/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 23 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products AEI PAINTING: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Painters AIR METHODS: Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel in Gretzinger Denied AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over E-Book Price Fixing AMERICAN TAITRADE: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ANZIE BLUE: Illegally Keeps Employees' Earned Tips, McCay Claims ASTRAZENECA PLC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline BANANA REPUBLIC: Holden Files Suit in Florida BANK OZK: Johnson Consumer Class Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia BISHOP ENGLAND: Faces $300 Million Lawsuit Over Invasion of Privacy CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: June 11 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Quarantine Policies CANADA: Lawsuit Has Been Proposed Against the Feds Over Repayments CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Townsend FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime CAREFIRST INC: Court Partly Reconsiders Dismissal of Attias Suit CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Jacksen Files TCPA Suit in Arizona CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 24 CIRCLE K: James FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class CLEANSPARK INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 22 Deadline CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Collective Action CLUB QUARTERS: Brooks Suit Says Website Not Blind-friendly COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': Anderson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties COLDWELL BANKER: Kaznecki Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls COMPANION SECURITY: Faces Tyndall FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime CREDIT ONE: Jefferson Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls DAVID SHINN: Reply Brief for Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 19 DCH REGIONAL: Faces Patients' Class Action Over Ransomware Attack DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set DELTA DENTAL: Zvi Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill. DENVER, CO: April 26 Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Sought DENVER, CO: Files Motion to Block Ruling in Homeless "Sweeps" Case DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Attorneys File $300M Privacy Class Lawsuit DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Locker Room Windows ENTERPRISE LEASING: Has Until Feb. 26 to Reply to Class Status Bid ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Faces Harrison Suit Over $163.7MM Sale to ESOP EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Final Review of Rodriguez Deal Deferred FCA US: Completion for Class Status Related Discovery Due April 5 FEDEX GROUND: Seeks to Modify Class Status Briefing Schedule FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Eisenberger Suit Over Misleading Letter FLORIDA REFORESTATION: Johnston Seeks to Certify Collective Action FLORIDA: Inmate Shake May Only Proceed Claims Against Warden Payne FOSSIL GROUP: Holden Files Suit in Florida FRANCE: Begins Public Consultation Amid Class Action v. Police GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in AP-Fonden Securities Suit GENERAL ELECTRIC: Haft Sues Over Defective Ranges and Wall Ovens GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Austin Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 11th Cir. GREATER CINCINNATI: Kleinhans Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid Overtime GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 15 Deadline HARDER MECHANICAL: Ellis Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS: Turizo TCPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Wrongful Termination HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Initial Certification of Class Settlement Sought HIGHLAND BAKING: Citizens Insurance Denies Duty to Indemnify HORIZON SCRIPTED: Schwanke Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ICOT HOLDINGS: Bank Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Securities Suit Nixed INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Has Until Oct. 29 to File Class Cert. Bid IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 2 Deadline JOHN C. HEATH: Moore Files Suit in Utah Over TCPA Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Hears Appeal in Mesh Implant Ruling K&S TOOL: Settlement in Kraczek Class Suit Wins Final Approval KHANJI & SONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Clerks, Abbas Suit Says LAND OCEAN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims LANDRY'S PAYROLL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Loaiza Says LIGHTING OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Safetymen's OT, Chappel Claims LLOYD'S LONDON: Independence Restaurant Appeals Ruling to 3rd Cir. LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Action Suit Filed Over Cover-up of Gas Leak LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces ECS Suit for Wrongful Termination MANITOBA: Appeals Decision in Manitoba Developmental Centre Case MASCO CONTRACTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges MASTERCARD INT'L: Judge Endorses Tossing Scoma Class Status Bid MAVENIR INC: Magistrate Judge Endorses Dismissal of Wayne ERS Suit MDL 2670: Court Stays Proceedings in Antitrust Suit for 14 Days MDL 2873: Adams Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Basaca Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Espinoza Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Jacobson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Martinez Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: McManis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Morgan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Roddy Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2873: Sumption Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS MDL 2875: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Complaints Over HBP Drugs MELTECH INC: Must Appear at Feb. 19 Contempt Hearing in Grove Suit MELTON TRUCK: Faces Williams Suit Over Illegal Prerecorded Calls MERCEDES-BENZ US: Spitzley Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties MERCK & CO: Carl Sues Over Undisclosed Zostavax Vaccine Risks MERCK & CO: Irons Suit Alleges Distribution of Harmful Vaccine MERCK & CO: Lewis Class Suit Alleges Defective Zostavax Vaccine MERCK & CO: McPheeters Sues Over Failure to Warn on Vaccine's Risks MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine "Defective," Looney Suit Alleges MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Lemarr Claims MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Singer Claims MICHIGAN: Tippins Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action MIDWESTERN PET: Faces Johnson Suit Over Contaminated Pet Food MIKE BLOOMBERG: Myrick Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice MIKE STINSON: Brice High-Interest Loans Suit Seeks to Certify Class MILAD'S KITCHEN: Faces Ariannezhad Wage-and-Hour Suit in California MISSION CONSTRUCTORS: Acosta Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court MOOREGROUP: Seeks Extension to File Opposition on Class Status Bid MOUNTAIN STATE: Davis Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Seeks to Certify Class of Day Rate Inspectors NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Distribution in Securities Suit OK'd NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Modification of Certified Class Sought NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Freeman Suit Removed to S.D. New York NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial in Nnebe Suit Appealed NEW YORK: Stallworth Appeals Injunction Bid Ruling to Second Cir. NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Stock Purchase Agreement Related Suits Ongoing NISSAN SHAPIRO: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to May 3 OHIO: Pharma City Sues Over OBWC's Unrefunded Excess Premiums OJ SMITH: Faces Suit Over "Stolen" Back Wages Paid to Farmworkers OLD NAVY: Holden Files Suit in Florida OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Handling of COVID-19 in Prisons OREGON: Settlement Proposed in Employment Class-Action Lawsuit PCH & LOYNES: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Hotel Room Access Barriers PENNANT GROUP: Faces Bills Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PENNSYLVANIA: Mack Files Suit v. State Police PENUMBRA INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PENUMBRA INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline PHH MORTGAGE: AG Joins Coalition Opposing Class Action Settlement PLAN BENEFIT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for Feb. 23 POLAND: Fur Industry to Launch Class Action Over Mink Mass Culls PRESIDIO INC: Apollo & Directors Dismissed From Stockholders Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dolson Sues Over Mislabeled Shampoo Products PSCU INC: Court Refuses to Move Gibbons FLSA Suit to M.D. Florida PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp "BOGO" Price Suit Seeks to Certify Class PYE BARKER: Stoutzenberger Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Faces Investor Class Action Following Stock Drop RAFEK AEZAH: Faces Ibrahim Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Overtime RAVE RESTAURANT: Santucci Sues Over Retention of Biometrics Data RBC GLOBAL: B.C. Court Certifies Claim Alleging Investors Overpaid RHODE ISLAND: March 16 Extension for Class Status Response Sought ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions Over Gamestop Trades ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Control Stock Trades, Minnick Claims ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Sues Over Restraint of Stock Trade ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Feeney Suit Says ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Scalia Sues Over Removal of Stocks From App ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Football Coaches Suit Over Stock Losses S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Maisel Suit Over Mislabeled Cleaning Products SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Seeks to Certify Class of Disabled Residents SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Partly Quash Subpoena in Pizana Partly OK'd SANRIO INC: Cota Files Suit in Calif. Over ADA Violations SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Specialists SMITHS DETECTION: Nguyen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California SOBER LIVING: Hearin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims SPARTAN RACE: Court Denies as Moot Fruitstone Bid to Certify Class STARBUCKS CORP: Fails to Provide Seats to Employees, Estrada Claims STARKIST CO: Partly Compelled to Show Docs From Dongwon in Gardner STATE FARM: Jama Car Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class STATE FARM: Ngethpharat Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class SUNPOWER CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims TD BANK: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Duplicative NSF Fees TECH MAHINDRA: Williams Discrimination Suit Tossed W/o Prejudice TECHNIPFMC PLC: March 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TOYOTA MOTOR: Dormer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California TRITERRAS INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline TYSON FOODS: Mason Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma UAW-LABOR EMPLOYMENT: Diaz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices UNITED STATES: Southern District of Florida Closes Tamayo v. SSA VIKING CLIENT: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York WALMART INC: Flores Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California WASHINGTON: Faces Suit for Shuttling Foster Kids Among Placements WOOD GROUP: Faces Culpepper et al. Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages Y.Y.G.M. SA: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims [*] Borden Ladner Attorneys Report Class Action Developments [*] CBD Cos. Must Avoid Health Claims or Face Class Action Risk [*] U.S. Marijuana Businesses Faces TCPA Class Actions ********* 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00331-RMG (D.S.C., February 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 AEI PAINTING: Flores Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages for Painters ----------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR FLORES, RAPHAEL GARCIA, JIMMY RAPHAELANARIBA-BENEGAS, and KEVIN ANARIBA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. AEI PAINTING CONTRACTORS, LLC and CHAD SKINNER, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:21-cv-00262-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 15, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium pay owed to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and supporting regulations as they have been purposely misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees by Defendants. Plaintiff Oscar Flores was employed as a painter by the Defendants from approximately July 1, 2017 to July 30, 2020. Plaintiff Raphael Garcia was employed as a painter by the Defendants from approximately July 1, 2019 to November 25, 2020. Plaintiff Jimmy Raphael Anariba-Benegas was employed as a painter by the Defendants from approximately 2014 to November 25, 2020. AEI Painting Contractors, LLC is a commercial and residential painting company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 330-2909 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 E-mail: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com AIR METHODS: Bid to Appoint Interim Counsel in Gretzinger Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL GRETZINGER, ANGELA GRETZINGER, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1233-SMY-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Judge Reona J. Daly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel and Set Settlement Conference. The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action case suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant Air Methods. They allege that the Defendant did not properly compensate them for overtime work. The Defendant filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado where there is another putative class action case ("Wagner case") pending against it. The Defendant contends that the claims in the Wagner case overlap with the Plaintiffs' claims in the case and therefore the case should be transferred to the District Court of Colorado so that it may be consolidated with the Wagner case. The Wagner Plaintiffs filed suit approximately seven months before the Plaintiffs filed the case and have filed a Motion for Class Certification on behalf of all persons employed by the Defendant as a nurse or paramedic in New Mexico, Michigan, and Illinois from Feb. 19, 2016, to Oct. 8, 2019. The current Scheduling Order gave the Plaintiffs a deadline of Feb. 1, 2021 to file their Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on Aug. 7, 2020. The Defendant's Response is due on Feb. 25, 2021. The Scheduling Order provided that pre-certification discovery should be "sufficient to permit the Court to determine whether the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are satisfied, including a sufficient inquiry into the merits of the case to ensure appropriate management of the case as a class action." Once the Court determines whether the class should be certified, the Court will schedule an additional discovery conference with the parties to address whether additional merits discovery is necessary. The Plaintiffs move the Court to compel the Defendant to produce employees' "time punch reports" from Nov. 6, 2019, to July 2020. They explain that while the Defendant has already produced "time punch reports" for employees from Oct. 2, 2016, to Nov. 6, 2019, the Plaintiffs need the additional time punch records to assess damages for the putative class members in the case. The Plaintiffs also contend that they need the additional time punch records to determine whether any settlement reached in the Wagner case on behalf of members of the putative Illinois class is fair, reasonable, and adequate. At this point in the case, Judge Daly is not persuaded by the Plaintiffs' arguments for production of the additional time punch records. She finds that the Plaintiffs provide no authority to support their arguments that they are entitled to the additional time punch reports so that they can, at this time, assess the putative class members' damages or potential settlement. The Plaintiffs also do not attempt to argue that the additional time punch records are necessary to brief the Court on certification, likely because they filed their Motion for Class Certification before they filed the Motion to Compel (with more than five months remaining before their deadline to file the Motion for Class Certification). If the time punch records are not necessary to resolving the certification question, Judge Daly is unwilling to compel production of those records prior to certification. Consequently, she denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoints the law firm of Mathis, Marifian, & Richter Ltd. (who filed the suit for them) as the interim counsel for the Illinois class and set a settlement conference as soon as possible. They explain that there was a mediation conducted in the Wagner case, but attorneys from Mathis were not allowed to attend. They contend that a settlement conference in the case is necessary "to ensure that a settlement resolving the claims of Illinois class members is fair, reasonable, adequate, and free of collusion." The Defendant explains that it is not willing to engage in a settlement conference with only the Illinois class members. Judge Daly sees no justification for ordering the Defendant to participate in a settlement conference in the case. She says if a settlement is reached in the Wagner case that the Plaintiffs feel is not fair, reasonable, adequate or collusion-free, then they can object. If the Defendant is not willing to participate in a settlement conference in the case, it seems unlikely that a conference would be of any value to the Plaintiffs. Likewise, Judge Daly sees no justification for appointing the law firm of Mathis as the interim class counsel. Rule 23(g)(3) permits (but does not require) the Court to appoint interim class counsel prior to certification. The Plaintiffs provide no explanation for why their attorneys--the same ones who filed the case--must be named the interim class counsel, other than to represent them at a settlement conference for which the Defendant is unwilling to participate. Accordingly, the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j39b68xr from Leagle.com. AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over E-Book Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------- tidbits.com reports that remember 2013, when the US Department of Justice and 33 states prevailed in an antitrust suit against Apple and five major publishers? Back then, a common complaint from Apple fans was, "What about Amazon?" Our comprehensive coverage in "Explaining the Apple Ebook Price Fixing Suit" (10 July 2013) pointed out that the case was about Apple's behavior, not Amazon's, while also explaining Amazon's instigating role and suggesting that the online bookseller might face its own antitrust charges. If history is wont to repeat itself, it may be Amazon's turn in the hot seat. In 2011, the Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman filed the class-action lawsuit against Apple and five publishers that eventually morphed into the DoJ's ebook price-fixing antitrust suit. Publishers Weekly is reporting that Hagens Berman has now filed a class-action lawsuit against Amazon. The suit names the Big Five publishers—Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster -- not as defendants, but as "co-conspirators" in an alleged scheme to keep ebook prices artificially high. There's no way to know if this case will turn into a larger antitrust suit, but given modern concerns about Big Tech, it's not inconceivable. [GN] AMERICAN TAITRADE: Sanchez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN TAITRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00927-VSB (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed 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 persons. The Defendant's Website, shop.yocaher.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent, which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics; (2) empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user; (3) redundant links where adjacent links go to the same Uniform Resource Locator (URL) address, which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and (4) linked images missing alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class members seek 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 individuals. American Taitrade, Inc. is a skateboard and longboard company, headquartered in Chino, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal ANZIE BLUE: Illegally Keeps Employees' Earned Tips, McCay Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY PAIGE MCCAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANZIE BLUE, LLC, DEREK VAN MOL, and MARCIE VAN MOL, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00078 (M.D. Tenn., February 1, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for the Defendant's alleged unlawful tip policy and practice. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid bartender since January 6, 2021. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required her and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees, including bartenders, cashiers, baristas, and runners, to pay their earned tips to the "House", which resulted in the Defendant's unlawful keeping of its employees earned tips. The Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of all earned tips that the Defendants unlawfully kept, as well as an equal amount of liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Anzie Blue, LLC operates the Anzie Blue coffee, CBD, and wellness shop located in Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee that is owned by the individual Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com ASTRAZENECA PLC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE: AZN) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in AZN: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?id=12698&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Astrazeneca Plc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the Company's COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) 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; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, 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 (g) as a result of (a)-(f) above, 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. Shareholders have until March 29, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the AZN lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] BANANA REPUBLIC: Holden Files Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC. The case is styled as Lauren Holden, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANANA REPUBLIC, LLC, Case No. 16-2021-CA-000659-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Feb. 4, 2020). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Banana Republic -- https://bananarepublic.gap.com/ -- is an American clothing and accessories retailer owned by the American multinational corporation Gap Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com BANK OZK: Johnson Consumer Class Suit Removed to M.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VALERIE FAYE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OZK f/k/a BANK OF THE OZARKS, Case No. 21-SCCV-092317, was removed from the State Court of Bibb County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on February 3, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Georgia assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00044-MTT to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of charging overdraft and insufficient fund (OD/NSF) fees to its customers, including the Plaintiff, on items that did not overdraw their accounts, or charging multiple OD/NSF fees on the same item, or charging automated teller machine (ATM) fees for balance inquiries that preceded a cash withdrawal. Bank OZK, formerly known as Bank of the Ozarks, is a regional bank headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gregory R. Crochet, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 2750 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 222-4600 Facsimile: (404) 222-4654 E-mail: greg.crochet@kutakrock.com BISHOP ENGLAND: Faces $300 Million Lawsuit Over Invasion of Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------------- postandcourier.com reports that a $300 million class action lawsuit against Bishop England High School and the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston was announced by attorney Lawrence E. Richter Jr. at his office in Mount Pleasant, Thursday, Feb. 4. He called it a "monumental action" and thought the litigation "will perhaps expand in a lot of other directions." It alleges students of the school were subjected to an invasion of privacy over a 20 year period since the opening of the school's campus in 1998. Maria Aselage, spokesperson for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston responded to the lawsuit. "The Catholic Diocese of Charleston received the lawsuit involving Bishop England High School this morning. After reviewing it, we feel that the class action claims have absolutely no merit," she said. The origin of the lawsuit itself reaches back to the school's former director of sports information, Jeffrey Alan Scofield, who was arrested on a charge of voyeurism in May 2019 and eventually pleaded guilty and was convicted. Although sentenced to two years in prison Scofield's sentence was suspended to 18 months' probation, along with registration as a sex offender and mental health treatment. Scofield had watched and recorded students using his desk computer, which was situated directly in front of a window in the school's locker room that allowed him to view students through thin Venetian blinds. Richter explained that when Bishop England High was built in 1998 three 4-foot-by-4-foot, desk-level windows had been installed in the locker rooms during the construction of school. There was one window for each of the three locker rooms, two for boys and one for girls. The suit alleges the students "could be seen through such windows either partially or completely nude." After Scofield's arrest the windows were blocked. Richter's complaint states the "diocese did nothing to protect the students or to close up" the windows prior to Scofield's arrest. The discovery of Scofield's activities hinged on a Bishop England High student who happened to use a device in which Scofield had downloaded photos and video of students. She immediately contacted school authorities. Aselage said, "When school officials learned about a member of its athletic staff videotaping boys in the locker room in May 2019, they immediately contacted police and terminated the employee. Soon afterward, the windows were covered and were subsequently removed and replaced with a block wall." Richter said during a deposition with Bishop Robert Guglielmone he asked, "Whose idea was this? He added, "Somebody had to conceive it, somebody put pencil to a piece of paper and drew a locker room and drew in a 4-foot viewing window. Somebody built it. Somebody manufactured it and put it in place." "The windows between the athletic coaches' offices and the boys' and girls' locker rooms were included in the plans and installed in the building in the 1990's for safety reasons," said Aselage. "Their purpose was to allow coaches to monitor for fights, bullying, smoking or any type of inappropriate activity that might occur within the locker rooms. The plaintiff's claim that the windows were installed for the sole purpose of exploiting students is simply ludicrous." The lawsuit claims there were "dishonest, deceptive and sexually abusive actions against the children who are and have been, since 1998, students at Bishop England High School, as well as those who have provided tuitions payment from them." It cites two classes of victims, a "tuition class" and a "viewed class" and seeks to recover tuition payments and compensation for those who were "subjected to the invasion of privacy." Richter emphasized the students, along with parents, guardians and tuition payers were unaware of the existence of the windows and did not know they were being utilized by BEHS staff members to view students. He said there is an expectation that locker rooms are private. "Since its opening on Daniel Island in 1998, BEHS has required male and female students, almost entirely minor children, and any others using such school facilities to disrobe in view of the large plate glass windows." The blinds could be controlled without the knowledge of those in the locker room, Richter said. Ritcher has been a member of the Diocese of Charleston his entire life, is active in the Roman Catholic Church and said all of his family are BEHS graduates, himself included. He said the diocese and the school should have foreseen the potential for abuse these windows presented, especially considering the history of child sexual abuse that has been revealed in the Roman Catholic Church over the past several decades. Richter's firm has a long history with the Diocese of Charleston. He was one of the lead attorneys in the 2007 class-action lawsuit which settled with the diocese for $12 million. That action involved abuse accusations spanning the decades between 1950 through 1980. In 2019 the diocese released a list of 42 South Carolina priests with credible allegations of child sexual misconduct. "Contrary to the claims in the lawsuit, the Catholic Diocese of Charleston takes protection of children very seriously. It mandates that every teacher, other employee, and volunteer who has regular access to children undergo a background screening, attend a child abuse prevention education program, and sign a code of conduct governing their interactions with minors. Additionally, Catholic school teachers and staff are required to attend boundary training," Aselage said. [GN] CAL CENTRAL: Mayen Labor Class Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JULIO MAYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-20-102532, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on February 3, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 1:21-at-00082 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged labor violations in California. Cal Central Harvesting, Inc. is a company that provides farm support services, headquartered in Shafter, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas E. Campagne, Esq. CAMPAGNE & CAMPAGNE A Professional Corporation Airport Office Center 1685 North Helm Avenue Fresno, CA 93727 Telephone: (559) 255-1637 Facsimile: (559) 252-9617 E-mail: tcampagne@campagnelaw.com CAMPUS ADVANTAGE: June 11 Extension to File Class Status Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH LONGO, JUSTIN LONGO, LOIS SPATZ, EAVEN SPATZ, RAINA POMEROY, and MAXWELL NASSAR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CAMPUS ADVANTAGE, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-02651-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for them to file their Motion for Class Certification to June 11, 2021 to give them the opportunity to file a motion to compel class discovery, conduct the necessary depositions and add any additional parties that may be discovered; in addition to any further relief this Court deems necessary. The Defendant's discovery responses were just received on January 27, 2021 and not one single document was produced. Based upon the lack of discovery responses received, the Plaintiffs will quite likely need to file a motion to compel to obtain the necessary discovery to properly prepare his motion to certify the class. Campus Advantage operates as a real estate investment management firm. The Company provides student housing management, development, acquisition, and consulting services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jvByoo at no extra charge.