------------------------------------- Haim Ravia, Esq. -- HRavia@PearlCohen.com -- Dotan Hammer, Esq. -- DHammer@PearlCohen.com -- and Adi Shoval, Esq. -- AShoval@pearlcohen.com -- of Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, in an article for Lexology, report that a class action asserted against Amazon in a federal district court in New York alleges that it spurred an increase in e-books' prices for its competitors in violation of U.S. antitrust law. According to the claim, Amazon, which controls about 90 percent of the digital-book market, reached an agreement with five major publishers, according to which they will not offer their e-books at lower prices than the prices offered on Amazon. This is a contractual clause also known as the "most favored nation" (MFN). Amazon charges high commissions and other costs to publishers, which in turn drives publishers to significantly increases the retail price of the eBooks they sell on Amazon.com. Because of the MFN clause, the arrangement also caused a price increase in competing eBook sellers, even though they charge much lower commission and could have offered the books at lower retail prices. The lawsuit demands that Amazon cease to include these MFN clauses in its publishing agreements and that it refund consumers for the price gap, which the plaintiffs allege is as high as 30% of the e-book's listed price. This is not the first time Amazon is accused of anti-competitive practices for using similar contractual terms. In 2015, the EU Council found that Amazon violated EU antitrust law and banned Amazon from including and enforcing such contractual terms in agreements with digital-book publishers in the EU for five years. The case is Shannon Fremgen v. Amazon.com, Inc., case No. 1:21-cv-351. [GN] AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, is investigating certain officers and directors of American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP) and Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZM) on behalf of long-term stockholders. More information about each potential case can be found at the link provided. American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of AEP following a class action complaint that was filed against AEP on August 20, 2020, The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the "the largest public corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which benefitted the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3) the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark money entities and front companies in order to conceal the Company's involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding the Company's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false and misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9) as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding a move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a result of the foregoing, 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. For more information on our investigation into AEP go to: https://bespc.com/cases/AEP 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.comwww.bespc.com [GN] AMERICAN NATIONAL: Smith Bid to Stay Scheduling Order Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smith v. American National Property and Casualty Company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00115 (N.D. Okla), the Hon. Judge Gregory K. Frizzell entered an order denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to stay scheduling order deadlines. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. American National provides insurance services.[CC] APPLE INC: Altroconsumo Launches Lawsuit Over Planned Obsolescence ------------------------------------------------------------------ Italian consumer association Altroconsumo said on Monday it had told Apple it has launched a class action against the U.S. tech giant for the practice of planned obsolescence. In a statement Altroconsumo said it was asking for damages of 60 million euros ($73 million) on behalf of Italian consumers tricked by the practice which had also been recognised by Italian authorities. Altroconsumo said the lawsuit covers owners of the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, 6S and 6S Plus, sales of which in Italy totalled some 1 million phones between 2014 and 2020. Apple said in an email that it had never done anything to intentionally shorten the life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades. Two similar lawsuits against Apple have been filed in Belgium and Spain for the planned obsolescence of iPhones. European consumer association Euroconsumers, which is coordinating the three lawsuits, said it was also planning to launch a class action in Portugal in the coming weeks. [GN] ARIZONA: Feb. 19 Extension for Class Status Reply Brief Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzman; Daniel Brinauer; Bonnie Huffman; and all those similarly situated, v. David Shinn, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry, in his official capacity; Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry, Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the time to file their reply in support of their pending motion for class certification, until February 19, 2021. Currently, the reply brief is due February 1, 2021. This is the Plaintiffs' first request for an extension. This motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. The extension is needed to ensure that Plaintiffs have sufficient time to fully respond to the legal arguments and factual assertions submitted by the Defendant in opposition to the pending motion. The Defendant's counsel does not oppose this request, say the Plaintiffs. The Arizona Department of Corrections is statutory responsible for the incarceration of inmates in 10 prisons in the U.S. state of Arizona. As of December 2015, the ADC manages over 42,643 imprisoned inmates and over 5,466 inmates who have been paroled or that are statutorily released. ADC is also in involved in recruitment and training of Correctional Officers at the Correctional Officer Training Academy. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3cF6DEPat no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Stacy Satzman, Daniel Brinauer, Bonnie Huffman and all those similarly situated, are: Jordan A. Kroop, Esq. Thomas D. Ryerson, Esq. Janet M. Howe, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: (602) 351 8000 Facsimile: (602) 648 7000 E-mail: JKroop@perkinscoie.com TRyerson@perkinscoie.com JHowe@perkinscoie.com DocketPHX@perkinscoie.com ASHCROFT: OBS Case Stayed Pending Court's Class Status Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Organization for Black Struggle, et al., v. Ashcroft, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04184 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Brian C, Wimes entered an order staying case pending the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Defendants' motions to dismiss. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] ASTRAZENECA PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of March 29 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased AstraZeneca PLC ("AstraZeneca" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020 (the "Class Period"). AstraZeneca investors have until March 29, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your AstraZeneca investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/astrazeneca/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca announced the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing clinical trials for AZD1222. Though the Company claimed that the drug candidate was highly effective in preventing COVID-19, the primary endpoint of the trials, AstraZeneca disclosed that the interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in different locales that used 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. AstraZeneca contradictorily 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. The Company noted the combined "average efficacy of 70%" among two trials. The unexplained discrepancies, omissions and the need for multiple trials in separate locales raised red flags for investors and distinguished AstraZeneca's trial procedures from those of other biopharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer and Moderna. On this news, the price of AstraZeneca's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") fell $2.10, or 5%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $52.60 per ADS on November 25, 2020. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) initial clinical trials for AZD1222 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. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. If you purchased AstraZeneca shares during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 29, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] ASTRAZENECA PLC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of 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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 29, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased AstraZeneca securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the AstraZeneca class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2027.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. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. 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. DETAILS OF THE CASE: 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the AstraZeneca class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2027.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] ATLANTIC CONTRACTING: Loor Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Loor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Joel Acevedo, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00653 (S.D. N.Y., January 25, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Acevedo owns, operates, or controls a construction company, located at 373 South Broadway 4B, Yonkers, New York under the name "Atlantic Contracting of Yonkers" where Loor was employed by as a carpenter. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. He also claim to have never received wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY d/b/a ARCO, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00688-SK (N.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff, who is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read Website content using his computer, alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, https://www.arco.com/en-us/northwest/, to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by visually impaired and blind people. The Plaintiff claims that he was denied full and equal access to the Defendant's facilities, goods, and services offered to the public in its Website due to the multiple access barriers which he has encountered during his numerous visits to the Defendant's Website. The Defendant allegedly engaged in acts of intentional discrimination because of its Website inaccessibility to blind and visually impaired consumers as a result of its failure to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blin and visually impaired consumers. Atlantic Richfield Company d/b/a ARCO operates a gasoline stations and offers its Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Tel: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Company has reached a settlement of all outstanding claims against Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) for $25.0 million, subject to the court's final approval. In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in connection with its collection, use, and storage of biometric data of employees of its clients who are residents of Illinois. In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its clients with respect to the collection, use, and storage of biometric data of the employees of these clients. In June 2020, the Company reached a settlement of all outstanding claims against it for $25.0 million, subject to the court's final approval. The Company does not expect that any of the remaining cases against its clients will result in any material liabilities to the Company. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments, Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Roseland, New Jersey. AUTOMATIC DATA: Two Potential Suits Alleging ERISA Breach Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two potential class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed against ADP, TotalSource, and related defendants in the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. The complaints assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with the ADP TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciary administrative and investment decision-making. The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. These claims are still in their earliest stages and the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to these matters. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments, Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO) Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Roseland, New Jersey. AXOS FINANCIAL: Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al. On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class Action. On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and the Court took the matter under advisement. On November 3, 2020, the Court issued a ruling affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's Order dismissing the Class Action Second Amended Complaint. Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the petition for a rehearing with respect to a decision in the suit entitled, In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, is pending. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the Class Action with prejudice. Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed, the Court overturned the dismissal and the Company is preparing a petition for a rehearing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. BANKROLL CAPITAL: Court Grants RCWC Class Status Bid ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVER CHIROPRACTIC AND WELLNESS CENTER,LLC, v. BANKROLL CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00688-DCN (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Donald C. Nugent entered an order granting Plaintiff's Motion for class certification without objection or opposition. The Plaintiff brings this action to secure redress from the Defendant Bankroll's practice of sending unsolicited promotional faxes without consent of the recipient in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). River Chiropractic si a medical group practice located in Rocky River, Ohio. Bankroll is a financial technology company. A copy of the Court's Marginal Entry Order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36LfeCo at no extra charge.[CC] BIOGEN INC: Facing Aducanumab Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------- Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing Aducanumab Securities Litigation. The company and certain current and former officers are named as defendants in an action filed by a shareholder on November 13, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and an action filed by a shareholder on January 5, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both actions allege violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C Section 78j(b) and Section 78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 and are seeking a declaration of the action as a class action and an award of damages, interest and attorneys' fees. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. No trial date has been set. Biogen Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases worldwide. The company was founded in 1978 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. BIT DIGITAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed 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"). Important Deadline: 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. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] BMW NORTH AMERICA: Burbank Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as William Martin Burbank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW North America, LLC, Defendant; Adam Kavon, Intervenor; Case No. 2 8:20-cv-02273, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Feb. 2, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01711 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as other contract arising from contract dispute. BMW of North America, LLC (BMW NA) -- https://www.bmwusa.com/ -- was established in 1975 as the United States importer of BMW luxury/performance vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR LAW GROUP 384 Forest Ave Ste. 17 Laguna Beach, CA 92651-2133 Phone: (949) 494-9090 Fax: (949) 494-9913 Email: moconnor@teamolg.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD AND SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 580-3981 Fax: (213) 250-7900 The Intervenor is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. CITIGROUP CENTER 153 E. 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4675 Phone: (212) 446-4900 BOOZ ALLEN: Amended Langley Complaint Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the court overseeing the case, Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017. On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend against the lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February 8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and not for-profit organizations in the United States and internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. BOW PLUMBING: Faces Braswell Suit Over Defective Plumbing Tubes --------------------------------------------------------------- ROSELYN BRASWELL, Plaintiff v. BOW PLUMBING GROUP, INC., a Canadian Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00025-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala., Jan. 13, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons similarly situated property owners, seeking relief to remedy Defendant's breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violations of various states' consumer protection statutes, negligence, strict liability, and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the Defendant manufactured and/or distributed defective cross-linked polyethylene plumbing tubes causing premature failure, leakage, and damage to the Plaintiffs and the Class' homes. BPG sells various plumbing products including PEX Tubing, PEX Fittings, PEX Clamps and other plumbing accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirby D. Farris, Esq. FARRIS, RILEY & PITT, LLP 1700 Financial Center 505 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205)324-1212 Facsimile: (205)324-1255 E-mail: kfarris@frplegal.com BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 23, 2020, that the class certification hearing in the putative class action suit entitled, In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR, is set on February 25, 2021. In fiscal 2018, the Company discovered malware at certain Chili's restaurants that may have resulted in unauthorized access or acquisition of customer payment card data. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida styled In re: Brinker Data Incident Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-00686-TJC-MCR relating to the cybersecurity incident described above. In the Litigation, plaintiffs assert various claims stemming from the cybersecurity incident at the Company's Chili's restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Briefing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is complete. A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled for February 25, 2021. Brinker filed a motion to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. Briefing on that is also complete and the parties await the court's ruling. Mediation was held on November 18, 2020 but was unsuccessful. Brinker said, "We believe we have defenses and intend to continue defending the Litigation. As such, as of December 23, 2020, we have concluded that a loss, or range of loss, from this matter is not determinable, therefore, we have not recorded a liability related to the Litigation. We will continue to evaluate this matter based on new information as it becomes available." Brinker International, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns, develops, operates, and franchises casual dining restaurants in the United States and internationally. As of June 27, 2018, it owned, operated, or franchised 1,686 restaurants comprising 997 company-owned restaurants and 689 franchised restaurants under the Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy brand names. The company was founded in 1975 and is based in Dallas, Texas. BRISTOL BAY: Class Status Related Bids Must be Filed by Sept. 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abucar Nunow ABIKAR, Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BRISTOL BAY NATIVE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JLS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Schopler entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and other pretrial proceedings as follows: 1. The Court defers setting a deadline for any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings, until parties have briefed the issue. 2. Any motion for class certification must be filed by September 20, 2021. 3. Discovery will be in phases. Phase one includes fact and expert discovery necessary to support or oppose class certification. Phase one discovery must be completed by August 20, 2021. "Completed" means that all discovery under Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be initiated a sufficient period of time in advance of the cut-off date, so that it may be completed by the cut-off date, taking into account the times for service, notice and response as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel shall promptly and in good faith meet and confer with regard to all discovery disputes in compliance with Local Rule 26.1(a). The Court expects counsel to make every effort to resolve all disputes without court intervention through the meet and confer process. If the parties reach an impasse on any discovery issue, counsel shall file an appropriate motion within the time limit and procedures outlined in the undersigned magistrate judge's chambers rules. A failure to comply in this regard will result in a waiver of a party’s discovery issue. Absent an order of the court, no stipulation continuing or altering this requirement will be recognized by the court. Bristol Bay is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in settlement of aboriginal land claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Lt5FAw at no extra charge.[CC] BROADWAY FRUIT: Faces Larios-Gonzalez Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ADAN LARIOS-GONZALEZ, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly Situated v. BROADWAY FRUIT MARKET LLC, CHANG DONG KIM, JONATHAN KIM and KABIR ABDULLAH, Case No. 1:21-cv-00775 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2021) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to him by the minimum wage provisions of the New York Labor Law and the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Defendants allegedly required the Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did work, more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the minimum wage or overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess of 40, as the FLSA and the NYLL require. Lastly, the Defendants failed to furnish the Plaintiff with accurate and/or any wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires or provide the Plaintiff with a wage notice containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL, the suit says. The Defendants own and operate a food market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: akumar@cafaroesq.com CBE GROUP: Pistone Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Renee Pistone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00766-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., January 14, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Michael A. Shipp. The CBE Group, Inc. provides debt recovery services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com CBS CORP: Claims in Stockholder Class & Derivative Suits Narrowed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE CBS CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Consolidated C.A. No. 2020-0111-JRS (Del. Ch.), Judge Joseph R. Slights, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The Court recently considered the story of the well-publicized merger of Viacom, Inc. and CBS Corp., two quintessentially American companies, as told from the perspective of displeased Viacom stockholders. The story was presented in a putative class action complaint where Viacom stockholders alleged the Viacom/CBS merger was the product of actionable breaches of fiduciary duty by Viacom fiduciaries and patently unfair. The Court found the allegations were well-pled and denied motions to dismiss the complaint. In a rare, but not unheard of twist, the Court must consider the same story, the story of the Viacom/CBS merger, but this time as told from the perspective of displeased CBS stockholders who allege the merger was unfair to them and the product of actionable breaches of fiduciary duty by CBS fiduciaries. The CBS and Viacom stockholders offer very different takes on sensational story. As pled in a complaint comprising 267 paragraphs, the Plaintiffs' take is this: After Shari Redstone consolidated control of both CBS and Viacom under her holding companies, defined collectively below as the NAI Parties, she thrice attempted to merge Viacom and CBS and twice was turned back by the CBS board of directors. The third try proved to be the charm, resulting in the Merger that spawned nominal Defendant, ViacomCBS. From the Plaintiffs' perspective, it is necessary to understand the history of Ms. Redstone's failed efforts to cause Viacom and CBS to merge in order fully to appreciate the breaches of fiduciary duties within CBS that led to the consummated Merger. By the time Ms. Redstone first attempted to cause a Viacom/CBS merger in September 2016, she had already packed the Viacom board of directors with loyalists. The CBS Board, still independent at the time, opposed the merger for several reasons, including that the NAI Parties would not agree to allow CBS' minority stockholders to approve the merger, would not consider any merger partner other than Viacom and would not agree to allow a combined Viacom/CBS to be managed free of the NAI Parties' control. Most troubling to the CBS Board, however, was that the NAI Parties were attempting to thrust a floundering Viacom upon a thriving CBS in hopes that the combination would enhance the value of the NAI Parties as controlling stockholders of both companies. With the CBS Board unwilling to negotiate, Ms. Redstone's first attempt to cause a merger failed. Ms. Redstone was distressed but not deterred. Behind the scenes, she shared with confidantes her concern that Viacom might not make it as a going concern without a Viacom/CBS combination. In a more public display of frustration, she threatened the CBS Board with retribution and pledged "the merger would get done even if she had to use a different process." She then emailed a trusted Viacom director seeking recommendations for CBS board nominees whose loyalty to NAI she can trust. In January 2018, advisors warned Ms. Redstone that, absent a Viacom/CBS merger, the NAI Parties may be left with a portfolio of assets burdened by Viacom's underperformance and unattractive to suitors. Less than one month later, in February 2018, Ms. Redstone returned to the boards of the two companies she controlled with directions that they again form special committees to consider a merger. And, once again, she made clear that the NAI Parties would not agree to consider alternative transactions or to subject a Viacom/CBS merger to a majority-of-the-minority vote condition. This time the CBS Board, through its special committee, determined that Ms. Redstone was likely to force a merger over the CBS Board's objection and that the NAI Parties "presented a significant threat of irreparable and irreversible harm to the Company and its stockholders" because they were seeking "to combine CBS and Viacom regardless of the strategic and economic merits of the transaction." To protect CBS stockholders, the independent members of the CBS Board took measures the Court has previously described as "extraordinary"; they devised a special dividend that would dilute the NAI Parties' voting control of CBS from 80% to 17%, and then filed preemptive litigation against the NAI Parties in the Court where they sought a declaration that the dividend was valid and asserted breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NAI Parties. CBS executives, including then-COO Joseph Ianniello, supported the independent board's effort to oust their controller. In riposte, the NAI Parties countersued alleging the special dividend was unlawful as a matter of statute and the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the CBS Board who were acting for the sake of entrenchment. The litigation that followed was expedited and intense. That litigation ultimately settled in September 2018, resulting in the resignation of seven CBS directors and the addition of six new directors hand-picked by Ms. Redstone. Key governance committees were restructured to include Redstone-backed candidates. Ianniello was named interim CEO and President after he assured Ms. Redstone that he now understood the wisdom of a Viacom/CBS combination. But there was a problem: to achieve a settlement and cement her control over the CBS Board, Ms. Redstone had to agree that, in the two years following the settlement, the NAI Parties would not "directly or indirectly" propose a Viacom/CBS merger "unless at least two-thirds of the directors who were not affiliated with the NAI Parties proposed one or asked for a proposal." Notwithstanding the contractual commitment, just four months after the 2018 Settlement, Ms. Redstone was back at it again attempting to promote a Viacom/CBS merger with the boards of both companies. At CBS, she cajoled the newly constituted CBS Board to form a special committee to evaluate the merger while sidelining carry-over directors who formerly opposed her. She attended meetings of CBS Board committees that, per the 2018 Settlement, should have met free of her influence. And she worked to impose her preferred terms on the deal with the aid of her new ally, Ianniello, whom she incentivized to do her bidding with a rich pre- and post-merger compensation package. The newly installed CBS directors acceded to Ms. Redstone's will at every turn. At her direction, they approved Ianniello's amended employment agreement, increasing his guaranteed compensation despite knowing CBS would receive nothing by way of services in return. They did nothing to seek protection for CBS' minority stockholders, such pushing for a majority-of-the-minority vote condition or insisting upon a CBS-led management team for the combined company, even though past CBS boards had deemed such protections to be sine qua non for a Viacom/CBS combination. The result -- multiple breaches of fiduciary duty that facilitated a merger that was beneficial to the NAI Parties, as Viacom and CBS' controlling stockholders, but demonstrably unfair to the CBS minority stockholders. With the benefit of documents secured after prevailing in expedited Section 220 litigation against CBS prior to the Merger, the Plaintiffs bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against the NAI Parties, members of the CBS Board and Ianniello ("Defendants") for their role in consummating the Merger, disseminating a misleading proxy statement and approving Ianniello's compensation agreement. The Complaint comprises six counts. Count I alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty derivatively on behalf of ViacomCBS against Ms. Redstone, NAI and SMR Trust for disloyally engineering the Merger to bail out Viacom, in violation of the 2018 Settlement. Count II asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty derivatively on behalf of ViacomCBS against the Director Defendants and Ianniello. Count III brings individual and class claims against the NAI Parties for breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty by forcing former CBS Class B stockholders to enter into a Merger that effectively caused CBS stockholders to transfer (or sell) their CBS stock in exchange for stock in a substantively new and less valuable company, resulting in both diluted ownership stakes and diluted value. Count IV asserts an individual and class claim against Ms. Redstone, the Director Defendants and Ianniello for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care. Count V asserts a waste claim against the CBS Directors, Klieger, Zelnick and Ms. Redstone derivatively on behalf of ViacomCBS for increasing Ianniello's compensation through amendments to his employment agreement for no rational business justification or purpose. Finally, Count VI alleges derivatively on behalf of ViacomCBS a claim for unjust enrichment against Ianniello, who accepted a substantially increased severance payment from CBS (now ViacomCBS) as payment for his support of a patently unfair Merger. On June 5, 2020, the NAI Parties, the CBS Committee together with Zelnick, ViacomCBS, Klieger and Ianniello all separately moved to dismiss the Complaint. They argue that the Plaintiffs have asserted derivative claims belonging to CBS and yet have failed to plead that demand on the CBS Board would have been futile. As for the viability of the claims, they maintain that the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims related to the Merger must be evaluated under the deferential business judgment rule because Plaintiffs have failed to well plead that the NAI Parties, as controller, derived any benefit from the Merger not shared with CBS' other stockholders and have failed to well plead that the CBS Board was otherwise conflicted. Even if entire fairness review applies, however, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim that the Merger was unfair or, as to members of the CBS Board, to plead non-exculpated claims upon which relief can be granted. In large measure, Judge Slights holds that the Defendants' motions to dismiss must be denied. At the threshold, he dismisses the Plaintiffs' disclosure claim, where they allege that the CBS Board's misleading disclosures caused CBS stockholders to hold rather than sell their stock in advance of the Merger, because so-called "holder" claims cannot be brought as class claims as a matter of Delaware law. As to the individual holder claim stated by Plaintiffs, even if he assumes (without deciding) that Delaware recognizes such claims, the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled the elements of the claim. Beyond the holder claim, however, Judge Slights finds that the Defendants' motions to dismiss must be denied. Even assuming the Plaintiffs have pled derivative rather than direct claims, a point they dispute, he says the Plaintiffs have adequately pled demand futility because a majority of the members of the CBS Board that would have considered a demand face a substantial likelihood of liability for the non-exculpated breach of their fiduciary duty of loyalty in negotiating the Merger and facilitating Ms. Redstone's quid pro quo with Ianniello. Because the pleading standard under Chancery Rule 23.1 is more demanding than the standard imposed by Chancery Rule 12(b)(6), it follows that the motion to dismiss the claims against these same CBS Board members for failure to state viable claims must also be denied. As for the claims relating to Ianniello's Merger-related compensation package, the Plaintiffs have well pled that the then-extant CBS Board and Iannielo breached their fiduciary duties by approving and accepting, respectively, the compensation for the purpose of furthering the controller's interests to the detriment of CBS and its minority stockholders. The Complaint also well pleads a breach of fiduciary duty by the NAI Parties, Judge Slights holds. He says while Delaware law provides controllers a pathway to attain deferential pleading-stage business judgment review of a transaction through the MFW framework, the NAI Parties expressly declined to condition the Merger on a majority-of-the-minority vote. And the Plaintiffs have well pled the NAI Parties were conflicted controllers by virtue of standing on both sides of the Merger and extracting from the Merger a benefit not shared ratably by CBS Class B stockholders (the enhancement of value within the NAI Parties by saving the failing Viacom through the Merger). Because the Plaintiffs have pled facts that allow a reasonable inference the Merger was not entirely fair to CBS's minority stockholders, the motion to dismiss the claims against the NAI Parties must also be denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Slights denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to Counts I, II, III, V and VI. He granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss as to Count IV's disclosure claim, but denied as to the balance of the claims asserted in Count IV. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Decision/Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/cjoxf2sl from Leagle.com. Michael Hanrahan, Esquire -- mhanrahan@prickett.com -- Corinne Elise Amato, Esquire -- ceamato@prickett.com -- Eric J. Juray Esquire -- ejjuray@prickett.com -- and Xi (Elizabeth) Wang, Esquire -- ewang@prickett.com -- of Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Michael J. Barry, Esquire, Christine M. Mackintosh, Esquire, John C. Kairis Esquire, and Rebecca A. Musarra Esquire, of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; and Eric L. Zagar Esquire, and Grant D. Goodhart, III, Esquire, of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLC, in Radnor, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Jeremy D. Anderson Esquire -- janderson@fr.com -- of Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; and Gustavo F. Bruckner Esquire -- gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- and Samuel J. Adams Esquire -- sjadams@pomlaw.com -- of Pomerantz LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Executive Committee of Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs. Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire -- mfischer@potteranderson.com -- Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire -- mpittenger@potteranderson.com -- Christopher N. Kelly, Esquire -- ckelly@potteranderson.com -- J. Matthew Belger, Esquire, Jacqueline A. Rogers Esquire, and Callan R. Jackson Esquire, of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware, and Victor L. Hou, Esquire, Rahul Mukhi Esquire, and Mark E. McDonald Esquire, of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants National Amusements, Inc., Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, and Shari E. Redstone, also Attorneys for Defendant Robert N. Klieger. Daniel A. Mason, Esquire -- dmason@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Brad S. Karp, Esquire -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Bruce Birenboim, Esquire -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- Jaren Janghorbani Esquire, and Alexia D. Korberg Esquire, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Defendants Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Brian Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss Zelnick. Robert A. Penza Esquire -- rpenza@polsinelli.com -- and Christina B. Vavala Esquire -- cvavala@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli PC, in Wilmington, Delaware, and Kevin T. Abikoff, Esquire, Benjamin Britz, Esquire, Stephen R. Halpin III Esquire, and Robby S. Naoufal Esquire, of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant Joseph Ianniello. Elena C. Norman Esquire -- enorman@ycst.com -- and Daniel M. Kirshenbaum Esquire -- dkirshenbaum@ycst.com -- of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esquire, Linton Mann III Esquire, and Sarah L. Eichenberger Esquire, of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, in New York City, Attorneys for Nominal Defendant ViacomCBS Inc. CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Ruiz Files Mislabeling Suit Over Energy Drink --------------------------------------------------------------- Jimy Ruiz on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celsius Holdings Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00128, (S.D. Cal., January 22, 2021), seeks redress arising from deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling and sale of its fitness beverages in breach of express warranty and in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's Business and Professions Code and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Celsius manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells a line of fitness beverages that are touted as "healthy energy" drinks with "no preservatives artificial colors or flavors." The beverages are based on a proprietary formulation that provides a number of vitamins, minerals and other healthful ingredients such as guarana, ginger root and green tea. However, Ruiz contests that said product derives its taste from a lab synthesized ingredient. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Braun, Esq. KUZYK LAW, LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (213) 401-4100 Facsimile: (213) 401-0311 Email: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com CENTRAL CALIFORNIA: Court Seeks More Info on Urena's Counsel Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California seeks supplemental information concerning costs requested for the Plaintiff's counsel in the lawsuit entitled JOSE URENA, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ALMOND GROWERS ASSN., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00527-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal.). On January 8, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of class-action settlement. A hearing was set for the motion on February 5, 2021. The motion seeks, inter alia, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion. After its initial review, the Court believes that certain costs requested for reimbursement by the Plaintiff's counsel are insufficiently supported. The Court, therefore, will grant the Plaintiff's counsel an opportunity to provide supplemental information regarding certain costs. First, the Plaintiff's counsel seeks $1,476.30 for reimbursement to "Econ One," with the task code of "COSTS," and description: "INV#16342 Re Central CA Almond Growers." The Court is unsure what services were rendered. In the event Econ One rendered expert witness services, in order for the Court to award reimbursement for expert witness fees, the Court must find that the expert testimony submitted was crucial or indispensable to the litigation at hand. Although the Plaintiff's counsel declared that all of its costs were necessarily incurred in the course of this litigation, the Court finds that additional support may be useful. Second, the Plaintiff's counsel seeks $3,335.84 in reimbursement for Westlaw research fees -- nearly one percent of the settlement amount. The legal research costs the Plaintiff's counsel seeks appear to be on a per-expense basis, as they include six different charges of six different amounts. However, the Plaintiff's counsel does not include a statement showing that doing so is the prevailing practice in the local legal community. The Court notes that some judges in California courts have found that per-search charges are not prevailing practice in the district, citing Resilient Floor Covering Pension Fund v. M & M Installation, Inc., No. C08-5561 BZ, 2012 WL 1813395, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2012). In addition, it is not entirely clear from the Plaintiff's counsel's declaration whether the Plaintiff's firm paid these exact charges to Westlaw or whether they in fact pay a flat monthly rate and somehow apportion those costs among their cases, Judge Grosjean says. Third, some of the costs are confusing. For instance, one cost, for $220, is under the task code "copies" but appears to be for reimbursement of a hotel. Others are unclear. For instance, $88.60 is given for "costs" to "On-call" with the description "service of S&C job completion date: 4/24/18 INV#69347." Accordingly, the Plaintiff is directed to file supplemental information concerning its costs no later than February 19, 2021. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/18f97y5r from Leagle.com. CHAAC PIZZA: Asks Court to Stay Response Date to 'Send Notice' Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT MULLEN, v. CHAAC PIZZA MIDWEST, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00893-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants CFL Pizza, LLC and Andy Rosen ask the Court to enter an order staying their deadline to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Send Notice until the Arbitration Motion is decided. Should a response to Plaintiff's Motion be required, the Defendants request that the Court set a response deadline of 30 days after the decision on the Arbitration Motion. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/39TRJszat no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: M. Scott McIntyre, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 312 Walnut Street, Suite 3200 Cincinnati, OH 45202 E-mail: smcintyre@bakerlaw.com - and - James M. Coleman, Esq. Jason D. Friedman, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 12500 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22033 Telephone: (571) 522-6100 Facsimile: (571) 522-6101 E-mail: jcoleman@constangy.com jfriedman@constangy.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Stipulation for Class Status Date Extension OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CRAGO, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., and THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-03938-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order granting parties' joint stipulation for extension of class certification schedule as follows: Event Deadline The Plaintiffs' rebuttal report(s) March 12, 2021 concerning class certification (including any backup materials) Expert depositions concerning April 6-15, 2021 class certification: The Plaintiffs' class certification April 30, 2021 motion and Daubert challenges The Defendants' class certification June 30, 2021 opposition, Daubert challenges, and Daubert opposition: The Plaintiffs' reply brief, July 19, 2021 opposition to Daubert challenges, and reply to Daubert challenges of Defendants' expert(s): The Defendants' reply to Daubert August 16, 2021 challenges of Plaintiffs' experts: Class Certification Hearing: September 23, 2021 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPZHIR at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Jonathan Rotter, Esq. Garth Spencer, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com jrotter@glancylaw.com gspencer@glancylaw.com - and - Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. David J. Stone, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 E-mail: eagel(@bespc.com stone@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com The Defendants are represented by: Gilbert R. Serota, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3170 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: gilbert.serota@arnold.porter.com - and - Alex J. Kaplan, Esq. Jon W. Muenz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 10 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5300 Facsimile: (212) 839-5599 E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com jmuenz@sidley CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Can Compel Arbitration in Sonico Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUSTIN M. SONICO, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01842-BAS-LL (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action in state court alleging violations of various California wage-and-hour laws, which was then removed to the Court on Sept. 25, 2019. Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc. initially moved to compel arbitration because the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate the underlying claims when he was hired by Time Warner Cable ("TWC") in 2014, which later merged with Charter. The Plaintiff opposed on the basis that he opted out of a subsequent arbitration agreement ("Solution Channel Agreement" or "SCA") presented to employees after TWC merged with Charter in 2016. He argued that he entered into the SCA before opting out and it therefore superseded the first arbitration agreement, while the Defendants maintained that his opt-out left the first agreement in effect. Because the SCA and opt-out notice specific to Plaintiff were not before the Court, leaving open questions about the agreement's formation, the Court ordered the parties to engage in limited discovery and permitted Defendants to renew their motion within five days of the conclusion of the discovery process. The Defendants' Renewed Motion attaches the Solution Channel Program Guidelines, the SCA, and the Plaintiff's Electronic Opt-Out Acknowledgement. The primary dispute centers around whether any arbitration agreement covers the underlying dispute between the parties. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's opt-out was effectively a rejection of the offer made in the SCA, leaving the JAMS Agreement as the existing arbitration contract between the parties. In opposition, the Plaintiff maintains that the language of the SCA itself, the Guidelines, and the Plaintiff's personal understanding support that the SCA was operable "upon conveyance to the employee. Thus, the Plaintiff argues that the SCA was effective as of Oct. 6, 2017, superseded the JAMS Agreement on this date, and then was subsequently rendered non-binding on the Plaintiff when he opted out on Oct. 18, 2017, leaving no arbitration agreement between the parties. Judge Bashant finds that the Plaintiff did not enter into the SCA such that it supersedes the JAMS Agreement. The Plaintiff's argument that he entered into the SCA before opting out fails. He did not mutually assent to the SCA upon receipt of the agreement, and he later affirmatively rejected the SCA when he timely opted out. For this reason, the Plaintiff did not enter into the SCA such that it supersedes the JAMS Agreement. Having thus determined that the JAMS Agreement controls, the Judge now turns to the Plaintiff's unconscionability arguments regarding that contract. Judge Bashant finds that the JAMS Agreement is not procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore is enforceable. The relevant provision in the JAMS Agreement states: "In the event a dispute between you and TWC is not arbitrable under this Agreement for any reason and is pursued in court, you and TWC agree to waive any right to a jury trial that might otherwise exist." In other words, this clause requires the Plaintiff to waive his right to a jury trial if he raises an employment issue that cannot proceed to arbitration. It is therefore a predispute jury trial waiver prohibited by California law. The provision is therefore substantively unconscionable. Because she finds that the JAMS Agreement is not permeated with unconscionability, Judge Bashant holds that severing the jury trial waiver from the contract under California Civil Code Section 1670.5(a) is appropriate. She thus ultimately rejects the Plaintiff's unconscionability defense to enforcement of the JAMS Agreement, and compels arbitration upon severing the provision from the contract. In light of the foregoing, Judge Bashant granted the Defendant's Renewed Motion to Compel Arbitration under the JAMS Agreement. Specifically, she severed the predispute jury trial waiver from the JAMS Agreement discussed. She also ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration in California in the manner provided for in the JAMS Agreement. In addition, the action is stayed. Last, Judge Bashant directed the Clerk of Court to admnistratively close the case. The decision to administratively close the case pending resolution of the arbitration does not have any jurisdictional effect. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5wqlk7iu from Leagle.com. CHICK-FIL-A INC: Colorado Court Refuses to Remand Garitano Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the lawsuit entitled GABRIELLA GARITANO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CHICK-FIL-A, INC., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03631-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.). The Plaintiff filed the class action complaint on October 25, 2020, in the District Court for El Paso County, Colorado, and served defendant on October 30, 2020. Among other things, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant, who employed her, did not provide her and other non-exempt employees the required 10-minute rest period for every four hours of work and 30-minute meal break for a shift exceeding five hours, in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act. The Defendant filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's complaint by December 11, 2020, which the Court granted. That day, the Defendant removed the action, claiming that the Court has jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). CAFA provides removal jurisdiction when the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million and the parties are minimally diverse. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's removal was untimely because, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1), a defendant must remove a case to federal court within 30 days after service of the complaint (citing Hammond v. Stamps.com, Inc., 844 F.3d 909, 913 (10th Cir. 2016)). The Plaintiff claims that this 30-day rule applies to actions brought under CAFA. Therefore, because the Defendant filed its notice of removal 42 days after service, the Plaintiff argues removal was not timely and the matter should be remanded. Chief District Judge Philip A. Brimmer notes that in general, the notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding will be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1). Courts in this circuit have held that the 30-day removal period applies to cases removed under CAFA. Nevertheless, there is an "escape hatch" to the 30-day deadline for removal, Judge Brimmer says, citing Paros Props., LLC v. Colo. Cas. Ins. Co., 835 F.3d 1264, 1268 (10th Cir. 2016). Even though a case may not be initially removable, "a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." Invoking the "escape hatch," the Defendant argues that, because the Plaintiff's state court complaint contained no information whatsoever regarding the amount of damages she was seeking either on her own behalf or on behalf of the putative class, it was not clear that the case was removable until the Defendant understood, after calls with the Plaintiff's counsel on November 11 and 20, that she intends "to pursue a broad class," alleging that the Defendant is the actual employer of all hourly employees at all Chick-fil-A brand restaurants in Colorado. After these calls, the Defendant says it conducted an investigation on its own initiative to determine whether removal might be proper. It states that it had to consult its business records to determine the number of hourly employees in Colorado and had to calculate the amount in controversy. It insists that removal was proper outside of the traditional 30-day period because the law is clear that a defendant may choose to conduct its own investigation, and may properly remove to federal court under CAFA when and if the requirements for removal are satisfied. In support of its argument that it is "not under any deadline to remove," the Defendant cites, among other cases, Cutrone v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 749 F.3d 137, 144-46 (2d Cir. 2014). The Court agrees with the Defendant. "This circuit has been very strict in assessing whether grounds for removal are ascertainable," citing Paros, 835 F.3d at 1269. In Paros, a non-CAFA case, the Tenth Circuit explained that removal requires a specific allegation that damages exceed the federal jurisdictional amount, for instance, where the complaint alleges facts from which the jurisdictional amount may be easily derived through arithmetic." Therefore, the Judge holds, the 30-day clock did not begin to run when the Plaintiff filed the complaint. Rather, where the complaint does not reveal on its face that there is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction under CAFA, it is appropriate for a defendant to remove a case after it completes its own investigation (citing Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2013)). Judge Brimmer notes that CAFA's minimal diversity is apparent from the Plaintiff's complaint. Thus, the only question is whether the complaint provides clear, unequivocal notice that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. The Plaintiff's complaint defines the class as "all persons who worked as hourly employees for defendant in Colorado within the statute of limitations," and states that damages should be determined at trial. The Plaintiff does not include any indication of how many employees could be in this class or the amount that each employee is owed. Without factual allegations upon which to clearly determine the number of employees or the amount that each employee might claim, the Plaintiff's complaint does no more than suggest that the right to remove may exist, Judge Brimmer holds. The Court finds that the initial pleading in the case did not contain a clear and unequivocal basis for the Defendant to ascertain removability and did not trigger the 30-day clock of Section 1446(b)(1). Therefore, the Defendant's removal was not untimely. Hence, the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yun4xpxa from Leagle.com. CINTAS CORP: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Hawkins ERISA Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAYMOND HAWKINS and ROBIN LUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CINTAS CORPORATIONS, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-1062 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Timothy S. Black of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, denied the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings filed by Defendants Cintas, Board of Directors of Cintas, Scott D. Farmer, and the Investment Policy Committee. Plaintiffs Hawkins and Lung ("Participants") bring the action pursuant to Section 409 and Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Participants, both former Cintas employees, pursue the action individually and on behalf of other similarly situated participants in the Cintas Partners' Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan, established by Cintas in 1991. Each participant in the Plan is provided an individual account and the benefits derived for each participant are based "solely upon the amount contributed to those individual accounts." The Participants contend that Cintas breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by mismanaging and failing to investigate and select better cost options for the Plan from December 13, 2013, to the present. They also contend that Cintas failed to monitor the decision-making of the Plan's committee groups and/or individual fiduciaries. Related to the motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, the Participants' employment agreements contain arbitration provisions. The civil case is before the Court on the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings and supporting memorandum, and the parties' responsive memoranda. The Participants bring the action under ERISA Section 409 and Section 502(a)(2), and contend the action is brought on behalf of the Plan. Because the action is on behalf of the Plan, and there is no arbitration agreement between the Plan and Cintas, the Participants contend that the motion to compel should be denied. Cintas responds that because the Plan is a defined contribution plan with individual accounts, the Participants' claims are inherently individualized. Because the claims are inherently individualized, the Participants' Agreements mandating arbitration govern the dispute and the Participants should be compelled to individually arbitrate. Judge Black finds that the relief sought by the Participants is to benefit the Plan, not individual accounts. For example, the Participants seek relief including "accounting for profits, imposition of a constructive trust," restoring to the Plan profits lost from the Defendants' breach of duties, and other forms of equitable relief. Thus, the Participants are correct when asserting the claims brought are alleged on behalf of the Plan. Finding that Participants claims are brought on behalf of the Plan, Judge Black must determine whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the Plan and Cintas. Cintas first suggests that the Participants' Agreements evidence a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties. The Participants respond that the individual employment agreement cannot bind the entire Plan to arbitration. Alternatively, Cintas argues, as manager of the Plan, the Plan consents to arbitration by filing the motion and/or Cintas can modify Plan documents to require Plan claims to proceed to arbitration. Judge Black holds that the Participants' Agreements contain similar provisions that "the rights and claims of Employee" will be arbitrated. The provision is limited to the employee and does not extend to nonentities, such as claims on behalf of the Plan. Further, Cintas provides no evidence that a Plan document existed binding the Plan to arbitration. Thus, there is no valid agreement between the Plan and Cintas consenting to an arbitrable forum. Finally, because there is no arbitration agreement between the Plan and Cintas, Cintas' argument that the Plaintiffs should be compelled to arbitrate individually fails. No party can be compelled under the FAA to arbitrate on a class-wide or collective basis unless it agrees to do so by contract. Accordingly, finding that there is no valid agreement to arbitrate between the Plan and Cintas, Judge Black denied Cintas' motion to compel arbitration. Because there is no agreement, he need not reach whether the Participants' claims are within the scope of any purported agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4qrzumvh from Leagle.com. CLEAN HARBORS: Smith Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Alonzo Smith, on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 34-2021-00292526-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 14, 2021). The case is brought over alleged employment-related violations. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. is a provider of environmental, energy and industrial services, including hazardous waste disposal for companies, including Fortune 500 companies, small waste generators and federal, state, provincial and local governments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com COMPLETE RESERVATION: Faces Fitzhenry Suit Over Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Fitzhenry v. Complete Reservation Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2021CP1000165 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., Jan. 13, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, arising from the Defendant's unlawful conduct of sending automated calls to a number listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the South Carolina Telephone Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that he was deceived as to the nature and origin of the calls, harassed on a constant basis, and has been otherwise damaged. He further asserts that he suffered the loss of his right to privacy, and potentially other concrete injuries in fact to be determined, due to the conduct of Defendant. Complete Reservation Solutions, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company engages in camping and travel trailer rental business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dave Maxfield, Esq. DAVE MAXFIELD, ATTORNEY, LLC P.O. Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 509-6800 Facsimile: (855) 299-1656 E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com CONSTRUCTION MONITOR: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, TERRY FABRICANT and LOUIS FLOYD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CONSTRUCTION MONITOR, L.L.C. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00778 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they were contacted by the Defendant on their cellular telephone number by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit them to purchase its services. The Plaintiffs added that they did not provide their "prior express consent" to the Defendant to be contacted via an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephones. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telephone calls, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated consumers were harmed by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy. Thus, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a class action seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies, the suit says. Construction Monitor, L.L.C. is a marketing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Cert. Petition Filed in Mays Suit to Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Thomas J. Dart filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Petitioner v. Anthony Mays, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, et al. Respondents, Case No. 20-990. Response is due on February 25, 2021. Mr. Dart petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the case titled Anthony Mays, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 20-1792, affirming the aspects of the preliminary injunction. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought as a class action complaint representative petition for habeas corpus on behalf of the class of persons, who are detained in the Cook County Jail and are facing unreasonable and unnecessary risks of exposure to the Coronavirus, possible serious respiratory illness, and death. A rapidly escalating public health disaster is unfolding behind the walls of the Cook County Jail, the Plaintiffs allege. In the 11 days since March 23, the number of confirmed cases of COVID 19, the disease caused by a deadly coronavirus for which there is no vaccine and no cure, has risen from one to at least 167. A total of 46 corrections staff are also known to have COVID-19. These numbers will continue to rise dramatically because of the circumstances alleged in this complaint, the Plaintiffs aver. The Jail, which is operated under the supervision of Defendant Thomas Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County, has failed in its constitutional responsibility to the persons detained there to provide reasonable protection against the further spread of this deadly disease, the Plaintiffs contend. They note that social distancing within the Jail is currently impossible because the Jail is a crowded, congregate environment in which some 4,700 individuals are detained, in dual cell or dorm quarters. The Plaintiffs insist that the Jail has repeatedly failed and continues to fail to separate persons known to have been exposed to COVID-19 from other detainees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the aspects of the preliminary injunction that the district court converted from the temporary restraining order. In that order, the district court made detailed factual findings about the risks of COVID-19, the Sheriff's existing policies, and the execution of these policies, relying on hearing testimony and affidavits from Plaintiffs' experts, detainees, and correctional administrators. The district court assessed the requested relief considering the totality of the Sheriff's conduct, rather than reviewing it in isolation. For example, the district court declined Plaintiffs' request to mandate testing of new detainees since the Sheriff already had in place a policy requiring detainees to quarantine for fourteen days upon their arrival to the Jail.