[CC] CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Quarantine Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Joe Warmington at torontosun.com reports that first the Canadian government confined him to a hotel room from which he was not allowed to leave. Now Steve Duesing plans to sue. Some 24-hours out of his 60-hour hotel detention, the Scarborough man says he'll join a class action lawsuit against the Trudeau government being prepared on behalf of anybody concerned about being held in quarantine against their will. "I would absolutely love to join that," he said from isolation in his home Thursday. Duesing, 34, said he was taken under threat of arrest Sunday from Pearson airport and confined to a room at the Radisson Hotel for three nights. "There was a guard at the end of the hall making sure people didn't leave their rooms," he said. There have been several cases like this, including one of a Calgary women who was taken from the airport under police escort and put in quarantine. Now the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has told The Toronto Sun they intend to file a suit. "As you may already know, the Justice Centre is in the process of bringing a court application against the government with respect to the new travel restrictions, including the requirement for travellers to quarantine in these federal facilities," said Sayeh Hassan, a Calgary-based barrister and solicitor who describes himself as a "staff lawyer." Duesing was in contact with the Justice Centre Thursday and plans to participate. "I would love to help," he said. There have been many comments on Duesing's decision in December to travel to South Carolina to be with his girlfriend over Christmas and he has no problem with that. "I always wear a mask and social distance," he said. Duesing said he is not political or agenda-driven. He says he was permitted by law to purchase a return ticket, followed all of the rules, paid for a test before returning home and was not COVID-19 positive but was still put into a locked-down facility. "I don't think it was necessary," he said. It appears it will be up to the courts to determine whether or not it was legal. Meanwhile, I am receiving numerous emails from Canadians abroad who are afraid to return and end up in incarcerated. "We are seniors, 75 and 72, who have been in Florida since Nov. 27," said Paul and Tanya Yearwood, of Barrie. "After reading your story about Steve Duesing's experience, we have decided we are safer in Florida, paying an exorbitant price for insurance and limiting the medication we have with us rather than return to a concentration . . . like setting instead of our home. Here we may be able to get vaccinated while continuing to practice COVID protocols of masking, sanitizing and distancing during our daily outside activities." Duesing's recommendation to people in this situation is to avoid being contained because the food is basic and three days inside a hotel room is difficult. But when I read seniors may run out of prescription medication, it needs to be said it would be better to allow people who test negative to just go home and quarantine there. In this case, this couple did not know of potential hotel room arrest when they left. They are also not in a financial position to add thousands of dollars to the expense of their trip. Judging whether or not Canadians should or should not have travelled during a pandemic is appropriate. But forcing them into solitary confinement without a judge ordering it is not. Canadians have the Charter of Rights of Freedoms and are free. Some, including Steve Duesing, will take it to a courtroom to find out if, in fact, they really are.[GN] CANADA: Lawsuit Has Been Proposed Against the Feds Over Repayments ------------------------------------------------------------------ narcity.com reports that confusion about eligibility has resulted in a proposed Canada Emergency Response Benefit class-action lawsuit against the federal government. It's been filed on behalf of retired Canadians with self-employment income who have been asked to repay the benefit, but the lawyer behind the proposal says it could ultimately include "everyone." Hundreds of thousands of Canadians, like the representative plaintiff behind the lawsuit, have been asked to return up to $18,000 of CERB payments. In December, the Canada Revenue Agency contacted 441,000 individuals about repayments, following eligibility confusion related to net and gross income. Many people who believed they were eligible for the payments have now been asked to repay, while officials have admitted that the original criteria was "unclear". Despite calls from leading political parties, like the NDP and the Green Party, the Liberal government has said it will not end calls for repayment. In response, Toronto lawyer Jan Weir has launched the lawsuit on behalf of the representative plaintiff, as well as others who may have been affected by the same issue. "If the court interprets this the way I expect that they will, it's for everyone," he told Global News. The proposed class-action suit isn't looking for financial compensation, but instead is asking the government to stop calling for repayments. It will likely take a couple of months for the lawsuit to get certified and go any further, but the lawyer says it could encourage the CRA to "hold off" collecting CERB returns in the meantime. [GN] CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Townsend FLSA Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- SHONDA TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00494-JPB (N.D. Ga., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a shift lead in March 2020 and was promoted as assistant manager in September 2020. Capstone Restaurant Group, LLC is an owner and operator of multiple Hardee's restaurants in Georgia, with its principal place of business located at 7490 Clubhouse Road, Boulder, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas R. Kertscher, Esq. Julie H. Burke, Esq. HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP 3350 Riverwood Pkwy., Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 953-0995 Facsimile: (404) 953-1358 E-mail: drk@hkw-law.com jb@hkw-law.com CAREFIRST INC: Court Partly Reconsiders Dismissal of Attias Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Chantal ATTIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. CAREFIRST, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00882 (CRC) (D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of their claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against D.C.-area health insurer CareFirst and various of its affiliates after CareFirst suffered a data breach in 2014. The breach compromised the names, birthdates, email addresses, and subscriber identification numbers of over one million of CareFirst's insureds. The named plaintiffs are seven of those insureds, and they lodge a host of contract, tort, and state-specific statutory claims against the company stemming from the breach. The operative complaint names seven Plaintiffs: Chantal Attias and Andreas Kotzur of the District of Columbia, Richard and Latanya Bailey of Virginia, and Curt and Connie Tringler and Lisa Huber of Maryland. They each allege that CareFirst's carelessness in handling their personal information violated D.C. tort and contract laws, as well as the consumer protection statutes of each Plaintiff's home state. All told, the complaint contains 11 claims: breach of contract (Count I), negligence (Count II), violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") (Count III), violation of the District of Columbia Data Breach Notification Act (Count IV), violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") (Count V), violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act ("VCPA") (Count VI), fraud (Count VII), negligence per se (Count VIII), unjust enrichment (Count IX), breach of the duty of confidentiality (Count X), and constructive fraud (Count XI). By way of damages, the Plaintiffs allege that the data breach heightened their risk of future identity theft, resulting in "economic and non-economic loss in the form of mental and emotional pain and suffering," as well as "years of constant surveillance of their financial and personal records, monitoring, and loss of rights." Two plaintiffs, the Baileys of Virginia, also allege that "they were not given the benefit of the services for which they bargained." Two more Plaintiffs, the Tringlers of Maryland, allege that they suffered "tax-refund fraud" because, at least at the time of the complaint, they had not received an expected federal tax refund. CareFirst has now twice moved to dismiss the complaint. On the first occasion, the Court granted the motion on standing grounds and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. That decision was reversed by the D.C. Circuit, which concluded that the Plaintiffs' heightened risk of future identity theft satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing. On remand, CareFirst renewed its motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which the Court granted in substantial part. All told, the Court dismissed all the claims in the complaint save two claims advanced by the two named Plaintiffs who alleged actual misuse of their exposed data. It then issued a final order as to the dismissed claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), thereby permitting the Plaintiffs to appeal. However, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the requirements of Rule 54(b) had not been met and thus dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following remand, the Plaintiffs filed the present motion for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of their claims under Rule 12(b)(6). Reconsideration is warranted, the Plaintiffs argue, to clarify that D.C. law does not require actual damages to sustain a breach of contract claim; to address intervening D.C. Circuit precedent that, in the Plaintiffs' view, widens the scope of "actual damages" stemming from the data breach; and to correct the Court's prior analysis of the relationship between the Plaintiffs' claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act and their breach of contract claims. CareFirst opposes reconsideration, and requests that the case be permitted to proceed to discovery to resolve the narrow question of whether the Tringlers have by now received their tax refund. The Court held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' reconsideration motion on Oct. 21, 2020. Judge Cooper begins with the Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of their contract claims. The Court previously dismissed all but the Tringlers' contract claims on the grounds that none of the other Plaintiffs pleaded actual damages. For the premise that the Plaintiffs must allege actual damages to support a breach of contract claim under D.C. law, the Court pointed to Cahn v. Antioch Univ., 482 A.2d 120, 130 (D.C. 1984), where the D.C. Court of Appeals observed that a "it is clear in contract law that a plaintiff is not required to prove the amount of his damages precisely; however, the fact of damage and a reasonable estimate must be established." In hindsight, the Courts' reliance on Cahn may have been misplaced, UJudge Cooper opines. There is a conflict within the caselaw as to whether "proof of actual damages is an element of a D.C. contract claim." On the one hand, the D.C. Court of Appeals has clearly indicated that damages are required for a prima facie contract claim. On the other hand, the D.C. Court of Appeals has since stated, in Wright v. Allen, that the absence of specific monetary injury does not prevent the accrual of a cause of action for breach of contract. The D.C. Court of Appeals appears not to have addressed this apparent conflict, and Judge Cooper is not poised to resolve it on the present motion. He notes, however, that Wright v. Allen and Francis v. Rehman, 110 A.3d 615, 620 (D.C. 2015), both post-date Cahn and Osbourne v. Capital City Mortg. Corp., 727 A.2d 322, 324-25 (D.C. 1999), and in order "to properly discern the content of state law," it is the Court's duty to defer to the most recent decisions of the state's highest court. The more recent cases thus favor permitting the Plaintiffs' contract claims to proceed. The Judge will, therefore, grants the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider this issue and reinstate their contract claims (Count I). The Plaintiffs next request reconsideration of whether they did, in fact, plead actual damages in light the D.C. Circuit's intervening decision in In re: U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data Sec. Breach Lit., 928 F.3d 42 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ("OPM"). Judge Cooper will deny the Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its dismissal of their claims for negligence (Count II), negligence per se (Count VIII), fraud (Count VII), constructive fraud (Count XI), breach of duty of confidentiality (Count X), and violation of the D.C. Data Breach Notification statute (Count IV). Among other things, (i) mitigation damages failed to state a claim for actual harm under D.C. law, (ii) OPM provides no basis for the Court to revisit its dismissal of plaintiffs' D.C. claims, and (iii) the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration ignores the Court's alternative basis for dismissing their five tort claims: the independent duty rule. The Judge also concludes that both the VCPA and the MCPA claims warrant reconsideration following OPM. While this result is more clearly warranted in light of Virginia's more expansive consumer protection code, he says the MCPA's somewhat more stringent requirements present a closer question. At bottom, however, absent any biding authority to the contrary from either state, the Court concludes that the D.C. Circuit, consistent with its reasoning in OPM, would be more likely than not to treat mitigation expenses as actual damages under both statutes. He will thus grant reconsideration of the Plaintiffs' claims under the VCPA and MCPA and will reinstate Count V and Count VI. Finally, Judge Cooper turns to the Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of their D.C. CPPA claims based on Velcoff v. Medstar Health, Inc., 186 A.3d 823, 827 (D.C. 2018). The Court dismissed plaintiffs' D.C. CPPA claims because they were either (i) duplicative of the contract claims; or (ii) based on an allegation of intentional breach of contract. The Plaintiffs argue that Velcoff undermines the Court's reasoning. Not so, Judge Cooper holds. In Velcoff, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's CPPA claims for failure to specify which provisions of the CPPA were violated by defendant's illegal trade practices. The D.C. Court of Appeals rejected that reasoning, explaining that "matching allegations of the complaint to the corresponding subsections of the CPPA is a straightforward task." Plainly, that decision does not purport to implicate whether a breach of contract, intentional or otherwise, is actionable under the CPPA. Judge Cooper therefore declines to reconsider its dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims under the CPPA (Count III). For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part. A separate Order will accompany the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/15g14dyf from Leagle.com. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Johnson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums -------------------------------------------------------------- RENEE JOHNSON, for herself and all others similarly situated v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00187 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the Defendant's unlawful labor policies and practices that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law due to its failure to provide the putative collective and Class members with all legally-required overtime premium wages due for overtime work performed. Ms. Johnson worked as a full-time, hourly, phone-based technical customer service representative in Rolling Meadows, IL from September 2002 to October 2018. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless is a subsidiary of American multinational telecommunications conglomerate Verizon Communications, Inc. with corporate headquarters in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 873-4836 E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com CHAPMAN AUTOMOTIVE: Jacksen Files TCPA Suit in Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chapman Automotive Group LLC. The case is captioned as Megan Jacksen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chapman Automotive Group LLC, doing business as: Chapman Volkswagen Scottsdale Arizona, an Arizona limited liability company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00087-DGC (D. Ariz., Jan. 15, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and is assigned to Judge David G. Campbell. Chapman Automotive Group LLC is a general automotive repair company based in Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave., Ste. 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due May 24 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Suaverdez v. Circle K Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01035 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Raymond P. Moore entered an order granting joint motion to stay discovery pending mediation. -- The Plaintiff's discovery responses is due March 4, 2021; -- Pre-Certification Discovery is due May 24, 2021; and -- Rule 23 Class Certification Motion is due May 24, 2021. No further extensions will be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances. Rescheduled and/or continued mediation will not constitute extraordinary circumstances. The nature of Suit states Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions. Circle K Stores, Inc. is an international chain of convenience stores, owned by the Canadian multinational Alimentation Couche-Tard. Founded in 1951 in El Paso, Texas, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 1990 and went through several owners, before being acquired by Alimentation Couche-Tard in 2003.[CC] CIRCLE K: James FCRA Suit Seeks to Certify Background Check Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL JAMES, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00215-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a "Background Check Class" of: "consumers upon whom Circle K Stores, Inc., its subsidiaries and its affiliates, obtained consumer reports for employment purposes without having a statutory basis for doing so." The Plaintiff also seeks to represent the Background Check Class. According to the complaint, like many employers, Circle K obtains employment-purposed consumer reports (commonly known as "background checks") for use in their hiring process. Nothing requires employers use such reports to screen applicants. However, when employers choose to use these reports, they must abide by the Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA) strict but easy-to-follow requirements. The Plaintiff alleges Circle K failed to meet the most basic of these requirements –- the "stand alone disclosure" requirement. Consequently, Circle K never obtained lawful authorization to procure Plaintiff's consumer report. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tC4WOz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com The Defendant is represented by: Melissa Alvarez, Esq. Christopher Braham, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500 Miami, FL 33131 E-mail: malvarez@mwe.com cbraham@mwe.com CLEANSPARK INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 22 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK) investors that acquired shares between December 31, 2020 and January 14, 2021. Investors have until March 22, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click https://portnoylaw.com/cleanspark/ to join the case. The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information pertinent to investors concerning whether the Company fabricated key elements of its business. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled "Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can," alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its business, including purported customers and contracts" and is also "rife with undisclosed related party transactions." On this news, CleanSpark's shares fell $3.63 per share, or 9.23%, to close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors. 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 22, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE: Carter Seeks to Certify Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMETRA CARTER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees, v. CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY, LLC, CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT TN, LLC and COLLIERVILLE NURSING AND REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02313-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. authorizing her claims to proceed as a collective action for overtime compensation violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); 2. directing the Defendants to immediately provide her counsel a computer-readable file containing the names (last names first), last known physical addresses, last known email addresses, social security numbers, dates of employment and last known telephone numbers of all putative class members during the last three years; 3. providing that Court-approved notice be posted at the Defendant's facilities, enclosed with all of the Defendants' currently employed putative class members' next regularly-scheduled paycheck/stub, and be mailed to putative class members so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis; 4. tolling the statute of limitations for the putative class as of the date this Motion is fully briefed; 5. authorizing a reminder postcard be issued mid-way through the requested 90-day notice period; and 6. requiring that the opt-in plaintiff's Consent to Join Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. ClearView Healthcare is a healthcare management team overseeing the operations of skilled nursing facilities throughout Kentucky and Tennessee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q0G018 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff and for others similarly situated, are: Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com CLUB QUARTERS: Brooks Suit Says Website Not Blind-friendly ---------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CLUB QUARTERS, INC., a Delaware corporation; CLUB QUARTERS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C., a Connecticut limited liability company; SHARED MUTUAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00114-MCE-JDP (E.D. Cal., January 20, 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 the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ms. Brooks alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of intentional discrimination after she encountered multiple access barriers during numerous visits on the Website, https://landoceanrestaurants.com/, that denied her full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services being offered. She seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Club Quarters Hotels are full-service hotels designed for business travelers with locations in the U.S. and U.K.