[BN] Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff, Cook County, Illinois, is represented by: Gretchen Harris Sperry, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP 151 N. Franklin Street Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: gsperry@hinshawlaw.com CORECIVIC INC: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Owino Labor Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CoreCivic, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SYLVESTER OWINO and JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112-JLS-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief, restitution, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement of unjustly acquired revenue, profits and other benefits resulting from Defendant's unlawful conduct, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code, California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders. Plaintiffs are former civil immigration detainees who were incarcerated and forced to work for $1 per day by CoreCivic, a for-profit corporation engaged in the business of owning and operating detention facilities and prisons. The Defendant is seeking an appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to review the Court's Order dated January 13, 2021, denying its motion for reconsideration. The appellate case is captioned as Sylvester Owino, et al. v. CoreCivic, Inc., Case No. 21-80003, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, January 28, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SYLVESTER OWINO and JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Eileen R. Ridley, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104-1520 Telephone: (415) 438-6469 E-mail: eridley@foley.com - and - Robert Teel, Esq. 1425 Broadway Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (718) 570-7509 E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com Defendant-Petitioner CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, is represented by: Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq. Jacob Brady Lee, Esq. Rachel Love, Esq. Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq. STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC 3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300 Chandler, AZ 85226 Telephone: (480) 420-1600 E-mail: nacedo@strucklove.com jlee@strucklove.com rlove@strucklove.com dstruck@strucklove.com CREE INC: Cal. Court Denies Young's Renewed Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in the lawsuit captioned JEFF YOUNG, Plaintiff v. CREE INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-06252-YGR (N.D. Cal.): (1) granting motion to strike and exclude Dr. Gary Allen; (2) denying as moot motion to strike and exclude Mr. Stefan Boedeker; and (3) denying renewed motion to certify class. Plaintiff Young brings the putative class action lawsuit against Defendant Cree, alleging that Cree engaged in an unfair and deceptive practice of promising consumers that Cree's light-emitting-diode ("LED") bulbs will last for particularly long periods of time up to 35,000 hours with a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee and yearly energy cost savings ranging from around $0.60 to $2 per bulb per year in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (Count I); California's False Advertising Law (Count II); Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Count III); fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment (Count IV); unjust enrichment (Count V); and breach of express and implied warranties (Count VI). Mr. Young and the proposed class assert that they paid a premium because of these allegedly false, deceptive and misleading marketing representations regarding longevity. As alleged in the operative complaint, Cree LED "failed well before the promised time frame." Young now seeks in his renewed motion to certify the following class: "All persons in California who purchased Cree LED Lightbulbs for end use, and not resale, during the period from March 2013 to the present." Cree's opposition contends that Young's claims fail to satisfy commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, in addition to the requirements under Section 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of this motion, Young provides two expert reports: first, a report of expert Dr. Stefan Boedeker, who Young hired to ascertain if it is possible to quantify economic losses to the Plaintiff and putative class members and provide a framework for the computation of class-wide damages (opening report); second, a report of expert Dr. Gary R. Allen, who Young hired to determine whether a common failure mode exists for a discrete set of LED lamps. Cree seeks to strike the reports of and exclude opinions of Young's expert witnesses, Boedeker and Allen. The Court first address the pending Daubert motion regarding Dr. Allen given its importance for the underlying motion for class certification. For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court finds that the Daubert motion as to Dr. Allen is well-taken and that its exclusion from the class certification analysis is fatal to the request to certify the class. Consequently, it declines to rule on the Daubert motion as to Dr. Boedeker as the issue is moot. Young primarily relies on Dr. Allen to identify alleged defects that are common to the architecture of the Cree LED lightbulbs in order to support his burden of the commonality factor under Rule 23(a) and the predominance inquiry under Rule 23(b)(3). Cree does not challenge Dr. Allen's credentials, experience, or his background. Instead, Cree focuses on his evaluations and assessments, including as to the procedures, assumptions and ultimate opinions. Dr. Allen has a Ph.D. and a Masters of Science in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University and in addition to degrees from Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Allen conceived and designed the world's first LED replacement lamp to be certified under the ENERGY STAR program. Cree challenges two of Dr. Allen's methodologies and assessments made in his opinions: (a) the LED Lamp Design and LED Lamp Design Architecture methodology and classification; and (b) the Target Maximum methodology and conclusions. Cree further moves to strike new opinions and methodologies that were absent in Dr. Allen's Rebuttal, namely: (i) Dr. Allen's citations to new methodology and studies that subject LED lamps to on-off switching that he claims proves Cree LED lamps will fail premature; and (ii) Dr. Allen's purported statistical analysis of The Home Depot's records of returned Cree LED lamps. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers opines that Dr. Allen's analysis of LED Lamp Designs and LED Lamp Design Architectures has not shown to be at the appropriate level of intellectual rigor required to meet the Daubert standard. Importantly, the issue is not reviewed in a vacuum. The record is replete with the business community, government regulators, and academics designing for, testing, and projecting long-term LED lamp lifetimes, and many groups spending years investigating processes and procedures subject to peer review, public comment, and government approval with respect to these issues. Moreover, Dr. Allen's Rebuttal Report itself reveals the error of being so overinclusive. Indeed, the Court is generally aware of the foundational principle that more power and wattage would typically mean higher temperatures for that electrical system. That Dr. Allen ignored this in his Opening Report when making his categories reveals that Dr. Allen overlooked and failed to apply this basic understanding when creating this novel methodology, Judge Rogers notes. It is unsurprising, therefore, that Dr. Allen concedes in his Rebuttal Report that some of the lower wattage LED lamps in some of the Designs and Architectures do not in fact fail, despite placing them within the same groups as higher wattage models and versions. Accordingly, the Court finds that exclusion of Dr. Allen's opinions as to the LED Lamp Designs and LED Lamp Design Architectures is appropriately excluded under Daubert. With respect to the Target Maximums, Cree challenges the analysis on two grounds. First, Cree contends that Dr. Allen's Target Maximums are an arbitrary conservative preference untethered to any industry standard or accepted research. Second, the Target Maximum analysis offers no causal link between the purported defect and liability and fails to quantify any specific number of failures from Cree LED lamps. In opposition Young disputes these grounds with similar arguments as in the prior section. Namely, Young avers that Dr. Allen's opinions are supported by and based on engineering best practices related to design for reliability, and that there are no industry standards or regulations concerning the temperatures of the electronic components of LED lamps. Dr. Allen admits that there is no industry standard for maximum temperature of a heat sink, and he does not cite to any sources that recommend temperature thresholds. Dr. Allen also admits that these Target Maximums, while based on a general engineering rules of thumb, are not industry standard, but rather are a personal preference reflecting his conservative design targets. The Target Maximum analysis offers no causal link between the purported defect and liability and fails to quantify any specific number of failures from Cree LED lamps. Dr. Allen concludes that there is a higher risk of failure due to the heat on certain components of the LED lamp. However, not only does Dr. Allen not define failure, he cannot quantify, or even approximate, the specific failure rate. Nor does Dr. Allen link the defect with the ultimate liability in this action, Judge Rogers finds. Accordingly, the Court finds that exclusion of Dr. Allen's opinions as to Target Maximums is appropriately excluded under Daubert. Cree further moves in its reply to strike from Dr. Allen's Rebuttal his citation to new methodology and studies concerning on-off switching that he asserts prove Cree LED lamps will fail and statistical analysis performed on the THD records of returned Cree LED lamps. Specifically, Cree highlights that these new opinions and testing do not rebut any of its expert witness opinion, and that it was not properly raised in the opening report. Additionally, Cree contends that the Dr. Allen has no background or expertise in statistics, misconstrues the cited studies, and reaches an incorrect conclusion with his statistical analysis. The Court agrees. As an initial hurdle, Dr. Allen's opinions incorporating these additional citations and arguments were not properly raised or disclosed in his opening brief, and they do not respond to any of the opinions of Cree's expert witnesses. While Dr. Allen might be expert in statistical analysis, the record does not support the conclusion, the Judge says. In short, Young has not shown that Dr. Allen is qualified to perform that type of statistical analysis on the THD materials that he has done. On this basis too is Dr. Allen's new opinions made in his rebuttal also appropriately stricken. The Court concludes that Dr. Allen's opinions do not meet the Daubert standard. Accordingly, the Court grants the Daubert motion as to Dr. Allen. Young moves to certify a California class of consumers who have purchased specific Cree LED bulbs. In opposition, Cree challenges the commonality, typicality, and adequacy factors of Rule 23(a), in addition to the requirements under Rule 23 (b)(3). Judge Rogers finds that Young fails to establish that there are common questions of law or fact. In a case alleging claims of a defective product and misrepresentations regarding that defect, without any evidence of a common defect, there are no 'common questions of law or fact' binding the proposed class together, Judge Rogers holds, citing Kramer v. Toyota Motor Co., 688 F. App'x 765, 766 (9th Cir. 2016). Hence, the Court denies the motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: * Cree's Daubert motion as to Dr. Allen is granted; * Young's motion for class certification is denied; and * Cree's Daubert motion as to Dr. Boedeker is denied as moot. Moreover, in light of the Order, the Court sets a compliance deadline for 9:01 a.m. on February 26, 2021. Five business days prior to the date of the compliance deadline, the parties will file a joint statement setting forth the parties' position with respect to the scheduling of this case. If compliance is complete, the compliance deadline will be taken off calendar. This Order terminates Docket Numbers 115, 116, 117, 118, and 127. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/lsmq1a12 from Leagle.com. CVS PHARMACY: Court Grants in Part Joint Bid to Dismiss Lee Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled LISA L. LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island corporation; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01923-BEN-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot, and grants in part joint motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, brought the civil antitrust and unfair competition class action against Defendants CVS Pharmacy, a Rhode Island Corporation, and CVS Health, a Delaware Corporation. On August 3, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in the San Diego Superior Court against the Defendants, alleging claims for relief for (1) violation of the Cartwright Act, (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and (3) injunctive relief for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. On Sept. 25, 2020, the Defendant filed a Notice of Removal. On October 2, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. However, on October 19, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the case, pursuant to which the parties ask that (1) the individual claims of the Plaintiff against the Defendants will be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(a)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) the class claims against the Defendants will be dismissed in their entirety without prejudice pursuant to Rules 41(a)(1) and (2), (3) "except as otherwise agreed upon, each party will bear his/her/its own costs and attorneys' fees, and (4) the dismissal will not operate as an adjudication on the merits." District Judge Roger T. Benitez notes that in the case, the parties jointly seek to dismiss individual claims in the putative class action under both Rule 41(a)(1) and 41(a)(2) with prejudice. They advise that the Plaintiff has not sought class certification, a class was not certified, and no notice was sent to a prospective class. As a result, the Court finds no reason to deny the Joint Motion. In granting the Joint Motion, which dismisses the entire case, the Court finds the Motion to Dismiss preceding it moot. The Joint Motion is granted in part as follows: 1. Plaintiff Lisa L. Lee's individual claims against the Defendants are dismissed in their entirety as to all claims for relief with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2); 2. The Joint Motion is denied as to the putative class claims. Although the case was filed as a putative class action, the Plaintiff did not seek class certification, and as such, the Court did not certify the class. Therefore, with no certified class claims having come into existence, any dismissal will not affect putative class members' claims; 3. Each party is to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. 4. The dismissal will not operate as an adjudication on the merits except to the extent authorized by Rule 41(a)(1)(B); 5. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot due to the Court's dismissal of the entire case; and 6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/e1s82zv1 from Leagle.com. DIAMOND NAIL: Response Time for Lu's Class Status Bid Extended -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lu, et al., v. Diamond Nail Salon, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02017 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting the Defendants' motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motions for conditional class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Diamond nails operate salon and spa business.[CC] DISCOVERY COMMUNICATIONS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discovery Communications, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Discovery Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00935 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Discovery Communications, LLC -- https://corporate.discovery.com/ -- provides entertainment services. The Company offers cable and satellite television services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Underpays Custodial Workers, Sorto Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ROSA A. SORTO, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00463 (E.D.N.Y., January 28, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid manual worker who performed custodial duties from in or around September 2019 through the present. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendant failed to pay her and other similarly situated custodial workers on a bi-weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages are earned; -- The Defendant failed to pay them spread-of-hours pay when they worked a day that was longer than 10 hours from its start to its finish; -- The Defendant failed to provide them with written notice of their rate of pay during the day they were hired. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief, the suit says. Diversified Maintenance Systems, LLc provides custodial services to retail department stores and commercial or industrial facilities located throughout the State of New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 825 Veterans Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Tel: (631) 257-5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com DIY STYLIST: Petite Blow Dryer Has Deceptive Labeling, Thur Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Thur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DIY Stylist, LLC, Case No. 151020/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York, Jan. 29, 2021) seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of DIY Stylist with respect to the marketing and sales of the DIY Stylist Petite Blow Dryer ("Product") throughout the State of New York and throughout the country. According to the complaint, the packaging of the Product -- which is viewed by every person who purchases the Product -- prominently advertises that it has 1875 watts of power. Hair dryer wattage is important to consumers because a higher wattage means that the dryer blows air hotter and faster, reducing drying time and, in turn, reducing damage to hair caused by excessive heat. Indeed, the Defendant's placement of the term "High Powered Motor" on the front of the Product packaging shows that Defendant believes that dryer power is important to consumers. However, Defendant's wattage representation is false. Testing shows that the Product's power is actually significantly lower than the advertised 1875 watts, the suit says. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated ("Class Members") relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations that the Product has 1875 watts of power when purchasing the Product. The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Product over and above comparable products that did not purport to have 1875 watts of power. Given that the Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Product based on the Defendant's misrepresentations regarding the Product's power capacity, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid, the suit added. The Defendant's conduct allegedly violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. The Defendant breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the Product and has been and continues to be unjustly enriched, says the suit. The Plaintiff is an individual consumer who, at all times material hereto, was a citizen of New York County, New York. The Plaintiff purchased the Product during the Class Period. DIY Stylist manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes the Product throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. 1 Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com DXP ENTERPRISES: FLSA Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENE SAENZ and TRAVIS COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DXP ENTERPRISES, INC. And CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00165-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. DXP Enterprises provides maintenance, repair, and operating products, equipment, and services to industrial customers. The Company provides fluid handling equipment, power transmission, general mill and safety supplies, and electrical products. Chevron USA. provides energy services. The Company offers fuels, motor oil, fuel additives, base oils, chemicals, natural gas, lubricants, and other related services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aDJ0dl at no extra charge.[CC] EARLY INTERVENTION: Underpays Tutors, Fields Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER FIELDS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARLY INTERVENTION CONSULTING LLC, AMANDA RAMI, and DAVID RAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00225 (N.D. Ohio, January 28, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a tutor to work remotely in states throughout the country and attend to the Defendants' patients. The Plaintiff asserts that he and other similarly situated employees were classified by the Defendant as independent contractors and paid them on an hourly basis, but did not provide them with any guaranteed, predetermined amount of pay per week. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated "tutors" regularly worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendant failed to pay them for all hours they worked and in excess of 40 hours in a week at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Specifically, the Defendant failed to compensate them for the time they spent recruiting colleagues and acquaintances to work as tutors; training; in sessions with clients that was not paid due to technical glitches with TSheets; travelling between clients' homes and/or other locations at which sessions took place; waiting for clients to appear at sessions that were cancelled; and performing work outside of their scheduled client sessions, the suit says. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly failed to reimburse tutors for reasonable expenditures or losses required of the employees in the discharge of employment duties and that inured to the primary benefit of the Defendant. Early Intervention Consulting LLC is a company that provides Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy services to children and teens with autism, operated by the Individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Tel: (877) 561-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Extension of Class Status Reply Brief Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order their deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended by an additional 14 days to Monday, February 22, 2021, and that Plaintiffs' deadline to file a Reply in Support of the Motion also be extended by 14 days to Thursday, April 8, 2021. The Defendants say that the parties have only recently completed depositions of the Plaintiffs' proposed class representatives and their third-party investment advisors, as well as the deposition of Plaintiffs' expert witness that was completed on January 25, 2021. They require additional time to review deposition testimony and additional discovery materials prior to filing their opposition to the Motion. The Defendants add that the present motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. Moreover, no party will be prejudiced by the brief extension requested. The Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion and have consented to this request for an extension of Defendants' deadline to file their opposition brief. They likewise do not oppose an extension of Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply. The Defendants include Envision Healthcare Corporation, William A. Sanger, Randel G. Owen, Craig A. Wilson, Todd G. Zimmerman, Carol J. Burt, Mark V. Mactas, Leonard M. Riggs, Jr., Richard J. Schnall, James D. Shelton, Michael L. Smith, Ronald A. Williams, Christopher A. Holden, Claire M. Gulmi, Kevin D. Eastridge, Thomas G. Cigarran, James A. Deal, John T. Gawaluck, Steven I. Geringer, Henry D. Herr, Joey A. Jacobs, Kevin P. Lavender, Cynthia S. Miller and John W. Popp, Jr. Envision Healthcare provides health care services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rouLzEat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert P. Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P O Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248-2828 E-mail: pknashlaw@aol.com robert@bramlettlawoffices.com - and - John T. Long, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: (217) 544-1771 E-mail: johnlong@cavanagh-ohara.com - and - John S. Hicks, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ PC 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 726-5600 E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com - and - Kenneth S. Byrd, Esq. Mark P. Chalos, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: kbyrd@lchb.com mchalos@lchb.com - and - Jonathan L. Bobbitt, Esq. GILBERT MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: jbobbitt@gilbertfirm.com - and - Elliot Greenfield, Esq. Rachel A. Shanies, Esq. Shannon Rose Selden, Esq. DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON, ESQ. 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 909-6772 E-mail: egreenfield@debevoise.com rashanies@debevoise.com srselden@debevoise.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Christopher Hamp Lyons, Esq. Christopher M. Wood, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. Spencer Alan Burkholz, Esq. Alexi H. Pfeffer-Gillett, Esq. Christopher Stewart, Esq. J. Marco Janoski, Esq. Jessica Shinnefield, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 E-mail: clyons@rgrdlaw.com cwood@rgrdlaw.com darrenr@rgrdlaw.com ericn@rgrdlaw.com spenceb@rgrdlaw.com agillett@rgrdlaw.com cstewart@rgrdlaw.com mjanoski@rgrdlaw.com jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com - and - Benjamin B. Coulter, Esq. Kathryn E. Grundy, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 420 N 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: bcoulter@burr.com kgrundy@burr.com - and - James A. Holifield, Jr., Esq. HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES PLLC 11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201 Knoxville, TN 37934 Telephone: (865) 566-0115 E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com - and - James Gerard Stranch IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue , Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant Envision Healthcare Corporation and the Individual Defendants, are: Britt K. Latham, Esq. W. Brantley Phillips, Jr., Esq. Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq. Joseph B. Crace, Jr., Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742-6200 E-mail: blatham@bassberry.com bphillips@bassberry.com kwalker@bassberry.com jcrace@bassberry.com Attorneys for the Defendant Envision Healthcare Corporation, are: Peter E. Kazanoff, Esq. Craig S. Waldman, Esq. Amy L. Dawson, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-3525 E-mail: pkazanoff@stblaw.com cwaldman@stblaw.com amy.dawson@stblaw.com ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Must File Class Status Opposition by Feb. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-01112 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time filed by the Defendants with respect to their opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants may file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion on or before Monday, February 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs may file their reply in further support of the Motion on or before Thursday, April 8, 2021. Envision Healthcare is an American healthcare company and national hospital-based physician group. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pV1IDv at no extra charge.[CC] EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Wants Court to Modify Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVANNI MUNGUIA-BROWN, ANGELINA MAGANA, NORMA RODRIGUEZ, AND DAVID BONFANTI INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL, A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, ERP OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A PARTNERSHIP, EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., EQR-WOODLAND PARK A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND EQR-WOODLAND PARK B LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 4:16-cv-01225-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on March 12, 2021, to modify the existing class certification order and/or any class certification order to arise out of the Plaintiffs' pending motion to modify the existing class certification order to exclude Equity's management-level employees from the Standard Late Fee Class. Equity recently learned that some of its current management-level employees fall within the scope of the Standard Late Fee Class definition, as some of these employees lived at an Equity property in California between September 2010 and October 2017, and were charged a late fee. These management-level employees are directly responsible for administering Equity's late fees in California. Yet because these management-level employees are technically class members, Equity cannot communicate with them about the lawsuit. On October 23, 2017, the Court certified two classes under Rule 23(b)(3) -- the Standard Late Relevant Procedural History Fee Class and the Woodland Park Class. The Standard Late Fee Class consists of "[a]ll Equity Residential tenants in California from September 3, 2010 until the date of class certification who were charged one or more late fee(s) under Equity Residential's standard late fee provision: 5% of the outstanding balance owed (ca[pp]ed at 5% of the total amount of monthly recurring charges) or $50, whichever is greater." The Woodland Park Class was defined as "[a]ll Equity Residential tenants in the Woodland Park Property from December 1, 2011 until Defendant sold the property in February 2016 who were charged one or more late fee(s) of $50 under Equity Residential's policy of charging a flat $50 late fee to tenants on pre-existing non-EQR leases." Equity Residential is a publicly-traded real estate investment trust that invests in apartments. As of December 31, 2019, the company owned or had investments in 309 properties consisting of 79,962 apartment units in Southern California, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., New York City, Boston, Seattle, and Denver. A copy of the Defednants' motion dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aG8hU1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Aaron T. Winn, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 Facsimile: (619) 744-2201 E-mail: atwinn@duanemorris.com - and - Justin J. Fields, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3000 Facsimile: (415) 957-3001 E-mail: jfields@duanemorris.com EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Rodriguez Bid for Final Class Cert. on Hold ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL RECOVERIES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00184-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order deferring consideration of the Plaintiff's motions for final class certification, final settlement approval, and attorney fees as follows: -- Within 14 days of the date of this order, the Plaintiff's counsel shall file their timesheets and documentation supporting their requested costs and the parties shall submit supplemental briefing that addresses: 1. When the parties can provide notice of Plaintiff's attorney fee motion and supporting documentation to the class, when the Court should set the deadline for class members to object to that motion, and when the Court should reschedule the fairness hearing (at which the Court will also hear argument on the fee motion). 2. Whether the parties must provide notice of the date of the new fairness hearing and information about participating remotely to class members when they notify the class of the Plaintiff's fee motion. The Court's order is not intended to suggest that the Court is or is not likely to grant final approval of the settlement or award the attorney fees Plaintiff requests. The Court holds only that it cannot do so on the present record, the Court says. Plaintiff Rodriguez was issued a driving ticket in 2018. When he failed to pay it, Seattle Municipal Court hired Defendant Evergreen Professional Recoveries to collect the debt. As part of its collection efforts, Evergreen requested Mr. Rodriguez's credit report from TransUnion. In response, Mr. Rodriguez filed this class action lawsuit, alleging that Evergreen requested his credit report (and others') for an improper purpose in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Evergreen Professional is a debt recovery agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2MVCczsat no extra charge.[CC] EVOQUA WATER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation. In November 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit, captioned McWilliams v. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp., Case No. 1:18-CV-10320, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company and senior management violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures in the period leading up to the Company's October 30, 2018 announcement of, among other things, (a) preliminary results for the full-year fiscal 2018 that were below previous expectations and (b) a transition from a three-segment structure to a two-segment operating model. In January 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel and re-captioned the action as In re Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation. In March 2019, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, members of the Company's board of directors, senior management, a former executive, EA Investors LP (AEA), and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary public offering. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning the Company's integration of acquired companies, the Company's reduction-in-force, and the Company's financial results of operations. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and an award of costs and expenses to the plaintiff and class counsel. In March 2020, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss a portion of the claims, dismissing all claims predicated on supposedly intentional misstatements or omissions, which were brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claims that remain are those brought under the Securities Act of 1933. The Company has filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, and discovery is now underway. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. provides a range of water and wastewater treatment systems and technologies, and mobile and emergency water supply solutions and services. It operates in three segments: Industrial, Municipal, and Products. The company has operations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, China, and Singapore. Evoqua Water Technologies Corp. was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EXXON MOBIL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 29 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon" or the "Company") (NYSE: XOM) from November 6, 2019 through January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Exxon securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Exxon 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 materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: (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. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 29, 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 Exxon securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/exxonmobilecorporation-xom-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-358/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] EXXON MOBIL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Jan. 30 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon" or "the Company") (NYSE: XOM) 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 November 6, 2019 and January 14, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 29, 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. Exxon forced employees to use completely unrealistic assumptions about timelines for the Company's well drilling activities in the Permian Basin. These unrealistic assumptions artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the area. 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 Exxon, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in BIPA Related Suit Granted Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the class action suit related to Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). On April 1, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Facebook users alleging that the "tag suggestions" facial recognition feature violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief. On April 16, 2018, the district court certified a class of Illinois residents, and on May 14, 2018, the district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. On May 29, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the company's petition for review of the class certification order and stayed the proceeding. On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification order. On December 2, 2019, the company filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. On January 15, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, which provided for a payment of $550 million by us and was subject to court approval. On or about May 8, 2020, the parties executed a formal settlement agreement, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by the district court. On June 4, 2020, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion without prejudice. On July 22, 2020, the parties executed an amended settlement agreement, which, among other terms, provides for a payment of $650 million by the company. On August 19, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to final court approval. Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FACEBOOK INC: Settlement in Cyber-Attack Suit Granted Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the 2018 consolidated class action suit related to a cyber-attack. Beginning on September 28, 2018, multiple putative class actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and elsewhere against us alleging violations of consumer protection laws and other causes of action in connection with a third-party cyber-attack that exploited a vulnerability in Facebook's code to steal user access tokens and access certain profile information from user accounts on Facebook, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The actions filed in the United States were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 26, 2019, the district court certified a class for injunctive relief purposes but denied certification of a class for purposes of pursuing damages. On January 16, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit. On November 15, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to final court approval. Facebook said, "We believe the remaining lawsuits are without merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, the events surrounding this cyber-attack became the subject of Irish Data Protection Commission (IDPC) and other government inquiries. Any such inquiries could subject us to substantial fines and costs, require us to change our business practices, divert resources and the attention of management from our business, or adversely affect our business." Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Platform & User Data Practices Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to the company's Platform & User Data Practices remains pending. Beginning on March 20, 2018, multiple putative class actions and derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the United States and elsewhere against the company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, and other causes of action in connection with the company's platform and user data practices as well as the misuse of certain data by a developer that shared such data with third parties in violation of the company's terms and policies, and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Beginning on July 27, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in federal court in the United States against us and certain of our directors and officers alleging violations of securities laws in connection with the disclosure of the company's earnings results for the second quarter of 2018 and seeking unspecified damages. These two actions subsequently were transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with the putative securities class action described above relating to our platform and user data practices. On September 25, 2019, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action, with leave to amend. On November 15, 2019, a second amended complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class action. On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with leave to amend. On October 16, 2020, a third amended complaint was filed in the consolidated putative securities class action. Facebook aid, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we are vigorously defending them. In addition, our platform and user data practices, as well as the events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a developer, became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and other government inquiries in the United States, Europe, and other jurisdictions. In July 2019, we entered into a settlement and modified consent order to resolve the FTC inquiry, which was approved by the federal court and took effect in April 2020. Among other matters, our settlement with the FTC required us to pay a penalty of $5.0 billion and to significantly enhance our practices and processes for privacy compliance and oversight. Any other government inquiries regarding these matters could subject us to additional substantial fines and costs, require us to change our business practices, divert resources and the attention of management from our business, or adversely affect our business." Facebook, Inc., incorporated on July 29, 2004, is focused on building products that enable people to connect and share through mobile devices, personal computers and other surfaces. The Company also enables people to discover and learn about what is going on in the world around them, enables people to share their opinions, ideas, photos and videos, and other activities with audiences ranging from their friends to the public, and stay connected by accessing its products. The Company's products include Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp and Oculus. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. FCA US: Deadline to File Class Certification Bid Set for May 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFONSO and ARLENE MORAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-02594-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Allison Goddard entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for continuing pretrial deadlines as follows: 1. A Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) shall be conducted via videoconference before Magistrate Judge Allison H. Goddard on February 12, 2021. 2. The Plaintiff must serve on the Defendant a written settlement proposal, which must include a specific demand amount, no later than February 1, 2021. 3. The deadline to file a class certification motion is May 14, 2021. 4. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by March 31, 2021. FCA US is a North American automaker based in Auburn Hills, Michigan. It designs, manufactures, and sells or distributes vehicles under the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep (TM), Ram, FIAT and Alfa Romeo brands. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LugCBU at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL INSURANCE: Claims v. XenCall in Abramson TCPA Suit Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, STEWART ABRAMSON, Plaintiff v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BAY AREA HEALTH, LLC, and 0995316 B.C. LTD. d/b/a XENCALL, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-2523-T-60AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted Xencall's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On Aug. 1, 2019, the Plaintiff received a telephone call from Defendant Bay Area. When Plaintiff answered the phone, a pre-recorded message played advertising health insurance. After the Plaintiff clicked through the prompts, he was connected with Brian Park, who provided information indicating that Bay Area was selling insurance policies provided by Federal Insurance. The Plaintiff was neither a customer of Bay Area nor Federal Insurance and had not consented to receive telemarketing calls prior to receiving the call. On Oct. 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a class-action lawsuit against Federal Insurance and Bay Area alleging they violated Section 227(b) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by initiating illegal telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other non-consenting individuals. On April 22, 2020, he filed an amended complaint reiterating these claims and adding XenCall as a Defendant, alleging XenCall also violated the TCPA by providing Bay Area the technology to make these calls. XenCall now moves to dismiss the amended complaint. XenCall first argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter, citing to Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2347 (2020) ("AAPC"). The Court has already considered the argument and concluded that parties may continue to bring claims under the portions of Section 227(b) unaltered by AAPC. Judge Barber adopts and incorporates the Court's prior analysis. The motion to dismiss is due to be denied as to this ground. XenCall also contends the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the constitutional standing requirements of Article III are not satisfied. It contends that the Plaintiff lacks standing because he has not suffered an injury and, even if he had been injured, XenCall did not cause his injuries. Judge Barber finds that the Plaintiff has presented sufficient facts to confer Article III standing. He alleges that he received an unsolicited phone call with a pre-recorded message. He further alleges that he and other call recipients were harmed by these calls because they were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones and their privacy was improperly invaded. Furthermore, these injuries are fairly traceable to XenCall's alleged conduct. Hence, XenCall's motion to dismiss is accordingly denied as to this ground. XenCall next argues that the claims against it should be dismissed because the Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction. The parties debate two potential grounds for personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute: (1) engaging in business within Florida, and (2) committing a tortious act in Florida. In his amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the Court has personal jurisdiction over XenCall because it "assists its customers, including Bay Area in the district, make automated telemarketing calls." XenCall rebuts the allegation--and attests via affidavit--that it never entered into a contract, licensed telemarketing software, or entered into any business agreement with Bay Area. This same affidavit also states that XenCall does not have an office in Florida, nor does it have a license to conduct business in Florida. All the information submitted in XenCall's affidavit has been unanswered by the Plaintiff. As Florida's long-arm statute is to be strictly construed and the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving personal jurisdiction, Judge Barber finds the Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. Judge Barber is also unaware of any binding or persuasive case law that addresses whether illegal telemarketing calls made in Florida to an out-of-state resident constitute a "tortious act within this state" under the long-arm statute. Nevertheless, he need not reach a decision on the issue because, even if the requirements of the long-arm statute are satisfied, constitutional due process is not. Finally, even though Florida's long-arm statute may permit a state to assert jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant, the due process clause of the United States Constitution prevents courts from doing so unless exercising jurisdiction comports with due process. The Plaintiff (a resident of Pennsylvania) alleges XenCall (a Canadian corporation) violated the TCPA by providing Bay Area the software used to make illegal telemarketing calls. This forum has little interest in haling a Canadian corporation into court in Florida for allegedly providing software used to commit a tort against a resident of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the record indicates the Plaintiff can seek appropriate relief from the remaining Defendants without subjecting XenCall to the burdens of transnational litigation. As the burden is on the Plaintiff to show exercising personal jurisdiction is proper, Judge Barber finds he has failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, Defendant XenCall's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is granted. The Plaintiff's claims against XenCall are dismisseed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/1f51qrkx from Leagle.com. FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Brawley Sues Over Misleading Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------------ BROOKE N. BRAWLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a FBCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00113 (E.D. Mo., January 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action seeking for damages from the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant contacted her regarding an alleged debt that was purportedly incurred to "AccuHealth Urgent Care". Consequently, after she disputed the Defendant's initial attempt to collect the alleged debt via telephone call on or about November 3, 2020, the Defendant sent her an initial collection letter on or about November 4, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to include in its collection letter the full notices and disclosures of consumer rights required within 5 days of an initial communication with a consumer. The Defendant allegedly makes a pattern and practice of providing statutorily deficient Validation Notice in an effort to mislead, confuse, and/or deceive a consumer with respect to their rights to obtain verification of a debt, in an effort to trick consumer into paying a debt they would normally dispute, or may not owe. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. d/b/a FBCS, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Boris E. Graypel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BORIS E. GRAYPEL, LLC 8112 Maryland Ave., Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63105 Tel: (314) 300-9590 Fax: (314) 754-9305 E-mail: bgraypel@gmail.com FIRST ADVANTAGE: Garcia Files FCRA Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Advantage Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Michael Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. First Advantage Corporation, FedEx Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00135-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. First Advantage Corporation -- https://fadv.com/ -- offers information services. The Company provides alcohol testing, workflow management, screening, risk mitigation, employment screening, post hire monitoring, fleet compliance, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette Gragirena Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 3219 E. Camelback Rd. #558 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Fax: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com FLEX LTD: Plaintiff Opening Brief Due April 19 ---------------------------------------------- Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the opening brief on the appeal made by the plaintiff in the putative class action suit filed before the Northern District of California, is due on April 19, 2021. On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding the putative class period through October 25, 2018. On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead plaintiff appointment process. On September 26, 2019, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 8, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On December 4, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 29, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice and gave lead plaintiff 30 days to amend. On June 29, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint. On July 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 10, 2020, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. On January 7, 2021, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Lead plaintiff's opening appeal brief is due April 19, 2021, and defendants' answering brief is due May 19, 2021. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. It operates through High-Reliability Solutions, Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990 and is based in Singapore. FLORIDA SOUTHERN: Deadline For Class Status Bid Extended to April 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salerno v. Florida Southern College, Case No. 8:20-cv-01494 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend class certification deadline. The Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification is extended until April 2, 2021. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be due May 14, 2021. The Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class certification shall be due June 11, 2021, says the Court. The nature of suit states Contract - Other Contract. Florida Southern College is a private college in Lakeland, Florida.[CC] FLOWCO PRODUCTION: Keating FLSA Conditional Status Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEAN KEATING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Case No. 7:20-cv-00122-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Flowco specializes in the design, installation and optimization of gas lift and plunger lift systems, made in the USA, serving oil and gas basins throughout North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jjl6Yl at no extra charge.[CC] FORBES MEDIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forbes Media LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Forbes Media LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00932 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Forbes Media, LLC -- https://www.forbes.com/ -- provides magazine publishing and printing services. The Company offers a range of business magazines and online articles with news and information related to finance, international business, marketing, law, taxes, science, technology, communications, investments, and entrepreneurship.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FUSION POWER: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fusion Power LLC. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fusion Power LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00188-MTM (D. Ariz., Feb. 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Fusion Power -- https://www.fusionpowerco.com/ -- is one of Arizona's growing solar companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 900-1288 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com FUTURE MOTION: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Angeles Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. FUTURE MOTION, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00818-VEC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 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. According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, www.onewheel.com, and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the suit says. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a motorized skateboard manufacturing company that owns and operates www.onewheel.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com GC SERVICES: Ct. Directs Parties to Seek Leave for Expert Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS DIDONATO, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02154-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order that: -- if any Party during the course of summary judgment briefing determines that it will need expert testimony and thus needs to reopen expert discovery, that Party shall seek leave from the Court via letter motion at least two weeks before their memorandum of law related to the summary judgment motion is due. -- the application shall include a proposed schedule and state whether the adverse Party or Parties consent to the application; and -- if any Party determines that it needs expert testimony at trial and thus needs to reopen expert discovery, that Party shall seek leave from the Court via letter motion as soon as possible. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and did not rely on any expert opinion. The motion is due to be fully briefed on February 16, 2021. Pursuant to the Second Amended Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, the deadline for the completion of all expert discovery was December 24, 2020. The Parties did not engage in expert discovery. The Plaintiff seeks leave to reopen expert discovery should the need arise, which Defendants oppose. GC Services LP provides adjustment services on claims and other insurance-related issues. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39UogPp at no extra charge.[CC] GEMMA BY WP DIAMONDS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gemma By WP Diamonds LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gemma By WP Diamonds LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00982-ALC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gemma by WP Diamonds -- https://gemmabywpd.com/ -- sells new, unworn and pre-owned watches and jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: Gets Dismissal of Most of Shareholder Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that a U.S. judge in Manhattan has dismissed most but not all of a shareholder lawsuit accusing General Electric Co of concealing billions of dollars of insurance liabilities and using questionable accounting to prop up its power business. In a Friday night decision, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman dismissed fraud claims based on GE's alleged misrepresentations about its long-term care insurance portfolio, and most claims concerning long-term service agreements in its power division. The judge allowed shareholders to pursue claims that Boston-based GE should have disclosed its reliance on factoring, or the sale of future revenue for cash, and to pursue some claims against a former GE chief financial officer, Jeffrey Bornstein. Furman's 34-page decision followed GE's agreement on Dec. 9 to pay $200 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission charges it misled investors about its insurance and power businesses. The shareholders, including pension funds and other investors, asked Furman to treat the SEC settlement as proof GE had misled them, while the defendants said the judge could infer they had no intent to defraud. Furman rejected both suggestions. Lawyers for the shareholders did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A GE spokeswoman did not immediately respond to requests for comment on behalf of the defendants, who include former Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt. GE is in a multiyear turnaround focused on improving cash flow, cutting costs and shedding some units, while retaining aviation, power generation, renewable energy and other businesses. The proposed class action covers shareholders from February 2013 to January 2018, when GE took a surprise $6.2 billion charge related to its insurance business. Its share price fell by roughly one-half in the last 18 months of the class period. Furman had in August 2019 dismissed large portions of an earlier version of the lawsuit. The case is Sjunde AP Fonden et al v General Electric Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-08457. [GN] GOJO INDUSTRIES: Hussin's Admission Pro Hac Vice in Aleisa Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, MANAL ALEISA, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. MAGDIELA GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOJO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 5:20-cv-2383, 5:20-cv-2448 (N.D. Ohio), Judge J. Philip Calabrese of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied attorney Tammy Hussin's motion for admission pro hac vice. In these consolidated putative class actions alleging that the marketing of Purell hand sanitizer violates California and New York law, Ms. Hussin seeks admission pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs before the Court. Judge Calabrese opines that no authority he has located confers a right on Ms. Hussin or the Plaintiffs to have the pending motion for admission pro hac vice granted if Ms. Hussin meets all the requirements of the Local Rule. Even if she does, the Court retains the discretion to determine whether to grant pro hac vice status. Ms. Hussin supplies a certificate of standing from the State Bar of California. The certificate reflects that, after admission to the California bar in 1991, Ms. Hussin registered with inactive status from Jan. 1, 1996 to September 1999, when the California Supreme Court suspended her from the practice of law for nonpayment of fees. The suspension remained in effect until 2007 when she repaid the outstanding fees and returned to active status. Of serious concern is Ms. Hussin's affidavit. It contains two false statements and one material defect. First, in Paragraph 4, Ms. Hussin states that "I have never been disbarred or suspended from practice before any court." The certificate of standing contradicts her assertion. Second, Paragraph 3 recites that Ms. Hussin was admitted in 2007. However, the certificate of standing discloses that she was admitted to practice in California in 1991, as does Ms. Hussin's website. The paragraph suggests that Ms. Hussin attempted to conceal her previous suspension. These false statements give Judge Calabrese grave concern about Ms. Hussin's candor, reinforced by the defect in her affidavit. Local Rule 83.5(h) calls for an affidavit or declaration--either way, a statement under oath or penalty of perjury. Ms. Hussin submitted neither. Though formally styled an affidavit, she did not have her affidavit notarized or comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1746. The defect suggests that Ms. Hussin sought to minimize any potential consequences from making false statements to the Court in her motion for admission pro hac vice. Because her website also lists that she is admitted to practice in "state and federal courts in Michigan and Colorado," on inactive status, Judge Calabrese does not know whether she is withholding any additional information that may adversely affect her motion for admission pro hac vice. Given these concerns, Judge Calabrese afforded Ms. Hussin an opportunity to address the statements she submitted to the Court at the status conference held on the record (by telephone due to the Covid-19 pandemic) on Jan. 25, 2021. Ms. Hussin attributed these errors to a new paralegal and otherwise sought to downplay or dismiss their significance. On the whole, the record leaves Judge Calabrese with grave concern about Ms. Hussin's candor and ability to comply with the rules of practice. Against the backdrop of this record, and mindful of the important interests at stake, he takes up Ms. Hussin's motion for admission pro hac vice. On the one hand, he is reluctant to interfere with the Plaintiffs' choice of counsel and with the profession of an attorney, particularly because the underlying suspension in California is stale and does not appear to involve unethical conduct. But in the putative class action Plaintiffs have multiple counsel, diminishing this consideration to a degree. On the other hand, the ultimate inquiry under the law of the Circuit turns on whether an attorney seeking admission pro hac vice possesses the ethical and professional competence of an officer of the court. On this question, the record requires the Court to make a difficult determination. On balance, Judge Calabrese finds that the record shows Ms. Hussin does not evidence the standards of an officer of the Court. Ultimately, Ms. Hussin bears responsibility for documents submitted to the Court bearing her signature, but she sought to dismiss or shift that responsibility to subordinate. Doing so did nothing to mitigate Judge Calabrese's grave concern about her candor and ability to follow the rules of the Court in the matter, which presages worse to come. Beyond the waste of time and judicial resources already spent on the matter, the proper and orderly administration of justice leads the Judge to deny Ms. Hussin's motion for admission pro hac vice. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/1m4je5m6 from Leagle.com. GOODRX HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Feb. 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12557&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021 Class Period: September 23, 2020 - November 16, 2020 Allegations against GDRX include that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants' knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge, defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Faces HD Media Antitrust Suit Over Digital Ad Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Gallagher, writing for Apple Insider, reports that West Virginia's HD Media has filed an antitrust complaint against Google and Facebook, claiming that they conspired to monopolize digital advertising and so endanger local newspapers. Despite Google recently announcing it would pay $1 billion to news publishers, a newspaper company has filed what it says is the first antitrust suit against Google and Facebook over digital advertising. HD Media, which publishes seven newspapers, accuses the two companies of entering into a secret agreement. According to Editor & Publisher Magazine, the suit specifies that this secret agreement, codenamed "Jedi Blue," manipulated online advertising auctions. It also claims that Google's monopolization of the digital advertising market is threatening local newspapers across the US. "The freedom of the press is not at stake," the suit reportedly says. "The press itself is at stake." "We invite every other newspaper in America to join this cause," HD Media managing partner Doug Reynolds told Editor & Publisher Magazine. "We are fighting not only for the future of the press but also the preservation of our democracy." Google's separate $1 billion offer concerns its planned Google News Showcase project. Begun in Brazil and Germany, the project has expanded to Android users across Australia, the UK, Canada and more. It offers packages of news stories coupled to video and graphics content. Google says the aim is to introduce readers to news outlets that they may then subscribe to. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: JLaSalle Sues Over 'Display Ad Stack' Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- JLASALLE ENTERPRISES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00748 (Jan. 29, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and and on behalf of similarly situated publishers that sold digital Display Ad inventory through Google's AdSense targeting consumers in the United States since March 11, 2008 against Google, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief for Google's longstanding and continuing violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The suit arises out of Google's exclusionary and anticompetitive campaign to obtain and maintain monopolies in several distinct, but closely related, relevant markets, including (a) publisher ad server services ("Publisher Ad Servers"); (b) display ad network services ("Ad Networks"); (c) display ad exchanges ("Exchanges"); and (d) display ad buying tools ("Ad Buying Tools") (collectively, the "Relevant Markets"). These markets constitute what is referred to as the "Display Ad Stack." While Google got its start in Search, today it is an advertising company and makes billions of dollars a year by collecting information about individual Internet users and then using that information to help advertisers find suitable persons to whom they can send direct, targeted ads. Google obtains user information from a number of sources, including through its Google Search service and Chrome web browser. Thanks to these and other Google offerings, Google knows when individual users log on, the Websites they visit, the things they search for, the products they buy, and other valuable information, says the complaint. As a result of the alleged actions, Google has control over a dominant share of the Display Ad inventory on which advertisers will bid as well as over which advertisers can participate in the most significant auctions and how publishers prioritize and compare different sources to identify the advertiser that will ultimately "win" the right to place an ad in a particular ad slot. Google's exclusionary conduct has had substantial anticompetitive effects in the Relevant Markets and has harmed publishers, the Plaintiff alleges. Display Ads are ads that appear on a website, often in a side window or some other designated space on the page. Plaintiff JLaSalle is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in Bellmore, New York. JLaSalle operates an ad-supported website that directly purchases publisher and advertiser services from Google, including through Google's AdSense. Google is owned by Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Google provides a range of products and services that are marketed, distributed, and offered to consumers throughout the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. Daniel Hume, Esq. David Bishop, Esq. Andrew McNeela, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 398-4340 E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com dhume@kmllp.com dbishop@kmllp.com amcneela@kmllp.com - and - Thomas M. Hnasko, Esq. Michael E. Jacobs, Esq. HINKLE SHANOR LLP 218 Montezuma Avenue Sante Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 982-4554 E-mail: thnasko@hinklelawfirm.com mjacobs@hinklelawfirm.com - and - Kent Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 Telephone: (612) 940-4452 Facsimile: (952) 283-1525 E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Deadline for Class Status Bid Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCIVER, et al., v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00839 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs entered an order granting unopposed motion extending Plaintiff's deadline for moving for class certification and staying that deadline (as otherwise established by Local Rule 23.1(b)) pending establishment of scheduling order. The nature of suit states Contract -- Insurance. The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in Maryland. It is the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm, which was on East Jefferson Road, and owned by in Canada, Desjardins Insurance.[CC] GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Extension for Class Status Filing Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MCIVER and NATASHA PIERCE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY AND GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00839-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs file their unopposed motion for an extension of time for them to file their motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs contend that their application of the 90-day deadline for filing a motion for class certification be stayed until after the parties submit a Rule 26(f) report and the Court enters a scheduling order. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint on July 21, 2020 in Guilford County Superior Court. The Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to this court on September 11, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in this Court on November 3, 2020. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint on November 17, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 2021. The Defendants filed their Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition on January 19, 2021. The Court's Order on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is pending. The Government Employees Insurance Company is an American auto insurance company with headquarters in Maryland. It is the second largest auto insurer in the United States, after State Farm, which was on East Jefferson Road, and owned by in Canada, Desjardins Insurance. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tt1Z2Q at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Putative Class, are: Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Kopelowitz Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E 1st Ave Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, No. 2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com GRAMMARLY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grammarly, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Grammarly, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00933-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grammarly -- https://www.grammarly.com/ -- is an American-based technology company that provides a digital writing assistance tool based on artificial intelligence and natural language processing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal GREATBANC TRUST: Clare Suit Asserts Fund Mismanagement ------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Clare, on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greatbanc Trust Company, Long Point Capital, Inc., Long Point Capital Fund II, L.P., Long Point Capital Partners II, L.P., Long Point Capital Fund III, L.P., and Long Point Capital Partners III, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00367, (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2021), is brought under Sections 404, 406, 409, 410, and 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended, for losses suffered by the participants in the EYP Employee Stock Ownership Plan and their beneficiaries caused by GreatBanc when it caused the plan to buy shares of EYP for more than fair market value in 2016. GreatBanc Trust Company is the trustee for the EYP Employee Stock Ownership Plan when it acquired shares of EYP Group Holdings, Inc. in 2016. Clare is against selling shareholders Long Point Capital, Inc. and its affiliates Long Point Capital Fund II, L.P., Long Point Capital Partners II, L.P., Long Point Capital Fund III, L.P. and Long Point Capital Partners III, L.P. and with GreatBanc. Clare is a participant in the EYP Employee Stock Ownership Plan and has invested in shares of EYP allocated to her account in the plan. EYP (previously doing business as EYP Holdings, Inc.), adopted the plan effective January 1, 2016. On June 28, 2016, in simultaneous or nearly simultaneous transactions, EYP purchased its common stock from the Long Point Group and minority shareholders and the plan purchased 1,000,000 shares of EYP's common stock from EYP for $44,286,647. Said stock purchase was financed by a term note payable owed to EYP by the plan of the same amount and to be repaid over 40 years, at an interest rate of 3%. Said transaction allegedly allowed the selling shareholders to unload their interests in EYP above fair market value and saddle the plan with tens of millions of dollars of debt over a 40-year repayment period to finance the transaction. EYP is an architecture and engineering firm developing design solutions for clients in higher education, government, healthcare, and science and technology. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 333 S. Wabash Ave., Suite 2736 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 995-7143 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 Email: pmuench@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 Email: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com GSC LIMITED: Fabricant et al. Sue Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT and ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GSC LIMITED d/b/a GREYSTONE CAPITAL 1, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00780 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephone number by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant allegedly did not possess the Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive unsolicited calls and text messages using an ATDS on their cellular telephones. The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text messages have caused harm to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy. The Plaintiffs seek an injunctive relief prohibiting such unlawful conduct in the future, statutory and treble damages, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper. GSC Limited d/b/a Greystone Capital 1 is a business financing company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Grigore Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ SORIN GRIGORE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GTT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., RICHARD D. CALDER, JR., ERNIE ORTEGA, MICHAEL T. SICOLI, DANIEL M. FRASER, and STEVEN BERNS, Case No. 2:21-cv-00839 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2021) is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired GTT publicly traded securities from May 5, 2016 through November 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act by publishing false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, GTT stated that its internal controls over financial reporting were "effective" and provided "reasonable assurance" that all required information was being disclosed. In truth, GTT's internal controls over financial reporting were inadequate, which led to years of inaccurate financial reporting, including failing to make adequate adjustments to the Company's Cost of Telecommunication Services and failing to recognize certain expenses, the suit says. As a result of GTT's alleged inadequate internal controls, the Company announced after market hours on August 10, 2020 that it would delay its filing of its quarterly report for the quarter ended June 30, 2020. The Company stated it had identified "certain issues related to the recording and reporting of Cost of Telecommunications Services and related internal controls." On this news, GTT shares fell by $0.65, or over 11%, from closing at $5.61 on August 10, 2020 to close at $4.96 on August 11, 2020. On November 9, 2020, the Company announced its quarterly report for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 would be delayed as well. The Company stated the delay was caused by the ongoing review and "examining the accounting for Cost of Telecommunications Services and a number of issues in connection with the Company's previously issued financial statements." On this news, GTT shares fell by $0.04, or 1%, to close at $3.96 on November 9, 2020. The Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered significant damages due to the Defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, added the suit. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. GTT operates a global communications network, providing telecommunications services to large, multinational enterprises, carriers, and governments across five continents. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 Fax Number: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com HALL'S SOUTHERN: Noble FLSA Class Suit Gets Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Justin Noble, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Hall's Southern Kitchens, LLC d/b/a Hall's Chop House, Case No. 2:20-cv-01792-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an order granting the motion for settlement approval as follows: 1. Final class certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for settlement purposes. 2. The Settlement and Release Agreement, with the Settlement Statement, is approved in its entirety as a fair and reasonable resolution negotiated at arm's-length of the parties' bona fide dispute. The Settlement and Release Agreement provides as follows: -- a gross settlement of $20,000; -- individual payments to Plaintiffs as set forth in the Settlement Statement -- a Service Award of $200 to Named Plaintiff Justin Noble; and -- $15,000 in Plaintiffs' counsel's fees plus $560 in Plaintiffs' counsel's costs and expenses. 3. All claims in this action are dismissed with prejudice. 4. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' Settlement and Release Agreement and the Settlement Statement. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39SO1j8 at no extra charge.[CC] HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC et al. The case is captioned as Omar Santos, Amanda Clements and Ethan Dornhelm, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC (d/b/a ARS Account Resolution Services) and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:21-mc-80008 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2021). The nature of the lawsuit is stated as a civil miscellaneous case. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC provides collection services to health care sector. The Company offers payment processing, accounts information, collection, and other related services. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group serves customers in the United States.[BN] Plaintiffs Omar Santos and Amanda Clements appear pro se. Plaintiff Ethan Dornhelm is represented by: Michael Jaeger, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 203-4000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1285 E-mail: michael.jaeger@faegredrinker.com HONEYDEW PRODUCTS: Palazzo Files Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honeydew Products LLC. The case is styled as Margherite Palazzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Honeydew Products LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00576 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The case arises from alleged fraud claims or violations of the Truth in Lending Act. Honeydew Products -- https://honeydewproducts.com/ -- offers personal care products from shampoo, creams, hair growth and nutrition.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com HSN INC: Underhill Files Civil Suit in Florida Circuit Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against HSN Inc. The case is styled as Francine Underhill, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSN INC., Case No. 16-2021-CA-000290-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir., Duval County, Jan. 14, 2021). The lawsuit is a circuit civil case. HSN, Inc. provides online shopping. The Company retails computers and electronics, fashion items, home and kitchen goods, jewelry, and health, beauty, and fitness products through its shows, which are broadcast via cable, satellite, and network television. HSN serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shamis Andrew John, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 1205 Miami, FL 33132-2408 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com HUGHES WATTERS: Texas Court Narrows FDCPA Claims in Salermo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part HWA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled LUCERO SALERMO, Plaintiff v. HUGHES WATTERS & ASKANASE LLP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02791 (S.D. Tex.). Plaintiff Salermo incurred a loan with Cy-Fair Federal Credit Union to repay credit-card debt. She describes HWA as a Texas law firm that "regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or alleged to be owed or due to another." Cy-Fair obtained the services of HWA for purposes of debt collection. Ms. Salermo brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, against HWA. Named as additional defendants are an unspecified number of John Does -- lawyers and employees of HWA -- who regularly engage in the collection of debts allegedly due another. The complaint doesn't itself indicate the amount of the debt. But the letter asserts a payoff amount of approximately $9,000. The complaint also doesn't allege that Salermo ever intended to dispute that debt. To the contrary, the counsel to Salermo acknowledged at hearing that the debt was in fact valid and past due. Even so, Salermo alleges in her complaint that the letter caused her various forms of anxiety for two reasons that purport to coincide with requirements imposed by the FDCPA upon debt-collection letters. First, Salermo alleges that she was misled and believed an attorney had reviewed her, and that this caused her to be upset and frightened because she thought something imminent would happen, perhaps a lawsuit would be filed against her. Second, she also alleges that the language in the debt-collection letter sent by HWA was "deliberately" drafted to omit the words by the debt collector or words to that effect in order to confuse consumers regarding, who may assume the debt to be valid. This "deceived" her, Salermo says, and she believed that if she failed to dispute the debt, then her debt would be assumed to be valid by everyone, e.g. -- creditor, the courts, the lawyers, etc. She was also "confused, frightened, and misled" by the letter, understanding that provision to mean that if she fails to dispute the debt to the Defendants, then she has waived her right to dispute it later. Ms. Salermo seeks redress under the FDCPA in her individual capacity. She also brings the lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated persons within Texas, seeking certification of a class of those who may have received a letter in this form from HWA. HWA moved to dismiss, asserting both lack of standing and failure to state a claim under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. District Judge Charles Eskridge opines that Salermo lacks standing to pursue her claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g, regarding failure to include required information in the debt-collection letter sent by HWA that is the subject of this action. He holds that Salermo fails to allege a concrete injury. The complaint nowhere pleads that the referenced debt isn't valid, and her counsel at hearing flatly conceded that it is. Judge Eskridge also opines that Salermo has standing to pursue her claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, regarding use of false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with that letter. He notes that contrary to claim under Section 1692g, Salermo sufficiently alleges a concrete injury under Section 1692e. Her alleged injury is sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing; hence, this claim will proceed. Pleading upon information and belief is permissible in a general sense, Judge Eskridge holds, citing Johnson v Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 531 n 19 (5th Cir 2004). What's plainly impermissible is to make a flat assertion of liability and ask that it be accepted as true, he states. But that appears to be the type of assertion that Salermo makes here upon information and belief as to lack of attorney involvement in the drafting of the subject letter, he adds. Dismissal isn't warranted on this basis, if for no other reason than that HWA doesn't seek it, according to Judge Eskridge. Even so, initial discovery will focus narrowly upon two topics. One is whether a lawyer at HWA did or didn't have a role in the subject debt-collection letter. The other is the basis upon which Salermo made her assertion upon information and belief, including what investigation her counsel undertook in this regard. A separate order regarding discovery will follow. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss by Defendant Hughes, Watters, & Askanase, LLP is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the assumed-valid claim asserted by Plaintiff Lucero Salermo under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) and related aspects of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e and e(10). That claim is dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied as to the attorney-involvement claim asserted under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, e(3), and e(10). That claim will proceed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/11qx880z from Leagle.com. I.C. SYSTEM: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Gilbert FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, and denies in part and grants in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Chris Hansen in the lawsuit entitled FRANK GILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-04988 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Gilbert, a Sprint customer, allegedly incurred a debt for goods and services related to his Sprint account. As a result, Defendant I.C. System, Inc. (ICS), a collection agency, mailed Gilbert a collection letter to begin collecting Gilbert's alleged debt. Gilbert filed this individual and putative class action lawsuit against ICS, alleging that ICS violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq., by using unfair means to collect alleged debts. Mr. Gilbert claims that on February 11, 2019, ICS mailed a collection letter to him regarding his alleged debt. The Collection Letter also included an account number, an ICS reference number, and stated that the balance due was $1,437. The Plaintiff alleges that the amount ICS sought to collect was actually increasing on a monthly basis due to interest or other charges, but ICS's Collection Letter did not inform him that his debt amount would be increased. He also claims that, after he was credited for equipment charges, (which reduced the alleged debt to $985 in March 2019), the debt balance increased to $999 in April 2019 and $1,013 in May 2019. As a result, Gilbert alleges that he could have paid the amount claimed in the Collection Letter at some future date and not have realized that the amount paid would not have satisfied his current balance. To comply with the FDCPA, the Plaintiff contends that ICS should have informed him that if he paid the amount due as stated in the Collection Letter, an adjustment may be necessary after ICS received his check, and in that case, ICS would inform him before depositing the check for collection. He claims that ICS violated the FDCPA when it failed to disclose (i) that the balance of an alleged debt was increasing and/or (ii) that the amount owed on the ultimate date of payment would be more than the amount identified as "balance due" in the Collection Letter. Mr. Gilbert brought the action individually and as a class on behalf of all persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois from whom ICS attempted to collect a debt by mailing them a letter substantially similar to the Collection Letter which lists a balance due "but which fails to state that the amount due is increasing and/or which fails to communicate that the amount owed on the date that the individual may pay will be more than the amount stated as being the balance due in the Collection Letter." ICS answered the Complaint and asserted multiple affirmative defenses, including that Gilbert's claims were barred by a contractual arbitration and class action waiver agreement. ICS subsequently filed the pending Motion to Compel Arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Gilbert filed a Response, and ICS filed a Reply, attaching the Hansen Declaration in support of its Motion to Compel. Gilbert then filed a motion to strike Hansen's Declaration, which is also fully briefed. ICS did not support its opening Motion to Compel with any affidavit from a Sprint employee. In its Reply, without leave of the Court, ICS attached an affidavit from Chris Hansen, an Outside Collection Agency Manager for Sprint. Mr. Gilbert, in turn, moved to strike the Hansen Declaration and the argument in ICS' Reply that the Terms and Conditions expressly apply to ICS as an assignee. Gilbert argues that the Hansen Declaration should be stricken, because it contains new evidence regarding the validity and authenticity of the Terms and Conditions. Gilbert also argues that the portions of ICS' Reply that reference ICS' status as an assignee should be stricken, because the assignee argument was not developed in ICS' opening brief and was raised for the first time in ICS' Reply. ICS counters that the evidence in the Hansen Declaration is not new evidence but rather rebuttal evidence and that it raised ICS' status as an assignee in its opening Motion to Compel. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama notes that it is well-established that a reply brief should not present new arguments or incorporate new evidence for arguments that were not properly supported in an opening brief, citing Dr. Robert L. Meinders, D.C., Ltd. v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., 800 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2015). It can hardly be disputed that the Hansen Declaration is new evidence that was not contained in ICS' opening Motion to Compel, Judge Valderrama states. The Court, accordingly, grants this part of the Motion to Strike and will not consider the Hansen Declaration in resolving the Motion to Compel. The Court, however, disagrees with Gilbert that ICS' Reply raises new arguments. ICS, in its opening brief argued, albeit summarily, that it was an assignee of Sprint, and ICS reiterates that argument in its Reply. Accordingly, the Court denies this part of the Motion to Strike and does not strike any other part of ICS' Reply. In sum, the Court grants in part and denies in part Gilbert's Motion to Strike. It strikes the Hansen Declaration but does not strike any other portions of ICS' Reply. In its Motion to Compel, ICS argues that by activating his Sprint account, Gilbert agreed to Sprint's Terms and Conditions. ICS further argues that there is a valid and enforceable contract between Gilbert and Sprint for arbitration; that ICS, as an assignee, agent, or third-party beneficiary of Sprint, can enforce the arbitration provision in Sprint's Terms and Conditions; and that Gilbert's claims regarding ICS' Collection Letter are subject to arbitration. As a result, ICS asks the Court to compel arbitration and either dismiss this lawsuit or stay this lawsuit pending completion of arbitration. In support of its Motion to Compel, ICS attached the Declaration of Michelle Dove, its General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer (Dove Declaration). In response, Gilbert retorts that ICS has not demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement; Illinois law does not allow ICS, a non-signatory, to enforce an arbitration agreement; and his claims are outside the scope of the alleged arbitration provision. Judge Valderrama opines that ICS has not met its burden of establishing a valid agreement to arbitrate, because it has not shown that Gilbert assented to the Terms and Conditions. ICS has not provided a signed contract. Instead, it has provided a website printout -- the Terms and Conditions provide a list of actions Gilbert could undertake to accept them besides signing, including opening a box, or activating, using, attempting to use, or paying for Sprint services. However, the Judge opines, the Dove Declaration is devoid of any facts regarding how or when Gilbert received the Terms and Conditions, which became effective Sept 30, 2017, that he was made aware of the Terms and Conditions at any point, that he ever saw the Terms and Conditions, or that he had the chance to review the Terms and Conditions. Further, it does not provide any other information about the actions, if any, Gilbert took with respect to the Terms and Conditions. Without such information, the Court cannot make the necessary fact-intensive inquiry to determine whether Gilbert assented to the Terms and Conditions. On the record before it, the Court cannot conclude that ICS has met its burden to show that the Terms and Conditions constitute a binding agreement between Gilbert and Sprint. While ICS argues that Gilbert has failed to provide evidence showing that ICS did not submit a valid contract between Gilbert and Sprint, this contention improperly shifts the burden. ICS has the burden of proving the existence of a valid contract. Without evidence showing Gilbert's assent to the submitted Terms and Conditions, the Court cannot determine whether a valid contract exists. As a result, the Court denies ICS' Motion to Compel. For these reasons, the Court denies in part and grants in part Gilbert's Motion to Strike. The Court also denies ICS' Motion to Compel Arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/nu1cldxm from Leagle.com. IKEA US: Court Directs Dukichs to File Class Status Bid by Feb. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA DUKICH and JOHN DUKICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC and IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered an order approving stipulation setting deadline for the filing of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by February 25, 2021; 2. The parties shall appear by telephone for a conference to discuss a case management plan and schedule on March 1, 2021; and 3. No later than 5 days in advance of the conference, the parties shall confer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and submit a proposed case management plan in advance of the conference. If the parties are unable to agree on a proposed case management plan, each party shall submit its proposed case management plan in advance of the conference. On January 14, 2021, the Court entered an Order denying the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, to Strike Class Allegations. In its contemporaneously filed Memorandum, the Court directs Plaintiffs to "promptly file a motion for class certification at which point this court will schedule a conference with counsel to discuss the scope of discovery." The parties have since conferred and agree that setting a date certain for the filing of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification will promote efficiency. Ikea is a furniture store company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cIIIEx at no extra charge.[CC] IMAGINATION IND: Conditional Cert. of Exotic Dancers Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEENA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a AMERICAN DREAM, and CASEY ROWE, Case No. 8:20-cv-00449-RFR-CRZ (D. Neb.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. issuing a notice to all exotic dancers who have worked at American Dream during the last three years and were classified as independent contractors by first class mail, e-mail, and text message and by visibly posting the Notice on the premises of American Dream; and 3. directing the Defendants to produce a list of the names, last-known mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for all individuals who currently work and/or previously worked at American Dream as exotic dancers at any time in the last three years and were classified as independent contractors. Plaintiff Kristeena Scarpino has brought this collective action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have worked as exotic dancers at Imagination Industries, a strip club, seeking to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff asserts that she and other exotic dancers working for American Dream were all subject to the same rules and policies imposed by the Defendants, and were misclassified as independent contractors when they were and/or are, in fact, employees of American Dream as a matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the protections of the FLSA. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rqZQD3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com INSTRUCTURE HOLDINGS: Oklahoma Law Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daniel Goldsmith, et al. The case is styled as Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Q. Wade Billings, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Daniel Goldsmith, Instructure Holdings, LLC, Joshua L. Coates, Kevin Thompson, Lloyd G. Waterhouse, Matthew Kaminer, Steve Kaminsky, Thoma Bravo Fund XIII, L.P., Thoma Bravo, LLC, Case No. 2021-0092 (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 2, 2021). The case alleges breach of fiduciary duties. Instructure Inc. provides online education technology. Daniel Goldsmith "Dan" is a the former chief executive officer of Instructure Inc.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Davenport, Esq. Samuel L. Closic, Esq. Jason W. Rigby, Esq. PRICKETT JONES & ELLIOT 1310 King St PO Box 1328 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: (302) 888-6517 Fax: (302) 658-8111 Email: slclosic@prickett.com INVESTOR'S BUSINESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investor's Business Daily, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Investor's Business Daily, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00931 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Investor's Business Daily -- https://www.investors.com/ -- is an American newspaper and Website covering the stock market, international business, finance and economics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal IOWA DHR: Eight Circuit Appeal Filed in CPX Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Kelly Kennedy Garcia, in her official capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled C.P.X., et al. v. Kelly Garcia, et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00417-SMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of a putative class of individuals at the Boys State Training School in Eldora, Iowa. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants maintain unconstitutional and illegal treatment practices with respect to the juveniles at the School, who have significant mental illnesses. The Defendants are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated January 7, 2021, granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and expenses by Judge Stephanie M. Rose. The appellate case is captioned as C.P.X., et al. v. Kelly Garcia, et al., Case No. 21-1206, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, January 28, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before March 9, 2021; -- Appendix is due on March 19, 2021; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Mark Day, Kelly Kennedy Garcia and Cory Turner is due on March 19, 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 C.P.X., through his next of friend S.P.X., for themselves and those similarly situated, and K.N.X., through his next friend Rachel Antonuccio, for themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Nicholas M. Berg, Esq. Timothy R. Farrell, Esq. Charles Zagnoli, Esq. ROPES & GRAY 191 N. Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 845-1200 E-mail: Nicholas.Berg@ropesgray.com Timothy.Farrell@ropesgray.com Charles.Zagnoli@ropesgray.com - and - Harry Frischer, Esq. Marissa Christina Nardi, Esq. Stephanie Marie Persson, Esq. CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 88 Pine Street, Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 942-4252 - and - Jane Monteith Hudson, Esq. Nathan D. Kirstein, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS IOWA 400 E. Court Avenue, Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 Defendants-Appellants Kelly Kennedy Garcia, in her official capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services; Cory Turner, in his official capacity as Interim Mental Health and Disabilities Services Director of Facilities; and Mark Day, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Boys State Training School, are represented by: Anagha Dixit, Esq. Gretchen Witte Kraemer, Esq. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Hoover Building 1305 E. Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0001 Telephone: (515) 281-5164 IRHYTHM TECH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Securities Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential violations of the federal securities laws by iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC). iRhythm stock suffered a steep decline following the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announcement regarding its 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) Final Rule. The MPFS Final Rule establishes the payment policies and rates that Medicare will use next year. Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine whether the Company issued false or misleading statements or failed to disclose information relevant to investors. If you have information that could assist in this investigation, or if you are an iRhythm shareholder and are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, you can [click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Johnson Fistel, LLP Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] IRONBOUND EXPRESS: Luxama Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAUDRAL LUXAMA, CHANDLER LUXEUS, JAVIER R. GARCIA, FREDO BONHOMME, SANTOS MALDONADO, and CHANEL FONTIN, each individually and as class representatives, v. IRONBOUND EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 2:11-cv-02224-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order that: 1. the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part; 2. the Court certifies the following class in this matter: "a Rule 23(b)(3) liability class as to the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims regarding detention time and parking space rental, and as to the Defendant's alleged violations of the Truth-In-Leasing regulations consisting of all independent owner-operators who entered into a regulated lease with Defendant, directly or indirectly through the Defendant's agents, and whose regulated lease was in effect at any time between April 20, 2007 through the pendency of this action;" Excluded from this class are the Plaintiffs' counsel, officers and directors of Defendant, judicial officers assigned to this case, and staff and immediate relatives of judicial officers assigned to this case; 3. the Court has already certified the following class: "a Rule 23(b)(2) class for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the Plaintiffs' alleged Truth-in-Leasing violations: All independent owner-operators who entered into a regulated lease with the Defendant, directly or indirectly through Defendant's agents, and whose regulated lease was in effect at any time between April 20, 2007 through the pendency of this action;" Excluded from this class are Plaintiffs' counsel, officers and directors of Defendant, judicial officers assigned to this case, and staff and immediate relatives of judicial officers assigned to this case; 4. the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is otherwise denied; and 5. after Plaintiffs have taken discovery as to damages, they may reassert their position that some or all of the claimed damages are appropriate for class treatment. Ironbound Express is a New Jersey Based Company providing complete services to the Intermodal Community operating in the New York Metropolitan. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39QurUv at no extra charge.[CC] JAGUAR LAND ROVER: Court Enters Protective Order in Gibson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, entered a Stipulated Protective Order in the case, GARY GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00769-CJC (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.). Discovery in the action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting the litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. They acknowledge that the Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. The Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court's Scheduling Order. After the final disposition of the Action within 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order. Any violation of the Order may be punished by appropriate measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Protective Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/16z7bx0p from Leagle.com. 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Issues Protective Order in Sousa Class Suit In the case, KARLA Y. SOUSA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Barbara L. Major of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the Joint Motion for Protective Order. Disclosure and discovery activity in the action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the Stipulated Protective Order. They acknowledge that the Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from Joint Proposed Protective Order No. 3:19-cv-02142-JLS (BLM) public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties understand that nothing in the Stipulated Protective Order changes, amends, or circumvents any court rule or local rule. The protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by the Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by the Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of the Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by a separate agreement or order. Even after final disposition of the litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a Court Order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of the action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. The Court will retain jurisdiction for a period of one year after the conclusion of the action to enforce the terms of the Protective Order. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party's confidentiality designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, each Receiving Party must return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, "all Protected Material" includes all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material that was returned or destroyed and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this provision, the Counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence, deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Any such archival copies that contain or constitute Protected Material remain subject to the Protective Order as set forth. Furthermore, within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, the parties will move ex parte for an order authorizing the Court to destroy all Confidential and Attorneys' Eyes Only Material in the Court's possession. The Court may modify the terms and conditions of the Protective Order for good cause, or in the interest of justice, or on its own order at any time in these proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b4s2h9b from Leagle.com. JEFFERIES FINANCIAL: Class Suits in Minnesota & New Mexico Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jefferies Financial Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court, Minnesota District, and in the U.S. District Court, New Mexico District. The Company is a defendant in two class action lawsuits in the United States District Court, Minnesota District alleging that it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers and Stockyards Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and various state laws (the "Antitrust Cases"). The Antitrust Cases are entitled In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation, which was filed originally on April 23, 2019, and Peterson et al. v. JBS USA Food Company Holdings, et al., which was filed originally on April 26, 2019. The plaintiffs in the Antitrust Cases seek treble damages and other relief under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Packers & Stockyards Act, the Commodities Exchange Act and attorneys" fees. The Company is also a defendant in two class action lawsuits filed on January 7, 2020, alleging that it misrepresented the origin of its products in violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (the "Labelling Cases"). The Labelling Cases are entitled Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al., filed in the New Mexico Second Judicial District Court, Bernalillo County, and Lucero v. Tyson Foods, et al., filed in the New Mexico Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Sandoval County. The Labelling Cases were subsequently removed to the United States District Court, New Mexico District. The plaintiffs in the Labelling Cases seek treble damages and other relief and attorneys' fees. NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the Antitrust Cases and the Labelling Cases and intends to defend these cases vigorously. Jefferies said, "There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of these matters or the impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows." Jefferies Financial Group Inc. is a global diversified financial services company focusing on investment banking and capital markets, asset management and direct investing. The Company offers a full range of investment banking, equities, fixed income, asset and wealth management products and services. The company is based in New York, New York. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss Gumm Action Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the court in Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, heard oral argument on a motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States federal income tax realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits and damages. On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2017. On October 17, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. Johnson said, "Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to predict the outcome of this action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi-industrial company worldwide. The company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Still Defends Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company and its subsidiaries continue to defend several class action suits related to Aqueous Film-Forming Foam ("AFFF"). Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, and, in some cases, certain subsidiaries of the Company affiliated with Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products, in a number of class action and other lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products contain or break down into the chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and/or other PFAS compounds and that the use of these products by others at various airbases, airports and other sites resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring those airports, airbases and other sites. PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS compounds are being studied by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental and health agencies and researchers. The EPA has not issued binding regulatory limits, but has stated that it would propose regulatory standards for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water by the end of 2019, in accordance with its PFAS Action Plan released in February 2019, and issued interim recommendations for addressing PFOA and PFOS in groundwater in December 2019. While those studies continue, the EPA has issued a health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. Both PFOA and PFOS are types of synthetic chemical compounds that have been present in firefighting foam. However, both are also present in many existing consumer products. According to EPA, PFOA and PFOS have been used to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and other materials (e.g., cookware) that are resistant to water, grease or stains. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, diminution in property values, investigation and remediation costs, and natural resources damages, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination. In September 2018, Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard filed a Petition for Multidistrict Litigation with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to consolidate all existing and future federal cases into one jurisdiction. On December 7, 2018, the JPML issued an order transferring various AFFF cases to a multi-district litigation ("MDL") before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Additional cases have been identified for transfer to or are being directly filed in the MDL. AFFF Putative Class Actions Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are named in 31 putative class actions in federal courts originating from Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Guam, West Virginia, Michigan and South Dakota. All of these cases have been direct-filed in or transferred to the MDL. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2021, one putative class action (Jackson v. 3M Company, et al., direct filed on January 15, 2021 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina) has been filed against the Company. AFFF Individual or Mass Actions There are approximately 876 individual or "mass" actions pending that were filed in state or federal court in California (5 cases), Colorado (41 cases), New York (4 cases), Pennsylvania (15 cases), New Mexico (2 cases), Missouri (1 case), Arizona (1 case) and South Carolina (807 cases direct filed from various U.S. jurisdictions) against Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products and other defendants in which the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values. The cases involve five plaintiffs in California, approximately 7,000 plaintiffs in Colorado, approximately 126 plaintiffs in New York, 15 plaintiffs in Pennsylvania, two plaintiffs in New Mexico, one plaintiff in Missouri, two plaintiffs in Arizona, and more than 800 plaintiffs from various states who direct-filed complaints in South Carolina. All but six of these matters have been transferred to or directly-filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the remaining cases will be transferred to the MDL. Many of the additional filed actions were directly filed in South Carolina by plaintiffs who were among the 660 plaintiffs the Company had previously disclosed to have made filings in Pennsylvania state court. The Company anticipates that the remainder of the possible individual product liability claims filed in Pennsylvania state court will either soon be filed in the MDL (and that all such claims in state court will be dismissed accordingly) or will be dismissed in Pennsylvania without a corresponding filing in South Carolina. AFFF Municipal Cases Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in 63 cases in federal and state courts involving municipal or water provider plaintiffs in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, the District of Columbia and several municipalities or water providers from various states who direct-filed complaints in South Carolina. All but three of these cases have been transferred to or directly filed in the MDL, and it is anticipated that the remaining cases will be transferred to the MDL. These municipal plaintiffs generally allege that the use of the defendants' fire-fighting foam products at fire training academies, municipal airports, Air National Guard bases, or Navy or Air Force bases released PFOS and PFOA into public water supply wells, allegedly requiring remediation of public property. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2021, the following municipal actions have been filed against the Company: - Hicksville Water District v. 3M Company, et al., filed on October 16, 2020 in New York State Court; now pending in the Eastern District of New York (tagged for transfer to the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina). - Pennsylvania-American Water Co. v. 3M Company, et al., complaint filed on October 21, 2020 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. - Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency v. 3M Company, et al., direct-filed on October 27, 2020 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. - Barnstable Fire District v. 3M Company, et al., direct-filed on December 3, 2020 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. - Miami-Dade County, Florida v. 3M Company, et al., direct-filed on December 3, 2020 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. - Town of Cairo v. 3M Company, et al., direct-filed on December 7, 2020 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. -Paducah Water of the City of Paducah, Kentucky v. 3M Company, et al., direct-filed on December 16, 2020 in the MDL pending in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina. In May 2018, the Company was also notified by the Widefield Water and Sanitation District in Colorado Springs, Colorado that it may assert claims regarding its remediation costs in connection with PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of those products at the Peterson Air Force Base. In May 2020, the Company was also notified by the Lakewood Water District in Pierce County, Washington that it may assert claims regarding remediation in connection with PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use of those products at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. State or U.S. Territory Attorneys General Litigation related to AFFF In June 2018, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al No. 904029-18 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at locations across New York, including Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh and Gabreski Air National Guard Base in Southampton, Plattsburgh Air Force Base in Plattsburgh, Griffiss Air Force Base in Rome, and unspecified "other" sites throughout the State. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with contamination at these sites. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In February 2019, the State of New York filed a second lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In July 2019, the State of New York filed a third lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York and transferred to the MDL. In November 2019, the State of New York filed a fourth lawsuit in New York state court (State of New York v. The 3M Company et al (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Albany County)), against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to alleged PFOS and PFOA contamination purportedly resulting from firefighting foams used at further additional locations across New York. This suit has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In January 2019, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court (State of Ohio v. The 3M Company et al., No. G-4801-CI-021804752 -000 (Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio)) against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations across Ohio. The lawsuit seeks to recover costs and natural resource damages associated with the contamination. This lawsuit has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and transferred to the MDL. In addition, in May and June 2019, three other states filed lawsuits in their respective state courts against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various specified and unspecified locations across their jurisdictions (State of New Hampshire v. The 3M Company et al.; State of Vermont v. The 3M Company et al.; State of New Jersey v. The 3M Company et al.). All three of these suits have been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In September 2019, the government of Guam filed a lawsuit in the superior court of Guam against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In November 2019, the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands filed a lawsuit in the superior court of the Northern Mariana Islands against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within its jurisdiction. This complaint has been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. In August 2020, Attorney General of the State of Michigan filed two substantially similar lawsuits—one in federal court and one in state court—against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, with respect to PFOS and PFOA contamination allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations within the State. The federal action has been transferred to the MDL, and the state court action has been removed to federal court and tagged for transfer to the MDL. In December 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit against a number of manufacturers and other defendants, including affiliates of the Group, with respect to PFOS and PFOA damage of the State's land and natural resources allegedly resulting from the use of firefighting foams at various locations throughout the State. This complaint was direct-filed in the MDL in South Carolina. AFFF Matters Related to the Tyco Fire Products Fire Technology Center in Marinette, Wisconsin Tyco Fire Products and Chemguard are defendants in one lawsuit in Marinette County, Wisconsin alleging damages due to the historical use of AFFF products at Tyco's Fire Technology Center in Marinette, Wisconsin. The putative class action, Joan & Richard Campbell for themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) alleges PFAS (including PFOA/PFOS) contaminated groundwater migrated off Tyco's property and into residential drinking water wells causing both personal injuries and property damage to the plaintiffs; Tyco and Chemguard removed this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and it has been transferred to the MDL. On January 7, 2021, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement provides that Tyco will pay up to $17.5 million to compensate Town of Peshtigo residents who live in the area affected by PFAS from the FTC for claims related to loss of real property value, exposure and/or personal injury. The settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Tyco or Chemguard and is subject to approval by the federal court presiding over the lawsuit and other contingencies. The Company does not expect the settlement to have a significant impact on its fiscal year 2021 results of operations or cash flows. A second lawsuit, Duane and Janell Goldsmith individually and on behalf of H.G. and K.G v. Tyco Fire Products LP and Chemguard Inc., et al. (Marinette County Circuit Court, filed Dec. 17, 2018) was also filed by a family alleging personal injuries due to contaminated groundwater; this case has been dismissed without prejudice. Other AFFF Related Matters In March 2020, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians (a federally recognized Tribe) and two tribal corporations filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against a number of manufacturers, including affiliates of the Company, and the United States with respect to PFAS contamination allegedly resulting from the use and disposal of AFFF by the United States Air Force at and around Fairchild Air Force Base in eastern Washington. This case has been transferred to the MDL. Other PFAS Related Matters In April 2020, the Weirton Area Water Board in West Virginia filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia against a number of PFAS chemical manufacturers, including Chemguard, with respect to PFAS contamination. This case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The Company is vigorously defending the above matters and believes that it has meritorious defenses to class certification and the claims asserted, including statutes of limitations, the government contractor defense, various medical and scientific defenses, and other factual and legal defenses. The government contractor defense is a form of immunity available to government contractors that produced products for the United States government pursuant to the government's specifications. Tyco and Chemguard have insurance that has been in place for many years and the Company is pursuing this coverage for these matters. However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be resolved in connection with these claims, and it is extremely difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure, if any, represented by these matters, and there can be no assurance that any such exposure will not be material. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi-industrial company worldwide. The company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. The company was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JOS. A. BANK: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC., a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00070-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violations of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ms. Brooks alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of their Website, https://www.josbank.com, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. is an American retailer of men's clothing and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com KANSAS: Class Settlement in M.B. v. Howard Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the lawsuit entitled M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre, et al., Plaintiffs v. Laura Howard in her official capacity as Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-2617-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class for settlement purposes and grant final approval of the Settlement Agreement. After a Final Settlement Hearing held on January 22, 2021, the matter is fully briefed. The Plaintiffs, minor children in foster care custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families ("DCF"), filed suit in November 2018 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of DCF, the Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services, and the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The Plaintiffs assert two claims against the Defendants. First, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the state's affirmative duties under the Fourteenth Amendment when it subjected children in foster care custody to extreme housing disruption and numerous short-term foster care placements. Second, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants violated their rights under the federal Medicaid Act by failing to provide them with necessary mental health and behavioral health screening, diagnostic services, and treatment, including trauma-related screening and diagnostic services. The parties jointly retained Kevin Ryan of Public Catalyst for mediation as a skilled and neutral subject-matter expert. The mediator declared an impasse on February 28, 2020, and so, the parties resumed discovery before eventually returning to settlement discussions in May 2020. The parties met four times in June by teleconference and reached the proposed settlement agreement. The Court granted the motion and preliminarily approved class certification, the settlement agreement, and the proposed notice plan. The next friends of the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the proposed Settlement Class, and the Defendants have agreed to settle the litigation on the terms set forth in the July 8, 2020 Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs ask the court to certify the proposed class defined as "all children who are now, or in the future will be, in the protective custody of the Department for Children and Families" under Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 38-2242(c)(1). District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree holds that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, the class consists of more than 7,000 children and so joinder of all members is impracticable. Second, there are questions of law and fact common to the proposed class--minor children subject to DCF custody. Third, the Named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the proposed class. Fourth, the Named Plaintiffs fairly and adequately represent the claims of the class because they share the same claims, arising out of the Defendants' alleged course of conduct. The Plaintiffs' motion also asserts the class meets Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements. The Defendants' alleged policies and practices of extreme housing disruption and inadequate mental health care apply generally to the class. And, the injunctive relief sought -- practice improvements described in the Settlement Agreement -- is appropriate for the class as a whole, Judge Crabtree holds. The class, therefore, meets Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements. Judge Crabtree finds that the Plaintiffs have established the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirements. So, the Court certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes. The Settlement Agreement seeks structural improvements to the Kansas child welfare system to benefit minor children in DCF custody. The Settlement Agreement addresses both the Plaintiffs' claims: the Defendants' practice of extreme housing disruption, and failure to provide adequate mental and behavioral health screening and treatment for children in DCF custody. The Defendants agree to five practice improvements, which are (1) ending housing for Class Members in inappropriate locations, (2) ensuring that no placement exceeds its licensed capacity without an approved exception, (3) avoid delaying medically necessary mental health treatment services until or otherwise linking mental health treatment to placement stability, (4) ensuring Crisis Intervention Services are available state wide for Class Members, and (5) ending the practice of night-to-night and short term placements for Class Members. The Settlement Agreement requires the Defendants to report on their progress and allows a neutral to monitor the Defendants' progress and maintenance of the five practice improvements. Testimony presented at the January 22, 2021 hearing highlighted the benefit of the Defendants implementing the Settlement Agreement's practice improvements to improve the Kansas child welfare system rather than wait for prolonged litigation. Only three comments expressed criticism of the Settlement Agreement. The critical comments expressed their concerns that the Settlement Agreement did not address the needs of foster kids or foster families adequately. The critical comments included concerns about Kansas's alleged lack of a long term residential mental health care and inadequate staffing. The last critical comment expressed frustration with what the commenter perceived as weak enforcement mechanisms in the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs addressed these criticisms in their Supplement. They explain "the Settlement Agreement was intentionally designed to afford defendants some limited flexibility based on their professional expertise and operational needs -- as long as they achieve and sustain improved outcomes for children based on the concrete and mandatory numerical benchmarks." While the Court considers the critical comments and their concerns, the Court is convinced the Settlement Agreement provides real value to the class by addressing the needs plaintiffs identify -- an end to extreme housing disruption and inadequate mental healthcare. The Court finds the immediate relief that the Settlement Agreement provides outweighs the possibility of greater future relief after prolonged litigation. This factor favors approving the Settlement Agreement. After considering the four factors under Rutter & Wilbanks Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 314 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2002), the Court finds all four favor approving the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court, thus, approves the parties' class action settlement. Therefore, the Court ruled: 1. By agreeing to settle the litigation, the Defendants do not admit, and specifically deny, any and all liability in the litigation; 2. The class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, it resulted from extensive arm's length, good faith negotiations between the parties through experienced counsel, with the assistance of an independent mediator and subject-matter expert, and meets all other requirements of the Federal Rules; 3. The class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, is finally approved and entered as a final judgment and order of the Court; 4. The action is dismissed with prejudice; 5. To the full extent permissible by the controlling precedents about subject matter jurisdiction, the Court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement; 6. Each Class Member is deemed to have released the Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, against the defendants, and is barred from prosecuting, commencing, or continuing any of the Released Claims against any defendant; and 7. The Court incorporates within the final judgment and order the express terms of the Settlement Agreement, retains (to the extent legally permissible) continuing jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement as set forth in it, and orders the parties' compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court adopts the Settlement Agreement as an injunctive order of the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d), indicating the Court's final approval, and attaches the executed Settlement Agreement here. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/pffu79bn from Leagle.com. For and on behalf of the Plaintiffs: Teresa A. Woody -- twoody@kansasappleseed.org -- Larry R. Rute -- larry@admediate.com -- Kansas Appleseed, 211 E. 8th St., in Lawrence, Kansas. Loretta E. Burns-Bucklew -- loribblawkc@gmail.com -- 401 W. 89th Street, in Kansas City, Missouri. Leecia Welch -- lwelch@youthlaw.org -- Poonam Juncja -- pjuneja@youthlaw.org -- Freya Pitts -- fpitts@youthlaw.org -- National Center for Youth Law, 1212 Broadway, Suite 600, in Oakland, California. Ira Lustbader -- ilustbader@childrensrights.org -- Marissa C. Nardi -- mnardi@childrensrights.org -- Jonathan M. King -- jking@childrensrights.org -- Stephen A. Dixon -- sdixon@childrensrights.org -- Children's Rights, Inc., 88 Pine Street, 8th Floor, in New York City. Joshua Kane -- joshua.kane@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP (US), 1251 Avenue of the Americas, in New York City. Counsel for the Defendants: Jean Paul Bradshaw II -- jeanpaul.bradshaw@lathropgpm.com -- Brian Fries -- brian.fries@lathropgpm.com -- Grant A. Harse -- grant.harse@lathropgpm.com -- Reid K. Day -- reid.day@lathropgpm.com -- LATHROP GPM LLP, 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200, in Kansas City, Missouri. Carrie E. Josserand -- carrie.josserand@lathropgpm.com -- LATHROP GPM LLP, 10851 Mastin Boulevard Building 82, Suite 1000, in Overland Park, Kansas. Corliss Scroggins Lawson -- Corliss.lawson@ks.gov -- General Counsel Kansas Department for Children and Families, 555 S Kansas Avenue, in Topeka, Kansas. KANSAS: M.B. Suit Gets Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre, et al., v. Laura Howard in her official capacity as Kansas Department for Children and Families Secretary, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02617-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered an order that: 1. By agreeing to settle the litigation, the defendants do not admit, and specifically deny, any and all liability in the litigation; 2. The class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, is "fair, reasonable, and adequate," it resulted from extensive arm's length, good faith negotiations between the parties through experienced counsel, with the assistance of an independent mediator and subject-matter expert, and meets all other requirements of the Federal Rules; 3. The class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement, is finally approved and entered as a final judgment and order of the court; 4. This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice; 5. To the full extent permissible by the controlling precedents about subject matter jurisdiction, the court retains jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing the class action settlement, memorialized in the Settlement Agreement; 6. Each Class Member is deemed to have released the Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, against the defendants, and is barred from prosecuting, commencing, or continuing any of the Released Claims against any defendant; and 7. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Settlement Approval is granted. The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2)'s requirements for class certification. So, the court certifies the proposed class for settlement purposes. And, the parties have established the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. The court thus grants the plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Settlement Approval." The Plaintiffs, minor children in foster care custody of the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF), filed suit in November 2018 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YNNMzs at no extra charge.[CC] KANYE WEST: Harris & Ruble Files Second Labor Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Source reports that Kanye West's Sunday Service was a cultural reset at a time when his iconic legacy was plagued with controversy and mental health issues. But it looks like he wasn't taking care of the choir that serenaded the Sunday service goers weekly. Attorney Frank Kim filed a lawsuit on behalf of 500 performers, meanwhile, entertainment lawyer, Harris & Ruble filed a second lawsuit focusing on at least 300 staff and crew members. Harris & Ruble allege that the crew members' issue stems from the rapper's first opera Nebuchadnezzar, which was held at L.A.'s The Hollywood Bowl in November 2019. Hundreds of hairstylists, make up artists, and costume designers worked without compensation or were paid late. One hairstylist, Raina Leon, alleges that it took 120 days for her to receive a $550 payment she was owed and was charged $20 to cash her check. Michael Pearson, who represents the performers in the class action suit alleges that they worked for two days without meal or rest breaks and were only paid $550 despite working overtime. Additionally, performers claim that many of them sat on the floor for the 10-hour workdays because there weren't enough chairs. A shuttle bus drove them from their cars to the venue, however, a roundtrip shuttle wasn't offered and they had to walk back to their cars. Lawyers are allegedly looking for more victims to join the lawsuit. "They've got hundreds of people on board already, but they're talking to many, many others, who want to be a part of it. People are very upset about how they were treated, saying it's their worst experience. People in the lawsuit are asking their friends who've worked on previous Sunday Services, and they're jumping at the chance, they want to get involved and talk about their horrible time." Another insider added, "When you do things last minute, it's disorganized, mistakes will happen. When Kanye West does a production, he just says to his guys: ‘Make it happen,' he has different teams of people to do things, and when you're under that amount of pressure, you cut corners. Anything with film or music production, they do the art first, it's a case of ‘let's get the production done and worry if it's legal later." They continued, "I'm pretty sure Kanye West hasn't done anything about paying a bill in 20 years, he'd expect people to take care of it. But Kanye can't have this go to trial, as the jury may not be Kanye fans and just see a rich rapper ripping off normal folk, he can settle for much less or be hit with a $30 million legal bill." News of this class action against Kanye West comes after reports that the Sunday Service was suing him for $1 million in unpaid wages. The mogul is also rumored to be divorcing his wife, Kim Kardashian. [GN] L&D LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L&D LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. L&D LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00973 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. L&D LLC -- https://www.togabikes.com/ -- is located in New York and is part of the sporting goods stores industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com LALUMINA LLC: Court Junks Bright et al. Class Suit w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BRIGHT, KELLEY BRIGHT, LAUREN WALKER and all others similarly situated, v. LALUMINA LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00508-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered an order: 1. granting LaLumina's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under Rule 12(b)(6); and 2. dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice; and 3. directing the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint, if any, within 30 days of the date of this Ruling. LaLumina owns a specialty aluminum refinery on the Mississippi River in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, allege that "dust releases containing excess amounts of aluminum" have emanated from LaLumina's facility, resulting in property damage and fear and fright related to exposure, as well as nuisance and inconvenience. In LaLumina's view, the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint are vague and fail to state a valid claim. Specifically, LaLumina contends that Plaintiffs' claims are prescribed, because the only dust release they plead with specificity occurred in December 2018, more than a year before this suit was filed in June 2020. The Plaintiffs disagree, noting that their Complaint also alleges a dust release "occurring as late as April 2020. "In any event, Plaintiffs argue, they have adequately pled a continuing tort such that any and all dust releases, even those that would otherwise be prescribed, are validly included in their claim. A copy of the Court's ruling dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jixSGK at no extra charge.[CC] LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Discovery in Smith Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- LifeVantage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35. On January 24, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Smith v. LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 3:18-cv-a35 (D. Connecticut filed Jan. 24, 2018). In this action, Plaintiffs alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer operated a pyramid scheme in violation of a variety of federal and state statutes, including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. On April 16, 2018, the Company filed motions with the court to dismiss the complaint against LifeVantage, dismiss the complaint against the Company's executives, transfer the venue of the case from the State of Connecticut to the State of Utah, and contest class certification. On July 23, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation with the Court agreeing to transfer the case to the Federal District Court for Utah. On September 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Utah. As per the parties stipulated agreement, Plaintiff's amended complaint dropped the RICO and Connecticut state law claims and removed the Company's Chief Sales Officer and Chief Marketing Officer as individual defendants (the Chief Executive Officer remains a defendant in the case). The Plaintiffs' amended complaint added an antitrust claim, alleging that the Company fraudulently obtained patents for its products and is attempting to use those patents in an anti-competitive manner. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on November 5, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a response to the Company's Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2018, and the Company filed a reply brief on January 10, 2019. The Court ruled on the motion on December 5, 2019, dismissing three of the Plaintiff's four claims, including the antitrust claim, unjust enrichment claim, and the securities claim for the sale of unregistered securities. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which included three causes of action, including a 10(b)(5) securities fraud claim, and renewed claims relating to the sale of unregistered securities and unjust enrichment. LifeVantage filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on January 28, 2020, and with the Motion fully briefed by the parties as of March 17, 2020, the Court decided the matter on the parties' briefs only on November 25, 2020. In its decision, the Court dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Section 12(1) claim (sale of an unregistered security), because the Court concluded the claim is time-barred. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment against LifeVantage without prejudice, but the Plaintiffs subsequently agreed to drop this claim going forward. The court found that the Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled their claim under Section 12(2) (offer to sell a security that misstates or omits a material fact by means of a prospectus or oral communication). LifeVantage filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on December 23, 2020, responding to the Plaintiffs' remaining securities claims. As reported previously, on May 6, 2020, the Court issued a formal scheduling order to confirm the parties' agreement on a schedule for discovery and other litigation matters, and initial discovery has begun and will continue per the order. LifeVantage said, "The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations or financial condition." LifeVantage Corporation engages in the identification, research, development, and distribution of nutraceutical dietary supplements and skincare products. The company sells its products through a direct sales model, as well as a network of independent distributors in the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, and Taiwan. LifeVantage Corporation is headquartered in Sandy, Utah. LONG M. NGUYEN: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nguyen, et al. The case is styled as Richard Winters, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Long M. Nguyen, Long M. Nguyen PLLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00185-MTM (D. Ariz., Feb. 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for restrictions of use of telephone equipment. Long M. Nguyen -- https://longmnguyen.com/ -- is a licensed real estate agent in Arizona, serving Phoenix and surrounding cities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 900-1288 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com LOOMIS ARMORED: Gaskin Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Premiums ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delante Gaskin, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00095 (E.D. Va., January 25, 2021), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages or interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the District of Columbia wage-and-hour laws. Loomis provides nationwide cash management and vaulting services, and ATM logistics, transporting cash and valuables in armored vehicles to and from stores, banks, deposit boxes and ATMs. Gaskin was employed by Loomis as an armed guard driver and armed messenger from May 2019 through April 2020. He claims to be denied overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Allen C. Tittle, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 308-1522 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Benjamin W. Glass, III, Esq. BENJAMIN W. GLASS, III & ASSOC., PC 3998 Fair Ridge Drive, #250 Fairfax, VA 22033 Tel: (703) 591-9829 Fax: (703) 783-0686 Email: Ben@BenGlassLaw.com LOVELY SKIN: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lovely Skin, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lovely Skin, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00929 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LovelySkin -- https://www.lovelyskin.com/ -- is a skin care, hair care & beauty Website for dermatological products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal LUMENTUM HOLDINGS: Discovery Ongoing in Karri Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Lumentum Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD. On December 10, 2018, the company completed a merger with Oclaro, Inc., a provider of optical components and modules for the long-haul, metro and data center markets. Oclaro's products provide differentiated solutions for optical networks and high-speed interconnects driving the next wave of streaming video, cloud computing, application virtualization and other bandwidth-intensive and high-speed applications. In connection with the company's acquisition of Oclaro, seven lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Oclaro challenging the proposed merger. Two of the seven suits were putative class actions filed against Oclaro, its directors, Lumentum, Prota Merger Sub, Inc. and Prota Merger, LLC: Nicholas Neinast v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03112-VC, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (filed May 24, 2018); and Adam Franchi v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 1:18-cv-00817-GMS, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (filed June 9, 2018). Both the Neinstat Lawsuit and the Franchi Lawsuit were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The other five suits, styled as Gerald F. Wordehoff v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03148-NC, Walter Ryan v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03174-VC, Jayme Walker v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03203-EJD, Kevin Garcia v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03262-VKD, and SaiSravan B. Karri v. Oclaro, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-03435-JD, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 25, 2018, May 29, 2018, May 30, 2018, May 31, 2018, and June 9, 2018, respectively. These five Lawsuits named Oclaro and its directors as defendants only and did not name Lumentum. The Wordehoff, Ryan, Walker, and Garcia Lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, and the Wordehoff, Ryan, and Walker dismissals were with prejudice. The Karri Lawsuit has not yet been dismissed. The Ryan Lawsuit was, and the Karri Lawsuit is, a putative class action. The Lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that Oclaro and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by disseminating an incomplete and misleading Form S-4, including proxy statement/prospectus. The Lawsuits further alleged that Oclaro's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to exercise proper control over the person(s) who violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The remaining Lawsuit (the Karri Lawsuit) currently purports to seek, among other things, damages to be awarded to the plaintiff and any class, if a class is certified, and litigation costs, including attorneys' fees. A lead plaintiff and counsel has been selected, and an amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2019, which also names Lumentum as a defendant. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part by the court on October 8, 2020. On December 1, 2020, defendants answered the amended complaint. On December 23, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's October 8 order on the motion to dismiss, which was denied on January 29, 2021. The Karri Lawsuit remains pending with the parties currently in discovery. Defendants intend to defend the Karri Lawsuit vigorously. Lumentum Holdings Inc. manufactures and sells optical and photonic products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company operates through two segments, Optical Communications and Commercial Lasers. Lumentum Holdings Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is headquartered in Milpitas, California. MARIBEL'S SWEETS: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maribel's Sweets, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Maribel's Sweets, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00977 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Maribel's Sweets, Inc. -- https://mariebelle.com/ -- is located in New York and is part of the specialty food stores industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com MARYLAND: Forced Administration of Medications in Mercer Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JASON MERCER v. THOMAS B. FINAN CENTER, Case No. 1398, September Term, 2019 (Md. Spec. App.), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland issued an Opinion affirming the circuit court's judgment upholding the involuntary administration of anti-psychotic medications. Appellant Mercer is a patient involuntarily confined to the Thomas B. Finan Center, a psychiatric facility of the Maryland Department of Health. Mercer had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He was involuntarily placed at the Finan Center after being found not criminally responsible for second-degree assault and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. A clinical review panel decided to administer anti-psychotic medications to him against his will. An administrative law judge (ALJ) approved the decision. On August 26, 2019, Mercer petitioned for judicial review of the ALJ's decision in the Circuit Court for Allegany County. The circuit court held the hearing on September 4, 2019. On September 5, 2019, the court issued its decision affirming the ALJ's decision. On October 1, 2019, Mercer filed the appeal. In the appeal, Mercer claims that he had a statutory right to counsel at the administrative hearing and that the ALJ, in denying his request for counsel, deprived him of his procedural due process rights. Mercer presents two questions for appellate review, which the Appellate Court has rephrased for clarity: I. Whether the ALJ erred or abused her discretion in treating Mercer's request for the assistance of counsel as a request for a postponement and denying the request for want of good cause; and II. Whether the ALJ deprived Mercer of procedural due process by not conducting an on-the-record waiver colloquy to determine whether he had waived his right to request representation. The Appellate Court concludes that Mercer had the statutory right to request the assistance of counsel at the hearing, but that he had declined the assistance of counsel until the hearing began. In these circumstances, the Appellate Court holds that the ALJ did not err or abuse her discretion in treating Mercer's belated request for the assistance of counsel as a request for a postponement, for which he lacked good cause. Judge Kevin F. Arthur, writing for the Appellate Panel, opines that the Appellate Court concludes that because Health-General Article Section 10-708 provides patients with a right to request representation that they must affirmatively invoke, and because Mercer affirmatively declined the assistance of counsel until just before the hearing began, the ALJ did not err or abuse her discretion in deciding not to postpone the hearing until counsel could be obtained. The Appellate Court also holds that the ALJ did not deprive Mercer of procedural due process in not conducting an on-the-record colloquy to confirm that he had knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to counsel. Accordingly, it affirms the judgment. Based on the balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976), the Appellate Court concludes that the ALJ did not deprive Mercer of procedural due process in declining to postpone the hearing. Mercer was informed of his right to request representation and of the consequences of representing himself at the hearing. The ALJ confirmed, by reviewing the appeals form and by conferring with Lisa Olinger, Mercer's lay advisor, that Mercer had previously declined to exercise his right to counsel. Therefore, the ALJ appropriately considered Mercer's request for counsel as a request to postpone the administrative hearing and had substantial evidence to deny this request. For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirms the ALJ's decision approving the clinical review panel's decision to medicate Mercer. Judgment of the circuit court for Allegany County affirmed; Appellant to bear all costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ku5fkud from Leagle.com. MCKESSON CORP: Marion Diagnostic Center Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ McKesson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al., has been dismissed. On September 25, 2018, Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of generic drugs. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. 2:18-cv-4137; MDL No. 16-MD-2724. On June 26, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and authorized plaintiffs to seek leave to amend the claims against the Company. On December 30, 2019, a group of independent pharmacies and a hospital filed a class action complaint alleging that the Company and other distributors violated the Sherman Act by colluding with manufacturers to restrain trade in the sale of generic drugs. Reliable Pharmacy, et al. v. Actavis Holdco US, et al., No. 2:19-cv-6044; MDL No. 16-MD-2724. The complaint seeks relief including treble damages, disgorgement, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. The court in Marion Diagnostic ordered dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice on November 23, 2020 pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, but without waiving any rights Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC may have to participate in a settlement or judgment of any other action in the MDL as a class member. McKesson Corporation provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S. Pharmaceutical and Specialty Solutions, European Pharmaceutical Solutions, and Medical-Surgical Solutions. McKesson Corporation was founded in 1833 and is headquartered in Irving, California. MEAD JOHNSON: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mead Johnson & Company, LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00958 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC -- https://www.meadjohnson.com/ -- is an American division and subsidiary of British company Reckitt Benckiser. It is a manufacturer of infant formula both domestically and globally with its flagship product Enfamil.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal MEARS GROUP: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARED CHARPENTIER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MEARS GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02004-K (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as follows: "all current and/or former hourly paid sewer camera employees of the Defendant who are/were based at the Defendant's location in Grand Prairie, Texas who were allegedly not paid for all travel time between the Yard and worksites at any time during the time period of three years preceding the date of the Order granting this Motion to the date of the Order;" 2. directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel, in a usable electronic format no later than 21 days from entry of the Court's Order granting this Motion, the full names (including middle if known), last known addresses, e-mail addresses, and dates of employment of all Putative Collective Action Members; 3. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to mail, via First Class U.S. Mail, and where possible, also e-mail the Notice Packet to each of the Putative Collective Action Members identified by Defendant as required by this Order; 4. allowing a 90-day notice period commencing three days after the Plaintiff's counsel mails the court-approved Notice Packet to the Putative Collective Action Members; Mears is the premier provider of engineering, design and construction services to the pipeline and utility industries. A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cKvd7t at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught , Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John B. Brown, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 500 Preston Commons 8117 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 987-3800 Facsimile: (214) 987-3927 E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com MEDNAX INC: Failed to Protect Patient Medical Info, Bean Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Abigail T. Bean, as legal guardian of C.B., and all others similarly situated v. MEDNAX, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-60111-BB (S.D. Fla., January 18, 2021) seeks to hold Defendants responsible for the harms they caused C.B. and the nearly 1.3 million similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable data breach that took place between June 17, 2020 and June 22, 2020 by which cyber criminals, through a phishing event, infiltrated Defendants' inadequately protected Microsoft Office 365-hosted business email accounts where sensitive personal information was being kept unprotected. The complaint alleges that cyber criminals gained access to certain of Defendants' business email accounts with the apparent intention of stealing protected personal information and protected health information of hundreds of thousands of individuals, including newborn babies and young children, whose information was stored on Defendants' computer systems and in Defendants' business email accounts. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages, the suit says. Abigail T. Bean is the legal guardian of C.B. and they are citizens and residents of Oklahoma. Plaintiff's minor child, C.B., is a patient of, and receives medical services from Defendants. MEDNAX is a physician-led healthcare organization that partners with hospitals, health systems and healthcare facilities to offer clinical services spanning the continuum of care, as well as revenue cycle management, patient engagement and perioperative improvement consulting solutions. Pediatrix, a MEDNAX company established in 1979, is a U.S provider of maternal-fetal, newborn and pediatric subspecialty services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Hill, Esq. MENZER & HILL, P.A. 7280 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 203 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561)-327-7205 Facsimile: (561)-880-8449 E-mail: mhill@menzerhill.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com MERCHANT CAPITAL: Fabricant Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCHANT CAPITAL SOURCE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00784 (C.D. Cal., January 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies from the Defendant's alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant contacted her on her cellular telephone number ending in -9210 beginning in or around October 2019. Purportedly, the Defendant has been using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in placing its calls to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in an attempt to promote its services. Allegedly, the Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were harmed by causing them to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which they had previously paid, and invading their privacy, the suit says. Merchant Capital Source, LLC is a business lending company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com MERCURY GENERAL: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Modified --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, v. MERCURY GENERAL, a California company, its subsidiaries and affiliates, Case No. e 2:17-cv-02525-AB-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting joint stipulation regarding proposed modification of class certification briefing and pre-trial schedule as follows. Event Previous New Defendant files opposition Feb. 12, 2021 March 1, 2021 to motion for class certification: Plaintiffs file reply Feb. 26. 2021 March 29, 2021 in support of motion for class certification: Hearing on motion for March 26, 2021 April 23, 2021 class certification: Expert Disclosure (Initial): -- June 11, 2021 Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) -- July 16, 2021 Non-Expert Discover June 25, 2021 Sept. 3, 2021 Cut-Off: Expert Discovery July 9, 2021 Sept. 3, 2021 Cut-Off: Last Day to Hear July 20, 2021 Sept. 10, 2021 Motions: Deadline to complete Aug. 27, 2021 Oct. 15, 2021 settlement conference: Trial Filings Oct. 22, 2021 No change (first round): Trial Filings Nov. 5, 2021 No change (second round): Final Pre-Trial Conference: Nov. 19, 2021 No change Trial: Dec. 7, 2021 No change Mercury General is a multiple-line insurance organization offering personal automobile, homeowners, renters and business insurance. Founded in 1961 and headquartered in Los Angeles, Mercury has assets in excess of $4 billion, employs 4,500 people and has more than 8,000 independent agents in 11 states. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jkcJMr at no extra charge.[CC] METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL: Inmates File COVID-19 Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Madeline Kenney, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that inmates at the Metropolitan Correctional Center claim the downtown federal high-rise jail's "haphazard and insufficient" measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic led to two major outbreaks, endangering people in custody and staff. Some of those failed measures include a lack of cleaning supplies and proper social distancing as well as a "poorly implemented and incomplete" isolation and quarantine process, according to a proposed class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 29 in federal court in Chicago. Officials also allegedly turned "a blind eye" to staff who didn't wear masks and ignored some people in custody who asked for tests. The plaintiffs, Ricky Price and Kevin Conway, both inmates at the MCC on West Van Buren, allege that the Federal Bureau of Prisons and MCC officials have "failed not once, but twice, to protect the people in their custody" from the pandemic. As a result, more than 200 inmates have tested positive for COVID-19 at the facility, according to the Bureau of Prisons' website, though the lawsuit suggests "the real infection rate was certainly higher" than that. "It is hard to define what MCC officials are doing as a strategy for confronting COVID," Camille Bennett, director of the Prison Reform Project at the ACLU of Illinois and an attorney for the inmates, said. "They failed in the spring and they have not learned a single lesson. There must be a specific, science-based plan to protect those detained at the MCC." Despite two MCC staff members testing positive for the virus in late March, the facility carried on "business as usual" in many ways, the lawsuit said. Inmates still worked their jobs throughout the building, including in the kitchen, though they were not provided masks, and many staff didn't wear masks or gloves, the lawsuit said. The MCC mostly relied on residents self-reporting their symptoms, the lawsuit said. However, many allegedly were deterred from reporting their symptoms because they didn't want to relocate to the secure-housing unit, which is normally for disciplinary purposes. The lawsuit described those units as "small dark cells" that were "dark and noisy." Those who did become sick weren't properly treated, the lawsuit alleges, leaving residents "terrified and depressed." Bar soap is limited along with other essential cleaning supplies, Price and Conway said. And laundry services are backed up, leaving some residents unable to wash their sheets for weeks at a time, the lawsuit said. Price and Conway also said cleaning of common spaces was "haphazard." Showers weren't cleaned after individual use, and computers, iPads and other high-touch items weren't disinfected after each use. In fact, the disinfecting of shared surfaces and cleaning is so poor that one floor had an outbreak of MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) last summer, the lawsuit said. Conway, who tested positive for the virus in May, and Price said MCC had time to put proper protocols in place to ensure inmate and staff safety "and did not use it." "They have failed their responsibilities under federal law, the Constitution, and their own regulations. It is now time to order them to protect Plaintiffs and the Class," the lawsuit said. Price and Conway allege that the MCC's mishandling of the pandemic has "damaged residents psychologically." The lawsuit is calling on the Federal Bureau of Prisons and MCC officials to develop a vaccination distribution plan -- which includes educating residents and staff about the shots -- and to start administering vaccines to residents 55 and older. It's also demanding the jail design a better quarantine and isolation process, which includes testing all new residents at intake and putting them in a separate and safe holding space. Price and Conway also asked the MCC to hire an infectious disease and public health expert to advise the facility's handling of the pandemic as well as enforcing universal masking and providing more soap, sanitation stations and cleaning supplies for residents among other things. Contributing: Jon Seidel [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Walden Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lititia Walden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00239-K (N.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem Nur Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N. MOHAMMED 539 W Commerce St #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Phone: (972) 767-9099 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (347) 668-9326 Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com MIDWESTERN PET: Carlson Claims Pet Foods Contain Toxic Ingredients ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIFFANY CARLSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00007-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 13, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated pet owners who purchased "Sportmix" Products manufactured with undisclosed ingredients, which increased the risk of injury or death to their pets, or which caused actual injury or the death of their pets. The complaint alleges that the Defendant manufactured and sold dog and cat food containing Aflatoxin, a toxin produced by the mold Aspergillus flavus, despite representations and express warranties regarding the safety and quality of the pet foods and regarding Midwestern manufacturing processes to create these products. Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer and seller of pet foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Ste 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8297 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com MONTE GRAB: Velez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Marcelino Velez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MONTE GRAB & GO MARKET and AHMON FOOD INC. d/b/a S & J DELI, and FOZY SHAHBAIN and AHMED SALEH, individually, Case No. 1:21-cv-00944 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021) is brought to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and spread of hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint contends that the Plaintiff was scheduled to work more than 40 hours each week. He was not compensated at the appropriate overtime rate of pay for work weeks in which he worked more than 40 hours. When the Plaintiff was paid by the Defendants, the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with a notation or any other documentation of his hours worked during that pay period or his rate of pay. The Defendants never provided the Plaintiff with a notation or any other documentation of the hours he worked. The Plaintiff was also not required to clock in or clock out at the beginning and end of his shift, the suit says. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a deli worker from August 2016 through December 22, 2019. Monte Grab & Go Market is a deli incorporated in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com MOUNTAIN STATE: Conditional Certification of Employees Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIN STATE PRESSURE SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01363-WSS (W.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order for conditional certification of the following collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "current and former employees of Mountain States Pressure Service, Inc. who were paid a salary and additional compensation for each day spent working in the field during three years prior to the Court's Order granting conditional certification." The Parties have further agreed to and propose the following schedule: Deadline Subject 10 days from order Defendant to provide to Plaintiff's approving notice to Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) notice to Putative Collective Putative Collective format the Members: following information regarding all Putative Collective Members to the extent Defendant has this information in its possession: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip code; last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address); and beginning date(s) and ending date(s) (if applicable) during which the Putative Class Member was paid a salary and additional compensation for each day spent working in the field. 21 days from order The Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a approving notice to copy of the Court-approved Notice Putative Collective: and Consent Form to the Putative Collective Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by email. The Plaintiff's Counsel shall inform Defendant of the date on which such Notice and Consent Form is mailed. 30 days before the The Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a close of the Notice reminder notice to the Putative period: Collective Members by First Class U.S. Mail using only the form of Reminder Postcard. 60 days from mailing The Putative Collective Members shall of Notice and Consent have 60 days to return their signed Forms to Putative Consent forms to Plaintiff's Counsel Collective Members: for filing with the Court. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YOEyTF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Liles, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark D. Temple, Esq. Peter J. Stuhldreher, Esq. Paul M. Knettel, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-1600 Facsimile: (713) 751-1717 E-mail: mtemple@bakerlaw.com pstuhldreher@bakerlaw.com pknettel@bakerlaw.com - and - Emily B. Thomas, Esq. Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 Telephone: (215) 564-8368 Facsimile: (215) 568-3439 E-mail: ethomas@bakerlaw.com NASHVILLE, TENN: Cayton Asks Court to Modify Class Definition ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CAYTON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY acting by and through THE ELECTRIC POWER BOARD, d/b/a NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00859 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: 1. modifying the conditional collective certification definition in the December 4, 2020 order to: "all current and former First-Line Supervisors who recorded "Professional Time," defined as hours worked between 40 and 45 each workweek at any time since [three years from date of certification];" This definition includes Opt-In Plaintiff Rodgers and those who, like her, were eligible to record "Professional Time" during the applicable time period; 2. authorizing the issuance of notice to the employees included in this new collective definition but who were not included in the prior definition: -- The Parties request that this notice be sent in the same manner -- U.S. mail and electronic mail -- as was authorized to those who were initially sent the notice in this matter; -- Specifically, this Court should approve the Notice and Consent Form, which are substantially similar to the Notice and Consent Form previously approved by this Court in this action, with the exception of the modified collective definition; and 3. setting a a deadline for those employees who meet this modified definition but who were not included under the December 4, 2020 conditional collective certification definition of either March 6, 2021 (the same deadline for those who meet the initial conditional collective definition) or 30 days from the date the notice requested in this motion is issued, whichever is later. The Parties do not dispute that these employees do not meet the definition of the conditionally certified collective set forth in this Court's December 4, 2020 Order. However, Opt-In Plaintiff Rodgers and others who recorded "Professional Time" but did not meet the conditional collective definition wish to pursue their FLSA claims. The proposed modified conditional collective definition encompasses all NES employees who are eligible to record "Professional Time." On December 4, 2020, this Court entered an order conditionally certifying a collective of Defendant’s employees and authorizing the issuance of notice to them in accordance with Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): "all current and former first-line "Operations Supervisors" who recorded "Professional Time," defined as hours worked between 40 and 45 each workweek at any time since [three years from date of certification]. First-line "Operations Supervisors" include: -- Meter Maintenance Supervisors -- Revenue Support Supervisors -- Work Center Office Supervisors -- Engineering Supervisors -- Underground Supervisors -- Substation Supervisors -- Maintenance Shop Supervisors -- Carpenter Supervisors -- Excavation Supervisors -- Line Supervisors -- Pole Supervisors -- Vegetation Management Supervisors." Metropolitan government is a consolidation of two governments rather than the county taking over the city or the city taking over the county government. It is, in reality, a third form of local government with a range of options and flexibility to provide for population shifts to the suburbs. The Metropolitan Charter provides a mechanism for changes to be made, particularly relating to improving education, mass transit, public education, and economic development. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36GZkZw at no extra charge.[CC] 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 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com The Defendant is represented by: Nelson Suarez, Esq. William A. Blue, Jr. Nelson Suarez CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH, & PROPHETE, LLP (NASHVILLE OFFICE) 401 Commerce Street, Suite 1010 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 320-5200 Facsimile: (615) 321-5891 E-mail: wblue@constangy.com nsuarez@constangy.com NASHVILLE, TENN: Class Definition in Cayton Suit Modified --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CAYTON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY acting by and through THE ELECTRIC POWER BOARD, d/b/a NASHVILLE ELECTRIC SERVICE, Case No. 3:20-cv-00859 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern entered an order that: -- the conditional collective certification definition set forth in this Court's December 4, 2020 Order is modified to the following definition: "all current and former First-Line Supervisors who recorded "Professional Time," defined as hours worked between 40 and 45 each workweek at any time since [three years from date of certification]"; -- the Notice to Putative Collective Members and a Consent Form consistent with the document to the Parties' Joint Motion are approved for distribution to Putative Collective members who meet this modified class definition and who did not meet the initial conditional class certification definition set forth in this Court's December 4, 2020 Order and shall be used to opt into this action; -- the Defendant shall, within five business days of this Order, provide to Plaintiff's counsel an Excel spreadsheet containing the names, last-known mailing address, last- known personal email address (if available, otherwise work email address), and dates of employment for each Modified Putative Collective Member (Modified Conditional Collective List); -- the Plaintiff and his counsel shall distribute notice and consent forms to the Parties' Joint Motion via U.S. Mail and electronic mail using First-Line Supervisor's personal email address (if available, otherwise work email address); and -- the Putative Collective members have until the later of March 6, 2021 or 30 days from the date notice is distributed to Modified Putative Collective Members to return a consent form to join this action. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39W1aIe at no extra charge.[CC] NAT'L. ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Leeder Sues Over Broker Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Judah Leeder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00430 (N.D. Ill., January 25, 2021), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other relief under Sections 4, 12, and 16 of the Clayton Act including Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and for violation of the Unfair Competition Act. NAR is a trade association headquartered in Chicago, Illinois with over 1.4 million members and is the leading national trade association of real estate brokers and agents. Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. are real estate brokerage firms. A seller-broker's compensation is specified in a listing agreement, a contract between the seller and the seller-broker that details the terms of the seller-broker services, such as requiring that property be listed on Multiple Listing Services. The listing agreement specifies the total commission that a home seller will pay to the seller-broker, often with a portion of that amount earmarked to be paid to the buyer agent in the event the buyer has a broker. Despite agent representations that such services do not cost home buyers anything, home buyers allegedly pay a hefty cost for supra-competitive commissions at levels fixed by the Defendants, which in turn lead to higher home prices paid by buyers. Judah Leeder purchased a home in Englewood, New Jersey through ReMax Properties Plus and the seller was represented by Prominent Properties Sotheby's. The home Mr. Leeder purchased was listed on the New Jersey Multiple Listing Service, Inc. owned by an NAR member broker. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Jonathon Byrer, Esq. Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641-9750 Facsimile: (312) 641-9751 Email: gzelcs@koreintillery.com rewing@koreintillery.com jbyrer@koreintillery.com rcortazar@koreintillery.com - and - Michael E. Klenov, Esq. Jamie Boyer, Esq. Carol O'Keefe, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 Email: mklenov@koreintillery.com jboyer@koreintillery.com cokeefe@koreintillery.com - and - Vincent Briganti, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Noelle Feigenbaum, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 Email: vbriganti@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com nfeigenbaum@lowey.com NEW YORK: NYCTA Must Replace Agents, Court Rules in Espaillat Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, MICHAEL SCHWEINSBERG, ROBERT KELLY, Petitioners v. PATRICK FOYE, SARAH FEINBERG, Respondents, Case No. 161335/2020 (N.Y. Sup.), the Supreme Court of New York for New York County enjoined the Respondents from failing to replace Station Agents during their lunch periods. The lawsuit is a class action Article 78 proceeding brought by named Petitioners Congressman Espaillat, Schweinsberg, and Kelly, on behalf of all subway riders, against Respondents Patrick Foye, CEO of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA"), and Sara Feinberg, the President of the New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA"). Petitioner Espaillat is the elected Congressional Representative for the 13th Congressional District in New York. Petitioner Schweinsberg is the President of the 504 Democratic Club, an association comprised of, and advocating for, persons with disabilities. Petitioner Kelly is Vice President of the Stations Department of the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100, a labor union representing 36,000 employees of the MTA and NYCTA. The MTA is a New York public authority, which coordinates mass transit throughout southeastern New York. NYCTA is a subsidiary of the MTA and provides subway service in the City of New York. There are approximately 470 station booths in the New York City subway system, which are staffed by approximately 2,479 station agents. The Petitioners seek an order prohibiting certain changes proposed by NYCTA from going into effect on the planned date of January 31, 2021. The Petitioners allege that the Respondents failed to go through the statutory procedural process required by Public Authorities Law Sections 1204[5] and 1205[15], as the proposed changes constitute a reduction in service and public access to the New York City subway. Motion sequence 001 is the Petitioners' order to show cause for injunctive relief, enjoining the Respondents from enacting the proposed changes unless and until public hearings are conducted in accordance with the Public Authorities Law. A hearing was held on January 12 and January 15, 2021, to address the threshold issue of whether the proposed changes constituted a reduction in either service or access. Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between Local 100 and the Respondents, station agents pick their job assignments every six months in order of seniority. The selection process as a whole is referred to as a "pick" and each year the MTA conducts a "Summer Pick" and a "Winter Pick." During each pick, station agents consult a "pick book" to select their jobs and schedules from five job categories. Most station booths are attended to by station agents in 3 separate eight-hour shifts, the AM, PM, and Night shifts ("station jobs"), each of which are afforded a 30-minute lunch period. Also available are Vacation Relief jobs, wherein an agent covers for an agent taking his or her vacation time; Regular Days Off jobs, wherein an agent covers for an agent taking his or her scheduled two days off per week; and Extra jobs, wherein an agent is instructed to call a central coordinator each day to be staffed on an ad hoc basis. Last, and most relevant to this case, are Lunch Relief jobs, a job shift wherein a Lunch Relief agent arrives at a subway booth to replace an agent working a station job for a 30-minute period so that the booth can remain open while the station agent takes his or her lunch period. Each Lunch Relief agent covers 6-8 booths per day. The proposed changes at issue in the case were first outlined to Petitioner Kelly in a September 28, 2020 letter. In addition, the Respondents proposed eliminating 47 eight-hour shifts across 20 stations and eliminating an additional eight-hour shift at 7 other stations. Most pertinent to the case is the proposed elimination of the 185 "Lunch Relief" jobs. The Petitioners allege that the elimination of the Lunch Relief jobs will result in most booths being locked and closed for between 1,110 and 1,480 half-hour periods per week, thus, constituting a reduction in service and access and triggering the public hearings requirement, pursuant to PAL Sections 1204[5] and 1205[15]. The Respondents oppose the petition, arguing that the elimination of Lunch Relief jobs is merely a reallocation of staff, which does not constitute a reduction in public access, but rather increases the Respondents' flexibility to ensure continued public access. The Respondents further allege that, if the changes were enacted, there would be "very limited circumstances where a rider may experience a minor additional delay in Station Agent service as compared to current service which does not constitute a closure contemplated by PAL Section 1205[5]." During the hearing held on January 12 and 15, 2021, the Court took the testimony of: Ms. Yvette Bassknight, a supervising station agent working for NYCTA; Petitioner Robert Kelly; and Mr. David Santoro, Chief Stations Officer for NYCTA. The hearing was pecifically intended to address the threshold issue of whether the elimination of the 185 Lunch Relief jobs would constitute a reduction in service or access. Based upon the testimony adduced at the hearing and evidence presented therein, the Court finds that the elimination of the duties of those transit workers, who provided lunch relief for station agents, will result in significant token booth closures within the City of New York. Such closures clearly constitute a reduction of services and a reduction of access to the system by the general public. The Court further finds that these closures trigger the requirement for public hearings pursuant to PAL Section 1204(5) and 1205(5). The Respondents assert that their decision to eliminate lunch relief is merely a "reallocation of staffing" which does not violate the PAL. However, that assertion is not correct, Judge W. Franc Perry holds. The evidence shows that each Lunch Relief Station Agent covers 6-8 booths per day. According to the Petitioners the elimination of the 185 Lunch Relief jobs means that for between 1,110 and 1,480 half hour periods each week booths in every subway station will be locked and closed. This locked and/or closing of the booths is not only a staffing change but is also a reduction of services, which, as the statute mandates, must be taken to the communities affected by the closures for analysis and comment, Judge Perry holds. The Respondents also argue that the lunch relief issue was previously addressed and resolved in the grievance proceeding brought by Local 100, which alleged a violation of the and collective bargaining agreement between Local 100 and the NYCTA and the MTA. However, in that proceeding the arbitrator, while restoring the right of 65 Station Agents in "Gainsharing Booths" to take lunch in the booth in return for pay, found that the elimination of lunch relief did not violate the collective bargaining agreement. That award did not address the statutory violations alleged. The Respondents have alluded that the lunch period booth closings are a "mere closing" or that such closing would constitute a "minor inconvenience" to passengers. There is no such thing as a "mere" closing or that a closing is a "minor inconvenience", because any disruption caused by the NYCTA or MTA has the potential to severely impact the thousands of customers/riders, who rely on the subway system as their only mode of transportation, Judge Perry points out. Reading the statute as written, together with the facts therein, it must be concluded that the respondent's elimination of lunch relief are "partial closings" of passenger stations and a reduction of the means of access to passenger stations within the City of New York under the Public Authorities Law, Judge Perry concludes. It is, therefore, ordered that the Respondents are enjoined from failing to replace Station Agents during their lunch periods. Pursuant to PAL 1205(5), the Transit Authority must provide formal written notice to the Community Boards in the affected neighborhoods and hearings must be held no less than 30 days after the notice is provided to permit public comment. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/udwtzg1a from Leagle.com. NEW YORK: Second Circuit Affirms Judgments in Munoz Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as Victoria Munoz, Plaintiff-Appellee, Elsa Gulino, Mayling Ralph, Peter Wilds, Nia Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, Defendant-Appellant, New York State Education Department, Defendant, Case No. 19-1162 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court. The appeal is the third appeal in a nearly 25-year-old class action brought by African-American and Latino public school teachers against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York ("BOE"). The Plaintiffs challenged, inter alia, BOE's use of a certification test called the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test ("LAST") as discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. In a prior stage of the litigation, the Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim that the LAST had an impermissible racial disparate impact. BOE now appeals from the first 347 individual class-member judgments entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wood, J.), primarily asserting errors in the district court's method of calculating damages. BOE's main contention on appeal is that the district court erred in its method of calculating class members' damages. Specifically, BOE challenges the district court's method, developed in conjunction with a duly appointed Special Master, of adjusting each award of damages to reasonably reflect (1) the possibility that a class member would not have been appointed to a BOE teaching position even if that class member had passed the LAST ("probability of appointment"); and (2) the possibility that a class member would not have remained a BOE teacher through retirement or judgment ("probability of attrition"). The Appellate Court says it reviews a district court's fashioning of a Title VII backpay remedy for abuse of discretion. A district court abuses its discretion when "(1) its decision rests on an error of law (such as application of the wrong legal principle) or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or (2) its decision cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions." The thrust of BOE's argument is that the district court abused its discretion by accounting for the probabilities of appointment and attrition on an individualized basis, rather than through a classwide pro-rata damages reduction. BOE relies on a line of cases, primarily from the Appellate Court's sister circuits, holding that classwide backpay calculations are most appropriate where determining individualized damages is impossible or impractical. Accordingly, the district court's decision to individually determine whether a class member would have been hired, as well as that class member's counterfactual end date, was an application of the default rule that where possible, there should be a determination on an individual basis as to which class members are entitled to recovery and the amount of such recovery. Contrary to BOE's suggestion, application of this default rule here was not an abuse of discretion, the Appellate Court states. Certainly, there were some reasons to believe that individualized determinations of the probabilities of appointment and attrition would be difficult in this case, such as the length of the class period and the size of the class. But other factors support the district court's conclusion that individualized determination of these probabilities was neither impossible nor impractical. The Panel also finds that BOE's prior position in this very litigation confirms this point. While BOE now maintains that individualized appointment and end date determinations require a hopeless journey into a quagmire of hypothetical judgments, Pettway, 494 F.2d at 260, it has not always made this claim. To the contrary, in opposition to remedy-phase class certification, BOE argued that a calculation of damages on a classwide basis would be impractical because the determination of back pay is highly individualized, and requires engaging in a host of necessarily individualized determinations. Although BOE's prior position does not formally preclude its arguments here, its about-face confirms that, at the very least, reasonable minds may disagree about the practicality of assessing appointment and attrition probabilities on an individualized basis in this case. Under abuse of discretion review, this is fatal to BOE's argument, the Appellate Court holds. BOE nonetheless contends that, even if the district court's decision to make individualized appointment and attrition determinations was reasonable in theory, it was an abuse of discretion in practice because the district court's method of making such determinations resulted in an impermissible windfall to the plaintiffs at the expense of the employer. BOE has not offered any basis for finding that the district court's application of this well-established principle generated an impermissible windfall here. Accordingly, these arguments do not demonstrate that the district court's method of making individualized damages determinations was an abuse of discretion. Finally, the Appellate Court says it is unpersuaded by BOE's contention that the district court's method of damages calculation broadly violated Title VII principles. Although BOE argues that the district court neglected its duty to give significant weight to circumstances showing that BOE was entitled to presume that its conduct was lawful, the only binding case from which BOE draws this supposed duty is inapposite. In short, the Appellate Court finds no basis to conclude that the district court's chosen method of making individualized damages determinations was an abuse of discretion. The Panel has also considered BOE's remaining arguments and finds in them no basis for reversal. For these reasons, the judgments of the district court are affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court's Summary Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/322whhtl from Leagle.com. JOSHUA S. SOHN -- jsohn@stroock.com -- Dina Kolker -- dkolker@stroock.com -- Francis C. Healy -- fhealy@stroock.com --Robert A. Mantel -- rmantel@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, in New York City; Rachel V. Stevens, DLA Piper LLP, in New York City, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellee. AARON M. BLOOM -- abloom@law.nyc.gov -- Assistant Corporation Counsel (Richard Dearing -- rdearing@law.nyc.gov -- Claude S. Platton -- cplatton@law.nyc.gov -- and Kevin Osowski on the brief), for James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, in New York City, For Defendant-Appellant. NEWREZ LLC: Bryant Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Timothy J. Bryant, on behalf of himself and all others so similarly situated v. NewRez, LLC (formerly known as NewPenn Financial, LLC) doing business as Shelpoint Mortgage Servicing, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2081ca02512, was removed from Middlesex Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts on Jan. 25, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-40011-RGS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Foreclosure Real Property. NewRez LLC -- https://newrez.com/ -- is a national mortgage lender headquartered in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Dion, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TODD S. DION 15 Cottage Avenue, Suite 202 Quincy, MA 02169 Phone: (401) 965-4131 Fax: (401) 535-1231 Email: toddsdion@msn.com The Defendants are represented by: Sean B. Cullen, Esq. GUAETTA & BENSON, LLC P.O. Box 519 Chelmsford, MA 01824 Phone: (978) 250-0999 Email: sean_cullen@guaettalaw.com NINTENDO OF AMERICA: Class Status Filing Deadline Extended ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as A.C., a minor by and through his guardian, MARIA CARBAJAL, v. NINTENDO OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01694-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadline for the Plaintiff to File Motion for Class Certification; and 2. directing the parties to propose a class certification briefing schedule by stipulation within 15 days following the decision by the Court on Nintendo's responsive motion. Nintendo is a Japanese multinational consumer electronics and video game company headquartered in Kyoto. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jkBsjo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kaleigh N.B. Powell, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com jdennett@tousley.com kpowell@tousley.com - and - Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com NORTH DALLAS: Response to Class Certification Bid Due February 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pierce v. North Dallas Honey Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-00410 (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting the parties' Third Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. The Defendants' response to the Motion for Class Certification is due February 12, 2021. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. North Dallas Honey Company is located in McKinney, Texas, and is part of the food wholesalers industry.