[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 COCA-COLA BOTTLERS': Anderson Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIMARIO ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of the Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS' ASSOCIATION, STEPHANIE R. GRIFFIN, and JOHN AND JANE DOE DEFENDANTS 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02054 (D. Kansas, February 1, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for the Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff was employed by Heartland Coca-Cola Bottling Company, LLC, which is a member of CCBA and is a participating employer in the Plan. The Plaintiff participated in the Plan and has suffered harm as a result of the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties under ERISA. According to the complaint, contributions of the Plan are made in the form of salary deferral contributions by individual employee participants. At the choice and discretion of the Defendants, various investments options are made available to participants in the Plan. According to the Plan's 2019 Form 5500, the Plan had more than $799,000,000 in net assets as of December 2019. In addition, because the Plan is a "multiple employer plan" (MEP), it is a single Plan with a single Plan document that all participating employers must agree to and cannot alter. Furthermore, because the Plan's size, the CCBA had, and continues to have, the ability to choose investment options not generally available and has bargaining power with respect to the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments and the fees ad expenses charged for recordkeeping services. However, the Defendants did not take appropriate actions to reduce the Plan's investment and recordkeeping expenses, or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the suit says. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants failed to properly investigate and select lower cost investment options for plan participants; -- The Defendants imprudently retained investment options in the Plan despite the availability of similar, lower-cost, better-performing options; -- The Defendants failed to take advantage of lower cost share classes of the mutual funds in the Plan; -- The Defendants failed to offer the collective trust version of the T. Rowe price target date mutual funds in the Plan, thereby costing plan participants significantly more in fees for an identical product; and -- The Defendants retained the non-diversified Coca-Cola common stock fund despite its higher risk and underperformance. Coca-Cola Bottlers' Association (CCBA) operates as a membership program for domestic bottlers of Coca Cola products. Its members consist of all 65 U.S. independent bottlers of Coca-Cola, as well as associate members that include bottler-owned production cooperatives. One of the programs CCBA offers for its members is a 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan that is intended to be a multiple employer plan (MEP). Stephanie R. Griffin, who is CCBA's Senior Relationship Manager, Employee Benefits, signed the Form 5500 on behalf of the Plan Administrator and Plan Sponsor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq. Nancy E. Musick, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 32 Corporate Woods, Suite 600 9225 Indian Creek Parkway Overland Park, KS 66210-2000 Tel: (913) 253-2144 Fax: (913) 498-2101 E-mail: snehrbass@foulston.com nmusick@foulston.com - and – Boyd A. Byers, Esq. Alexandra N.C. Rose, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Tel: (316) 267-6371 Fax: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: bbyers@foulston.com nrose@foulston.com COLDWELL BANKER: Kaznecki Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID W. KAZNECKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLDWELL BANKER REAL ESTATE LLC, a California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:21-cv-80198-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that he received numerous unsolicited telemarketing calls from the Defendant to his cellular telephone number ending in 4600 that was registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry since February 7, 2008. The Plaintiff has spoken to a certain Ms. DeSocio, a Coldwell Banker real estate agent who inquired if the Plaintiff wanted to sell his house. At no time did the Plaintiff provide his cellular number to the Defendant, nor did his prior express consent to receive such unsolicited calls, the suit says. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was damaged by the Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from calling telephone numbers assigned to the National Do Not Call registry, statutory and willful damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems reasonable and just. Coldwell Banker Real Estate LLC is a licensed real estate broker, licensed to do business in several states. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARD POTTINGER LLC 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and – Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Tel: (954) 889-3359 Fax: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com COMPANION SECURITY: Faces Tyndall FLSA Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA TYNDALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMPANION SECURITY GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00016-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., February 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a junior full motion video analyst in Georgia from June 1, 2018 to January 3, 2021. Companion Security Group, LLC is a remote sensing technology service provider doing business in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Benson, Esq. KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C. 4227 Pleasant Hill Road Building 11, Suite 300 Duluth, GA 30096 Telephone: (770) 820-0817 Facsimile: (770) 820-0717 E-mail: dbenson@attorneykennugent.com - and – M. Brian Clements, Esq. KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C. One Bull Street, Suite 400 Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 447-5984 Facsimile: (912) 447-0192 E-mail: bclements@attorneykennugent.com CREDIT ONE: Jefferson Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- ADRIANE JEFFERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00532 (N.D. Ill., January 29, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant began contacting the Plaintiff by placing prerecorded calls to his cellular telephone number ending in 1542 beginning early December 2020. Despite the Plaintiff instructed one of the Defendant's employees to stop calling her cellular telephone, the Defendant continued calling the Plaintiff with prerecorded messages sometimes twice per day. The Defendant allegedly caused similar prerecorded messages to be sent to individuals residing within the district who also requested for the Defendant to stop calling. The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited calls have caused harm to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, such as invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenienced and disruption to their daily life. Credit One Bank, N.A. is a federally chartered bank which direct, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com DAVID SHINN: Reply Brief for Class Status Bid Extended to Feb. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzsman, et al., v. David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge James F. Metcalf entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the deadline to reply in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction; -- the Plaintiffs have through February 19, 2021 to reply in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and 2. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Extend the deadline to reply in support of their Motion to Certify Class; -- the Plaintiffs have through February 19, 2021 to reply in support of their Motion to Certify Class. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend seeking a 22 day, first extension of the January 28, 2021 deadline to reply in support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. They also filed a Motion to Extend seeking an 18-day, first extension of the February 1, 2021 deadline to reply in support of their Motion to Certify Class. The Plaintiffs citing as cause the complexity of the legal and factual issues. The Plaintiffs represent that there is no opposition to either motion. Thus, the Court has not awaited a response, says the Court. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OhDWnr at no extra charge.[CC] DCH REGIONAL: Faces Patients' Class Action Over Ransomware Attack ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Tuscaloosa News reports that three more DCH patients filed a federal class action lawsuit against the healthcare system, saying a ransomware attack that crippled operations in October compromised their personal information. In December four women had claimed their lives to be "severely disrupted." [GN] DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Decision Diagnostics Corp. ("Decision Diagnostics" or the "Company") (Other OTC:DECN) and reminds investors of the March 16, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $300,000 investing in Decision Diagnostics stock or options between March 3, 2020 and December 17, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/DECN. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Decision Diagnostics had not developed any viable COVID-19 test, much less a test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute; (2) the Company could not meet the FDA's emergency use authorization ("EUA") testing requirements for its purported COVID-19 test; (3) accordingly, Defendants had misrepresented the timeline within which it could realistically bring its COVID-19 test to market; (4) all the foregoing subjected Defendants to an increased risk of regulatory oversight and enforcement; and (5) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Specifically, on December 17, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a complaint in federal court against Defendants, alleging that they had issued a series of press releases that falsely claimed that Decision Diagnostics had developed a finger-prick blood test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute (the "SEC Complaint"). According to the SEC Complaint, from March 2020 to at least June 2020, Defendants made false and misleading statements about the existence of Decision Diagnostics' COVID-19 device and progress towards achieving FDA EUA for that device. As alleged, at the time of these claims, Decision Diagnostics lacked a proven method for detecting the virus and had no physical testing device. The SEC Complaint further alleged that the statements created the misleading impression that Decision Diagnostics would soon introduce the COVID-19 test to the market, which led to surges in the price and trading volume of the Company's stock. Following the filing of the SEC Complaint, Decision Diagnostics' common share price fell $0.06 per share, or 60%, to close at $0.04 per share on December 18, 2020. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Decision Diagnostics' conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] DELTA DENTAL: Zvi Antitrust Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUSTIN BEN ZVI, ALINA LUKASHEVSKY, and ADAM MERRIAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DELTA DENTAL OF NEW YORK INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05628, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 3, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00612 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and the Donnelly Act by engaging into horizontal market allocations with competitors to suppress compensation paid to dentists below the competitive level. Delta Dental Of New York Inc. is a non-profit organization that offers dental benefits coverage for individuals and groups, with its principal place of business located at 575 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Frank, Esq. Marvin L. Frank, Esq. Asher Hawkins, Esq. FRANK LLP 370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1706 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 682-1853 Facsimile: (212) 682-1892 E-mail: info@frankllp.com DENVER, CO: April 26 Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER 5280, et al., v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01922-RBJ-MEH (D. Colo.), Plaintiffs Sara Fitouri, Jackie Parkins, Jonathen De La Vaca Duran, Kelsey Taylor, Joe Deras, Youssef Amghar, and Andrea Sannier ask the Court for an order granting their unopposed motion and extending the deadline for filing the motion for class certification to April 26, 2021. Correspondingly, the Defendants' response brief would be due May 26, 2021, and Fitouri Plaintiffs' reply brief would be due on June 9, 2021. Fitouri Plaintiffs' counsel have conferred with the Defendants' counsel, and they have no objection to this motion. (Counsel for the BLM5280 Plaintiffs also have no objection.) No party would be prejudiced by the granting of this motion, and it would not affect any of the other dates (including discovery deadlines) in this case, the Plaintiffs say. Denver, the capital of Colorado, is an American metropolis dating to the Old West era. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p4h9rQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth Wang, Esq. Tara Thompson, Esq. Makeba Rutahi, Esq. LOEVY & LOEVY 2060 Broadway, Ste. 460 Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (720) 328-5642 E-mail: elizabethw@loevy.com tara@loevy.com makeba@loevy.com DENVER, CO: Files Motion to Block Ruling in Homeless "Sweeps" Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Conor McCormick-Cavanagh, writing for Westword, reports that in a January 25 ruling placing restrictions on the City of Denver's actions related to homeless encampments, Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court of Colorado used the words "sweep" and "sweeps" 42 times. The City of Denver doesn't like the word "sweep," and it didn't like judge's take on the case. On January 26, it filed an emergency motion in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals asking to block Martinez's ruling, saying that the requirements of his order placed unnecessarily onerous restrictions on city officials. And in a footnote to that motion, lawyers with the Denver City Attorney's Office wrote that "in its Order, the district court adopts Plaintiffs' term, 'sweeps' to describe Denver's conduct related to encampments. Throughout this Motion, Denver uses the term 'cleanups' -- when [the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure] posts advance notice of areas which need to be cleaned -- or 'area restrictions' -- when restrictions are issued by the [Denver Department of Public Health and Environment]." That response, while tempered, underscored the fact that members of Mayor Michael Hancock's administration and many other city officials have pushed back hard against the word "sweep," opting for a handful of other terms, such as "cleanup." What, exactly, is the administration's objection to "sweep"? "City agencies have a chartered responsibility to keep our city clean, safe and free of hazards that cause harm," explains Theresa Marchetta, spokesperson for Mayor Hancock. "Using the word 'sweeps' is not only inaccurate in describing the work, it also perpetuates an image of a person that is not in alignment with our values. We will never respond to a neighborhood request to 'sweep.' The term is demeaning and dehumanizing and does not reflect the incredibly challenging work by our employees and partners to connect someone who is living on the streets with housing, with care, with supportive services and with stability." Although in years past the city would sometimes use the word "sweeps" in internal communications, it avoids it entirely in public pronouncements on Jan. 31. Homeless-service providers frequently use it, however. "I don't always call them sweeps. Sometimes I refer to them as 'enforcement actions' or 'cleanups.' But I think when you are moving people around who have nowhere to go because people don't want to see them, then 'sweeps' can be accurate," says Cathy Alderman of the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. "If I was the administration, I think I would be less concerned about what they are called and more concerned about the impact it has on people and communities." Marchetta disagrees. "This issue has become politically charged and sensationalized, sometimes out of genuine care for those who are unhoused, and other times to drive agendas and vendettas," she says. "A term like 'sweeps' should not derail our efforts to help people exit homelessness, nor stigmatize those who do that work." To be clear, the actions described in euphemisms used by city officials for "sweep" actually do occur. The term "cleanup" accurately refers to when Parks and Recreation employees pick up trash in a park, which frequently happens after a sweep. And "area restriction" does apply when public health officials fence off an area so that only residents of an encampment and city workers can enter and exit -- usually just prior to a sweep. But neither of those terms describe the most significant part of a sweep: the forced removal of people using tents or tarps to shelter outdoors from a specific area. Merriam-Webster has multiple definitions for "sweep" as a noun, including "a clearing out or away with or as if with a broom." That is exactly what happens during these forced dispersals: City employees are clearing out people and their belongings from a park or a parking lot or the grass next to a sidewalk. Judge Martinez recognized as much during the last day of an evidentiary hearing in the homeless sweeps class-action lawsuit filed by Denver Homeless Out Loud and ten homeless individuals in October 2020. Throughout the January 11 hearing, city employees took issue with the use of the term "sweeps" by Andy McNulty, the Killmer, Lane & Newman attorney suing the city on behalf of the plaintiffs. "We actually don't call them sweeps. That's a really pejorative term," said Eliza Hunholz, assistant director for the Denver park ranger program. But Martinez quickly shot back: "Ma'am, there is a difference between a daily cleaning and removing people. We need to use different words for the record." That day, Martinez settled on referring to the sweeps as "evictions," although in the past he'd used "sweeps." In a 2018 court order, Martinez had written: "For purposes of this lawsuit, those sweeps are defined as 'the City and County of Denver's alleged custom or practice (written or unwritten) of sending ten or more employees or agents to clear away an encampment of multiple homeless persons by immediately seizing and discarding the property found there." And on January 25, when he issued his ruling on McNulty's request for a preliminary injunction in the current class-action case, he resurrected the word "sweeps." When he requested that preliminary injunction, McNulty had asked that Martinez stop the sweeps entirely; instead, in a split decision for both sides, the judge determined that the city needed to give advance notice of the actions — no matter what they are called. [GN] DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Attorneys File $300M Privacy Class Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- live5news.com reports that a Mount Pleasant law firm have filed a $300 million class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Charleston, Bishop England High School and others Thursday morning. Attorney Lawrence Richter said that he is one of a group of attorneys who filed what he called "a monumental action" after a video recording of students in a locker room was discovered in May 2019 at Bishop England High School. The video, Richter said, was made by an employee of the high school. The recording showed students who were partially or fully exposed in the school's locker rooms. "For a long time now, students attending Bishop England High School were required to utilize locker rooms, dressing rooms and their ancillary facilities to disrobe to appear partially or fully nude, before large plate glass windows, looking at all these dressing rooms locker room facilities," Richter said. He said the windows were installed at the time of construction of the school in 1998. "And they were intended, specifically to be utilized as viewing portals viewing platforms to see the children in the locker rooms locker rooms contain as you might imagine, many many lockers, showers, toilet basins, exactly what you'd expect in a modern locker room," he said. He said there was one window looking into a girls' locker room and one window each looking into two boys' locker rooms, he said. Richter said at a Thursday morning news conference that the suit was filed earlier Thursday against the diocese, the school and others including 10 still to be identified and listed as "John Does" on the lawsuit. "All students at the high school to use the facilities," he said, because all students are required to take physical education as part of the core curriculum. "To the plaintiff's knowledge, to our knowledge, the diocese over all those 21 years or so, did nothing to protect the students or to close up the viewing portals, nor did the [Bishop England] principal, nor did a faculty member, or athletic director, nor did the director of sports information for Bishop England High School, who, rather than acting to protect the students, in fact, utilized these very windows to exploit the students who he filmed and downloaded to a computer-type device," Richter said. Diocese officials confirmed in May 2019 that Jeffrey Alan Scofield had been fired from the school after he was charged with two counts of voyeurism. Charleston Police spokesman Charles Francis said at the time of Scofield's arrest that school staff helped detectives "quickly identify the offender and two juvenile male victims in this incident." "Adding to the gravity of this matter, is the fact that the locker rooms are used by both male and female student athletes, and even from other athletes from other schools who may come here for a competition," Richter said. "They don't get the word either. We believe this is an extraordinary intrusion. And we believe that victims are entitled to extraordinary relief. It