[CC] NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR: Summary Judgment in Convent Partly Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned CONVENT CORPORATION, Appellant v. CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JOE SMITH, MAYOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DEBI ROSS, BETH WHITE, LINDA ROBINSON, MAURICE REMANDED IN PART; DISMISSED AS TAYLOR, STEVE BAXTER, BRUCE MOOT IN PART. FOUTCH, MURRY WITCHER, AND CHARLIE HIGHT, EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TOM WADLEY, DIRECTOR, CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND FELICIA MCHENRY, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Appellees, Case No. CV-20-216 (Ark.), the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirms in part, reverses and remands in part, and dismiss as moot in part an order granting summary judgment. Appellant Convent appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, a Municipal Corporation; Joe Smith, Mayor, individually and in his official capacity; City Council Members Debi Ross, Beth White, Linda Robinson, Maurice Taylor, Steve Baxter, Bruce Foutch, Murry Witcher, and Charlie Hight, each individually and in his or her official capacity; Tom Wadley, Director, Code Enforcement Division, individually and in his official capacity; and Felicia McHenry, Code Enforcement Officer, individually and in her official capacity (collectively, "City"); and dismissing Convent's suit, which challenged the City's decision to condemn certain property and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. For reversal, Convent argues that (1) the City Council's condemnation decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious; (2) the circuit court erred by dismissing Convent's constitutional claims, claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and common-law claim of trespass for failure to exhaust its administrative remedies; (3) the City's condemnation procedure violates due process; (4) the City's condemnation ordinances contain terms that are unconstitutionally vague and that provide public officials with too much discretion; (5) the City's resolution condemning its property is an unlawful bill of attainder; and (6) the circuit court erred by denying Convent's renewed motion to strike the City's amended answer and affirmative defenses. The case involves condemnation proceedings instituted by the City on property owned by Convent at 6615 Highway 70, in North Little Rock. The structure at issue had been operated as a nightclub for many years but had been vacant since August 2011. On November 14, 2012, the building was "red-tagged" by Defendant Felicia McHenry, a code-enforcement officer, serving as notice to the owners and occupants that the structure was deemed a public nuisance in violation of articles 1 and 8 of the City's Nuisance Abatement and Property Maintenance Code. In addition to posting notice on the premises, McHenry also mailed to Convent the notice of public nuisance, which stated that the building was "an unsafe and vacant structure that is not fit for human habitation." The letter notified Convent that the property would be considered for condemnation due to its current condition and that a public hearing would be conducted by the City Council on February 25, 2013. It further indicated that Convent was given seven days' notice to remove, abate, or eliminate the nuisance or to contact the code enforcement department to discuss a plan of abatement. At the hearing, the counsel for Convent stated that the property's current condition resulted from vandalism and that the owners were not aware of the damage until the condemnation notice. The resolution condemning the property stated that "the condition of the property constitutes a serious fire and health hazard" and that "unless immediate actions are taken to remedy this situation by removing, razing, or abating the nuisance, there is a great likelihood that the surrounding property may be destroyed by fire." If further indicated that the structure was "a breeding place for rats, rodents and other dangerous germ carriers of diseases." On March 27, 2013, Convent filed a complaint in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, appealing the City's decision to condemn its property under Rule 9(f) of the Arkansas District Court Rules. Convent also brought claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985(3), 1986, and 1988 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, for violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article 2, sections 15 and 22 of the Arkansas Constitution, as well as a common-law claim of trespass. Following the City's removal of the action to federal district court, the case was returned to the circuit court on February 20, 2014. On May 17, 2014, Convent filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the City had failed to timely file an answer following the return from federal court and that it was entitled to summary judgment on its claims. The City responded to the motion, asserting that it had filed an answer and accompanying motion to dismiss in federal court. The City also argued that Convent's motion was premature because it had not exhausted its administrative remedies. On June 18, 2014, the City filed an amended answer denying the allegations in Convent's complaint and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Convent filed a motion to strike the amended answer and affirmative defenses as untimely. On September 1, 2014, Convent filed its motion for class certification seeking to certify as a class all individuals, who own property within the City and whose property had been condemned by the City Council since March 27, 2008. The circuit court entered an order on July 9, 2015, denying Convent's motion for class certification because Convent did not present any evidence in support of the motion. The court also dismissed without prejudice Convent's constitutional and civil-rights claims and common-law claim of trespass on the basis that it had not yet exhausted its administrative remedies by way of its Rule 9 appeal. Finally, the circuit court denied Convent's motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, because genuine issues of material fact remained. Convent filed an interlocutory appeal from this order. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the appeal of the denial of class certification, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by not reviewing the evidence in the record to determine whether the class-certification motion should be granted or denied. Convent Corp. v. City of N. Little Rock, 2016 Ark. 212, 492 S.W.3d 498. The Supreme Court says it did not address Convent's appeal of the remaining rulings because they were not reviewable on an interlocutory basis. Upon remand, Convent filed a motion on September 30, 2016, for judgment on the record, for declaratory judgment, and to reinstate claims. Convent asserted that the City's condemnation decision should be overturned because it was based on unconstitutional procedures, it was not based on substantial evidence in the record of the administrative proceedings, and it was arbitrary and capricious. Convent moved to nonsuit its request for declaratory judgment, and an order dismissing this claim without prejudice was filed on May 11, 2017. That same day, the circuit court entered an order finding that substantial evidence supported the City Council's determination that Convent's property was a nuisance and that the decision was not arbitrary and capricious. The court, therefore, concluded that the underlying appeal had been resolved. However, the circuit court stated that "it found no reason to reconsider its previous dismissal of Plaintiff's associated constitutional and class claims, and therefore, Plaintiff's motion to reinstate claims is denied." The court reserved for a later time its decision on the City's stated intention to request civil penalties in the amount of $50 per day as authorized by statute and the resolution condemning the property. Finally, the court denied Convent's request for a stay pending appeal unless it could present a suitable bond that the City was willing to accept. Convent filed a second notice of appeal from the May 11, 2017 order. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because it was not from a final order. Convent Corp. v. City of N. Little Rock, 2018 Ark. 45. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of civil penalties remained to be decided and that the voluntary dismissal of Convent's declaratory-judgment claim left it free to be refiled, thereby creating the possibility of piecemeal appeals. Following the Supreme Court's dismissal, Convent filed an amended and reinstated petition for declaratory judgment on July 30, 2018. Convent again sought a declaration that the City's ordinance related to condemnation proceedings was unconstitutional, and it requested an injunction preventing the City from destroying any property that had been condemned pursuant to that ordinance, condemning any additional property or otherwise enforcing article 1, section 7 of the City's code, or taking any action to file or collect liens for the demolition of properties. Convent alleged that the City's ordinance and procedures failed to provide due process and that they also constituted an unconstitutional bill of attainder. On June 26, 2019, the City filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Convent's petition. Convent filed a response to the City's motion and a countermotion for summary judgment on July 17, 2019. Following a hearing on the cross-motions, the circuit court entered an order on December 11, 2019, granting the City's motion for summary judgment and denying Convent's countermotion. The court, therefore, dismissed with prejudice Convent's amended and reinstated petition for declaratory judgment. Convent filed a timely notice of appeal from the order and specified that it was also appealing the circuit court's June 2019 order denying its renewed motion to strike, the May 2017 order, and the July 2015 order. As a threshold matter, the City contends that the Supreme Court should not address the issues raised in Convent's appeal due to its lack of standing to challenge the condemnation action. The City asserts that because Convent failed to pay taxes for the years 2010-2013 and did not redeem the property until 2015, Convent did not hold title to the property at the time of the condemnation proceedings. The Supreme Court disagrees that Convent lacked standing to bring its action. Not only was Convent named and recognized as the property owner by the City in its condemnation proceeding and resolution, Convent also retained the right to redeem the property during the relevant time period by paying the delinquent taxes, which it ultimately did in February 2015. As Convent argues, the right to redeem is a legally cognizable interest. Further, the Supreme Court has held that a party has standing to appeal if an order has impaired his or her economic interests. See Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, 345 Ark. 1, 43 S.W.3d 140 (2001). Although the City cites Talley v. City of North Little Rock, 2009 Ark. 601, 381 S.W.3d 753, the facts in that case are distinguishable, as the property had been sold to another party at the time of the condemnation decision, and the appellant no longer had a right to redeem the property. Accordingly, the Supreme Court proceeds in deciding the merits of Convent's appeal. Convent first argues that the circuit court erred by upholding the City's condemnation decision because it was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. Because the Panel determines that this issue is moot, the Supreme Court does not address it. In Convent's Rule 9 appeal of the condemnation decision, it requested only that the City Council's resolution ordering its property condemned as a nuisance be overturned. However, both parties state in their respective briefs that the structure at issue has already been razed by the City. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that Convent requested a stay of the circuit court's final order or that it attempted to post a bond to prevent destruction of the property. Thus, any decision by this court on Convent's appeal from the administrative decision would have no practical legal effect, says Associate Justice Courtney Rae Hudson, writing for the Panel. In its next point on appeal, Convent argues that the circuit court erred by dismissing its constitutional claims, civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, and common-law claim of trespass on the basis that Convent had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The City asserts that this issue is moot because after the circuit court rejected Convent's appeal of the condemnation decision, the court then considered and ruled on Convent's amended and reinstated petition for declaratory judgment, which raised only a facial challenge to the City's condemnation ordinance and procedures. The City contends that Convent nonsuited its previous petition and chose not to bring its other constitutional or civil-rights claims in its amended petition; thus, there is no longer a justiciable controversy regarding Convent's failure-to-exhaust argument. The Supreme Court disagrees that this issue is moot. Not only did the circuit court dismiss all of Convent's claims except the Rule 9 appeal in its July 2015 order, it also declined to reinstate these claims in its 2017 order deciding the administrative appeal, despite the fact that Convent filed a motion requesting it to do so. Accordingly, a justiciable controversy remains regarding these claims, and Convent's failure-to-exhaust argument is not moot. As the Supreme Court noted in Convent's first appeal, the City does not describe which administrative remedies Convent could have pursued other than appealing from the City Council's condemnation decision. While the Supreme Court has held that an action challenging a municipality's decision should be dismissed for failure to exhaust when there was no appeal from that decision pursuant to Rule 9, the City has cited no case in which dismissal is required when those claims are brought in conjunction with a timely and properly perfected Rule 9 appeal. The case cited in the circuit court's order dismissing the associated claims, Old Republic Surety Co. v. McGhee, 360 Ark. 562, 203 S.W.3d 94 (2005), is distinguishable because in that case, a separate appeal from an administrative decision was still pending when the appellee brought her similar claim directly in circuit court. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the appellee had failed to prove it would be futile to exhaust her administrative remedies. Accordingly, Convent is correct that the circuit court erred by dismissing Convent's constitutional, civil-rights, and trespass claims solely on the basis of its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. As the City argued, however, Convent raised its vagueness argument for the first time in its motion for summary judgment. It did not include this claim in its original complaint or in its amended and reinstated petition for declaratory judgment, even within the context of its due-process argument. The Supreme Court has held that it would be erroneous for a circuit court, on a motion for summary judgment, to consider any issues raised for the first time in a party's briefs or exhibits. Thus, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment on this claim. Convent also argues that the City's ordinance results in bills of attainder and that the specific resolution regarding its property is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. This claim was raised in Convent's amended petition, although it was rejected by the circuit court in its order granting summary judgment to the City. As the City responds, however, the condemnation ordinance does not legislatively punish a named individual or an easily ascertainable group. Moreover, the City Council's resolution condemning Convent's property was not a legislative act but an administrative one. Hence, the circuit court did not err by granting summary judgment to the City on this claim. In its final point on appeal, Convent contends that the circuit court erred by denying Convent's renewed motion to strike the City's amended answer and affirmative defenses. The Supreme Court reviews the denial of a motion to strike under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Even assuming that Convent is correct that the City was still required to file an answer within 30 days of notice of remand from federal court, it was within the circuit court's discretion to grant the motion to strike, Judge Hudson holds. Given that the City filed an answer in federal court and then filed an amended answer, albeit outside the thirty day time period, to the specific claims raised in state court, Convent has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the circuit court in declining to grant the renewed motion to strike. The Supreme Court, therefore, affirms on this point as well. Barbara W. Webb, Justice, concurring. Rhonda K. Wood, Justice, dissenting. Judge Wood says she dissents from the majority's decision to remand this case for further proceedings on Convent's as-applied constitutional claims for three reasons: (1) Convent failed to appeal the circuit court's denial of its motion to reinstate the claims following its administrative appeal; (2) Convent nonsuited the remainder of its action after all its claims were dismissed and failed to include the as-applied claims in the refiling of its revived petition; and (3) even if the as-applied claims had survived, this court can and should rule on the merits of the summary-judgment order that dismissed all claims. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/a1fs2p15 from Leagle.com. Mickey Steven, in Bryant, Arkansas, for Appellant. Marie-Bernard Miller, Deputy City Attorney, in North Little Rock, Arkansas, for Appellees. NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in Cohen FAC ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN COHEN, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. NORTHEAST RADIOLOGY, P.C. and ALLIANCE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-01202-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim. 2. denying the motion to appoint interim lead class counsel; 3. denying the Plaintiff's motion for an order pursuant to Rule 23(d); and 4. directing the Defendants to file an answer By February 11, 2021. The Court disagrees on the Defendants' argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA because plaintiff has not plausibly alleged the requisite amount-in-controversy or that the proposed class is equal to or greater than 100 individuals. The Court also disagrees on the Defendants' argument that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the action. The Court agrees as to the negligence per se and breach of contract claims, but disagrees as to the claims for negligence, implied breach of contract, and violation of Section 349. The Court also agrees with the Defendants that the plaintiff has not pleaded a negligence per se claim, as well as to the Defendants' argument that Northeast's Notice of Privacy Practices does not form a contract. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Lp4ou8 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHERN NATURAL: De Leon FLSA Conditional Status Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSIE DE LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-cv-00179-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both Plaintiff's Motion and Defendant's Response are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Northern Natural Gas is a natural gas pipeline that brings gas from the Permian Basin in Texas to the Chicago area, Wisconsin, Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36GGpOo at no extra charge.[CC] NTN BUZZTIME: Brooklyn Merger Deal Lacks Info, Gallo Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK GALLO v. NTN BUZZTIME, INC., ALLEN WOLFF, MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, RICHARD SIMTOB, and SUSAN MILLER, Case No. 3:21-cv-00157-WQH-AGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which NTN will merge with Brooklyn ImmunoTherapeutics LLC through NTN's wholly owned subsidiary BIT Merger Sub, Inc., and a proposed asset sale with eGames.com Holdings LLC (Proposed Asset Sale). On August 13, 2020, NTN and Brooklyn issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated August 12, 2020 (the Merger Agreement) to merge NTN with Brooklyn. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Brooklyn's members will exchange their equity interests in Brooklyn for shares of NTN common stock representing between approximately 94.08% and 96.74% of the outstanding common stock of NTN, and NTN's current stockholders, will own between just 5.92% and 3.26% of the outstanding common stock of NTN. According to the complaint, on September 18, 2020, NTN entered into an asset purchase agreement (the Asset Purchase Agreement) with eGames.com, pursuant to which NTN agreed to sell all of its right, title and interest in and to the assets relating to the Company's business of licensing its interactive entertainment network and services and the tablets and related equipment used therein to eGames.com. At the closing of the Proposed Asset Sale, in addition to assuming the liabilities of NTN specified in the Asset Purchase Agreement, including NTN's trade accounts payable and other accrued liabilities arising in the ordinary course of the business, and liabilities relating to NTN'scontracts included in the purchased assets, eGames.com will pay NTN $2.0 million in cash. A $1.0 million bridge loan that eGames.com made to NTN in connection with entering into the Asset Purchase Agreement will be applied toward the $2.0 million purchase price. Following completion of the Proposed Asset Sale, the Company's Chief Executive Officer defendant Allen Wolff will be appointed as CEO of eGames.com. On October 2, 2020, NTN filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Registration Statement, which recommends that NTN stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material information concerning the Company's and Brooklyn's financial projections and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Newbridge Securities Corporation. In short, unless remedied, NTN's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the suit says. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times, a continuous stockholder of NTN. The Defendant NTN delivers interactive entertainment and innovative technology that helps its customers acquire, engage and retain patrons. The Individual Defendants are officer and directors of the Company. Brooklyn is a privately held clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on exploring the role that cytokine-based therapy can have on the immune system in treating patients with cancer. Merger Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of NTN. eGames.com, a Nevada limited liability company, is a game publishing business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com ONEOK INC: Lindsey's FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN LINDSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ONEOK, INC., Case No. 7:19-cv-00284-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Oneok is a diversified Fortune 500 corporation based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Oneok was founded in 1906 as Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, but It changed its corporate name to Oneok in December 1980. It also owns major natural gas liquids systems due to the 2005 acquisition of Koch Industries natural gas businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rnukph at no extra charge.[CC] OVINTIV USA: Buffington Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to Answer Stay Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MORGAN BUFFINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OVINTIV USA INC. and NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02477-RM-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for him to file a reply to Ovintiv's Response to his Motion for Conditional Certification. The Plaintiff says that his deadline to file their reply to the Defendant's Motion to Stay, and in the alternative, Response in Opposition to Conditional Certification is February 1st. Due to the schedules of Counsel, he requests an additional two weeks to respond, making their new reply deadline February 15, 2021. The additional time will allow him to address the arguments and authority contained in Ovintiv's response to conditional certification and request to stay the case. Ovintiv is unopposed to this extension. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jgSQ8Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Liles, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. William R. Liles, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsmile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com OVINTIV USA: Buffington Seeks Feb. 15 Extension to File Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MORGAN BUFFINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OVINTIV USA INC. and NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-02477-RM-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for him to file a reply to Ovintiv's Motion to Stay, and in the alternative, Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, from February 1, 2021 to the new deadline of February 15, 2021. The Plaintiff says that his deadline to file his reply to the Defendant's response is February 1. This extension is not sought for an improper purpose, and good cause exists for granting this request. This brief extension will not prejudice any party but is solely to accommodate his counsel's previously scheduled vacation the week of January 25, 2021. The requested extension will also allow him to fully address the novel arguments presented by Ovintiv's reliance on the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). Ovintiv is a hydrocarbon exploration and production company organized in Delaware and headquartered in Denver, United States. A copy of the Court's the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ryxzKV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William R. Liles, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com wliles@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com PANERA LLC: Hilliard BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL HILLIARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PANERA, LLC, Case No. 2020-CH-07056, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on January 14, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00233 to the proceeding. Plaintiff Hilliard's class action complaint asserts that he used timekeeping technology to clock in and out from work in a manner that violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Panera LLC operates as a chain of bakery-cafes. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melissa A. Siebert, Esq. Erin Bolan Hines, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-7700 Facsimile: (312) 558-1195 E-mail: masiebert@shb.com ehines@shb.com PARSLEY ENERGY: Streety's Conditional Certification Bid Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JIM STREETY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PARSLEY ENERGY OPERATIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00049-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiff's motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "Both the Plaintiff's Motion and Defendant's Response are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Parsley Energy Operations, LLC provides oil and gas services. The Company manages, develops, and operates oil and gas field properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rm3SfH at no extra charge.[CC] PATTERN ENERGY: Bid for Relief From PSLRA Discovery Stay Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled IN RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-275-MN-JLH (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Relief from the PSLRA Discovery Stay. The Plaintiffs request that the Court lift the automatic stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") so that they can obtain certain discovery supporting the claims set forth in their complaint. The Plaintiffs are investment funds that owned stock in Pattern Energy at the time of its acquisition by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board ("CPPIB") in Spring 2020. The Plaintiffs' federal claims are based on their contention that the proxy materials sent to Pattern Energy shareholders in connection with the acquisition contained material misrepresentations and omissions. Count I of Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a). Count II alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). Counts III and IV are state-law breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this action on February 25, 2020, two weeks before the shareholder vote on the acquisition. Prior to filing, the Plaintiffs did not attempt to exercise their rights to inspect Pattern Energy's books and records under 8 Del. C. Section 220. The original complaint asserted only federal claims, but the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 22, 2020, that added the state law claims and additional factual allegations. On July 21, 2020, all Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. On January 28, 2021, Judge Hall issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims with leave to amend. Meanwhile, in May 2020, two other groups of Pattern Energy stockholders filed suits in the Delaware Court of Chancery asserting state law breach of fiduciary duty claims related to CPPIB's acquisition of Pattern Energy. Unlike the Plaintiffs in the instant case, the Chancery Court plaintiffs sought and obtained documents from Pattern Energy pursuant to their rights under 8 Del. C. Section 220 prior to filing suit. The Chancery Court consolidated those cases under the caption In re Pattern Energy Group Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2020-0357-MTZ (Del. Ch.). The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on July 13, 2020 (a week before the Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the federal Complaint). The Plaintiffs' motion asks the Court to lift the PSLRA stay so that they can obtain discovery from Pattern Energy limited to "documents already gathered, reviewed and produced by Pattern Energy" to the Chancery Court plaintiffs. Because the Plaintiffs' Complaint is subject to pending motions to dismiss, the PSLRA requires that discovery be stayed unless the Court finds that particularized discovery is necessary to either preserve evidence or to prevent "undue prejudice" to the Plaintiffs, Judge Hall notes. The Plaintiffs claim that they will be unduly prejudiced without the requested discovery because they have reason to believe that the requested documents are highly relevant to, and indeed confirm their core allegations in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs contend that, without those documents, they will be at a severe informational disadvantage vis-a-vis the parallel Delaware Chancery Action and that "the Court should also have access to all relevant information prior to ruling on Defendants' motions to dismiss, which will avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings in this Action and the Delaware Chancery Action." Judge Hall finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish undue prejudice. She opines that the reason why the Plaintiffs do not have the information that the Chancery Court plaintiffs have is because the Plaintiffs chose to file their securities action in federal court before seeking that information. By choosing to proceed in that manner, they subjected themselves to the PSLRA discovery stay, as well as the Delaware Chancery Court's rule that plaintiffs in federal securities actions are generally barred from making books and records requests under 8 Del. C. Section 220, she elaborates, citing Beiser v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., No. 3893-VCL, 2009 WL 483321, at *3-4 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009). For purposes of the argument, Judge Hall accepts that the PSLRA stay is preventing the Plaintiffs from obtaining relevant documents, which "prejudices" them in the sense that the additional information might enable them to beef up their factual allegations and survive a motion to dismiss. But such prejudice is not "undue" because it is a result of the Plaintiffs' choice to file their suit before having enough facts, Judge Hall opines. As for the Plaintiffs' concern about being at "a severe informational disadvantage" vis-a-vis the litigants in the Chancery Court action, the Plaintiffs acknowledge that there are myriad cases falling on both sides of the prejudice issue such that for every case the Plaintiffs cite, Pattern Energy can and will cite a case falling on the other cite of the question. Having reviewed the cited authorities, Judge Hall finds persuasive Judge Yohn's reasoning in Dipple v. Odell, 870 F.Supp.2d 386, 390 (E.D. Pa. 2012). That the stay applies in some cases but not others is not evidence of undue prejudice, but rather is evidence of Congress' judgment that PSLRA actions should be treated differently than other actions," Judge Hall states. Like Judge Yohn, Judge Hall points out that she will not question Congress's judgment. The Plaintiffs maintain that their action is not frivolous and, thus, permitting discovery would not be inconsistent with Congress's purpose in enacting the PSLRA. Even if the Plaintiffs were right about their action not being frivolous, it is beside the point, Judge Hall notes. The PSLRA reflects Congress's determination that the best way to remedy perceived abuses in federal securities cases is to subject all cases to a discovery stay until the court determines that the complaint can survive a motion to dismiss (unless one of the limited exceptions applies). The idea that the Plaintiffs might use discovery to bolster the allegations in their complaint -- whether in advance of a motion to dismiss or to amend in the event that a motion to dismiss is granted -- plainly conflicts with the directive set forth in the PSLRA, Judge Hall opines. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that failure to lift the PSLRA stay will cause them undue prejudice, their motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/cxde6ik3 from Leagle.com. PATTERN ENERGY: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommends that the Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in the lawsuit titled IN RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 20-275-MN-JLH (D. Del.). In the action challenging the purchase of Pattern Energy by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board ("CPPIB"), the Defendants move to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Judge Hall recommends that the Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted because (1) the Plaintiffs fail to state claims for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (2) no federal claims remain in the case to support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims. The dispute arises from an agreement between Defendant Pattern Energy and the CPPIB to merge Pattern Energy with a subsidiary of CPPIB. That agreement was announced on November 4, 2019. The Plaintiffs are investment funds that owned Pattern Energy stock at the time of the merger. The Plaintiffs were all advised by their investment advisor, Water Island Capital, LLC. At all relevant times, Pattern Energy was a Delaware Corporation with "principal executive offices" in San Francisco, California. Its business was operating wind and solar facilities in the United States, Canada, and Japan. It traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker PEGI and on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker PEG from its initial public offering in 2013 until the merger. Pattern Energy acquired the facilities that it operated by purchasing them from Defendant Pattern Energy Group 2 LP ("Pattern Development") and other sources. Pattern Development was a Delaware limited partnership with "principal executive offices" in San Francisco. Its principal business was developing and selling renewable energy and transmission facilities, and it sold most of them to Pattern Energy. Defendant Riverstone Holdings LLC is an energy and power-focused private investment firm. Defendant Riverstone Pattern Energy II Holdings, L.P. ("Riverstone PE") is a Delaware limited partnership that owned an equity stake in non-party Pattern Energy Group Holdings 2 LP, which was the holding company for Pattern Development. According to the Complaint, Riverstone Holdings and its affiliates (collectively, "Riverstone"), including Riverstone PE, held a controlling 70% equity interest in Pattern Development before the merger. At the time of the merger, Pattern Development had a consent right that limited Pattern Energy's ability to transfer its interest in Pattern Development to any third party without the consent of Pattern Development. The individuals named as defendants in the Complaint include the members of Pattern Energy's Board at the time of the merger ("Board Defendants") and seven members of Pattern Energy's management team ("Management Defendants"). The Board Defendants are Alan R. Batkin, Edmund John Philip Browne, Richard A. Goodman, Douglas G. Hall, Patricia M. Newson, Mona K. Sutphen, and Michael Garland. The Management Defendants are Michael Garland, Hunter Armistead, Daniel Elkort, Michael Lyon, Deborah McAdam, Esben Pedersen, and Christopher Shugart. Defendant Garland was the CEO of both Pattern Energy and Pattern Development, as well as a member of the boards of directors at both companies. On February 4, 2020, Pattern Energy's Board filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement, detailing the merger negotiations that had occurred and recommending that shareholders vote to approve the merger at a special shareholder meeting scheduled for March 10, 2020. The Proxy Statement disclosed that members of Pattern Energy's management were involved in the company's negotiations regarding a potential merger. For example, at an October 29, 2018 meeting of the Special Committee, CEO Garland -- who was not a member of the Special Committee -- summarized the approaches he had received from representatives of a large alternative asset manager (referred to in the Proxy Statement as 'Party A') which owns a substantial interest in a company in the alternative energy industry (referred to in the Proxy Statement as 'Company A') and separately by a large private equity investment firm that also owns a company in the alternative energy business (referred to in the Proxy Statement as 'Party B') with respect to a potential transaction involving Pattern Energy. The Proxy Statement explained that, pursuant to the merger transaction, Pattern Energy would be merged with a newly formed affiliate of CPPIB. In exchange, shares of Pattern Energy Company Common Stock would be converted to the right to receive $26.75 in cash. The Proxy Statement further disclosed that, pursuant to a concurrent transaction -- dubbed the "Contribution Agreement" -- the Management Defendants and Riverstone (through Riverstone PE) would be contributing their respective stakes in Pattern Development to an affiliate of CPPIB in exchange for equity interests in the affiliate. The combined result of the Pattern Energy merger and the acquisition of Pattern Development pursuant to the Contribution Agreement was that Pattern Energy and Pattern Development would be under the common ownership of CPPIB. The Proxy Statement quickly garnered negative attention, including from the Plaintiffs' financial advisor, Water Island Capital, which issued two critical open letters, dated February 18 and 24, 2020. The letters attacked the sufficiency of the disclosures in the Proxy Statement, particularly the lack of disclosure around the terms of the Contribution Agreement. Institutional Shareholder Services, a proxy advisory service, also issued a report on February 28, 2020, recommending that Pattern Energy shareholders vote against the proposed merger. Pattern Energy responded to the negative publicity in several ways, including releasing press releases and filing of Form 8-K. In addition to the two press releases, Pattern Energy filed with the SEC Schedule 14A Definitive Additional Materials ("Supplemental Proxy Statement") on March 4, 2020, which disclosed additional details related to the merger and the Contribution Agreement. The effective value of Pattern Development (as of the signing of the Merger Agreement) was $1.06 billion, based on CPPIB's contribution of its interest of Pattern Energy acquired under the Merger Agreement to the joint venture that will own Pattern Energy and Pattern Development following the closing of the Merger. Despite the public criticisms about the lack of shareholder visibility into the concurrent Pattern Development deal, Pattern Energy's shareholders voted to approve the merger at the special meeting on March 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed this action on February 25, 2020, two weeks before the shareholder vote. The Plaintiffs filed the now-operative pleading, the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, on May 22, 2020. Count I of the Complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Pattern Energy, the Board Defendants, the Management Defendants, and Pattern Development. Count II alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Board Defendants, the Management Defendants, and Pattern Development. Count III is a state-law breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Board Defendants and the Management Defendants. Count IV alleges that Riverstone Holdings and Riverstone PE are liable for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duties. Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss. On July 21, 2020, Riverstone Holdings, Riverstone PE, and Pattern Development filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Also on July 21, 2020, Pattern Energy, the Board Defendants, and the Management Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Each motion purports to incorporate by reference the arguments made in the other motion. Underlying all of the Plaintiffs' claims is their contention that Pattern Energy's Board allowed its management, Riverstone, and Pattern Development to push the merger negotiations toward a merger with CPPIB that would include Pattern Development--and away from a more favorable transaction with Party A for Pattern Energy alone--resulting in less consideration for Pattern Energy's shareholders. Judge Hall notes that to move forward on their federal securities claims--which are the reason the case is before this Court instead of the Delaware Court of Chancery -- the Plaintiffs need to identify a statement in the Proxy that is either materially false or misleading on its own, or is materially misleading in light of other facts that were not disclosed (i.e., omitted.). Notwithstanding the length of the Complaint -- 253 paragraphs spanning 88 pages--the Plaintiffs fail to identify such a statement. Their Section 14(a) claim must, therefore, be dismissed. And their failure to plead an underlying violation of Section 14(a) is fatal to their Section 20(a) claim, Judge Hall holds. Because she recommends dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' federal claims, Judge Hall also recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state-law claims. The Plaintiffs point to 26 statements in the Proxy Statement, the Supplemental Proxy Statement, and the February 26 Press Release that, the Plaintiffs contend, are "false and misleading." The Plaintiffs group those statements into six categories: (1) statements about the fairness of the merger; (2) statements about the terms of alternate bids; (3) statements relating to Pattern Development's consent right; (4) statements regarding Pattern Energy management's role in the negotiations; (5) statements regarding valuation metrics; and (6) statements about the shareholder vote on the merger. It is clear from the Plaintiffs' allegations that they believe that wrongdoing occurred in connection with the merger, Judge Hall observes. They may or may not be right. But a breach of fiduciary duty unaccompanied by a false or misleading statement does not violate the federal securities laws, Judge Hall holds, citing Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund v. Cowan, 300 F.Supp.3d 597, 604 (D. Del. 2018). To state a Section 14(a) claim, the Plaintiffs were required to identify a particular statement that was false or misleading. They failed to do so, Judge Hall holds. She, therefore, recommends that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 14(a) claim (Count I). The Plaintiffs assert that the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. However, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3), the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, Judge Hall opines. Judge Hall finds that the Plaintiffs have not provided an affirmative justification for this Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their state-law claims. Judge Hall agrees with the Defendants that considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties actually support declining jurisdiction because a consolidated action alleging nearly-identical breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims is already pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. See In re Pattern Energy Grp. Inc. Stockholders Litig., No. 2020-357-MTZ (Del. Ch.). Accordingly, Judge Hall recommends that the Court dismiss the state-law claims (Counts III and IV). For these reasons, Judge Hall recommends that (i) the Section 14(a) claim alleged in Count I and the Section 20(a) claim alleged in Count II be dismissed, and (ii) the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims alleged in Counts III and IV. Accordingly, she recommends that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be granted and the Plaintiffs be granted leave to amend their complaint within 30 days. The Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B), (C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1), and District of Delaware Local Rule 72.1. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation will be filed within 14 days and limited to 10 pages. Any response will be filed within fourteen days thereafter and limited to ten pages. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court. The parties are directed to the Court's "Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72," dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which can be found on the Court's website. A full-text copy of the Court's Report & Recommendation dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/s787te6x from Leagle.com. PEAK PROPERTY: 90-Day Extension for Class Status Filing Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEAK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00907-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), Plaintiff Leslie Smith files her unopposed motion for an extension of time for her to file her motion for class certification. The Plaintiff contends that her application of the 90-day deadline for filing a motion for class certification be stayed until after the parties submit a Rule 26(f) report and the Court enters a scheduling order. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on July 1, 2020 in Durham County Superior Court. The Defendant filed a Notice of Removal to this court on October 2, 2020. The Plaintiff Filed an Amended Complaint on November 6, 2020. The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint on November 20, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on January 5, 2021. The Defendant filed a Reply on January 26, 2021, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is still pending. Peak Property is an insurance company that offers airplane, auto, commercial auto, earthquake, flood, and homeowners insurance. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tt1Z2Q at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Putative Class, are: Jeremy R. Williams, Esq. Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Kopelowitz Ostrow, Esq. Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: streisfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 19495 Biscayne Blvd No. 607 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: 305-975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 N.E 1st Ave Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 300 S. Biscayne Blvd, No. 2704 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: 305-610-5223 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com PEAK PROPERTY: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PEAK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00907-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Court entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification. The Court said, "The deadline for the Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion shall be stayed until after the parties submit a Rule 26(f) report and the Court enters a scheduling order, subject to further order of the Court. The Plaintiff Smith requests an extension of time to file her Motion for Class Certification, with the deadline for such motion to be determined at the initial pretrial scheduling conference. The Defendant's counsel did not oppose such extension, and pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that good cause exists for granting Plaintiff's requested extension." Peak Property is an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oSQqi0 at no extra charge.[CC] PEL-STATE BULK: FLSA Conditional Status Bid Nixed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CALVIN COLLINS and ZACHARY HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PEL-STATE BULK PLANT, LLC and WILLIAM H. BROYLES, II, Case No. 7:20-cv-00083-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Pel-State Bulk Plant is located in Bossier City, Los Angeles, and is part of the Petroleum and Petroleum Products Wholesalers Industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3roc13r at no extra charge.[CC] PENUMBRA INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of March 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on Feb. 1 announced that class action complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX) Class Period: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 Throughout the class period, Boston Scientific Corporation allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii) as a result, the Company had materially overstated the continued commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in BSX: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form-2?id=12577&from=1 Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE:NAK) Class Period: December 21, 2017 - November 25, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 2, 2021 According to the complaint, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in NAK: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/northern-dynasty-minerals-ltd-loss-submission-form?id=12577&from=1 Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN) Class Period: August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021 Penumbra, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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 as set forth above were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Learn about your recoverable losses in PEN: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-loss-submission-form?id=12577&from=1 Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages provided. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12557&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021 Class Period: August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020 Allegations against PEN include that: (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 as set forth above were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Brewer Suit Over Biometric Data Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYRONE BREWER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:21-cv-00535 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2021) alleges that Pepperidge Farm violated their employees' privacy rights by unlawfully collecting, storing, and/or using their biometric data and information not in accordance with Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that at the start of his employment, his handprint was scanned and saved by the biometric time clock system. He asserts that his handprint was then used to identify him during his workhours, when he needed to get through the building door. While the use of fingerprint scans may be more secure for the building than key fobs, identification cards, or combination codes, the use of biometric identifiers in the workplace entails risks for the employees. Fingerprints are permanent, unique biometric identifiers that will be associated with the employee forever, whereas other security measures that may be misplaced or stolen can be deactivated. Keeping employees' biometric identifiers on file exposes them to serious privacy risks like identity theft and unauthorized tracking. The Plaintiff saw his coworkers use the same scanner as he did and estimates that he and the other class members were asked to scan their hands three to six times per day over the course of their employment. The Defendant was in actual possession of Plaintiff's biometric information contained in the biometric time clock system, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed at Pepperidge Farm for May of 2020, contracted by a temporary agency located in the same building. Defendant Pepperidge Farm is a Connecticut corporation, with its headquarters in Connecticut, manufacturing plants in Illinois and Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Drew, Esq. NEIGHBORHOOD LEGAL LLC 20 N. Clark Street No. 3300 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 967-7220 E-mail: mwd@neighborhood-legal.com - and - Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS LLC 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1880 E-mail: cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Restitutionary Class in Sourovelis Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-4687 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Certification and Consent Decree on Plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief, certified the Restitutionary Class, and approved the Consent Decree as modified. The case is about long standing policies and procedures of the City of Philadelphia, the Office of the District Attorney, and the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County concerning the adjudication and execution of civil forfeitures. The Court found those policies and procedures, as alleged by the Plaintiffs and taken as true, to be unconstitutional and to have caused harm to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief, and monetary compensation. After substantial discovery and motion practice and with the help of a court appointed facilitator, the parties have reached agreement as to class certification, the implementation of structural and administrative changes in the manner in which civil forfeiture proceedings are conducted by the District Attorney and the Court of Common Pleas, and an amount of money sufficient to fairly compensate the victims of the unconstitutional practices. Presently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Certification and Consent Decree on Plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief. If approved, the settlement would resolve the two claims that assert the right to monetary restitution ("Restitutionary Claims"). There is a second consent decree involving the Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Claims for Relief that concerns structural changes to the Defendants' policies and practices ("Courtroom Claims") and which is the subject of a separate memorandum issued on this day. Finally, there is a separate order containing findings and granting an award of attorneys' fees. The terms of the proposed class action settlement are set forth in the "Proposed Consent Decree on Plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief." The so-called "Restitutionary Class" is comprised of: All persons who held or hold legal title to, or otherwise had or have a legal interest in property against which a Statutory or Common Law civil-forfeiture petition (i) was pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County as of Aug. 11, 2012; or (ii) was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on or after Aug. 11, 2012 until the date the Court grants preliminary approval. The Consent Decree offers two main benefits to the proposed Restitutionary Class: (1) complete injunctive relief remedying the Defendants' direct financial interest in the outcome of forfeiture proceedings; and (2) a Restitutionary Fund of $3 million to be administered by a third-party claims administrator. Including certain time-barred claims that the parties agreed to incorporate in the final tally, there were only 2,395 valid claimants out of the nearly 35,000 potential class members who were sent notice of the lawsuit. The final claimant count includes 61 claimants whose cases are not fully adjudicated, so the parties, not knowing the ultimate value of those claims, have set aside enough funds to compensate them. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the permanent injunctions in the Consent Decree for as long as they are in place. According to the proposed Consent Decree, the Restitutionary Fund will consist of $3 million, which after paying the costs of administration, will be distributed in the following order: First, $90 would be paid to each member of the proposed Restitutionary Class as recompense for the alleged constitutional violations. Second, each named Plaintiff would receive an incentive award of $2,500. Third, class members who were neither convicted nor received a diversionary disposition in a criminal case associated with the forfeiture of their property would receive 100% of the value of their property ("Innocent Claimants"). Fourth, class members who received a diversionary disposition in the criminal case associated with the forfeiture of their property would receive 75% of the value of their property ("Diversionary Claimants"). Fifth, those claimants who were convicted in the criminal case associated with the forfeiture of their property would receive 0% of the value of their property ("Convicted Claimants"). Sixth, $375,000 would be returned to the City of Philadelphia. Any remaining money would constitute a cy pres fund awarded to the Philadelphia Foundation to be distributed to nonprofit or community-based public-service organizations or social agencies. Due to the relatively low claim rate, 27% of the settlement fund, or $807,315 of the $3 million fund, ultimately fell within this category. After the Court questioned the size of the large cy pres award, the parties agreed that it should be adjusted so the actual class members receive a greater share of the Restitutionary Fund. In its supplemental letter brief, the class counsel suggested: (1) the Innocent Claimants receive $800 (instead of $90) and 100% of the value of their forfeited property; (2) the Diversionary Claimants receive $600 (instead of $90) and 75% of the value of their forfeited property; and (3) the Convicted Claimants receive $200 (instead of $90) and 0% of the value of their forfeited property. This distribution maximizes payment to the class and leaves only .8%, or $24,000, for the cy pres award to the Philadelphia Foundation. In the Defendants' supplemental letter brief, the District Attorney's Office suggested: (1) the Innocent Claimants receive $300 (instead of $90) and 100% of the value of their forfeited property; (2) the Diversionary Claimants receive $200 (instead of $90) and 75% of the value of their forfeited property; and (3) the Convicted Claimants receive the original $90 payment and 0% of the value of their forfeited property. This distribution would leave 21%, or $629,000 for the cy pres award to the Philadelphia Foundation. The Consent Decree also provides for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $2.63 million in addition to the $3 million restitution award. The reasonableness of attorneys' fees will be the subject of a separate order. Judge Robreno finds that the settlement class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement. Therefore, he will certify the Restitutionary Class. The Court previously approved the notice scheme and it appears that the parties have successfully followed that procedure. Indeed, the parties have taken various additional measures to encourage maximum response. Therefore, Judge Robreno concludes that notice was reasonable. In approving a class action settlement, Judge Robreno must determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, as required by Rule 23(e)(2). He addresses the relevant Girsh, Prudential, and Rule 23(e)(2) factors. He finds that (i) the Girsh factors favor approving the Consent Decree, (ii) weighing of the Prudential factors underscores the fairness of the Consent Decree, (iii) an analysis of the Rule 23(e)(2) factors confirms that the Consent Decree is fair and reasonable, and (iv) the award structure and cy pres provision, contribute to the overall fairness of the settlement. Judge Robreno concludes that in that Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) have been met, certification of the settlement class is proper. Moreover, a review of the Girsh, Prudential, and Rule 26(e)(2) factors indicate that the terms of the Consent Decree, as described, appear fair, reasonable, and adequate, and the purpose of the cy pres award, the designation of a recipient, and the reduced amount of the award adds to the overall fairness of the settlement. As a result, the Judge granted in part the Plaintiffs' Consent Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Certification and Consent Decree on Plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Claims for Relief, certified the Restitutionary Class, and approved the Consent Decree as modified. There is a separate order containing findings and granting an award of attorneys' fees. The parties may then file a joint modified consent decree for the Restitutionary Claims which conforms with the decision. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/15yxr7pr from Leagle.com. PHILADELPHIA: K9 Officers Claim Overtime Pay for Off-the-Clock Work ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph O'Reilly, Richard Treston, Janie Dipasquale, Nick Dipasquale, Michael Cahill, Horace Lopez, Justin O'Brien, Brian Quirple, William Suarez, James Zimmerman, Dennis Baker, Rodney Poliard, Kenneth Kustra, Joseph Mangold, Edward Moyer, John Snyder, Sean Elkins, Paul Sulock and Curtis Hill, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Philadelphia, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00313 (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2021), seeks all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and Pennsylvania common law. Plaintiffs are current and/or former City of Philadelphia police officers in the K9 unit, contending that the City of Philadelphia has improperly failed to pay overtime compensation to K9 officers for the at-home-care and training provided to their police dogs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Erica A. Shikunov, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market Street, Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215)391-4790 Email: erica@dereksmithlaw.com PIONEER NATURAL: Kennedy's FLSA Conditional Status Bid Junked ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT KENNEDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-cv-00086-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Pioneer Natural is an American energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in the Cline Shale, which is part of the Spraberry Trend of the Permian Basin, where the company is the largest acreage holder. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPOJTJat no extra charge.[CC] PLAINS ALL: Newman's FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No. 7:19-cv-00244-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex. ), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) conditional certification and notice. The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847, 2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021). The conditional certification standard articulated by the Fifth Circuit in Swales now requires the district court to: "[I]dentify, at the outset of the case, what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated." And then it should authorize preliminary discovery accordingly. The amount of discovery necessary to make that determination will vary case by case, but the initial determination must be made, and as early as possible. In other words, the district court, not the standards from Lusardi, should dictate the amount of discovery needed to determine if and when to send notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs." Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motions for Conditional Certification and Notice, so as to allow refiling when appropriate. Further, the Court will set a status conference in conformity with Swales under forthcoming, separate order. Plains All is an American publicly traded Master limited partnership in the oil pipeline transportation, marketing, and storage business in the United States, liquefied petroleum gas business in Canada, and natural gas storage business in Michigan and Louisiana. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cPCEKm at no extra charge.[CC] POLR ELECTRIC: Underpays Electricians, Barnard Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BARNARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POLR ELECTRIC, INC. and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-588933 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 14, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to provide meal and rest periods, pay overtime wages, waiting time penalties, and for all hours worked, reimburse business expenses, and furnish accurate wage statements, in violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Profession Code. The Plaintiff began employment with Defendant in January 2020 as an electrician. POLR Electric, Inc. is an electrical company based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Ottinger, Esq. Andrew Mailhot, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 262-0096 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com POLYFLUOROALKYL MAKERS: Wallace Slams Injury From Exposure Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Wallace v. 3M Company (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), AGC Chemicals Americas Inc., Amerex Corporation, Archroma U.S., Inc., Arkema, Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, Carrier Global Corporation, Chemdesign Products, Inc., Chemguard, Inc., Chemicals, Inc., Chemours Company FC, LLC, Chubb Fire, Ltd, Clariant Corp., Corteva, Inc., Deepwater Chemicals, Inc., Du Pont De Nemours Inc. (f/k/a Dowdupont Inc.), Dynax Corporation, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours And Company, Kidde-Fenwal, Inc., Kidde PLC, Nation Ford Chemical Company, National Foam, Inc., The Chemours Company, Tyco Fire Products LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, United Technologies Corporation, UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00179-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. These PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Wallace case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and - Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 PROBUILD COMPANY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTINA SENGVONG, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, v. PROBUILD COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company dba DIXIELINE LUMBER & HOME CENTERS, DIXIELINE TRUSS YARD, DIXIELINE CLASSIC COLLECTIONS, DIXIELINE HOME CENTERS; BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE-DALLAS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-02231-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting class certification of the Settlement Class solely for settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure section 23: "all persons employed by the Defendants in California as non-exempt employees at any time during the Settlement Class Period from October 15, 2015 through October 3, 2020;" 2. preliminarily approving the Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release Between Plaintiff and Defendants; 3. appointing David Spivak of The Spivak Law Firm and Walter Haines of United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel; 4. appointing herself as Class Representative; 5. approving the use of the proposed notice procedures and related forms; 6. directing that notice be mailed to the proposed Settlement Class; and 7. scheduling a hearing date for motion for final approval of class action settlement and awards of attorneys' fees and costs. ProBuild supplies building materials. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36PIhol at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Maralle Messrelian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 582-3086 Facsimile: (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com maralle@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256-1047 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com PULASKI COUNTY SSD: 30K Class Settlement in Lamb Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas issued a consolidated order and a judgment giving final order to the $30,000 settlement in the lawsuit titled JOHN LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00327-LPR (E.D. Ark.). By way of the Order, the Court (1) concludes that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and otherwise consistent with the requirements of Eighth Circuit precedent, the Fair Labor Standards Act statute, and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) overrules the two objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement filed on the docket; (3) excludes from the proposed Settlement Agreement and the Rule 23 class all the persons, who requested to be excluded; (4) formally and finally approves the proposed Settlement Agreement; and (5) dismisses the case with prejudice. On May 15, 2018, the named Plaintiff filed a Complaint, which included FLSA, Amended Migrant Workers Act, and breach of contract claims. The Complaint included both collective action and class claims. The thrust of the Complaint was that the Pulaski County Special School District was not paying bus drivers the rate promised to them on the first page of their contracts. Instead, for some chunk of driving hours, the District was paying a lower rate that was set forth in a salary schedule in the District's personnel policies. This alleged failure to pay the promised rate did more than just breach a contract, according to the Complaint. It also meant that bus drivers were not being properly compensated for overtime hours because the base pay rate used to calculate time-and-a-half pay was wrong. On January 14, 2019, the named Plaintiff moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective of bus drivers. On the same date, the named Plaintiff moved for certification of a Rule 23 class of bus drivers. On February 27, 2019, the Court conditionally certified an FLSA collective, granted Rule 23 class certification, and ordered Notice to both the collective and the class. All of the Notice obligations were timely and properly performed by the Parties. On August 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Uncontested Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Notice to the Settlement Class. On September 8, 2020, the Court granted the Motion and authorized the proposed Notice Plan. All Notice obligations were timely and properly performed by the Parties, and met the substantive requirements set out in Grunin v. International House of Pancakes. The Court received two Objections: one from Meandy Bishop and one from Beverly Cook. Twenty-one people requested exclusion from the proposed Settlement and class: Delton Adams, Kimberly Branch Burns, Beverly Cook, Purcela Daniels, Lava Davis, Kervis Dunhoo, Sr., Tequila Gilcrease, Linda Heffner, James P. Howard, Karen Hudson, Michelle Jones, Alicia Lockert, Leroy Martin, Jr., Vernon Mason, Theresa J. Mays, Katina Piggee, Jason Profit Sr., Robert Turner, Willie Williams, Richard L. Wright, and Steven A. Zimmerman.21 These exclusion requests are in an appropriate form and appear authentic. On December 4, 2020 the Court held a final fairness hearing. Neither Ms. Bishop nor Ms. Cook (the persons who filed written objections) showed up to the hearing. Nonetheless, the Court considered their objections in full. Only one other person showed up to the hearing, but he did not present an objection to the Court -- despite the Court explicitly providing the opportunity for oral objections at the hearing. The Plaintiffs' counsel is not receiving attorneys' fees or costs in this matter. The proposed Settlement Agreement does not include attorneys' fees or costs. And Plaintiffs' counsel made clear they are not taking any fees or costs from Mr. Lamb, the opt-in Plaintiffs, the Defendants, or anyone else. This choice to not take fees appears to be directly related to the assessment by the Plaintiffs' counsel (made during discovery and after further legal research) that the claims originally brought had a really low likelihood of success. Initially, the Court was concerned about the breadth of the Release of Claims contemplated in the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court expressed that concern at the hearing. However, the Parties have chosen to narrow the Release. Under the revision, only non-excluded members of the FLSA collective -- a group that will be entitled to monetary relief from the Settlement Agreement -- will release (or waive) any of their rights to pursue a lawsuit against the District. Rule 23 class members, who are not part of the FLSA collective -- and thus only receive injunctive relief in the proposed Settlement Agreement -- are not releasing (or waiving) any of their rights to bring a lawsuit. Moreover, the release (or waiver) for non-excluded FLSA collective members will only apply to the claims that were actually asserted in the lawsuit. It will not apply to claims that could have been, but were not, asserted in the case, let alone claims that could not have been brought in the case. There are 176 opt-in Plaintiffs in the FLSA collective, who have not excluded themselves from the proposed Settlement Agreement. Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Defendants are providing a total of $30,000. The non-excluded FLSA opt-in Plaintiffs will split this money equally, with each receiving approximately $170 dollars. (The individual monetary award would have been about $156 per person if all the FLSA collective members agreed to stay in the Settlement.) People who are members of the Rule 23 class but not the FLSA collective are receiving injunctive relief only. The injunctive relief is a clarification in the contract language that more clearly explains the pay structure for bus drivers. The Court notes that people who receive only injunctive relief are not releasing any of their rights to bring any claims. The Court further notes that the administrative costs and burdens associated with attempting to distribute the settlement among Rule 23 class members (as opposed to the FLSA opt-in collective) would be very high proportionate to the small total settlement amount. Indeed, the administrative costs and fees might actually burn through all or nearly all of the settlement figure. Ms. Bishop's Objection is that the she "cannot see how $156.25 covers the sum of 6 years of time not fully paid for." She believes the "sum is not a fair representation of her time" and devoted work during her employment. The Court notes that Ms. Bishop's Objection fails to acknowledge or wrestle with the fact that the claims brought in this case had an extraordinarily low probability of success. Ms. Cook's Objection argues that "the payment that the county wants to pay for the hours over 6 is not even. 1 cent over the years that the driver has worked." She says it is unfair. Like Ms. Bishop's Objection, Ms. Cook's Objection fails to acknowledge or wrestle with the fact that the claims brought in this case had an extraordinarily low probability of success. John Lamb, the named Plaintiff, is entitled to (under the proposed Settlement Agreement) a service award of $500. The Court expressed some concerns about the size of the award during the hearing. District Judge Lee P. Rudofsky rules that the 21 people who have requested exclusion from the Settlement Agreement and the Rule 23 class are entitled to exclusion. They are excluded as they have requested. The two written Objections are rejected and overruled. Consistent with the discussion in the Factual Findings section, the Objections have not identified any unfairness in the Settlement Agreement or any other reason to stop this Settlement. The fatal flaw in the Objections is that they do not discount the potential monetary relief on their claims with any realistic notion of chance of success. The chance of success is so low here that any monetary relief is a boon to the Plaintiffs. Judge Rudofsky holds that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. All the Van Horn v. Trickey factors counsel in favor of approving the settlement. The single most important factor is a weighing of the merits of the Plaintiffs' case against the terms of the settlement. Other factors include the Defendant's financial condition, the complexity and expense of further litigation, and the amount of opposition to the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Court notes that there is a distinction in the relief given to the Rule 23 class (injunctive relief) and the relief given to the FLSA collective (injunctive and monetary relief). The distinction is justified, especially considering that members of the Rule 23 class who are not opt-in members of the FLSA collective action are not releasing any claims at all. Also, it is not lost on the Court that trying to give monetary relief to the Rule 23 class would require a significant administrative process that would likely swallow most of the settlement funds. On the contrary, because FLSA members have already opted-in, it is far easier and less costly to identify them and to identify where their relief should be sent. Ultimately, the distinction between groups does not undermine the reasonableness or fairness of the Agreement. The Court is okay with the $500 service award to Mr. Lamb. It does seem a little high, especially given that everyone agrees the claims were and are most likely unmeritorious. However, the Court accepts as persuasive the arguments of the Plaintiffs' counsel that (1) much of the error can be attributed to counsel; and (2) it takes a fair deal of courage to come forth to sue one's employer on behalf of others. $500 is not so high as to be unreasonable. It strikes a balance between incentivizing whistle-blowing and not incentivizing false accusations. And, certainly in the context of this case, it does not suggest any type of buying-off of the Plaintiff. For these reasons, the Court rejects and overrules the two written Objections, excludes from the Settlement Agreement and class all 21 persons that requested such treatment, concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and formally and finally approves the Settlement Agreement. The case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. A full-text copy of the Court's Consolidated Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/c2akhl9y from Leagle.com. QIWI PLC: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing ------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI) Investors Affected: March 28, 2019 - December 9, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Qiwi plc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/qiwi-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=12562&from=1 Triterras, Inc., f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:TRIT) Investors Affected: August 20, 2020 - December 16, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Triterras, Inc, f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/triterras-inc-f-k-a-netfin-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=12562&from=1 Decision Diagnostics Corp. (OTC PINK:DECN) Investors Affected: March 3, 2020 - December 17, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Decision Diagnostics Corp. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Decision Diagnostics had not developed any viable COVID-19 test, much less a test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute; (ii) the Company could not meet the FDA's EUA testing requirements for its purported COVID-19 test; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had misrepresented the timeline within which it could realistically bring its COVID-19 test to market; (iv) all the foregoing subjected Defendants to an increased risk of regulatory oversight and enforcement; and (v) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/decision-diagnostics-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=12562&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: The Gross Law Firm 15 West 38th Street, 12th floor New York, NY, 10018 Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com Phone: (212) 537-9430 Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN] QUALCOMM INC: Appeal in Broadcom Merger-Related Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2020, that the appeal in the order of dismissal in the securities class action suit entitled, In re Qualcomm/Broadcom Merger Securities Litigation, is pending. On June 8, 2018 and June 26, 2018, securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and two of its then current officers. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by failing to disclose that the company had submitted a notice to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in January 2018. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On January 22, 2019, the court appointed the lead plaintiff in the action. On March 18, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On May 10, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 10, 2020, the court granted the company's motion. On May 11, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and on October 8, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. On November 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. No hearing date has been set. QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit." QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. QUALCOMM INC: Appeal on Grant of Class Certification Bid Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2020, that the U.S. Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal regarding the grant of class certification motion. Since January 18, 2017, a number of consumer class action complaints have been filed against the company in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices. In April 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases that had been filed in the Southern District of California to the Northern District of California. On May 15, 2017, the court entered an order appointing the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the company violated California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to the company's competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of the company's baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license our entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with our commitments to standard-setting organizations. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as well as an order that the company be enjoined from further unlawful conduct. On August 11, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 10, 2017, the court denied the company's motion, except to the extent that certain claims seek damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. On July 5, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the court granted that motion on September 27, 2018. On January 23, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) granted the company's permission to appeal the court's class certification order. On January 24, 2019, the court stayed the case pending the company's appeal. On December 2, 2019, a hearing on the company's appeal of the class certification order was held before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the company's appeal. QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. QUALCOMM INC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2020, that the company's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the consolidated class action suit filed by purported stockholders remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On January 23, 2017 and January 26, 2017, securities class action complaints were filed by purported stockholders of us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaints alleged, among other things, that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact in connection with certain allegations that the company is/or was engaged in anticompetitive conduct. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. On May 4, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On July 3, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting the same basic theories of liability and requesting the same basic relief. On September 1, 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 18, 2019, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss. On January 15, 2020, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court has not yet ruled on our motion. QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. QUALCOMM INC: Consumer Class Suits Ongoing in Canada ---------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2020, that the company continues to defend consumer class action lawsuits in Canada. Since November 2017, several other consumer class action complaints have been filed against the company in Canada (in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Quebec Superior Court) and Israel (in the Haifa District Court), each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging violations of certain of those countries' competition and consumer protection laws. The claims in these complaints are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class action complaints. The complaints seek unspecified damages. QUALCOMM said, "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. QUALCOMM Incorporated designs, develops, manufactures, and markets digital communication products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL); and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI). QUALCOMM Incorporated was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Jakubowitz Law on Jan. 31 disclosed that securities fraud class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below. Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT KNDI: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12566&from=1 Class Period : March 15, 2019 - November 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:QS) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT QS: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form/?id=12566&from=1 Class Period : November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:BTBT) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BTBT: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=12566&from=1 Class Period : December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (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. Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: JAKUBOWITZ LAW 1140 Avenue of the Americas 9th Floor New York, New York 10036 T: (212) 867-4490 F: (212) 537-5887 [GN] QUICKWAY: Tooley Sues Over Failure to Provide Advance Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Warren Tooley and Brandy Cook, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated v. QUICKWAY TRANSPORTATION, INC., QUICKWAY LOGISTICS, INC., and PALADIN CAPITAL, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00081 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 3, 2021) is brought against the Defendants by failing to provide 60 days advance written notice of a mass layoff and/or plant closing as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The complaint alleges that on December 9, 2020, the Defendants made a mass layoff and/or plant closing by unilaterally and without notice shutting down the terminal located at 2827 S. English Station Road in Louisville, Kentucky without any notice to employees. The Defendants failed to provide 60 days advance written notice as required by the WARN Act. On December 9, 2020, Defendants informed the affected employees that their services would no longer be required and that they were not required nor allowed to report for work. Because of the December 9, 2020 terminations, Defendant's reduction in forces constituted a mass layoff or plant closing which became effective on December 9, 2020. As such, the Plaintiffs should have received the full protection afforded by the WARN act, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Quickway at the Louisville Facility. Quickway is engaged in the business of transporting goods and materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Janna Maples, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com jannam@bsjfirm.com - and - Samuel Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Email: Sam@turkestrauss.com RCI LLC: Bryan Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCI, LLC. The case is styled as Tara Bryan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RCI, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00291 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. RCI -- https://www.rci.com/ -- is a timeshare exchange company with over 4,300 affiliated resorts in 110 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com REALOGY GROUP: Facing Leeder Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 2, 2021, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. On January 25, 2021, the Company became party to the putative class action. In this putative class action, the plaintiff takes issue with certain NAR policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claims the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALPAGE INC: Court Tosses Diane Jones' Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE D. JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. REALPAGE, INC. d/b/a LEASINGDESK SCREENING, Case No. 3:19-cv-02087-B (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jane J. Boyle entered an order denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class. The Court says that class certification is inappropriate because Jones's claims are not typical of the claims of the putative class members. The Court is also not persuaded by Jones's supplemental authority that class certification is appropriate. This is a suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Jones alleges the Defendant RealPage, a consumer-reporting agency, "systematically violates section 1681e(b) of the FCRA by failing to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information included on" consumer reports. Jones seeks relief on behalf of herself and two putative classes. RealPage sells consumer reports to residential leasing agents for tenant-screening purposes. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3rnx32eat no extra charge.[CC] REED'S INC: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Mason Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants in part and denies in part, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled DENISE MASON, Plaintiff v. REED'S INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-10826 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Mason brings the putative class action against Reed's alleging that the Defendant improperly labeled its soda as being, among other things, "All-Natural" and containing "no preservatives." The Defendant alleges that those labels are in fact truthful and accurate. Seeking injunctive and monetary relief, the Plaintiff asserts five claims: (1) violation of New York General Business Law Section 349, (2) violation of New York General Business Law Section 350, (3) breach of an express warranty, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) common law fraud. The Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In support of her allegations that the product is not natural and contains preservatives, the Plaintiff points to the definition of "chemical preservative" by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") as a chemical that "tends to prevent or retard deterioration" of the food to which it is added, with certain exceptions. Moreover, on its website, the FDA lists citric acid as a preservative. The FDA also has sent at least one warning letter to a company in which it suggests that citric acid is a preservative. The Plaintiff also includes a declaration of a food scientist, Dr. Meyers, in which Dr. Meyers asserts that citric acid functions as a preservative. In addition to functioning as a preservative, citric acid can be used for flavoring purposes. While citric acid is naturally occurring in citrus fruits, the Plaintiff alleges that the citric acid used in the Defendant's products is not naturally occurring. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant used citric acid fermented by a strain of black mold fungus known as Aspergillus niger. The FDA has identified citric acid produced in this fashion as synthetic. The FDA does not provide a definition of "natural," but it has said that it has not objected to the use of the term "natural" where the food does not contain "added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances." It has also sent entities warning letters suggesting that supplemental citric acid is not a "natural" ingredient. The Defendant moves to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff does not have standing to seek injunctive relief and that the Defendant's statements were not misleading. District Judge John G. Koeltl finds that in the case, the Plaintiff has not alleged that she would buy the Defendant's products again. The Plaintiff argues that she does not need to allege that she would buy the products again to have standing to pursue injunctive relief, citing Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co. ("Belfiore I") for the proposition that requiring a plaintiff to allege that the plaintiff would continue to purchase a product the plaintiff knew was materially misleading "would denigrate the New York consumer protection statute, designed as a major support of consumers who claim to have been cheated" because "once the consumer learned of the deception, the consumer would voluntarily abstain from buying." The court in Belfiore I explicitly noted that it based its decision on the fact that the Court of Appeals had not "addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff, with no claim of probable future injury, may pursue an injunction under state consumer protection statutes." However, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has since held that "a plaintiff seeking to represent a class must personally have standing" and that while "past injuries may provide a basis for standing to seek money damages, they do not confer standing to seek injunctive relief unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that she is likely to be harmed again in the future in a similar way," Judge Koeltl notes, citing Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220, 239 (2d Cir. 2016). The plaintiff's reliance on the public policy rationale for standing in this context advanced in Belfiore I, which predated Nicosia, is unavailing, Judge Koeltl opines. Indeed, courts that have addressed this issue after Nicosia have concluded that a plaintiff in these circumstances does not have Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief, citing Ashour v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 19-cv-7081, 2020 WL 5603382, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2020). In the case, Judge Koeltl notes, the Plaintiff has not alleged in the Second Amended Complaint that she would purchase the Defendant's products again if not mislabeled, and the Court of Appeals has made clear that a plaintiff in a consumer protection suit does not have standing to seek injunctive relief unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that she is likely to suffer a similar injury in the future. Rather, the Plaintiff specifically alleged that she, and the members of the putative class, would not have purchased the Defendant's products at their advertised price had she and the members of the putative class known the labels were misleading. And because the named plaintiff must personally have standing, even if other members of the putative class may suffer future injury, that is not sufficient for the Plaintiff to have standing to seek injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff also alleges that the "All-Natural" and "no preservative" labels were materially misleading because they were false and likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably. The Plaintiff alleges that there were two types of misleading statements: that the products contained no preservatives and that the products were all natural. She contends that the Defendant's labeling is false and misleading because the products contain citric acid, a preservative. She alleges injury in that she paid a price premium for the product that she thought was all natural and without preservatives. Accordingly, Judge Koeltl holds, the Plaintiff has alleged adequately that the Defendant engaged in consumer-oriented activity that was materially misleading and caused the Plaintiff a cognizable injury. The Defendant argues, among other things, that the Plaintiff cannot state plausibly that it violated Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law because its conduct is protected by the laws' safe harbor provisions. Judge Koeltl notes that it is at least ambiguous whether citric acid can be considered a preservative in the Defendant's products. Therefore, it cannot be concluded on a motion to dismiss that the Defendant complied with the safe harbor provisions. Judge Koeltl also holds, among other things, that the Plaintiff has pleaded enough to satisfy her burden to state a claim for breach of express warranty and has pleaded adequately her unjust enrichment claim, and whether she can recover will turn on issues of fact that cannot be determined on the motion to dismiss. In the case, there is sufficient ambiguity in the regulations and definitions of "natural" and "preservative" that regulatory guidance alone is not sufficient to infer the Defendant's knowledge that its statements were false or misleading. The Plaintiff alleges that her attorney gave the Defendant a copy of the complaint, which put the Defendant on notice that its statements were false. However, that notice came after the Defendant already put its statements on its products and the Plaintiff purchased those products. Therefore, the notice could not have given the Defendant knowledge that its statements were false at the time it put its statements on the products and at the time the Plaintiff purchased the products. Accordingly, the common law fraud claim is dismissed. Without a factual record, it would be inappropriate to conclude what remedies are available to the Plaintiff, Judge Koeltl holds. Until there is a more developed record, the Court defers ruling on whether non-restitutionary disgorgement could be an appropriate remedy in the case. The motion to strike the class action allegations is denied without prejudice to renewal in connection with a motion for class action certification. The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not discussed, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief. It is denied with respect to the causes of action pursuant New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, for breach of warranty, and for unjust enrichment as claims for non-injunctive relief. The motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the cause of action for common law fraud. The Defendant's requests to strike the non-restitutionary disgorgement remedy and class allegations are denied without prejudice to renewal. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 41 and 46. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/15n91n4y from Leagle.com. REGIONS BANK: Faces Fisk Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- H. FISK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGIONS BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02018-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill., January 28, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint seeking to redress the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and on behalf of all Bakers, Tellers, Head Tellers, Financial Relationship Specialists, and other non-exempt, hourly employees presently and formerly employed by the Defendant in Illinois, who performed the Opening Procedures off-the-clock without being compensated by the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's alleged policy and practice of not paying its employees who performed the Opening Procedures off-the-clock, they were not paid all their lawfully earned overtime wages despite they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to accurately record all time they worked, the suit says. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around June 2017 to in or around August 2018 to perform the Opening Procedures. Regions Bank is a bank operating in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com mmiller@swartz-legal.com RLJ C San Francisco: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Rios Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Rios v. RLJ C San Francisco, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, RLJ C San Francisco General Partner, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company and RLJ C San Francisco Lessee, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Case No. 4:21-cv-00338-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated, alleging violations of the Defendants of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging. According to the complaint, on September 17, 2020, Ms. Rios went to the Marriott San Francisco Union Square reservation Website at https://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/sfocn-courtyard-san-franciscounion-square, seeking to book an accessible room at the location. She alleges that the Defendants failed to provide information on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit her to determine if there are rooms that would work for people with physical disabilities like her. As a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with its ADA obligations, 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 her due to her disability, the suit says. Ms. Rios is a California resident with physical disabilities. She is substantially limited in her ability to walk. She is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. The Defendants are hotel companies located in 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 ROBERTA PLACE: Family of Home Care Resident Files $50MM Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ OrilliaMatters reports that Roberta Place in Barrie, Ont., has seen a startling rise in COVID-19 cases at its long-term care home recently, as well as 53 deaths in just the last few weeks. Families of Roberta Place residents now want answers and a class action lawsuit seeking $50 million in damages against Barrie Long Term Care Centre Inc, Jarlette Holdings Inc., Jarlette Limited, and Roberta Place Retirement Lodge Inc. has been started. Marcella Lambie is the representative plaintiff and she is acting as litigation guardian for her brother, George Head. Mr. Head has been diagnosed with COVID-19 and his condition is deteriorating. Ms. Lambie and others want to hold Roberta Place accountable for what they describe as "gross negligence" in failing to keep their residents safe from the virus. Nearly all residents have tested positive for COVID-19. An inspection conducted earlier in January found that the home failed to follow proper protocols to keep residents safe, allowing rooms to be shared by both confirmed positive COVID-19 patients and those who had not yet tested positive for the virus. An inspector with the Ministry of Long-Term Care said they observed staff and resident cohorting protocols not being followed, in an inspection report dated Jan. 18, 2021. Following the inspection, which was carried out on Jan. 12 and Jan. 13, the Ministry of Long-Term Care found that the "licensee has failed to ensure that the home was a safe and secure environment for its residents." "The inspector identified resident rooms that were shared by both confirmed COVID-19 positive residents and residents not confirmed to have COVID-19. A personal support worker (PSW) indicated that residents within these shared rooms would often come into close contact with each other," the inspection report states. "Certain staff were providing care to both confirmed COVID-19 positive residents and residents not confirmed to have COVID-19. The administrator indicated that cohorting of staff on all resident home areas was not always possible." The inspector also noted that the home did not strictly follow the directive to place all residents in isolation under droplet and contact precautions. Currently, there are 128 active COVID-19 cases among residents in the long-term care home, which has 137 total beds available. There are also 84 active COVID-19 cases among staff members. Sadly, 53 residents and one essential caregiver have died following the outbreak. Families are looking for answers. "How can this happen at a private care facility nearly one year into a pandemic?" asks Ms. Lambie whose brother pays over $2,700 per month to reside at Roberta Place. "We should expect more from our long-term care homes and we should also hold them accountable for what they've done." Gayle Brock, from Brock Medical Malpractice Law, one of the lead lawyers in the case advised that "Ms. Lambie started this lawsuit because she entrusted Roberta Place to care for her brother and to protect him. Roberta Place is his home, and it failed him". Ms. Brock confirmed that the lawsuit has been started and the owners of Roberta Place will have to respond to the lawsuit in the near future. Any questions regarding the class-action lawsuit should be directed to Gayle Brock at Brock Medical Malpractice Law, 705-739-4022, gtbrock@brockmedmal.com or Robert Durante at Oatley Vigmond, 705-726-9021, rdurante@oatleyvigmond.com. [GN] ROBERTA PLACE: To Join Mega Suit Against Ontario Care Homes ----------------------------------------------------------- Marg. Bruineman at barrietoday.com reports that the lawyers involved in assembling a mega class action against Ontario long-term care homes are including Roberta Place as part of the lawsuit, representing family members of those who have died as a result of COVID-19. Darryl Singer said his firm, Diamond and Diamond Lawyers, has been in touch with several family members of residents of the Barrie long-term care home where all but one resident has fallen ill due to COVID-19 and many have died. About 100 long-term care homes are part of the class action being proposed. Initially, the action started as a result of deaths in Ontario facilities during the first wave. That has since been expanded as the pandemic once again takes a deadly toll. The country's spotlight has recently turned to the Roberta Place long-term care home in Barrie, which has reported Canada's first known outbreak of the COVID-19 UK variant, claiming the lives of 53 residents along with an essential caregiver associated with the home as of Friday. Of the 129 residents, 128 have tested positive along with 84 staff members. The class action, says Singer, turns on how the homes failed the residents. "Roberta Place is part of a large lawsuit" assembled by three law firms that they're calling a mega action, he said. "We've essentially put close to 100 homes into one large class action, rather than doing 100 class actions. "If they are not already part of this larger action, they are all ultimately going to be consolidated into one large action because essentially what we say is the allegations against Roberta Place are no different than the allegations against every other operator running every other home." The suit is accusing the homes of lacking in emergency preparedness, personal protective equipment, staffing and facilities for isolation as well as not paying attention to the crisis when it arose in March and failing to prepare for "the inevitable second wave," said Singer. "All of the modelling from the public health officials at that time was along the lines of: 'It's going to die down over the summer, but get ready, it's going to ramp up again in the fall when it gets cold.' And sure enough that's what happened." And while the allegations against Roberta Place are the same as the other homes, the difference is that the root cause in Barrie was this more virulent and deadly UK variant. The bottom line, he charges, is that the residents and the staff were not adequately protected. "They just didn't do it," he said. "We suspect Roberta Place is going to say: 'Yeah, we were prepared for the regular strain but nobody saw this new UK variant happening.' And my answer is to call B.S. on that because at the end of the day, you're either prepared for an outbreak or you're not." Considerations are being given to a separate class action involving workers of the homes, many of whom themselves have fallen ill while dealing with additional stresses in the workplace. But unionized homes would not be part of any lawsuits since contracts from bargaining agreements typically preclude civil lawsuits, said Singer. More than 100 employees at Roberta Place are unionized. The Health Care and Service Workers Union Local 304, which is affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC), has 115 members, consisting of personal support workers (PSWs), registered practical nurses (RPNs), and other program staff. It indicates there are no immediate plans for legal action on behalf of the workers. "Our members right now are focused on ensuring that the residents are cared for and that everyone at Roberta Place is kept safe," Ian DeWaard, its provincial director, wrote in an email. "CLAC is monitoring the situation and inquiring into whether members have been exposed to risk due to negligence or misconduct. We are in contact with those at work, and those who remain at home due to infection." Its options, he added, include grievance arbitration and complaints with the Ontario Labour Relation Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Singer earlier said he doesn't expect new legislation that offers protections to homes that have made "good faith effort". Even though Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act changes the standard of proof from mere negligence to gross negligence, Singer said the homes involved the class-actions do not meet the good-faith standards that include following public health guidelines. [GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Cobos Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- LEVI COBOS, an individual and those similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, a business form unknown; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a business form unknown; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a business form unknown, Case No. 2:21-cv-00843 (Jan. 29, 2021) alleges that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly manipulated the stock prices of Blackberry (NASDAQ: BB), AMC Theatres (NASDAQ: AMC), and Gamestop (NASDAQ: GME) and the ability to transact on its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise and fall and trading behaviors occurring on January 28, 2021, resulting in the deprivation of its customers and users, retail investors, to invest and transact in an open-market free of manipulation. On January 27, 2021, Robinhood was publicly criticized in various news publication as one source of trouble in volatility of stock prices Gamestop (NASDAQ: GME), AMC Theatres (NASDAQ: AMC), and Blackberry (NASDAQ: BB), and that Robinhood's participation in the securities exchange markets garnered controversy because of its customer based composition of mostly younger, inexperienced, and easily influenced retail investors. In an effort to allay criticisms and negative publicity surrounding its business operations, on January 27-28, 2021, Robinhood allegedly decided to and did engage in unfair and improper deprivation of computer systems, transaction/trading platform, and services to its customers by disabling the "buy" button on its app; and, Robinhood restricted, limited, or conditioned their ability to transact or trade, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowing or having reason to know that the stock prices for Gamestop (NASDAQ: GME), AMC Theatres (NASDAQ: AMC), Blackberry (NASDAQ: BB), and other securities, would be manipulated and would impact the open market as a result, thus causing harm to its customers, the open market, its fellow broker/dealers and firms, as well as issuers of securities ("Selective Market Manipulation"), says the complaint. Plaintiff Cobos is a citizen of the state of California and resides in the County of Los Angeles, at all times relevant. At all times relevant, Mr. Cobos is and was a customer of Robinhood and was and is a user of the Robinhood app. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm that caters to young and inexperienced investors and investors who typically would not be well prepared to burden financial losses or market manipulations as ordinary or experienced investors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph M. Kar, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. KAR, PC 15250 Ventura Blvd., Suite PH-1220 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 501-6930 Facsimile: (818) 501-6935 - and - Gerald L. Kroll, Esq. KROLL LAW FIRM 970 West Broadway, Ste. E-200 Jackson, WY 83001 Telephone: (202) 248-5423 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Deprives Users to Trade Stocks, Gossett Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSH GOSSETT and JAMES LAPLANT, each individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00837 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2021) alleges that the Robinhood deliberately, willfully and knowingly disabled the "buy" function for any of its users who attempted to trade the following securities: Gamestop ("GME"), AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc ("AMC") and BlackBerry Ltd ("BB"), among other stocks. According to the complaint, such action is completely diametrical to Robinhood's advertised selling point of "democratizing finance" for all. The effect of Robinhood's actions were intentionally designed to benefit, and actually benefitted, large, corporate financial interests that bet against, or shorted, the Securities. The presumptive constituents of Robinhood's "democracy," the Company's alleged "target market" of average "Jack and Jill" traders, were sacrificed in favor of large institutions and market players, and Robinhood's own's self-interest. A significant number of retail investors who relied on Robinhood to be their champion, and who chose Robinhood's platform to invest their money, were told that "ongoing volatility" was the reason for the sudden suspension of certain basic and crucial account trading functions, the suit says. The Plaintiffs are residents of California. Robinhood Financial, famous as the champion of the small retail investor, is a multi-billion-dollar online brokerage which prides and markets itself on "democratizing finance for all."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maurice D. Pessah, Esq. Michael Morris-Nussbaum, Esq. Summer E. Benson, Esq. PESSAH LAW GROUP, PC 661 N. Harper Ave., Suite 208 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 772-2261 E-mail: maurice@pessahgroup.com mmnussbaum@pessahgroup.com sbenson@pessahgroup.com - and - Stuart Chelin, Esq. CHELIN LAW FIRM 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90076 Telephone: (310) 556-9664 E-mail: stuart@chelinlaw.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Diamond Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN DIAMOND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC. And JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 6:21-cv-00207 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2021) seeks to enjoin Robinhood's anticompetitive, unlawful, and unfair practices and to require Robinhood to compensate Plaintiff and members of the Class for the losses they have incurred. Allegedly, on January 28, 2021, Robinhood, halted the purchase of stocks for publicly traded companies including GameStop, Blackberry, Nokia, AMC, and others. This unilateral move was done so in a concerted effort to de-platform and deprive individual investors of the ability to control their own investments for the benefit of itself and others. This entire sequence of events started when an investment management fund, "Melvin Capital Management" ("Melvin") who held over $12.5 Billion in assets placed an aggressive short sell on the company GameStop. To contradict this decision, the heavily followed Reddit page "r/wallstreetbets" and their administrators advocated that their followers purchase GameStop stock using the broker Robinhood. The response of the individual investors motivated by this and other factors was so effective that it drove the stock price to over 400% of its previous value. As a result, Melvin lost billions on their return and Robinhood chose to block users from buying GameStop stock but still allowed liquidation, the suit says. Robinhood's users lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of Robinhood's alleged stock market manipulation. Plaintiff Jonathan Diamond is an individual, over 18 years of age, who is a Robinhood user. At all times relevant, Plaintiff was, and currently is, a resident and citizen of the State of California Robinhood is an online brokerage firm founded in 2013 that states it is a "pioneer in commission-free investing." Robinhood's customers can place securities trades through the firm's website and by using a web-based application (or "app"). Robinhood picks and chooses which securities its customers can buy and sell, including option contracts, and engage in trading on margin. The company possesses no storefront offices and operates entirely online. Robinhood is a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") -- regulated broker -- dealer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. Erika Willis, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, No. 105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com ewillis@varnellandwarwick.com kstroly@varnellandwarwick.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Gamestop Trading Halt ------------------------------------------------------------------ WLS reports that GameStop caused a market frenzy on Wall Street as an online army of amateur day traders took on multibillion-dollar hedge funds that bet gaming retailer was on the brink of collapse. Shares of GameStop soared to an intraday high of $483 on Jan. 28 before trading was halted by the popular app Robinhood, which has said its mission is to "democratize finance for all," appealing to young millennial traders. But now, Robinhood customers are outraged, lining up by the tens-of-thousands in a class-action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York. That suit alleges that Robinhood deprived its investors by removing the GameStop stock. In a blog post on Jan. 29, Robinhood said it "was not because it wanted to stop people from buying these stocks." "The class actions and the legal claims against Robinhood are really, really weak," said Securities Litigator Andrew Stoltmann. "There are some really good protections that Robinhood has built into their new account agreement with customers that's going to make a class action very, very difficult to be successful." The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also weighed in and said it's "closely monitoring and evaluating the extreme price volatility of certain stocks' trading prices over the past several days." Attorneys General from multiple states, along with a couple of senators, have called for an investigation into Robinhood. "It doesn't matter what the reason is, consumers just want their money. People are putting their paychecks into the stock market and trusting these big companies with their money and they're letting them down," said Joshua Browder, Founder of DoNotPayCEO. "It was very frustrating. I was seeing opportunities to make money," said Nick Miller, a Chicago day trader suing Robinhood. "I will sell the day they open up the trading platforms and allow everybody to buy and sell as they feel. Ahead of the Feb. 1 opening bell, Robinhood will continue its trade restrictions, allowing customers to buy just one share of GameStop stock and five options contracts. [GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Removed Stock "AMC" from Platform, Omanhe Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN OMAHNE, individually and behalf of all those similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00013-SLH (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2021) alleges that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed the stock "AMC" from its trading platform in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise, depriving retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market. According to the complaint, on January 21, 2021 stocks in AMC Entertainment (AMC) began to rise. Robinhood allowed retail investors to trade AMC on the open market during that time. On January 27, 2021 Robinhood, in order to slow the growth of AMC deprived their customers of the ability to use their service, abruptly, purposefully, willfully, and knowingly pulled AMC from their app. Meaning, retail investors could no longer buy or even search for AMC on Robinhood's app, the suit says. On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff used his Robinhood app, searched for AMC on Robinhood’s app, and found it was unavailable. The stock did not even appear, although AMC is a publicly traded company available on all other platforms, alleges the suit Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Manes, Esq. Prabhu Narahari, Esq. MANES & NARAHARI LLC Law & Finance Building 429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 626-5591 Facsimile: (412) 650-4845 E-mail: dm@manesnarahari.com pn@manesnarahari.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Restricts Investment in Free Market, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HANNA KAYALI and MOHAMMED A. DOLEH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, TD AMERITRADE, INC., THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., and MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, Case No. 1:21-cv-00510 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 28, 2021) is a class action based upon the Defendants' intentional and willful restriction for certain securities including Naked Brand Group Ltd., Nokia Corporation, and AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., from its trading platform thereby dispossessing the retail investors of the ability to invest in the free market. The complaint alleges that on January 28, 2021, in an effort to restrict the free market, Robinhood and TD Ameritrade deprived its individual investor customers of the ability to transact on their platforms for certain securities including NAKD, NOK, and AMC. Meanwhile, hedge funds and institutional investors may continue to trade as normal. Robinhood explicitly stated, "We continuously monitor the markets and make changes where necessary. In light of recent volatility, we are restricting transactions for certain securities to position closing only, including $AAL, $AMC, $BB, $BBBY, $CTRM, $EXPR, $GME, $KOSS, $NAKD, $NOK, $SNDL, $TR, and $TRVG. We also raised margin requirements for certain securities." The Plaintiffs contend that Robinhood and TD Ameritrade's actions were done purposefully and knowingly to manipulate the market for the benefit of hedge funds and institutional investors. Plaintiff Kayali purchased AMC, NAKD, and NOK on January 27, 2021. On the morning of January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff Kayali sold her interest in NAKD. On the morning of January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff Kayali used her Robinhood app, searched for AMC and NOK, and found they were unavailable. The stock did not even appear, although AMC and NOK are publicly traded companies. Plaintiff Doleh purchased AMC stock on January 27, 2021. On the morning of January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff Doleh used his TD Ameritrade app, searched for AMC, and found it was unavailable. The stock did not even appear, although AMC is a publicly traded company. Thus, Plaintiffs, like all others similarly situated lost out on all earning opportunities. Robinhood is a FINRA regulated broker-dealer, registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. The company's revenue comes from three main sources: interest earned on customers’ cash balances, selling order information to high frequency traders, and margin lending. The company has 13 million users as of its most recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing. Citadel Enterprise Americas, LLC is one of the largest clients of Robinhood, and on information and belief, Citadel reloaded their short sale positions before they told Robinhood to stop trading stocks in GameStop Corp. TD Ameritrade is a broker that offers an electronic trading platform for the trade of financial assets including common stocks, preferred stocks, futures contracts, exchange-traded funds, options, cryptocurrency, mutual funds, and fixed income investments.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lana B. Nassar, Esq. BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C. 123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 448-6602 Facsimile: (312) 803-1940 E-mail: lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Tampers Stock Trading, Investments, Fresa Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARC A. FRESA v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00134 (D. Conn., Jan. 29, 2021) is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and many other users similarly situated for damages and injunctive relief against the Defendants for tampering and interfering with stock trading and investments. According to the complaint, the Defendants foreclosed small retail investor access to the investment/stock market by removing and/or restricting access to various stocks and thereafter limiting stock purchases from their online trading platforms including, but not limited to, Gamestop "GME," Blackberry "BB," AMC Entertainment "AMC," Bed Bath and Beyond "BBBY," Express "EXPR," Naked Brand "NAKD," and/or Nokia "NOK." ("blocked stocks"). The Plaintiff contends that while small retail investors were denied access to said blocked stocks and were prevented from protecting their investments or profiting from blocked stock fluctuation and trending, larger hedge-fund and other non-retail institutional investors continued to enjoy buy and sell privileges. He adds that the Defendants were aware that preventing access to the blocked stocks would have a negative economic effect on its customers. Moreover, the Defendants have also benefitted economically from data that they sold to non-retail investors and hedge-funds, thereby advantaging these larger outlets to the detriment of the Defendants' smaller retail investors to whom fiduciary and fair dealing duties were owed. The conduct of the Defendants, or any of them, constitutes Breach of Trust, Breach of the Implied Warranty of Good Faith and Fair Dealings and one or more violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, says the suit. Marc Fresa was a citizen of the State of Connecticut. Robinhood is an application and/or Internet-based brokerage and financial service, where small retail investors can enjoy "commission free" stock trading and investment opportunities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan Seeger, Esq. LAW OFFICES: STEPHEN J. CARRIERO 810 Bedford Street, Suite No. 3 Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 273-5170 Facsimile: (203) 357-0608 E-mail: Seegerkid2@aol.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Users Deprived From Buying Stocks, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAGI CEZANA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 5:21-cv-00759 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2021), alleges that Robinhood purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed its users' ability to purchase AMC from its trading platform in the midst of the short squeeze, depriving retail investors of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulating the open-market to artificially lower the price. In late 2020, stocks for various companies began to fluctuate greatly, including the stock for the company American Movie Company ("AMC"), which experienced an extreme downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic's effect on its users' ability to attend its theatres. AMC began to dramatically rise when retail investors began buying the stock in January 2021. This rise was due in part to the efforts of individual investors using Robinhood's App, purchasing a stock they believed had value, in addition to efforts from retail investors originating online to combat the actions of hedge funds to short the stock, who viewed AMC as a prime "short" target, or a stock to bet against to profit from as it fell. Various hedge funds had begun to "short" AMC, or borrowing and subsequently selling a stock at a current price, and promising to buy the stock back from the lender at a later date, with the goal that the value of the stock falls, giving the short 18 seller the difference between the initial value of the stock and the lower, current value of the stock in profit. This led to a later phenomenon known as a "short squeeze," where a stock that had been heavily shorted quickly jumps significantly higher, placing short sellers in great distress as they began to owe immense sums of money. This short squeeze benefited the aforementioned retail investors, who were reaping the gains of a stock shooting up at an incredible rate. However, the firms that were shorting AMC were soon in debt for billions as the stock continued to grow immensely along with their liability. Robinhood's actions harmed Plaintiffs and the Class, says the complaint. Robinhood is an online brokerage firm on which many retail investors invest, given its consumer-friendly label as a firm that allows open trading and does not charge fees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Audet, Esq. David Ling Y. Kuang, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com lkuang@audetlaw.com kkessler@audetlaw.com - and - Robert L. Lieff, Esq. 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: rlieff@lchb.com - and - Jack Russo, Esq. COMPUTER LAW GROUP, LLP 401 Florence Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 327-9800 Facsimile: (650) 618-1863 E-mail: jrusso@computerlaw.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Restricts Buying Shares of GME, Schaff Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- AUSTIN SCHAFF, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, and ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC., Case No. 8:21-cv-00216-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2021) is a class action complaint alleging that the Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding and protecting the Plaintiff's and other class members' assets from market manipulation by virtue of halting all buying or trading of GME on its app on January 28, 2021. On January 28, 2021, Robinhood allegedly banned "buying" shares of GameStop Corp ("GME"). The Plaintiff owned thousands of dollars' worth of GME stock and options. Robinhood's alleged banning of trading shares of GME caused the GME stock price to drop significantly. Robinhood also cancelled millions of dollars in orders, causing further harm to the stock, the suit says. The Plaintiff suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss due to Robinhood's banning of trading shares of GME. As a result of these violations, the Plaintiff seeks statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and their appropriate relief. Plaintiff Schaff is an adult citizen of Florida and resides in Hillsborough County, Florida. Plaintiff Austin Schaff acquired the Robinhood mobile phone application and utilized the same to acquire, trade and hold securities in Florida. Defendant Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services holding company incorporated in Delaware, whose subsidiaries provide financial and investment services via an internet/cloud-based platform that is also available on mobile phones. Its subsidiary, the Defendant Robinhood Financial LLC, is a full service securities firm engaged in the retail sale of securities and various other financial products. Its subsidiary, the Defendant Robinhood Securities, LLC, is a full service securities firm engaged in the retail sale of securities and various other financial products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. LUIS A. CABASSA, P.A. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA , P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: 813-229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com - and - Chad A. Justice JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin St., Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Direct No. (813) 566-0550 Facsimile: (813) 566-0770 E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Saliba Sues Over Refusal to Trade GME Stocks --------------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Paul Saliba, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; FINANCIAL SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD CRYPTO, LLC and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:21-cv-00871 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2021) seeks damages for the conduct of the Defendants that violated federal laws by refusing to allow its users to trade GME stocks for no reason which caused damages to the Plaintiff and the Class members. According to the complaint, as or about January 11 and 12, 2021, the value in stocks of the company, GameStop with a ticker symbol of GME, increased significantly. Robinhood had allowed its users to trade GME open market. On January 27 or 28 2021, Robinhood disabled and completely restricted the trading of GME. This was done without Plaintiff and the putative class's consent. In Fact, Robinhood allegedly went as far to pulling GME from the Robinhood's platform so no consumer could trade or even find GME on Robinhood. On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff attempted to sell his shares of GME but could not do so due to Robinhood's alleged improper conduct. Robinhood's conduct left the Plaintiff with no opportunity to lower their average costs, no opportunity (if GME's price went up) to receive gains or no opportunity (if GME's price went down) to short GME. In other words, instead of acting simply as a conduit for trading, Robinhood acted as a regulator and refused to allow its users to trade GME for no reason, thereby precluding its consumers from using Robinhood's services, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Texas resident residing within the Dallas, Texas. Robinhood Financial is an online brokerage firm that provides an online platform for consumers to buy and sell securities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan Selik, Esq. Christine Zaouk, Esq. McCATHERN LLP 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830 Los Angeles, California 90014 Phone: (213) 225-6150 Fax: (213) 225-6151 Email: eselik@mccathernlaw.com czaouk@mccathernlaw.com ROSEBOX LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rosebox LLC. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Rosebox LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00974 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rosebox -- https://roseboxnyc.com/ -- is located in New York and is an organization primarily operating in the flowers, plants and bulbs business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com ROUGH TRADE: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Donna Hedges, for herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. ROUGH TRADE RETAIL, LLC,, Case No. 1:21-cv-00946-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 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 alleged 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://www.roughtrade.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 her computer. The Defendant is a book and record store that operates its book and record store as well as the Website to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. John M. Gurrieri, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, N.Y. 10007-2036 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com - and - 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: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Bid to Dismiss in McCurley TCPA Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the lawsuit styled JOHN McCURLEY and DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.). The Defendant brings the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the recent case of Barr v. American Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. _, 140 S.Ct. 2335 (July 2, 2020) ("AAPC") renders the Telephone Consumer Protection Act void between the years of 2015 and July 2020, when AAPC was decided. According to the Defendant's analysis, the TCPA should be held in force and effect from 1991 until 2015 -- when an unconstitutional amendment to the Act was passed -- be declared void in its entirety from 2015 until AAPC was decided in July 2020, and then return to full force and effect with the offending 2015 amendment severed, effective July 2020. Because the certified class in the case involves those who received telephone calls in violation of the TCPA between November 2016 and December 2017, the Defendant argues the entire case must be dismissed since there was no valid TCPA at the time the class was receiving telephone calls. The Plaintiffs oppose and Defendant replies. The Court heard argument on the issue on January 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. alleging violations of the TCPA and California's Invasion of Privacy Act. With respect to the TCPA, the Court certified a class of: All persons within the United States who received a telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas Cruises Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone (3) made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between November 2016 and December 2017, (5) where such calls were placed for the purpose of marketing, (6) to non-customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the time of the calls, (7) whose cellular telephone number is associated in Prospects DM's records with either diabeteshealth.info or www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com, and (8) whose call resulted in a transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. In AAPC, the Supreme Court addressed the 2015 amendment to the TCPA, which provided an exception for robocalls made to collect debts owed to or guaranteed by the Federal Government, including robocalls made to collect many student loan and mortgage debts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, concluded in Parts I and II that this amendment was unconstitutional because it favored debt-collection speech over political or other speech in violation of the First Amendment. In Part III, these three Justices concluded that the 2015 amendment should be severed leaving the bulk of the TCPA intact. District Judge Cynthia Bashant opines that this case does not involve the collection of government debt; therefore, according to the opinion of Justice Kavanaugh, AAPC does not negate the Defendant's liability and the Defendant's motion to dismiss must fail. The Defendant instead argues that Justice Kavanaugh's opinion is mere dicta and should be ignored by this Court. The Court disagrees. In the case, one single rationale explains the result joined by seven of the Justices: All seven agree that the 2015 amendment should be severed and the liability of parties making robocalls who were not collecting a government debt is not negated, Judge Bashant opines. In fact, three of those seven would not have held the 2015 amendment to be unconstitutional at all, and they certainly agreed the Defendant could be held liable. Therefore, the Court finds Justice Kavanaugh's statement is not dicta and must be followed by this Court. Lest there is question, the Ninth Circuit ruling in Duguid v. Facebook, 926 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019), agreed that the debt collection amendment was unconstitutional but severed the amendment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In reaching today's decision, the Court disagrees with the district court decisions in Lindenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, _ F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 6361915 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2020) and Creasy v. Charter Comm'ns Inc., No. CV 20-1199, 2020 WL 5761117 (E.D. La. Sept. 28, 2020). Both cases ignore the pronouncements in the plurality decision as articulated by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by six other justices and adopt the position of the two-justice dissent. Lindenbaum criticizes the Supreme Court for waving a magic wand to make the constitutional violation disappear. Creasy concludes that Justice Gorsuch's dissent is "the better argument of law and logic." Whatever the Court may think of the Supreme Court's logic or conclusions, it does not dismiss such conclusions so lightly, Judge Bashant holds. Even if it was only dicta, as argued by the Defendant, the district court is not at liberty to completely ignore this pronouncement. Ultimately, the Court concludes that Justice Kavanaugh's statement that the AAPC decision "does not negate the liability of parties who made robocalls covered by the robocall restriction" if they were not made for the purposes of federal debt collection is not dicta because it was joined by six other justices. However, even if it was dicta, the Court finds it signals the intent of the Supreme Court and what it would hold in future cases and, as such, may not be cavalierly dismissed by a district court. Judge Bashant concludes that the case involves allegations of the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and a prerecorded voice to sell cruise packages, not to collect a federal government debt. Justice Kavanaugh's statement in AAPC makes it clear that the TCPA still applies to this conduct even though it occurred between 2015 and 2020. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u5oe55e from Leagle.com. ROYAL SEA CRUISES: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in McCurley Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JOHN McCURLEY and DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROYAL SEA CRUISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order granting the Defendant's amended motion for summary judgment; and denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs bring a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Defendant opposed, and Plaintiffs replied. The Defendant brings an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Plaintiffs opposed and Defendant replied. The Court held oral argument on both motions on January 27, 2021. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sections, et seq. and California's Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code Sections 630, et seq. Generally, Royal Seas sells vacation packages by calling potential leads. In November 2016, Prospect and Royal Seas entered into an agreement under which Royal Seas purchased leads from Prospect for possible purchasers of the Royal Seas vacation packages. The contract between the two parties delineated that Royal Seas would only pay for leads that were "generated in a TCPA-compliant manner." The Court certified a class with respect to the TCPA only of: All persons within the United States who received a telephone call (1) from Prospects, DM, Inc. on behalf of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. (2) on said Class Member's cellular telephone (3) made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) between November 2016 and December 2017, (5) where such calls were placed for the purpose of marketing, (6) to non-customers of Royal Seas Cruises, Inc. at the time of the calls, and (7) whose cellular telephone number is associated in Prospects DM's records with either diabeteshealth.info or www.yourautohealthlifeinsurance.com. The Court also certified a Transfer Subclass of "all members of the Class whose call resulted in a transfer to Royal Seas Cruises, Inc." At the Plaintiffs' request, the Court later decertified the class in part and allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed solely on the Transfer Subclass. The Motions for Summary Judgment address three of the same issues: (1) whether proof exists that the calls were made using an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice; (2) whether Royal Seas Cruises Inc. ("Royal Seas") can be held vicariously liable for the calls placed by Prospect DM; and (3) whether Royal Seas has any evidence to support its defense that the calls were made with the express consent of all class members. The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment also challenges the TCPA as a violation of the constitutional right to free speech and moves for summary judgment on the CIPA claims. These last two arguments can be dispensed with quickly, District Judge Cynthia Bashant states. Since the Plaintiffs do not respond to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on the CIPA claims, the Court concludes the Plaintiffs have waived this claim and grants the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on this ground. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit has clearly held that the TCPA does not violate the First Amendment. Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Moser v. FCC, 46 F.3d 970, 973-4 (9th Cir. 1995)), aff'd 577 U.S. 153 (2016) as revised (Feb. 9, 2016). Therefore, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion on this ground. According to the Order, it is undisputed that none of the calls at issue were placed by Royal Seas. For Royal Seas to be liable for the calls placed by Prospect, Plaintiff must show that there is an agency relationship between Prospect and Royal Seas and that Prospect had actual authority, apparent authority, or ratified the calls made in alleged violation of the TCPA. Judge Bashant opines that any claim of actual authority in the case is belied by the express language in the contract between Royal Seas and Prospect requiring that any leads be from individuals, who had consented to be called, citing Jones v. Royal Admin. Svcs., Inc., 887 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2018). The Judge notes, the only arguable manifestation by Royal Seas is Royal Seas' contract with Prospect allowing it to approve the prerecorded scripts used by Prospect. This demonstrates Royal Seas' knowledge that prerecorded scripts would be used, but it provides no evidence that Royal Seas had any reason to believe the individuals Prospect called with those prerecorded scripts had not agreed to this contact by entering their names in a third-party website. These are the consenting callers Prospect agreed by contract to transfer to Royal Seas, and these are the consenting callers Royal Seas had every reason to believe were being transferred to them. The Plaintiffs' main argument is that Royal Seas should be held liable under the agency theory of "ratification." Ratification is the affirmance of a prior act done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done by an agent acting with actual authority. There is no evidence that Royal Seas had actual knowledge that the calls Prospect made were placed without actually receiving an opt-in from the person being called, Judge Bashant finds. In fact, Prospect and the third-party websites maintain to this day -- not only to Royal Seas but also to the Court -- that all calls were made only after receiving consent from the person being called. The Plaintiffs point to no evidence that Royal Seas had knowledge of any TCPA violation, Judge Bashant notes. Instead, the Plaintiffs argue that there is evidence that Royal Seas willfully ignored the violations because it had knowledge of facts that would have led a reasonable entity to investigate further. What is noticeably missing from the Plaintiffs' argument is that Royal Seas ever received information from any of the individuals who were transferred that they had not consented to be called, according to Judge Bashant. Simply the lack of verification is insufficient. Royal Seas specifically contracted with Prospect for leads that had consented to be called. Royal Seas also looked at a sampling of the websites to make sure the opt-in language was sufficient. In the absence of any evidence that this opt-in language was not being used or that Prospect was not conducting itself as it contracted to do, the Plaintiffs simply cannot prove that Royal Seas ratified any violation by willful ignorance, Judge Bashant concludes. Additionally, the fact that numerous cruise companies have been sued for TCPA violations explains why Royal Seas was careful to include language requiring adherence to the TCPA in its contract with Prospect and why it required Prospect to show it how the opt-in language would look so its attorneys could approve. This alone does not demonstrate that Royal Seas was on notice that Prospect was violating the law, Judge Bashant holds. The Judge adds that the fact that a small number of those contacted actually bought cruises is not helpful. There are any number of reasons why someone who agreed to be contacted about a cruise might ultimately decide not to purchase. In the absence of evidence that Royal Seas received any complaints about the calls, it is not reasonable to conclude that Royal Seas had some notice that the reason for the low rate of conversion was because these people had not consented to be called. Since the Plaintiffs provide no evidence to support their theory of vicarious liability, the Court grants Royal Seas' Motion for Summary Judgment on this ground. Because the Court finds no vicarious liability for Royal Seas, this issue on consent to be called is moot. However, the Court notes that the Declarations of Plaintiffs McCurley and Deforest explicitly stating that they did not consent to be called, nor had ever visited the websites at issue, raise an issue of fact for the jury to determine, at least with respect to the named Plaintiffs. Because the calls at issue were placed by a third-party caller at the behest of Prospect, not Royal Seas, and because Royal Seas has no evidence that would support its theory that Royal Seas is vicariously liable for the calls placed by Prospect, the Court grants the Defendant's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. In light of this decision, the Court finds the remaining motions (ECF Nos. 151, 159, 163 and 164) are all moot. The clerk is directed to enter a judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiffs and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yr8xqed9 from Leagle.com. RUG DOCTOR: Stanley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Cleaning Kiosks ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZACHARY STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUG DOCTOR LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02029-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn., Jan. 13, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations for failing to design, construct, own, operate and/or control rug cleaning machine rental kiosks throughout the United States that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people including the Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the kiosks are not fully accessible and independently usable by the blind and visually impaired because they have touch screen surfaces which rely upon visual interfaces that are not discernible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the kiosks violate federal law as described and an injunction requiring Defendant to update or replace all kiosks that are in violation of the mandatory requirements of the ADA so that they are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind or visually impaired individuals. RUG Doctor, LLC provides household appliances. The Company offers buying and rental of cleaning systems and solutions, as well as support and maintenance services. RUG Doctor serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Luke Sanderson, Esq. WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON & SANDERSON, P.C. 44 N. 2nd Street, Suite 500-502 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 523-1844 E-mail: luke@wcwslaw.com RUSHMORE SERVICE: Pistone Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rushmore Service Center, LLC. The case is captioned as Renee Pistone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rushmore Service Center, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00698-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., Jan. 13, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and is assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti. Rushmore Service Center, LLC is a nationally-licensed debt collection agency located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com SAGGIO RESTAURANT: Resto Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime/Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Neptali Peralta and Edwin Cabrera Patina on behalf of themselves, Plaintiffs v. Saggio Restaurant, Inc., The Uptown Garrison, Inc., and Kalkin Narvilas and Pedro Narvilas, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00606, (S.D. N.Y., January 21, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime and statutory penalties for notice and recordkeeping violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws. Defendants own Saggio Restaurant, Inc. (doing business as "Saggio Restaurant") and The Uptown Garrison, Inc. (doing business as "The Uptown Garrison"), both in New York. Peralta was employed as a cook by Defendants from on or about March 3, 2016, to on or about June 13, 2018, at Defendant's Saggio location while Patina was employed as a driver and busboy from on or about May 27, 2016, to on or about the first week of March 2020. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Ria Julien, Esq. MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC One Whitehall Street, 16 Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 231-2235 rjulien@mmsjlaw.com SAIKABIR HOSPITALITY: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Lammey Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dwain Lammey v. Saikabir Hospitality LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and Does 1-10, Case No. 30-2021-01178711-CU-CR-CJC (Cal. Super., Orange County, Jan. 14, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated, alleging violations of the Defendant of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide information on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit Plaintiff to determine if there are rooms that would work for people with physical disabilities like him. As a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with its ADA obligations, 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. Mr. Lammey is a California resident with physical disabilities who is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He is a quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Saikabir Hospitality LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, owns and operates the Travelodge by Wyndham Fullerton in 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 SARASOTA DOCTORS: Florida Court Grants Summary Judgment Against Day ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled DAVID DAY, Plaintiff v. SARASOTA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF SARASOTA, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-1522-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.). The matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Day's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant Sarasota's Motion for Summary Judgment, both filed on November 13, 2020. The parties have responded and replied to each Motion. For the reasons set forth in the Order, Doctors Hospital's Motion is granted, and Day's Motion is denied. Following a motor vehicle accident on February 21, 2017, Day received emergency medical treatment at Doctors Hospital. Upon arrival at the Hospital, Day signed a "Conditions of Admission and Consent for Outpatient Care" form ("COA"), which included provisions stipulating that Day agreed to pay the rates listed in Doctors Hospital's chargemaster, and also noting that the Hospital accepted discounted rates from certain insured and uninsured patients. Before leaving the Hospital on February 21, 2017, Day paid $80 toward his medical treatment. At the time of treatment, Day's only applicable form of insurance was a personal injury protection policy ("PIP" insurance)--also known as no-fault insurance--issued by Progressive. Florida law requires all motor vehicle owners to purchase PIP insurance, "which provides a maximum of $10,000 in medical coverage for injured drivers." Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(1) (2020). Under the PIP statute, hospitals and other healthcare providers must charge PIP insurers and injured parties "only a reasonable amount." On February 25, 2017, Doctors Hospital submitted its claim for reimbursement for Day's medical treatment to Progressive. The claim form included the Hospital's chargemaster rates: "$1,471 for an X-Ray of [Day's] shoulder; $1,621 for a Level Three emergency room visit; and $18 for dispensing [three pills of 800 milligrams of] ibuprofen, for a total of $3,110." Progressive then issued an Explanation of Benefits ("EOB") to Doctors Hospital, providing for an allowable amount of $2,332.50, with the "allowable amount" representing the combined amount to be paid by the insurance company and the patient. The patient's responsibility can include a co-payment and/or deductible. This sum represents seventy-five percent of the $3,110 charged by Doctors Hospital. Of that $2,332.50, Progressive determined that Day owed the Hospital $1,246.50, which represented $975 from his policy's $1,000 deductible and a $271.50 co-payment. Based on Progressive's calculations, Doctors Hospital sent Day a bill for $1,146.50, reflecting his $1,246.50 responsibility, minus the $80 he paid on the day of treatment and a $20 prompt-pay discount. Presently, Day has not paid this $1,146.50 balance. During discovery, Doctors Hospital provided Day with a number of its confidential contracts with private health insurers. Doctors Hospital's expert, Michael Heil, who has "[twenty-five] years' experience in management consulting for hospitals, health systems, medical groups, health plans, and emergency medical services agencies," then calculated what a patient would have been expected to pay Doctors Hospital for the services Day received if the patient were covered by those other insurers. The first relevant contract is one between Doctors Hospital and an insurer for certain outpatient services. (Id.). Under this contract, a patient would have paid $965 for the same services Day received. The second and third relevant contracts were between Doctors Hospital and two insurers for bundled services. Insurers and hospitals often contract with each other based on bundles of services, rather than on a line-by-line basis. With respect to those two contracts, a covered patient would have paid $2,946 under the second, and $2,070 under the third. Day initiated this action in state court on December 1, 2017. Following the filing of an amended complaint, which included a putative class action, Doctors Hospital removed the case to this Court on June 24, 2019. On July 23, 2020, the Court denied Day's motion to certify class. Now, four claims remain against Doctors Hospital, including claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Counts I and II), breach of contract (Count III), and declaratory relief (Count VI). The parties both seek entry of summary judgment in their favor. In Count I, Day alleges that Doctors Hospital violated FDUTPA by actively, willfully, and deceptively representing that the prices listed on the chargemaster are the customary charges, rather than an artificially inflated list that only applies to a certain class of people, by publishing it on their website and in incorporating it into the COA. Day avers that he relied on this deceptive representation when he signed the COA and paid the Hospital's bills for PIP covered emergency services, thereby causing him to become obligated to pay excessive and artificially inflated medical bills or become obligated to pay other health care providers out-of-pocket because the Hospital's inflated rates prematurely exhausted his PIP coverage. In its Motion, Doctors Hospital argues that it is entitled to judgment in its favor on Count I for the following reasons: (1) "Day was never misled" since "the undisputed evidence shows that [he] never visited the Hospital's website, nor did he review the payment provisions" in the COA and (2) the FDUTPA claim is precluded by a statutory safe harbor. Here, Day alleges that Doctors Hospital deceptively represented that the prices listed in its chargemaster, which were incorporated in the COA, were the customary charges, insofar as those numbers would be used to determine a PIP-insured patient's payment obligations. However, District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington notes, the COA -- which is provided to Doctors Hospital patients, including Day -- features no such provision. To the contrary, the COA explicitly states that both insured and uninsured patients are expected to pay rates other than those listed in the chargemaster. Therefore, with the evidence provided, no reasonable consumer would understand the COA to stand for the proposition that all Doctors Hospital patients pay the same chargemaster rates or that such rates necessarily constitute "customary charges." Because no reasonable consumer could be deceived by the Hospital's conduct or the COA, under the circumstances alleged in Count I, the Hospital's Motion is granted as to this requested relief, Judge Covington holds. In Count II, Day alleges a second violation of FDUTPA, arguing that Doctors Hospital's billing methods constitute an unfair practice. Day posits that Doctors Hospital charged exorbitant and unreasonable rates for PIP-covered healthcare services in violation of the PIP statute, which prohibits [hospitals] from charging more than a 'reasonable amount' for emergency medical services. In its Motion, Doctors Hospital argues that it is entitled to judgment in its favor on Count II for the following reasons: (1) Day "has failed to adduce any evidence that his charges were unreasonable," and (2) the FDUTPA claim is precluded by a statutory safe harbor. Day responds that the evidence proves that Doctors Hospital's charges are inherently unreasonable and again argues that the safe harbor is inapplicable. Because Count II is primarily based on the premise that Doctors Hospital charged him an unreasonable rate for emergency medical care, the Court first turns to this issue. Under Florida law, "no single factor can be used to determine the reasonableness of [a hospital's] charges," Judge Covington finds, quoting Colomar v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 461 F.Supp.2d 1265, 1269 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (Colomar I). Instead, "several non-exclusive factors are relevant to the inquiry," including: "(1) an analysis of the relevant market for hospital services (including the rates charged by other similarly situated hospitals for similar services); (2) the usual and customary rate the hospital charges and receives for its hospital services; and (3) the hospital's internal cost structure." Doctors Hospital charged Day $1,471 for a left-shoulder x-ray and $1,621 for a level three emergency visit. According to Day, these charges are two to three times more than similar providers in the community. Doctors Hospital counters that the Court cannot consider these prices, and that Day offers no evidence as to market analysis, because these prices are unauthenticated. Additionally, the Hospital posits that the prices constitute inadmissible hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c)(2). Day responds that these price lists are admissible as they fall under the "market reports" hearsay exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(17). Assuming, however, that this evidence could be rendered admissible, the Court echoes some of the Hospital's concerns regarding its helpfulness. First, the prices derive from current price lists, whereas Day's treatment occurred in 2017. In theory, the other hospitals' fees for these services could have been higher in 2017, Judge Covington notes. Additionally, it may very well be true that these hospitals have different costs, such that they are able to charge less for these services. Indeed, Day provides no evidence that the other hospitals are similarly situated to Doctors Hospital, other than their location. And, it is also possible that these billing codes include different services--such that a "level three emergency visit" would include different treatments at Doctors Hospital and at Sarasota Memorial. Still, if this evidence could be considered, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Day, a reasonable jury could find that the differences between these hospitals' prices helps support an inference that Doctors Hospital's charges are unreasonable, Judge Covington holds, citing Colomar I, 461 F. Supp. 2d at 1270. Judge Covington also opines, among other things, that because several insurance companies are expected to pay similar rates to that of Day for the same or similar services, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could conclude that that the Hospital's rates are unreasonable by virtue of differential pricing. Indeed, that argument is negated by the evidence presented. Accordingly, this factor favors the relief requested in Doctors Hospital's Motion. Lastly, the Court considers the Hospital's internal cost structure. Day has proffered no evidence of the Hospital's cost structure that might lend to a conclusion that its charges are unreasonable. Indeed, Day only argues in its own Motion that Doctors Hospital "utilizes an across-the-board rate increase that only considers specific costs with regard to supplies and pharmaceuticals." But the Court fails to see how across-the-board increases are unreasonable, giving that hospitals should factor the increase of expenses, such as salary and overhead increases, in calculating service charges. This factor favors Doctors Hospital. Accordingly, Doctors Hospital's Motion is granted as to Count II. In Count III, Day alleges that Doctors Hospital breached the COA "by charging unreasonable amounts for PIP-covered" services. Because the Court has already determined that, even making all reasonable inferences in Day's favor, he has failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the Hospital's charges are unreasonable, Day's breach of contract claim fails as well. Accordingly, Doctors Hospital's Motion is granted as to Count III. In Count VI, Day seeks a declaration that Doctors Hospital's charges are unreasonable and that he, therefore, is not responsible for the charges he has not yet paid. Again, because the Court has found that, taking the evidence provided, the Hospital's charges are not unreasonable, Day's claim for declaratory relief fails. Accordingly, Doctors Hospital's Motion is granted as to Count VI. In Day's Motion, he seeks an entry of judgment in his favor on Counts I, II, III, and VI, of the second amended complaint. Because the Court has already found it proper to enter judgment in Doctors Hospital's favor on all of those remaining counts, Day's Motion is denied. The Court finds summary judgment for Doctors Hospital appropriate as to Count I because Day has failed to show that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the Hospital's conduct. Summary judgment in Doctors Hospital's favor is proper as to Counts II, III, and VI because Day has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that the Hospital's rates are unreasonable. Indeed, the evidence provided points to the contrary. Accordingly, Defendant Sarasota's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff Day's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Doctors Hospital and against Day. Thereafter, the Clerk is directed to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bya1dq6x from Leagle.com. SCOTT SEMPLE: Class Certification Bid Filing Date Set for April 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vega, v. Semple, Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-JBA (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Janet Bond Arterton entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint shall be filed and served by Feb. 23, 2021. 2. The parties' 26(f) Planning Report shall be filed by Feb. 23, 2021. 3. The Motion for Class Certification and a Joint Status Report shall be filed by April 23, 21. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2LszSQg at no extra charge.[CC] SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Cadecus Sues Over Denied COVID-19 Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------------- CADECUS LLC d/b/a CAFE RACER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00050-BJR (W.D. Wash., Jan. 14, 2021) alleges that the Defendant has denied and will deny coverage to Plaintiff and all other similarly situated policyholders based on Defendant's uniform policy to deny business interruption claims stemming from government closure orders related to COVID-19. The Defendant issued one or more "all risk" insurance policies to Plaintiff, including a businessowner policy and related endorsements, insuring Plaintiff's property and business, and providing related coverages. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff made a claim for insurance benefits in or about July 2020 after it was forced to suspend its business and incur extra expense to comply with the proclamations and orders related to COVID-19. The Plaintiff's claim for insurance benefits was allegedly denied by the Defendant with no meaningful investigation of the claim or loss. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment declaring that Plaintiff's and Class members' losses and expenses resulting from the interruption of their business are covered by the Defendant's policies and that Defendant is responsible for timely and fully paying all such claims. Scottsdale Insurance Company is an insurance company incorporated in Ohio with its principle place of business in Scottsdale, Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Ian S. Birk, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Nathan Nanfelt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com ibirk@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com kswope@kellerrohrback.com nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: achase@kellerrohrback.com SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Danford Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT DANFORD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-20359-KMM (S.D. Fla., January 28, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant placed numerous pre-recorded voice calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 3247, which was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry, in an attempt to promote its services. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff's prior express written consent to receive such telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff asserts that his privacy has been violated, and he was annoyed and harassed by the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from calling telephone numbers advertising their goods or services using pre-recorded message in the future, as well as statutory damages and other relief that the Court deems just and proper, the suit says. Selectquote Insurance Service, Inc. provides insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com SHURE INCORPORATED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shure Incorporated. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Shure Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-00957 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Shure Incorporated -- https://www.shure.com/ -- is an American audio products corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SIMPLY NOURISH: Court Narrows Claims in Grossman Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXA GROSSMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SIMPLY NOURISH PET FOOD COMPANY LLC, PETSMART, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01603-KAM-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order denying in part and granting in part without prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss, and with leave to amend the breach of express warranty claim in conformity with the Memorandum and Order; -- The Court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief, breach of a written warranty under the MMWA, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. -- the Court Denies defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims under GBL sections 349 and 350. -- The Plaintiffs are granted leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of entry of this Memorandum and Order to amend the breach of express warranty claim in conformity with the Memorandum and Order. This putative class action seeks to remedy the defendants' alleged deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the marketing and sales of Simply Nourish's pet foods and treats. The Plaintiff alleges that defendants "created and/or authorized the false, misleading and deceptive advertisements, packaging and labeling for the Products." The Plaintiff is an individual consumer and resident of the State of New York. The Plaintiff purchased two Simply Nourish products: large breed dog foods and Simply Nourish dog treats from PetSmart in Commack, Long Island during the class period. The Defendant Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC is a corporation with its principal place of business in Phoenix, Arizona. Simply Nourish manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes the Products. A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39O7iSH at no extra charge.[CC] SIRIUS XM: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Class Action Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related case against Sirius XM. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) statute, which following denial of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the MMA), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important question of law. The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2020, the District Court denied Pandora's renewed motion to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding the case no longer qualified for anti-SLAPP due to intervening changes in the law, and denied Pandora's renewed attempt to end the case. Alternatively, the District Court ruled that the preemption defense likely did not apply to Flo & Eddie's claims, in part because the District Court believed that the Music Modernization Act did not apply retroactively. Pandora promptly appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit, and moved to stay appellate briefing pending the appeal of a related case against Sirius XM. On January 13, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related case against Sirius XM. Sirius XM said, "We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action, and we intend to defend these actions vigorously." Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment, comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country, dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment channels for various audiences; national, international, and financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation. SKYWEST INC: Meek Suit Seeks to Certify Frontline Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY MEEK, JEREMY BARNES, and CORYELL ROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SKYWEST, INC. And SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Case No.3:17-cv-01012-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 22, 2021 to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for certification of a class action and the appointment of Class Counsel. In the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the proposed Class members consist of: "all individuals currently or formerly employed by the the Defendants SkyWest Airlines, Inc. and SkyWest, Inc. as Frontline Employees who worked on the ground and were paid on an hourly basis for at least one shift in the State of California at any time from February 27, 2013 through October 18, 2020." The Plaintiffs Cody Meek, Jeremy Barnes, and Coryell Ross, each of whom were employed by SkyWest as Frontline Employees at various airports in California, seek appointment as representatives of the Class. The Plaintiffs seek certification of their claims for unpaid overtime wages when they traded shifts with a co-worker and worked in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a week but were not paid overtime wages pursuant to SkyWest's payroll policies, thereby violating the California Labor Code. SkyWest is a leading regional airline serving millions of North America travelers monthly. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWmRfc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com STATE FARM MUTUAL: Pete Slams Denied Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Pete, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 21-cv-00056 (Ark. Cir., January 22, 2021), seeks restitution for any claims previously paid, damages for any un-adjudicated claims for Uninsured and/or Underinsured motorist coverage, reasonable attorney's fees, statutory penalties, costs of litigation and other relief for breach of contract. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance company registered and licensed to sell automobile insurance in Arkansas. State Farm sold insurance policy No. 2398864F2304E to Ms. Pete and she paid all premiums. Ms. Pete was involved in an automobile accident with an underinsured or uninsured motorist. She sustained multiple injuries including, but not limited to, serious injuries to her neck, left leg and hip. She also suffered great pain, suffering, and mental anguish. Her damages are in excess of $25,000.00. Defendant allegedly has denied sufficient payment on this claim for Uninsured and/or Underinsured coverage due to its valuing the medical expenses at twice the amount that Medicare would pay, rather than valuing them in accordance with Arkansas law thus discounting reasonable medical expenses by refusing to pay any amount in excess of twice the Medicare rate. The complaint asserts that State Farm's discounting practice violated Arkansas insurance laws by failing to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear, attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application that was altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured, failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts of applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement, and compelling insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by those insureds. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alan LeVar, Esq. John Andrew Ellis, Esq. Colton Gregory, Esq. Jose Ruiz, Esq. Law Offices of Alan LeVar 702 Caddo Street Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Phone: (870) 246-7070 Fax: (501) 588-0086 Email: colton@levarlaw.com STATE FARM: Class Certification Bid Filing Due September 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M. MARTINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00910-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered a scheduling order related to class certification, as follows: 1. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on or before April 16, 2021. 2. Any motion to join additional parties shall be filed on or before April 16, 2021. 3. Class certification-related discovery shall be completed on or before September 1, 2021. 4. The Plaintiff shall designate any expert witnesses he intends to use in connection with class certification on or before April 30, 2021. The Defendant shall designate any expert witnesses it intends to use in connection with class certification on or before July 2, 2021. 5. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on or before September 15, 2021. The Defendant's opposition to class certification brief is due on or before October 15, 2021. The Plaintiff's reply brief for class certification is due on or before November 15, 2021. 6. A class certification hearing will be held on December 3, 2021, in Courtroom 7B in the United States District Courthouse, Kansas City, Missouri. State Farm is a large group of insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cHUijc at no extra charge.[CC] STERLING BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Michigan Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 1, 2021, for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2020, that an agreement in principle was reached in Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS. On February 1, 2021, Sterling Bancorp, Inc. issued a press release announcing that the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The agreement in principle provides for a single cash payment in exchange for the release of all of the defendants from all alleged claims therein and remains subject to final documentation, court approval and other conditions. The full amount of the settlement will be paid by the Companys insurance carriers under applicable insurance policies. A copy of the Company's press release is available at https://bit.ly/3aDvoP5. Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a unitary thrift holding company headquartered in Southfield, Michigan and its primary business is the operation of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank. Through Sterling Bank, the offers a range of loan products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as retail banking services. STERLING BANCORP: Settles Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Sterling Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") (NASDAQ: SBT), the thrift holding company for Sterling Bank and Trust, FSB, Southfield, Michigan (the "Bank"), on Feb. 1 announced that the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al, Case No. 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. This action alleged violations of the federal securities laws, primarily with respect to disclosures concerning the Bank's residential lending practices that were made in the Company's registration statement and prospectus for its initial public offering, in subsequent press releases, in periodic and other filings with the SEC and during earnings calls. The agreement in principle provides for a single cash payment in exchange for the release of all of the defendants from all alleged claims therein and remains subject to final documentation, court approval and other conditions. The full amount of the settlement will be paid by the Company's insurance carriers under applicable insurance policies. About Sterling Bancorp, Inc. Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a unitary thrift holding company. Its wholly owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank and Trust, FSB, has primary branch operations in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, New York City and Bellevue, Washington. Sterling offers a range of loan products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as retail and business banking services. Sterling also has an operations center and a branch in Southfield, Michigan. For additional information, please visit the Company's website at http://www.sterlingbank.com. Contacts Sterling Bancorp, Inc. Stephen Huber Chief Financial Officer (248) 351-3428 shuber@sterlingbank.com [GN] STRIDE INC: Continues to Defend Lee and Baig Putative Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stride, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 27, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend two putative securities class action suit entitled, Yun Chau Lee v. K12 Inc., et al. and Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al. On November 19, 2020, a putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Yun Chau Lee v. K12 Inc., et al was filed against the company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 1:20-cv-01419. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between April 27, 2020 and September 18, 2020, inclusive, and alleges violations by the company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and/or omitted to disclose material facts concerning its technological capabilities and expertise to support increased demand for virtual and blended education related to the global emergence of COVID-19, the company's cybersecurity protocols and protections, and its administrative support and training to teachers, students, and parents. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Additionally, on December 11, 2020, a second putative securities class action lawsuit captioned Jennifer Baig v. K12 Inc., et al was filed against the company and the same two officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. 1:20-cv-01528. The plaintiff in the Baig Case alleges violations of the same statutes, based on the same or substantially similar alleged conduct, and on behalf of the same purported class of persons as the plaintiff in the Lee Case. On December 3, 2020, the Court in the Lee Case entered an order establishing an initial case management plan and schedule for, among other things, consolidation of cases asserting substantially the same claim or claims, the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the filing of any amended complaint, and the company and individual defendants' anticipated motion(s) to dismiss the claims asserted against them. Subsequently, on December 21, 2020, a related derivative lawsuit captioned Larry Shemen, et al v. Aida M. Alvarez, et al was filed by two of our shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:20-cv-01731. The plaintiffs in the Shemen Case allege substantially the same facts alleged in the Lee and Baig Cases, and purport to assert claims on the company's behalf against certain of its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, and against two of the company's officers for contribution under Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Exchange Act based on the purported Exchange Act violations alleged in the Lee Case. Stride said, "We intend to defend vigorously against each and every allegation and asserted claim." Stride, Inc. is an education services company providing online and blended learning. The company's technology-based products and services enable its clients to attract, enroll, educate, track progress, and support students on a scalable basis. These products and services, spanning curriculum, systems, instruction, and support services are designed to help learners reach their educational goals through inspired teaching and personalized learning. The company is based in Herndon, Virginia. SURGICAL CARE: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Collusion Allegations -------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Smith (a pseudonym), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC, SCAI HOLDINGS, LLC, UNITED HEALTHGROUP, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-00620 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2021) is brought to address a conspiracy among the nation's leading operators of outpatient medical care facilities to restrain competition and reduce compensation for their senior-level employees and to recover damages and to prevent the Defendants from retaining the benefits of their antitrust violations. According to the complaint, the Defendants ostensibly compete with one another to hire and retain employees throughout the United States. However, beginning no later than 2010, the Defendants entered into agreements to avoid competing for senior-level employees, by refraining from soliciting or hiring each other's senior-level employees absent the knowledge and consent of their existing employers. These "no-poach" agreements continued through at least 2017, and the Defendants' most senior executives monitored and enforced these agreements. These no-poach agreements were not necessary to any legitimate business transaction or lawful collaboration among the companies. The Defendants' conspiracy was strictly a tool to suppress their senior-level employees' compensation, and hence their own expenses, the suit says. Allegedly, these no-poach agreements accomplished their purpose. They reduced competition for the Defendants' senior-level employees and suppressed the Defendants' senior-level employee compensation below competitive levels. The conspiracy disrupted the efficient allocation of labor that would have resulted if Defendants had competed for, rather than colluded against, their current and prospective senior-level employees. The Defendants' agreements also denied their senior-level employees access to job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better compensation and terms of employment, added the suit. The Defendants concealed their conspiracy, such that the Plaintiff could not have discovered it through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Until recently, the Plaintiff did not discover and did not know of any facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that the Defendants were conspiring to restrain competition for the services of their senior-level employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC was a company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal places of business in Birmingham, Alabama and Deerfield, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie A. Scharf, Esq. Sarah Marmor, Esq. SCHARF BANKS MARMOR LLC 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 726-6000 Email: sscharf@scharfbanks.com smarmor@scharfbanks.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Gerard A. Dever, Esq. Mary L. Russell, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 567-6565 Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com mrussell@finekaplan.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (917) 438-9102 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gklinger@masonllp.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Kelly Rinehart, Esq. Karen Halbert, Esq. William R. Olson, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 1920 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (501) 821-5575 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us williamolson@robertslawfirm.us - and - William E. Hoese, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Email: whoese@kohnswift.com SVENSK MANAGEMENT: Wallen Suit Seeks to Certify Technicians' Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRON WALLEN, SANJAY SHAKES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SVENSK MANAGEMENT, INC. & RICHARD FERNBACH, Case No. 0:20-cv-61690-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of all service technicians, for the last three years, whom the Defendants have employed; 2. permitting, under court supervision, notice to the following class of similarly situated employees: "all service technicians, who worked for the Defendants, at any time during the last three years, who were not paid all wages due for overtime worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), in one or more workweeks, as a result of the Defendants' pay practices, specifically, not keeping time records, and paying for all overtime worked during the week;" and 3. directing the Defendants to immediately produce to the Plaintiffs the names, addresses, and email addresses for each member of said class, and facilitate notice to same, including the posting of notice at the Defendants' Place of Business. The Plaintiffs contend that they were paid an arbitrary amount of overtime, for work over the weekends. However, employees were not paid for the hours they actually worked on the weekend, or during the week, because the work hours were almost always longer than the arbitrary weekend amount would compensate them for. They were all subject to a similar pay structure, and similar pay policies, and practices, which were violative of the FLSA. Svensk Management is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and is part of the specialty contractors industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O6OuWo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq. LUBELL & ROSEN, LLC 200 S. Andrews Ave, Suite 900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 880-9500 Facsimile: (954) 755-2993 E-mail: jhs@lubellrosen.com SYSCO JACKSONVILLE: A1A Burrito Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled A1A Burrito Works, Inc., a Florida corporation, A1A Burrito Works Taco Shop 2, Inc., a Florida corporation and Juniper Beach Enterprises, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Sysco Jacksonville, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 16-20-CA-008663, was removed from the Florida 4th Judicial Circuit for Duval County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on January 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00041-TJC-JBT to the proceeding. The case is brought over alleged contract violations and is assigned to Judge Timothy J. Corrigan. Sysco Jacksonville, Inc. sells, markets, and distributes food products. The Company provides fresh, crisp lettuce, creamy soups, spicy salsas, and organic products. Sysco Jacksonville serves restaurant, healthcare, and educational industries worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ariana J. Tadler, Esq. Brian R. Morrison, Esq. TADLER LAW LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 36th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Telephone: (212) 946-9300 Facsimile: (929) 207-3746 E-mail: atadler@tadlerlaw.com bmorrison@tadlerlaw.com - and - Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Erika Roxanne Willis, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Matthew T. Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com ewillis@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com - and - John Allen Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan Joseph McGee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA One Tampa City Center Ste 700 201 N Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602-5157 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Kyle A. Diamantas, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 200 S Orange Ave., Ste 2900 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 422-6600 Facsimile: (407) 841-0325 E-mail: kdiamantas@bakerdonelson.com - and - Samuel L. Felker, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 726-5558 Facsimile: (615) 744-5558 E-mail: samfelker@bakerdonelson.com TAWKIFY INC: Class Certification Bid Must be Filed by Sept. 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY STANFIELD v. TAWKIFY, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-07000-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered a case management order as follows: 1. All initial disclosures under FRCP 26 must be completed by February 5, 2021, on pain of preclusion under FRCP 37(c), including full and faithful compliance with FRCP 22 26(a) (1)(A)(iii). 2. Leave to add any new parties or to amend pleadings must be sought by April 30, 2021. 3. The motion for class certification must be filed by September 23, 2021, to be heard on a 49-day track. 4. The non-expert discovery cut-off date shall be January 28, 2022. 5. The last date for designation of expert testimony and disclosure of full expert reports under FRCP 26(a)(2) as to any issue on which a party has the burden of proof shall be January 28, 2022. 6. The last date to file dispositive motions shall be March 3, 2022. 7. A jury trial shall begin on May 23, 2022. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O8SkhD at no extra charge.[CC] TELIGENT INC: Class Certification Briefing Schedule Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION FUND AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. TELIGENT, INC. and JASON GRENFELL-GARDNER, Case No. 1:19-cv-03354-VM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Victor Marrero entered an order granting joint stipulation requesting extension for class certification briefing schedule as follows: 1. The deadline for the Defendants to file their Class Certification Opposition is extended to April 2, 2021; and 2. The deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file their Class Certification Reply is extended to June 11, 2021. OPPRS is considered an extremely well-funded plan with a funded ratio of 102.5% at July 1, 2019. Teligent is a specialty generic pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36NbRe8 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System, are: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com jjacobson@scott-scott.com Counsel for Teligent, Inc. And Jason Grenfell-Gardner, are: Douglas P. Baumstein, Esq. Jacob H. Hupart, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. Chrysler Center 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 935-3000 E-mail: dbaumstein@mintz.com jhhupart@mintz.com TENCENT HOLDINGS: Lawyer to Represent in Breaches of Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Singaporean human rights lawyer Ravi Madasamy, known as M Ravi, has been engaged to represent plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Tencent International Service Pte Ltd, the Singapore entity of Chinese tech giant Tencent, over alleged breaches of privacy via its instant messaging and payments app WeChat. In a Facebook post on Friday (29 January), Mr. Ravi said that he has been instructed by Times Wang -- the lead counsel in the lawsuit -- to serve court documents and papers on Tencent. "This is my first international human rights law case on breach of privacy and on surveillance. I am glad to assist Times Wang and to be part of of this international team," said Mr. Ravi. Mr Wang, who is based in Washington D.C., represents the group of California-based plaintiffs comprising United States citizens and Chinese nationals, as well as pro-democracy nonprofit organisation Citizen Power Initiatives for China. Besides privacy breaches, among other alleged violations raised by the plaintiffs are unjust enrichment, negligence, unfair competition and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffs alleged that Tencent, via WeChat, had been relaying private user data and communications to the Chinese government, profiting from using private user data and communications to improve censorship and surveillance algorithms, and censoring or monitoring WeChat user communications for any messages critical of the Chinese government, among other instances. Certain provisions in Tencent's terms of service and privacy policy, the plaintiffs said, are "deliberately vague and ambiguous with respect to whether the challenged practices are permitted or prohibited", which in turn benefits Tencent by "reserving to it the right to adopt self-interested interpretations". Highlighting that other platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail are blocked in China, the plaintiffs pointed out that "no reasonable alternative" to WeChat currently exists "for anyone wishing to maintain regular contact with the Chinese-speaking world". "By comparison, most other methods are either expensive or inefficient, or require the person inside the PRC to circumvent government controls, or both," they said. Tencent's "effective monopoly", said the plaintiffs, leave California WeChat users "no meaningful choice but to accept the challenged practices and provisions as a condition of using WeChat". "Thus, because the challenged provisions require California WeChat users to sacrifice a panoply of speech, privacy, and other rights as a condition of using WeChat, these requirements are unconscionable and void against public policy," the plaintiffs argued. Among the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit against Tencent are a declaratory judgment that the challenged provisions are unlawful, an injunction requiring all California WeChat users to be able to use WeChat without being subject to politically motivated censorship and surveillance, and an injunction requiring Tencent to prevent California WeChat user data from being used to improve WeChat's censorship and surveillance systems. Tencent International Service Pte Ltd was named as one of the defendants in the lawsuit initiated by the California plaintiffs, alongside Tencent America LLC. Tencent International Service Pte Ltd is the relevant contracting entity for WeChat users residing in California, according to WeChat's terms of service. Both Tencent International Service Pte Ltd and Tencent America LLC operate or participate in running WeChat in California. Tencent's website states that Tencent America LLC's work "include[s] advertising, artificial intelligence, cloud services, entertainment, investments, payments, and security". Its "artificial intelligence," "cloud services," and "security" work includes assisting with the development, operation, and improvement of the censorship and surveillance practices and policies being challenged by the plaintiffs in their lawsuit against Tencent. [GN] TEXLEY INC: Williams Sues Over Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Williams, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals v. TEXLEY INC. d/b/a GLAMOUR GIRLS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00359 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 3, 2021) seeks to recover minimum wage compensation, damages, back-pay, restitution, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff as an independent contractor and, in so doing, denied her minimum wage compensation due and owing under the FLSA. The Defendant willfully and intentionally violated the wage payment and wage/gratuity retention rights of the Plaintiff and all other exotic dancers at the French Quarter Club in direct violation of the FLSA. At no time during the Plaintiff's period of employment did the Defendant ever pay the Plaintiff any wages for hours that the Plaintiff worked each week. The Defendant totally failed to pay wages or any kind of compensation to the Plaintiff for work duties performed, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Glamour Girls Cabaret as an exotic dancer at Glamour Girls Cabaret's strip club in Houston, Texas. Glamour Girls Cabaret is a corporation, formed under the laws of Texas that operates as a strip club in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 Email: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Email: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com TODAY'S HOTEL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Rios Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Rios v. Today's Hotel Corporation, a California Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00339-AGT (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated, alleging violations of the Defendant of the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act with respect to its reservation policies and practices of a place of lodging. According to the complaint, on September 17, 2020, Ms. Rios went to the Holiday Inn San Francisco-Golden Gateway Hotel reservation Website at https://www.goldengatewayhotel.com seeking to book an accessible room at the location. She alleges that the Defendant failed to provide information on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit her to determine if there are rooms that would work for people with physical disabilities like her. As a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with its ADA obligations, 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 her due to her disability, the suit says. Ms. Rios is a California resident with physical disabilities. She is substantially limited in her ability to walk. She is a paraplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility. Today's Hotel Corporation, a California Corporation, operates public hotels and motels. [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 TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL: Bryant Class Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as QYNNISHA BRYANT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TOPPERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DARNELL LEWIS GARDNER, and SANDRA GARDNER, Case No. 3:20-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration; 2. dismissing class action without prejudice; and 3. mooting Bryant's motion for conditional certification. The Court finds that Bryant agreed to arbitrate the FLSA claim at issue in this action and that the Defendants did not waive their right to arbitration. Toppers is an adult night club. Qynissha Bryant was an entertainer at the club, and she contends that Toppers improperly classified her as an independent contractor and did not pay her minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ms. Bryant also alleges that Toppers treated other entertainers the same way, and she filed a motion for conditional certification of her putative FLSA collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that Bryant agreed to submit any FLSA claims against them to arbitration. The Defendants then filed a motion to compel arbitration. Ms. Bryant responded that the Defendants waived their right to insist on arbitration. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2YTaRAC at no extra charge.[CC] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Short Suit Over Drivers' Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Short, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-14057-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 3, 2021) is brought to challenge the Defendant's uniform policy of willfully misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors when, in fact, each such driver is and/or was an employee of the Defendant, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. As a result of Uber's unlawful misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors, Uber has uniformly violated the requirements of the FLSA and the FMWA by failing to pay its Drivers at least the minimum wage required by Federal and Florida law for every hour worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Uber as a driver in Sebastian, Florida between March 2018 and May 2020. Uber Technologies engages in a transportation or taxi business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Amanda E. Heystek, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Main Number: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com aheystek@wfclaw.com gnichols@wfclaw.com UNIT CORP: Deal Reached to Settle Chieftain Royalty Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that an agreement to settle the class action suit entitled, Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company, has been reached. On November 3, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. Unit Petroleum Company in LeFlore County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum breached its duty to pay royalties on natural gas used for fuel off the lease premises. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of Oklahoma citizens who are or were royalty owners in the company's Oklahoma wells. In August 2020, Unit Petroleum Company reached an agreement to settle these class actions. Under the settlement, Unit Petroleum Company agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs. Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company. This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al. Under the Company's (including joint debtor Unit Petroleum Company) approved plan or reorganization, these settlements will be treated as allowed class claims of general unsecured creditors. The settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock of the reorganized company. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNIT CORP: Settlement Deal Between Subsidiary & Cockerell Reached ----------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that an agreement to settle the class action suit entitled, Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd., v. Unit Petroleum Company, has been reached. On March 11, 2016, the putative class action lawsuit was filed against Unit Petroleum Company. The company removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiff alleges that Unit Petroleum wrongfully failed to pay interest with respect to late paid oil and gas proceeds under Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. The lawsuit seeks actual and punitive damages, an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Plaintiff is seeking relief on behalf of royalty and working interest owners in our Oklahoma wells. In August 2020, Unit Petroleum reached an agreement to settle these class actions. Under the settlement, Unit Petroleum agreed to recognize class proof of claims in the amount of $15.75 million for Cockerell Oil Properties, Ltd. vs. Unit Petroleum Company, and $29.25 million in Chieftain Royalty Company vs. Unit Petroleum Company. This settlement is subject to certain conditions, including approval by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division in Case No. 20-32740 under the caption In re Unit Corporation, et al. Under the Company's (including joint debtor Unit Petroleum Company) approved plan or reorganization, these settlements will be treated as allowed class claims of general unsecured creditors. The settlement amounts will be satisfied by distribution of the plaintiffs' proportionate share of New Common Stock of the of the reorganized company. Unit Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. It operates through three segments: Oil and Natural Gas, Contract Drilling, and Mid-Stream. Unit Corp was founded in 1963 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. UNITED ENROLLMENT: Ailion Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Enrollment Services LLC. The case is styled as Adam Ailion, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. United Enrollment Services LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00509-ELR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. United Enrollment Services is located in Boca Raton, Florida. This organization primarily operates in the Health Insurance Carriers business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: shkoval@aol.com UNITED STATES FIRE: Epie Files Insurance Suit in W.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Fire Insurance Company. The case is styled as Peter Epie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United States Fire Insurance Company, Trip Mate, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04021-BCW (W.D. Mo., Feb. 3, 2021). The case alleges insurance contract violations. United States Fire Insurance Company -- https://www.cfins.com/ -- is located in Morristown, New Jersey and is part of the property/casualty insurance carriers industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel Scearcy, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP - Westwood KS 1901 West 47th Place, Suite 210 Westwood, KS 66205 Phone: (816) 931-2230 Fax: (816) 931-7030 Email: nscearcy@potts-law.com UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss GCA et al. Class Action Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUAM CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, et al., v. MONTY WILKINSON, Attorney General of the United States (Acting), et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00075 (D. Guam), the Hon. Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood entered an order: 1. denying the Defendants' motion to dismiss; and 2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion seeking judicial notice of the AAO proceeding as moot. The Court said, "While portions of the Plaintiffs' claims are likely rendered moot by NDAA FY 19 and NDAA FY 21, the court does not find the legislation completely remedies all of the Plaintiffs' alleged injury-in-fact. Additionally, the harm alleged is capable of repetition yet evading review, and thus the claims provides an exception to the mootness doctrine." This class action relates to the "H-2B" work visa program. The H-2B work visa program allows employers to bring certain foreign nonimmigrant workers to the United States to fill temporary nonagricultural jobs. However, the program only provides visas for workers involved in "temporary service[s] or labor." Consequently, an employer must file an application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to explain the temporary nature of the work and to set forth the specific period of need for which the foreign worker will be present in the United States. The temporary nature of the work is subject to review by USCIS. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36NtISe at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Christy Inc. Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christy, Inc. filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled CHRISTY, INC., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES, Respondent, Case No. 20-1003. Response is due on February 25, 2021. The Plaintiff petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case titled CHRISTY, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 2019-1738, which affirmed the Judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing the case. Christy argues that the Court of Federal Claims erred in three ways: by (1) finding that Christy failed to state a compensable takings claim based on the cancellation of claims 1-18 of the United States Patent No. 7,082,640; (2) finding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Christy's illegal exaction claim; and (3) finding that Christy failed to state a plausible illegal exaction claim. The government concedes that the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Christy's illegal exaction claim but argues for the first time on appeal that the court lacked jurisdiction over Christy's takings claim. The questions presented are: 1) When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an Inter Partes Review (IPR)), must compensation be paid under the Takings Clause? 2) When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), should the issuance and maintenance fees that were demanded by the government by mistake be returned? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought for damages to Christy, Inc. and a class of other patent holders whose property was taken by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. According to the lawsuit, this unlawful "taking" occurred when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") invalidated claims pursuant to the post-grant proceedings created in the America Invents Act ("AIA"), including Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and Post-Grant Review ("PGR") proceedings (together, "post-grant proceedings" or "PGPs"). These PGPs have been used by the USPTO to invalidate patents at an alarming rate, and Christy, Inc. and other patent holders seek just compensation for the taking of patent owners' recognized patent property rights by the United States. More specifically, the lawsuit seeks money damages for the value of the patent claims, including any expected royalty and other payments for use of the patented technologies, the issuance and maintenance fees paid, and any investments made in the patented technologies.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Christy, Inc. is represented by: James Francis McDonough, III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee-Respondent United States is represented by: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov UNITED STATES: Huisha-huisha Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NANCY GIMENA HUISHA-HUISHA, et al., v. DAVID PEKOSKE, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00100-EGS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: "all noncitizens who (1) are or will be in the United States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit composed of at least one child under 18 years old and that child's parent or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be subjected to the Title 42 Process." The Plaintiffs are six families that fled their countries to seek asylum and other forms of humanitarian protection in the United States. All face summary expulsion pursuant to unlawful Title 42 Process, without any hearing or access to the protections to which they should be entitled under immigration laws. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cMIhJt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen B. Kang, Esq. Cody Wofsy, Esq. Morgan Russell, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 - and - Andre Segura, Esq. Kathryn Huddleston, Esq. Rochelle Garza, Esq. Brantley Shaw Drake, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF TEXAS, INC. 5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 350 Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 942-8146 - and - Tamara F. Goodlette, Esq. REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT CENTER FOR LEGAL EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES (RAICES) 802 Kentucky Avenue San Antonio, TX 78201 Telephone: (210) 960-3206 - and - Karla M. Vargas, Esq. TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT 1017 W. Hackberry Ave. Alamo, TX 78516 Telephone: (956) 787-8171 - and - Celso J. Perez, Esq. Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel A. Galindo, Esq. Omar Jadwat, Esq. Ming Cheung, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2600 - and - Robert Silverman, Esq. Irit Tamir, Esq. Oxfam America Boston, MA 02115, Suite 500 Telephone: (617) 482-1211 - and - Scott Michelman, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW, Second Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 - and - Jamie Crook, Esq. Karen Musalo, Esq. CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES 200 McAllister St. San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 565-4877 UNITED STATES: Lambro Seeks Proper Overtime Pay for Technicians --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LAMBRO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00255 (D.D.C., Jan. 28, 2021) arises from US Agency for Global Media's (USAGM's) willful misclassification of the Plaintiff and the Class members as independent contractors rather than employees. According to the complaint, USAGM wrongfully lured the Plaintiff and the Class Members into purchase order agreements, explicitly limiting the parties' relationship as non-personal service contractors or independent contractors. Contrary to the purchase order agreement's terms, the Plaintiff and the Class members provided USAGM personal services, as defined in 48 CFR section 37.104, creating an employee-employer relationship between the parties and entitling the Plaintiff and the Class members to benefits available to federal employees. Allegedly, the USAGM's willful misclassification is exemplified in its response to the Inspector General of the Department of State (OIG) June 2014 Audit of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Administration and Oversight of Acquisition Functions. In that audit the OIG determined that the USAGM misclassified Class members in knowing violation of the law. Even after the OIG's findings, USAGM refused to rectify its wrongs and continued to use purchase orders and vendor agreements to obtain personal services via contract until July or August of 2020. USAGM's acts prevented Plaintiff and the Class Members from receiving benefits and additional compensation for overtime hours as allowed by the FLSA, the suit says. As a result of USAGM's actions, the Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled to unpaid wages for work performed for which they did not receive any compensation, overtime work for which they did not receive any overtime premium pay as required by law, and are entitled to liquidated damages under the FLSA, contends the suit. Plaintiff Jason Lambro is an adult individual domiciled in Nottingham, Maryland. The Plaintiff provides Studio Technician services at VoA's headquarters in Washington, DC, under a purchase order agreement with the VoA. The Defendant operates the USAGM, an independent governmental agency created to provide international broadcasting. USAGM is comprised of five media organizations, including the Voice of America (VoA). USAGM is federally mandated to support daily operations and provide transmission and distribution services and technical support for the media organizations under its umbrella. Each organization within the USAGM has multiple departments, all with separate leadership and workforce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Ludwig, Esq. Ben Barlow, Esq. DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG PLLC 1200 G Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 316-8558 Facsimile: (855) 226-8791 E-mail: dludwig@dbllawyers.com bbarlow@dbllawyers.com - and - Joe Whitcomb, Esq. WHITCOMB, SELINSKY, PC. 2000 S. Colorado Blvd. Tower 1, Suite #9500 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 534-1958 Facsimile: (303) 534-1949 E-mail: joe@whitcomblawpc.com UNITED STATES: Torres Files Suit in District of Columbia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THOMAS W. HARKER, et al. The case is styled as Oscar D. Torres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THOMAS W. HARKER in his official capacity, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ACTING), UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00306 (D.D.C., Feb. 2, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency for Judicial Review of Agency Actions. Thomas W. Harker is an American government official who has served in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Department of Defense.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barak Cohen, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 700 13th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 654-6337 Fax: (202) 654-9997 Email: bcohen@perkinscoie.com UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE: Lyvers Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kelsey Lyvers, on behalf of herself and other individuals similarly situated v. The University of Louisville, Scott W. Brinkman, Randall J Bufford, Raymond Burse, John E. Chilton, Alfonso Cornish, Sandra Frazier, Diane Medley, Mary R Nixon, Diane L Porter, James M Rogers, David Schultz, John D. Smith, and other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No. 20-CI-00985, was removed from the Franklin Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Kentucky on Feb. 3, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00006-GFVT to the proceeding. The case alleges education civil rights violations. The University of Louisville -- http://louisville.edu/-- is a public research university in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. THE WINTERS LAW GROUP LLC 432 S. Broadway, Suite 2B Lexington, KY 40508 Phone: (859) 619-2134 Email: jwinters@gettylawgroup.com - and - Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Lane, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Phone: (516) 873-9550 Fax: (516) 747-5024 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alina Klimkina, Esq. Donna King Perry, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP - Louisville 101 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2500 Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 540-2337 Fax: (502) 585-2207 Email: Alina.Klimkina@dinsmore.com donna.perry@dinsmore.com URS MIDWEST: Court Denies Bid to Remand Rodriguez Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs v. URS MIDWEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02365-JWH-SPx (C.D. Cal.), Judge John W. Holcomb of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Rodriguez's Motion to Remand. On April 2, 2019, Rodriguez filed his putative class action Complaint in San Bernardino County Superior Court. On June 12, 2019, Rodriguez filed a First Amended Complaint. He alleges that the Defendants failed to comply with various provisions of the California Labor Code. On Dec. 6, 2019, Defendant URS Midwest served discovery responses identifying that "approximately 299" employees were "covered employees" during the relevant time period. On Nov. 10, 2020, the Defendants removed the action to federal court. They base their removal on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d), which provides district courts with original subject matter jurisdiction over class actions in which (1) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million; (2) there are at least 100 proposed class members; and (3) any member of the class "is a citizen of a State different from any defendant." The Defendants allege that they determined that the action was removable based upon the allegations in the FAC and their own records. Similarly, they explain their calculation of the amount in controversy for the missed-meal-periods claim. For example, with respect to Rodriguez's claim for unpaid minimum wages, the Defendants explain how they calculated the amount in controversy. The Defendants perform similar calculations for other categories of damages, and they arrive at a total amount in controversy of between $6,391,911.05 and $8,024,768.80, which is composed of the following: (1) unpaid minimum wages ($508,082.42); (2) meal period claim ($979,714.66 to $1,632,857.76); (3) rest period claim ($979,714.66 to $1,632,857.76); (4) wage statement penalties ($633,000); (5) waiting time penalties ($1,279,322.10); (6) unreimbursed expenses ($733,695); and (7) attorneys' fees ($1,278,382.21 to $1,604,953.76). On Dec. 10, 2020, Rodriguez filed the instant Motion. The parties do not dispute that the amount in controversy requirement is met nor that the parties are minimally diverse; they agree that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction if the Defendants' removal was timely. Rodriguez contends, however, that the Defendants failed to file within the statutory deadline. As Rodriguez notes, the Defendants did not remove the action until well after a year had passed from the filing of the Complaint or the FAC. The Defendants argue that the 30-day removal clock did not begin to run with the filing of either the Complaint or the FAC because both were "indeterminate" regarding the amount in controversy, and they were therefore "entitled to remove the case at any time." Rodriguez responds that the pleadings "provide a basis for Defendants to ascertain removability." With respect to the amount in controversy, Rodriguez notes that "the pleadings indicate that there are at least 101 class members" and that the Complaint and the FAC state that "the Plaintiff's share of damages, penalties, and other relief sought in this action does not exceed $75,000." Judge Holcomb holds that the calculations that the Defendants perform are significantly more complicated than "multiplying figures clearly stated in a complaint." Rather, they presumably had to research relevant figures based upon their own information to derive the estimated amount that they alleged in the Notice of Removal. In adopting its "objective baseline rule," the Ninth Circuit sought to avoid "the spectre of inevitable collateral litigation over whether the pleadings contained a sufficient 'clue,' whether defendant had subjective knowledge, or whether defendant conducted sufficient inquiry." Because the Defendants relied on their own knowledge and investigation to estimate the amount in controversy, the Judge finds that the removal is timely. For these reasons, he denied Rodriguez's Motion to Remand. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tkd1nu8v from Leagle.com. VALVE CORP: Monopolizes Game Platform's Market Power, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Colvin, Everett Stephens, Ryan Lally, Susann Davis, and Hope Marchionda on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Valve Corporation, CD Projekt S.A., CD Projekt, Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment S.A., Ubisoft, Inc., Ubisoft L.A., Inc., kChamp Games, Inc., Rust, LLC, and Devolver Digital, Judge Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021) alleges that Valve abuses the Steam platform's market power by requiring game developers to enter into a "Most Favored Nations" provision contained in the Steam Distribution Agreement whereby the game developers agree that the price of a PC game on the Steam platform will be the same price the game developers sell their PC games on other platforms. Valve Corporation's Steam platform is the dominant platform for game developers to distribute and sell PC games in the United States. But the Steam platform does not maintain its dominance through better pricing than by rival platforms, says the complaint. Because of this Most Favored Nations provision, or "MFN," other platforms are unable to compete on price, thereby insulating the Steam platform from competition. The MFN has the effect of keeping prices to consumers high, as price competition by platforms would cause the prices of PC games sold to consumers to decrease. The MFN also hinders innovation and suppresses output, as it acts as an artificial barrier to entry by potential rival platforms and as higher prices lead to less sales of PC Games, the complaint adds. The Plaintiffs contend that during the pandemic, PC game purchases and usage have exploded, as more and more Americans are spending more and more time at home. This court should stop the Steam platform's abuse of its market power, prevent game developers from entering into MFNs with Valve, and order that the Class recover treble damages, says the suit. A "MFN" is a "Most Favored Nation" provision in a contract. An MFN is an agreement between platforms and sellers about the prices that sellers will charge buyers who purchase through rival platforms. A "PC game" is a type of computer game played on a personal computer as opposed to a video game console or mobile d vice. The Plaintiffs purchase PC games from Defendants on the Steam platform. Defendant Valve operates a platform for game developers to sell PC games to consumers called "Steam." Valve has its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. CD Projekt S.A. is a Polish game developer and sells PC games through the Steam platform. Ubisoft Entertainment S.A. is a French game developer and sells PC games through the Steam platform.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6433 Facsimile: (614) 719-6350 E-mail: tnmccormick@vorys.com VIA QUANDRONNO: Cheng FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHUNYUNG CHENG and SHIGUANG CHEN Individually and on Behalf of All Other Employees Similarly Situated, v. VIA QUANDRONNO LLC, VIA QUADRONNO 88 STREET, ANTICA BOTTEGA DEL VINO, "JOHN" LAM a/k/a KC, YONG "DOE", and John Doe and Jane Doe, Case No. e 1:20-cv-08903-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); 2. directing the Defendants, within 14 days of the entry of this Order, to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any time from October 23, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so- orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; 3. authorizing that notices of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiffs to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the English, Chinese, Spanish speaking immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English and Chinese, and Spanish; and 9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. Via Quandronno is an Italian restaurant on the Upper East Side of New York City. A copy of the notice of plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification dated Jan. 28, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q7HarP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hui Chen, Esq. HUI CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 136-20 38th Ave., Suite 9E Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 463-2666 E-mail: hui.chen@alum.cardozo.yu.edu VIKTOR BENES: Faces Cocka Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Cocka, an individual v. Viktor Benes Continental Pasteries, Inc., a California Corporation, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV00058 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 12, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, arising from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay overtime, provide accurate wage statements, provide rest and meal periods, pay all wages due, permit inspection of employee records, and by engaging in unfair business practices. From April 2018 through July 4, 2020, Mr. Cocka was an employee of Defendants at their Manhattan Beach location in California whose job duties primarily consisted of non-exempt worker job duties, such as baking and product ordering. Viktor Benes Continental Pasteries, Inc. is in the business of selling baked cakes, cookie, pastries, and danishes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory P. Wong, Esq. Tiara Gose, Esq. BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC 6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (323) 450-2777 E-mail: Tiara@barklawfirm.com VISA INC: Class Certification Bid in Interchange MDL Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2021, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that on December 18, 2020, the plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of the putative Injunctive Relief Class moved for class certification in Interchange Multidistrict Litigation. Visa Inc. operates as a payments technology company worldwide. The company facilitates commerce through the transfer of value and information among consumers, merchants, financial institutions, businesses, strategic partners, and government entities. Visa Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. VMSB LLC: Morel Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & FMWA --------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO MOREL and JOSE VIAMONTE, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated v. VMSB, LLC, d/b/a GIANNI'S and d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-20380-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2021), claims for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Constitution, and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief, judgment against the Defendant as to liability, to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount in liquidated damages, and to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendant in this case allegedly violated the FLSA and FMWA by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Server's Assistants and Food Runners the proper minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked. This action is intended to include each and every hourly-paid Server's Assistants and Food Runners who worked for the Defendant at any time within the past three years as to claims for overtime, and five years as to claims for minimum wages says the complaint, the suit says.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3016 E-Mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com WALMART INC: Smith Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rodger Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. CACE-20-021823 was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida on Feb. 2, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-60265-XXXX to the proceeding. The case alleges personal injury violations. Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American 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 Plaintiff is represented by: Joel L. Oster, Esq. OSTER LAW FIRM 22052 W. 66th St #192 Shawnee, KS 66226 Phone: (913) 206-7575 Email: joster@telladf.org - and - Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj, Esq. Nicholas Thaddeus Zbrzeznj, Esq. SOUTHERN ATLANTIC LAW GROUP, PLLC 99 6th St SW Winter Haven, FL 33880 Phone: (863) 656-6672 Email: Lydia@southernatlanticlaw.com nick@southernatlanticlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Cristina Isabel Calvar, Esq. WINSTON, STRAWN LLP 3161 Michelson Drive 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Fax: (212) 294-5331 Email: ccalvar@winston.com WEBULL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over GameStop Trading Restrictions --------------------------------------------------------------- On the evening of January 28, 2021 shortly before midnight, a class action was filed against Webull Financial LLC by Siri & Glimstad LLP on behalf of a class of individuals that suffered losses due to Webull's actions to restrict trading on its online stock trading platform. Webull, on January 28, 2021, prevented its 11 million customers from trading various stocks that had been rising earlier in the day, including those of GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC) and Koss (KOSS). Webull's move has prompted many investors and pundits to declare that the market is "rigged" against retail investors. The class action complaint, alleges that "Webull's actions occurred in the midst of a rise in those companies' stock share prices and thereby deprived its customers, retail investors, of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulate the open-market for the effected stock." Webull's CEO denies this allegation and has blamed its clearing firm, Apex, for requiring these restrictions on trading due to regulatory capital requirements. The class action complaint was filed by the attorneys Aaron Siri, Mason Barney and Elizabeth Brehm of Siri & Glimstad LLP. Filed with the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case # 1:21-cv-00799 [GN] WEBULL FINANCIAL: Restricts Buying Stocks From Platform, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROYAL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00799-DLC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2021) alleges that on January 28, 2021, Webull purposefully, willfully, and knowingly removed the ability to purchase certain stocks issued by several companies from its trading platform, but let its users sell that stock. According to the complaint, these stocks include: a. GameStop Corp. ("GameStop" or "GME"), which trades under the ticker symbol GME; b. AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. ("AMC Entertainment" or "AMC"), which trades under the ticker symbol AMC; c. Koss Corporation ("Koss"), which trades under the ticker symbol KOSS; d. Nokia Oyj ("Nokia" or "NOK"), which trades under the ticker symbol NOK; e. Naked Brand Group Ltd ("Naked Brand" or "NAKD"), which trades under the ticker symbol NAKD; f. Sundial Growers Inc ("Sundial Growers" or "SNDL"), which trades under the ticker symbol SNDL; and g. Castor Maritime Inc ("Castor Maritime" or "CTRM"), which trades under the ticker symbol CTRM. Webull's actions occurred in the midst of a rise in those companies' stock share prices and thereby deprived its customers, retail investors, of the ability to invest in the open-market and manipulate the open-market for the effected stock, the complaint says. Webull allegedly breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and Class members by failing to disclose that its platform was going to remove the Blocked Stocks purchases in a timely manner. Webull's conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class members' harm, losses, and damages and continues to expose them to harm because Webull continues to breach its fiduciary duties. These losses reflect damages to Plaintiff and Class members in an amount to be determined at trial or separate proceedings as necessary, the suit says. Plaintiff Royal Williams is, and at all relevant times was, a citizen of Florida. Webull Financial is an online brokerage firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Siri, Esq. Mason Barney, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com mbarney@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com WEBULL FINANCIAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Webull Financial LLC. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Webull Financial LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00930 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Webull -- https://www.webull.com/ -- offers commission free trading through their mobile app, desktop, and web platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal WEINERT ENTERPRISES: Denial of Class Cert. in Anderson Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the denial of class certification motion in the lawsuit entitled RICHARD J. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WEINERT ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1030 (7th Cir.). Anderson worked in northeast Wisconsin for a local roofing company called Weinert Enterprises. Following a dispute with the company over how Weinert calculated overtime wages, Anderson brought suit in federal court in Wisconsin. Anderson sued Weinert alleging that its policy violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin labor laws. After his collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act failed to attract enough employee support, Anderson withdrew the federal claim. But he still sought to pursue Wisconsin state law claims as a class action. The district court determined that Anderson's proposed class would include no more than 37 members and, after finding that joinder of those 37 members was not impracticable, denied the class certification motion for failing to meet numerosity requirement of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Anderson now appeals. The Seventh Circuit's cases have recognized that "a 40-member class is often regarded as sufficient to meet the numerosity requirement," notes Circuit Judge Michael Yale Scudder, Jr., writing for the Panel, citing Orr v. Shicker, 953 F.3d 490, 498 (7th Cir. 2020). But a class of 40 or more does not guarantee numerosity. Judge Scudder explains that the key numerosity inquiry under Rule 23(a)(1) is not the number of class members alone but the practicability of joinder. Answering that question requires evaluation of "the nature of the action, the size of the individual claims, and the location of the members of the class or the property that is the subject matter of the dispute," quoting 7A C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE Section 1762 (3d ed.). Though Anderson's putative class of 37 comes close to crossing the benchmark numerosity threshold, a closer look at the circumstances of the likely class members and the nature of the claim at issue under Wisconsin law persuades the Panel that Rule 23(a)(1) is not satisfied. The district court applied this exact framework and determined that Anderson failed to show it would be impracticable to join approximately 37 class members, Judge Scudder holds. In doing so, the court considered the proposed class' geographic dispersion, overall size of the class, small dollar amounts involved with each individual claim, and Anderson's ability to easily contact the class members. Judge Scudder points out that the Panel cannot say the district court abused its discretion in deciding that these factors weighed against certifying the class. The Panel also cannot say that the district court's decision to exclude any seasonal employees Weinert hired in 2019 reflected error. To be sure, the district court may have been mistaken in labeling these 2019 hires as 'future class members' instead of 'unidentified class members,' Judge Scudder writes. Regardless, Anderson, who shoulders the burden of illustrating the propriety of class certification, failed to present the court with any definitive evidence showing that Weinert hired seasonal employees in 2019. This shortcoming is especially notable given that the district court did not decide the class certification motion until August 2019, well into Weinert's typical hiring season, Judge Scudder notes. It is true that Anderson showed that Weinert hired between 8 and 12 seasonal employees each of the previous three years. And while the district court reasonably could have inferred from this that Weinert would take on a similar number of employees in 2019, it did not abuse its discretion by declining to make this inference in the face of Anderson's sparse evidentiary showing. Anderson claims that any failure of proof should be attributed to Weinert, asserting that the company failed to update its initial discovery disclosures. Anderson did not raise this point in the district court, though, Judge Scudder finds. Nor does the record indicate he sought this information from Weinert or requested the district court's assistance in obtaining any discovery. As the party with the burden of proof, Anderson needed to attend diligently in the district court to the demands of Rule 23. Judge Scudder also opines, among other things, that the obligation imposed by Rule 23(a) remains: a plaintiff seeking to certify a class must show that joinder would be impracticable, and Anderson failed to make this showing. He never demonstrated that naming as plaintiffs each of the predominantly local, current, and former employees of a northeast Wisconsin roofing company would be impracticable. Judge Scudder points out that the district court did not abuse its discretion in evaluating the practicability of joinder based on the evidence before it. The Panel's holding imposes no immovable benchmarks for meeting Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement, Judge Scudder holds. Though the Appellate Court recognized that 40 class members will often be enough to satisfy numerosity, in no way is that number etched in stone. The controlling inquiry remains the practicability of joinder. Some classes may involve such large numbers of potential members that volume alone will make joinder impracticable. In other circumstances, it may be that smaller classes than the one proposed here will face such high barriers to joinder that the impracticability required by Rule 23(a)(1) will exist. The inquiry is fact and circumstance dependent, and future cases will require this careful line drawing, Judge Scudder adds. With this closing observation, the Appellate Court affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Jan. 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zfoes42 from Leagle.com. WELLPATH LLC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Hall Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge George Caram Steeh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case, CHERYL HALL, BRAD LaFUZE, and MARTELL GRESHAM, Plaintiff v. WELLPATH, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-10670 (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiffs filed their amended class action complaint on May 4, 2020, against the Defendant. Wellpath is a private, for-profit administrator of health care services, including prescription medication services and utilization management services, to 25 county jails in Michigan, as well hundreds more throughout the United States. The named Plaintiffs were incarcerated as pretrial detainees in the Grand Traverse County Jail and the Wayne County Jail. The Plaintiffs accuse Wellpath of causing "systematic and unreasonable interruption, discontinuation, denial, and/or delay of prescribed psychotropic medications to detainees with previously diagnosed, serious mental health care conditions." They allege that they suffered avoidable serious mental health crises during the initial stages of their incarceration as a result of Wellpath's corporate policies relating to the administration of prescription mental health medications. The amended complaint avers the following counts: (1) "Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments (as to pretrial-detainees), Monell Claim, Denial of Due Process, Deliberate Indifference to Known Serious Medical Needs" under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988; (2) "Monell Claim, Eighth Amendment (as to convicted detainees), Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Deliberate Indifference to Known Serious Medical Needs" under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988; (3) "Substantive Due Process Violation, State Created Danger" under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988; (4) "Fourteenth Amendment, Denial of Procedural Due Process without Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge Determination or be Heard Regarding Deprivation" under 42 4 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988; and (5) "Common Law Negligence and Gross Negligence." In the request for relief, the Plaintiffs seek an order certifying one or more classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. They seek a declaratory order that Wellpath violated the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and the class, and an order declaring Wellpath liable for each cause of action. They further seek compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages, attorney fees and costs, injunctive relief, consequential damages and any other relief the court deems fair and equitable. Wellpath filed a motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and V which was referred to the magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Patricia Morris issued a Report recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted as to the claims for injunctive relief and denied in all other respects. Wellpath and the Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). Each party responded to the other's objections. Wellpath states three objections and the Plaintiffs state four objections to the R&R. The Defendant's first objection is that the Magistrate Judge did not analyze or address the Defendant's written policies before concluding that the Plaintiffs stated a claim of deliberate indifference. Judge Steeh opines that the Defendant's arguments about the sufficiency of evidence and the legality of its policies are better suited to a motion for summary judgment. He overrules tje Defendant's first objection to the R&R and concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated causes of action for deliberate indifference to their known serious medical needs. Wellpath's second objection is that the R&R erred in not dismissing the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Claim. It argues that Count II of the First Amended Complaint, asserting a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, should have been dismissed. However, Count II alleges a Monell claim for violations of convicted detainees' rights under the Eighth Amendment. Named plaintiff Mr. Lafuze is described as having been incarcerated as both a pre-trial detainee and a convicted detainee, as such he is entitled to the protections of the Eighth Amendment. Judge Steeh opines that the Magistrate Judge did not err and overrules the Defendant's objection. Wellpath's third objection is that the R&R erred in concluding that the medical malpractice pre-suit requirements in federal court are procedural and not substantive and are not a basis for dismissal for failing to comply. Following a thorough analysis, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the affidavit of merit requirement is procedural because a failure to file an affidavit results in the action being dismissed without prejudice. The action may then be re-filed within the limitations period. Therefore, the requirement of the affidavit does not alter the elements of the cause of action and is not substantive. Judge Steeh is persuaded that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the affidavit of merit required by state law is procedural and is not required for medical malpractice claims sounding in negligence or gross negligence brought before the Court under diversity jurisdiction. Hence, the Defendant's objection is overruled. The Plaintiffs first object to the recommendation that their request for injunctive relief is rendered moot because each of the named plaintiffs was eventually released from the county jail and is no longer under the medical care of Wellpath employees. Judge Steeh sustained the Plaintiffs' first objection. He finds that the Plaintiffs, the proposed class representatives, have adequately alleged a basis for seeking injunctive relief based on contemporaneous and recurring violations by Wellpath for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint claims that the alleged violations were recurring and affecting inmates in every county jail where Wellpath operates. The essence of the inherently transitory exception is uncertainty about whether a claim will remain alive for any given plaintiff long enough for a district court to certify the class. The Plaintiffs object to the dismissal of the claim for injunctive relief by Lafuze and Gresham in particular because they are repeat offenders who suffer from mental illness, have been incarcerated in county jails on numerous occasions, and are likely to experience recurring violations by Wellpath. They contend it is reasonable to expect that they will again be incarcerated in a county jail and impacted by Wellpath's policies, practices and customs. Having already found that the Plaintiffs may pursue their claims for injunctive relief, Judge Steeh does not need to further address the objection. The Plaintiffs' third objection is that if the Court determines that the named Plaintiffs' claims are insufficient to represent the class in pursuing injunctive relief, the correct course of action is to dismiss their claims for injunctive relief without prejudice, thereby providing them with an opportunity to move to amend and cure by adding a named Plaintiff whose injunctive claims are not moot this objection is also moot in light of the Court's finding that the Plaintiffs may proceed with their request for injunctive relief. Judge Steeh holds that the objection is moot in light of his finding that the Plaintiffs may proceed with their request for injunctive relief. Finally, the Plaintiffs take issue with the Magistrate Judge's finding that their negligence and gross negligence claims in Count V necessarily sound in medical malpractice. They point out that in each of its contracts with county governments, Wellpath expressly states that it is not a licensed medial provider or professional. The Magistrate Judge concluded that whether Wellpath's "determinations were made in a sweeping manner" pursuant to their policies or by individual medical staff, the propriety of continuing or denying prescription medications lies beyond the ken of the jury." Judge Steeh agrees that the conclusion and the analysis that led to it is sound. Of course, should the evidence support a contrary conclusion, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that an order or decision other than a final judgment "may be revisited at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Accordingly, he overruled the Plaintiffs' objection. Based on the foregoing, Judge Steeh accepted in part and rejected in part the R&R, and denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3bx4a5qz from Leagle.com. WELLS FARGO: D'Addio Sues Over Client Associates' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS D'ADDIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC (formerly known as WELLS FARGO ADVISORS LLC) doing business as WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Case No. 4:21-cv-00054 (E.D. Mo., Jan. 13, 2021) seeks declaratory relief and unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, fees and costs, and any other remedies to which the Plaintiff and the Class members may be entitled pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a client associate from approximately March 2011 to May 2020 and worked in Defendant's office in Frontenac, Missouri. Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC offers nationwide financial advisory, brokerage, asset management and other financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Pezzani, Esq. Emily W. Kalla, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 1321 N. Outer Forty Road, Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 863-7793 E-mail: tony@epfirm.com emily@epfirm.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com WILLIAM DOUGLAS: Carpenter Suit Removed to W.D. North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SUSAN K. CARPENTER, Trustee of the H. Joe King, Jr. Revocable Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT, INC. and NEXTLEVEL ASSOCIATION SOLUTIONS, INC. (d/b/a HOMEWISEDOCS.COM), Case No. 20 CVS 8415, was removed from the North Carolina Superior Court for Mecklenburg County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on January 13, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00019-RJC-DCK to the proceeding. The lawsuit purports to assert individual and putative class claims against the Defendants for violations of the Transfer Fee Covenant Prohibition Act, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, as well as negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and declaratory judgment for collecting the fees Plaintiff characterizes as unlawful transfer fees. William Douglas Management, Inc. provides property management and financial services. HomeWiseDocs.com is the real estate industry's community association escrow, closing and document service company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Meckler, Esq. Frederick M. Thurman, Jr., Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP 101 South Tryon Street Suite 2200 Charlotte, NC 28280 Telephone: (704) 375-0057 Facsimile: (704) 332-1197 E-mail: smeckler@shumaker.com fthurman@shumaker.com - and - Philip M. Oliss, Esq. Alexander W. Prunka, Esq. JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: poliss@jonesday.com aprunka@jonesday.com WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES: Court Denies Bid to Stay Citizens Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, DAVID ANDALCIO, JOSE FLORES, and MELISSA THORNLEY, DEBORAH BENJAMIN KOLLER, JOSUE HERRERA, MARIO CALDERON, and JENNIFER ROCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 3873 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants' motion to stay the case pending those courts' resolution of certain factual issues that the Defendants say touch upon the action. In the insurance coverage dispute, Citizens seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Wynndalco in connection with two class action lawsuits pending in other courts. Citizens filed the action for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend or indemnify under a Business Owners Policy issued to Wynndalco in connection with two putative class actions suits pending in other courts. The underlying cases are captioned Thornley v. CDW-Government, LLC, No. 20 CH 4346 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct. filed May 27, 2020); and Calderon v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 20 CV 1296 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 13, 2020). Effective from Oct. 2, 2019, to Oct. 2, 2020, the Policy provides liability coverage for Wynndalco's business, including duties to defend and indemnify. But a provision of the Policy entitled "Distribution Of Materials In Violation Of Statutes" excludes liability coverage for the following: "Bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury arising directly or indirectly out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate: (1) The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, including any amendment of or addition to such law; (2) The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, including any amendment of or addition to such law; (3) The Fair Credit Reporting Act, and any amendment of or addition to such law, including the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act; or (4) Any other laws, statutes, ordinances, or regulations, that address, prohibit, or limit the printing, dissemination, disposal, collecting, recording, sending, transmitting, communicating or distribution of material or information." Citizens contends that the Exclusion applies to the underlying class action lawsuits for which Wynndalco seeks insurance coverage. The underlying class actions allege that Wynndalco violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), which prohibits the collection, retention, and disclosure of "biometric identifiers," such as facial scans, or "biometric information," meaning as "any information based on" a biometric identifier. In particular, each case centers around a secretive technology created by a company called Clearview AI, Inc. that combines a database of over three billion facial scans, amassed by "scraping" photographs from the internet, and a facial recognition application, so as to enable the end-user to identify unknown persons by comparing their facial scan to those included in Clearview's database. As for Wynndalco, the cases each allege that it operated as Clearview's Illinois-based agent by purchasing Clearview's technology and then reselling or licensing it to law enforcement agencies, whether directly or through another intermediary called CDW-Government, LLC. Among other defendants, the Calderon plaintiffs claim that Wynndalco violated the BIPA by capturing, collecting, receiving, storing, disclosing, and/or using biometric identifiers and biometric information, without complying with the statutory requirements, in the course of its agency relationship with Clearview. The Thornley plaintiffs also claim that Wynndalco violated the BIPA, based on its "selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from their biometric identifiers or biometric information." Additionally, the Thornley plaintiffs bring common law claims of unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy against Wynndalco. The unjust enrichment count asserts that Wynndalco "unjustly benefited from its publication of the Plaintiffs' and the Class' biometric identifiers and biometric information." Similarly, the invasion of privacy count declares that Wynndalco's "conduct in publishing and exploiting the Plaintiffs' and the Class's biometric identifiers and biometric information constituted an unauthorized intrusion into their seclusion" and "was offensive and objectionable." Wynndalco reports that the underlying class actions are each in the pleading and early discovery stages. In the meantime, Wynndalco and two of its executives, David Andalcio (its founder and CEO) and Jose Flores (its COO), move to stay the case until certain "factual issues" whose determination they say will impact the Court's coverage decision have been resolved in those actions. The Defendants raise several arguments in favor of a stay. First and foremost, they contend that resolving the coverage dispute would require the Court to determine two questions of ultimate fact on which the underlying actions hinge: (1) "whether Wynndalco was a government contractor, and therefore exempted under BIPA"; and (2) "whether Wynndalco 'possessed' biometric information." The argument, however, suffers from several flaws, Judge Lee holds. He says while the questions of fact that the Defendants identify certainly go to the heart of Wynndalco's liability in the Thornley and Calderon lawsuits, he need not resolve either of them to determine whether those lawsuits trigger Citizens' duty to defend. To determine whether Citizens has a duty to defend, he need only ask whether the allegations of the Thornely or Calderon complaints, if proven, would establish an injury covered by the Policy--i.e., one that falls outside the scope of the Exclusion. The Defendants' second argument fares no better. Reading the Exclusion to be "limited to statutory violations," the Defendants suggest that it does not apply to the common law claims brought against Wynndalco in the Thornley action. But this line of reasoning goes only to the merits of one of the claims raised in the case--i.e., whether Citizens has a duty to defend Wynndalco in connection with the Thornley action--not whether the Court must decide an issue of ultimate fact "that could bind the parties to the underlying litigation" to get there. For the reasons discussed, Judge Lee holds that the Defendants fail to show that it must. The Defendants' remaining arguments are equally meritless. The task of answering the complaint in the case does not amount to a "dress rehearsal" for the underlying cases. Finally, the possibility that the Thornley plaintiffs may yet bring "new claims" has no bearing on whether the claims already brought trigger Citizens' duty to defend. In sum, because Citizens' declaratory judgment action "presents a question distinct from the issues raised" in the underlying Thornley and Calderon class actions, to which an answer "will serve a useful purpose in clarifying the legal obligations and relationships among the parties," Judge Lee holds that a stay is unwarranted. Accordingly, he denied the Defendants' motion to stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb8hf2qt from Leagle.com. XILINX INC: AMD Merger Related Suits Underway --------------------------------------------- Xilinx, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 28, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 2, 2021, that the company is facing several suits including class action suits related to its merger with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD). On October 27, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 26, 2020 with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Thrones Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD (Merger Sub), under which, subject to the satisfaction or (to the extent permissible) waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, and the Company will survive the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD. On December 7, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Stein v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-08637). The complaint alleges that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 14a-9 thereunder and SEC Regulation G, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement failed to disclose material information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections and Credit Suisse's discounted cash flow analyses of the Company and AMD. The complaint seeks an order: enjoining the Merger unless and until additional disclosures are issued; rescinding the Merger, to the extent it closes; awarding damages; awarding costs, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and expenses; and awarding such other relief as the court deems proper. On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class-action complaint in the New York Supreme Court against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Nunez v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 656971/2020). The complaint alleges that the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger, agreeing to purportedly preclusive deal protection terms and engaging in an allegedly flawed process that did not involve an adequate market check or approval by a committee of disinterested and independent directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company's board of directors "caused to be filed" the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger that purportedly omitted material information with respect to the Merger. The registration statement allegedly omits information regarding the sale process, AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by each of Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and DBO and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. Finally, the complaint alleges that the Company and AMD aided and abetted the Company's board of directors in their breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks certification of a class action, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Hale v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03629). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 15, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the members of its board of directors, AMD and Merger Sub (Shumacher v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10595). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 18, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the members of its board of directors (Achterberg v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-10715). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections and certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, an amended registration statement, damages and costs, among other remedies. On December 30, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Xilinx and the members of its board of directors (Sandhu v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-09440). The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued in connection with the Merger omitted material information with respect to the Merger, including information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, damages and costs, among other remedies. The Company believes that the allegations in the shareholder litigation matters are without merit. Xilinx, Inc. is an American technology company, primarily a supplier of programmable logic devices. It is known for inventing the field-programmable gate array and as the semiconductor company that created the first fabless manufacturing model. The company is based in San Jose, California. XILINX INC: Murphy Challenges Merger Deal With Advanced Micro ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MURPHY v. XILINX, INC., DENNIS SEGERS, VICTOR PENG, RAMAN CHITKARA, SAAR GILLAI, RONALD S. JANKOV, MARY LOUISE KRAKAUER, THOMAS H. LEE, JON A. OLSON, and ELIZABETH VANDERSLICE, Case No. 5:21-cv-00695 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Xilinx and the members of Xilinx's Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 14a-9. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Xilinx will be acquired by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) through AMD's wholly owned subsidiary Thrones Merger Sub, Inc. According to the complaint, on October 27, 2020, Xilinx and AMD issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 26, 2020 to sell Xilinx to AMD. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each holder of Xilinx common stock will receive 1.7234 shares of AMD common stock for each share of Xilinx common stock they own. Upon closing of the merger, Xilinx stockholders are expected to own approximately 26% of the outstanding shares of AMD common stock and AMD stockholders immediately prior to the merger are expected to own approximately 74% of the outstanding shares of AMD common stock. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $35 billion. On December 4, 2020, AMD filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC. The Registration Statement, which recommends that Xilinx stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning the Company's and AMD's financial projections, the suit alleges. In short, unless remedied, Xilinx's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Registration Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting decision on the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant, a continuous stockholder of Xilinx. Defendant Xilinx is a Delaware corporation, with its principal executive offices located at 2100 Logic Drive, San Jose, California. The Company develops processing platforms that enable innovation across a variety of technologies. Xilinx's common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "XLNX." The Indvidual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd., No. 725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com Y AND P: Bakery Staff Seeks Overtime, Spread-of Hours Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Martin Gonzalez Sanchez, Lediz Marin, Hector Gonzalez Sanchez, Leoncio Noe and Damaso Cesar Gonzalez Romano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Y and P Enterprises Inc., Paul Dimino, Yura Mohr, Lucas Santos and Susie Doe, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00675 (S.D. N.Y., January 25, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a cafe bakery, located at 1645 3rd Ave New York, New York under the name "Corner Cafe & Bakery" where Plaintiffs were employed as a food preparer, sandwich maker, dishwasher and line cook, salad preparer and baker. They claim to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. They also claim to have never received wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com ZOOM VIDEO: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, is investigating certain officers and directors of American Electric Power Company, Inc. ("AEP") (NYSE: AEP) and Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZM) on behalf of long-term stockholders. More information about each potential case can be found at the link provided. Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZM) Bragar Eagel & Squire is investigating certain officers and directors of Zoom Video Communications, Inc. following a class action complaint that was filed against Zoom on April 7, 2020. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Zoom had inadequate data privacy and security measures; (ii) contrary to Zoom's assertions, the Company's video communications service was not end-to-end encrypted; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, users of Zoom's communications services were at an increased risk of having their personal information accessed by unauthorized parties, including Facebook; (iv) usage of the Company's video communications services was foreseeably likely to decline when the foregoing facts came to light; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more about our investigation into Zoom go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ZM 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.comwww.bespc.com [GN] ZOUND INDUSTRIES: Romero Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ZOUND INDUSTRIES USA INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00956-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 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, www.marshallheadphones.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. The Defendant is a headphones and sound systems manufacturing company, and owns and operates the Website, www.marshallheadphones.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Email: Joseph@cml.legal [*] SoCal Youth Baseball Group Hits Insurers With RICO Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- A Southern California youth baseball program filed a proposed RICO class action against several insurers in the Central District of California alleging a scheme to sell counterfeit and nonexistent policies. The complaint filed by Del Obispo Youth Baseball Inc., known as Dana Point Youth Baseball, names Ambassador Group LLC, also known as Ambassador Captive Solutions, as well as Performance Insurance Co., and Goldenstar Specialty Insurance LLC. [GN] [*] Two Cladding Class Actions Commenced in New Zealand ------------------------------------------------------- Insurancenews.com.au reports that litigation funder Omni Bridgeway, which is financing two cladding class actions in Australia, has commenced similar legal proceedings in New Zealand. It has filed a lawsuit in the country's High Court against the makers of Alucobond PE core cladding products on behalf of property owners or leaseholders who have suffered, or will suffer, financial loss associated with removing and replacing the materials or taking other remedial measures. The class action seeks compensation for property owners of residential, commercial, public, mixed-use, and other non-residential buildings on which there is certain Alucobond aluminium composite panel cladding, with a core comprised wholly or substantially of polyethylene. "I am pleased that the Omni Bridgeway-funded New Zealand Combustible Cladding Class Action has commenced on behalf of affected building owners in the same way as we have already done in Australia, to support the claimants in pursuing compensation from the manufacturers," Investment Manager Gavin Beardsell said. One of the two lawsuits in Australia is against a manufacturer of Alucobond PE products. [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 ***