is our hope and our prayer that this may finally be the event, which ends child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Charleston." The suit calls for the creation of two classes of victims: a tuition class that would return tuition monies, totaling approximately $156 million, paid in over the 21 years the school operated in its Daniel Island location; and a "viewed" class, which would seek damages in roughly the same amount, to compensate victims who are believed to have been viewed without knowing they were being viewed over that period of time. At the news conference, Richter displayed a photo showing an athletic director's office in which a desk faces one of the windows he says shows a view of the locker room through which students could have been viewed without their knowledge. Richter said it is not clear whether any videos or photos were posted online. The Diocese of Charleston released the following statement. "The Catholic Diocese of Charleston received the lawsuit involving Bishop England High School this morning. After reviewing it, we feel that the class action claims have absolutely no merit. "The windows between the athletic coaches' offices and the boys' and girls' locker rooms were included in the plans and installed in the building in the 1990's for safety reasons. Their purpose was to allow coaches to monitor for fights, bullying, smoking or any type of inappropriate activity that might occur within the locker rooms. The plaintiff's claim that the windows were installed for the sole purpose of exploiting students is simply ludicrous. "When school officials learned about a member of its athletic staff videotaping boys in the locker room in May 2019, they immediately contacted police and terminated the employee. Soon afterward, the windows were covered and were subsequently removed and replaced with a block wall. "Contrary to the claims in the lawsuit, the Catholic Diocese of Charleston takes protection of children very seriously. It mandates that every teacher, other employee, and volunteer who has regular access to children undergo a background screening, attend a child abuse prevention education program, and sign a code of conduct governing their interactions with minors. Additionally, Catholic school teachers and staff are required to attend boundary training." [GN] DIOCESE OF CHARLESTON: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Locker Room Windows ------------------------------------------------------------------- counton2.com reports that a $300 million class action lawsuit has been filed against the Diocese of Charleston related to windows that were installed in locker rooms at Bishop England. Attorneys representing the case held a press conference in Mount Pleasant on Thursday. According to the lawsuit, the windows, installed in 1998, were intended to be "viewing portals" to see the locker rooms. But video of naked students was discovered on a school computer back in May of 2019, and the lawsuit states the school's sports information director made the videos. The goal of the lawsuit is to reimburse students for their tuition. Attorneys who are leading the case say the students have been dealing with this for over 20 years. The Diocese of Charleston said that the case has "absolutely no merit" and released the following statement in response to the lawsuit: "The windows between the athletic coaches' offices and the boys' and girls' locker rooms were included in the plans and installed in the building in the 1990's for safety reasons. Their purpose was to allow coaches to monitor for fights, bullying, smoking or any type of inappropriate activity that might occur within the locker rooms. The plaintiff's claim that the windows were installed for the sole purpose of exploiting students is simply ludicrous. When school officials learned about a member of its athletic staff videotaping boys in the locker room in May 2019, they immediately contacted police and terminated the employee. Soon afterward, the windows were covered and were subsequently removed and replaced with a block wall. Contrary to the claims in the lawsuit, the Catholic Diocese of Charleston takes protection of children very seriously. It mandates that every teacher, other employee, and volunteer who has regular access to children undergo a background screening, attend a child abuse prevention education program, and sign a code of conduct governing their interactions with minors. Additionally, Catholic school teachers and staff are required to attend boundary training." This is a developing story. Keep checking counton2.com for updates. [GN] ENTERPRISE LEASING: Has Until Feb. 26 to Reply to Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benson, et al., v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, LLC et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00891 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr entered an order discharging the Court's January 28, 2021 Order to Show Cause in light of the Defendants' Response. The Defendants have until February 26, 2021 to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, says the Court. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.[CC] ENVISION MANAGEMENT: Faces Harrison Suit Over $163.7MM Sale to ESOP ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HARRISON, on behalf of himself, the ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDING, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ENVISION MANAGEMENT HOLDIN, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN COMMITTEE, ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, DARREL CREPS, III, PAUL SHERWOOD, JEFF JONES, AARON RAMSAY, TANWEER KAHN, and JOHN and JANES DOES 1 to 15, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00304 (D. Colo., January 29, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in connection with the purchase of the Envision stock for $163.7 million. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Corporate Defendant, who worked as an MRI and CAT-scan technician at Envision's Health Images at Diamond Hill location for four years. He is vested participant in the ESOP with the meaning of ERISA. The Plaintiff claims that his and other employee-participants' ESOP accounts were used to purchase 100% of Envision stock from the Sellers without their knowledge. According to the complaint, the Seller Defendants created the Envision ESOP for the purpose of purchasing 100% of the Sellers' private Envision stock for $163.7 million. Because the ESOP did not have sufficient money to purchase it, the Seller Defendant borrowed approximately $154.4 million from the Company itself in order to purchase Envision on behalf of the ESOP. However, any retirement contributions that the Envision made to the ESOP's employee-participants' accounts would be used first to pay interest due on the $154.4 million in debt the ESOP owed. As a result of the imprudent and disloyal Transaction terms, the ESOP participants suffer monetary losses in their retirement accounts. The Plaintiff and other employee-participants asserts that they were not given the chance to negotiate or otherwise take part in the determination of the price the ESOP paid for the Envision stock. They only found out about the ESOP Transaction after the Transaction was completed and the $163.7 million purchase price was approved. Argent Trust Company operates as an investment management firm which offers financial planning, trusts, and real estate management services to families and organizations. The Sellers hand-picked Argent as Trustee of the ESOP to supposedly "represent" the ESOP and its participants before and after the ESOP Transaction. ESOP Committee is an association of members who were appointed by the Board unified with a common purpose of administering and managing the Envision ESOP. Envision Management Holding, Inc. provides diagnostic imaging services across several states. The Company employs approximately 1,000 individuals and until December 2017, it was privately owned by the Defendants Darrel Creps III, Paul Sherwood, and Jeff Jones (collectively, Seller Defendants), and members of the Board of Directors for Envision. Defendants Aaron Ramsay and Tanweer Kahn are also members of the Board of Directors since Envision's inception on August 15, 2017. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: jsellers@cohenmmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Final Review of Rodriguez Deal Deferred --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JESSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL RECOVERIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. C19-0184-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, defers consideration of the Plaintiff's motions for class certification and final approval of the settlement and attorney fees. Plaintiff Rodriguez was issued a driving ticket in 2018. When he failed to pay it, Seattle Municipal Court hired Defendant Evergreen to collect the debt. As part of its collection efforts, Evergreen requested Mr. Rodriguez's credit report from TransUnion. In response, Mr. Rodriguez filed the 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"). He seeks actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction prohibiting Evergreen from violating the FCRA in the future. After the Plaintiff filed the complaint, the parties engaged in discovery for approximately one year. On Feb. 20, 2020, Evergreen moved for summary judgment and for the Court to deny class certification. Five days later, the parties participated in mediation with retired King County Superior Court Judge Paris Kallas and reached a settlement agreement. The parties notified the Court of the settlement on March 6, 2020 and moved for preliminary approval two months later. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on July 8, 2020, and approved the parties' proposed class notice. No class members have opted out of or objected to the proposed settlement. The Plaintiff now seeks final class certification, approval of the settlement, and attorney fees and costs. As to the Attorney Fee Motion, Judge Coughenour explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) provides both substantive and procedural protections to class members. Substantively, it prohibits the Court from awarding attorney fees and costs unless they are "reasonable." Procedurally, it requires class counsel to provide notice of its fee motion "to class members in a reasonable manner" so that they "may object to the motion." The Plaintiff bears the burden of showing that these requirements have been satisfied. On the record, the Plaintiff has failed to do so. Accordingly, the Judge defers consideration of the Plaintiff's fee motion so that he may supplement the record. Evergreen is willing to spend $108,070 to settle the matter--attorney fees and costs: $73,520, class recovery: $24,800, incentive payment to Mr. Rodriguez: $2,000, cost of settlement administration: $7,750. The Plaintiff's counsel seeks 68% of that amount. Because the Plaintiff's counsel's fee request exceeds the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark, Judge Coughenour must closely examine the reasonableness of the hours worked and the rates claimed. On this record, he cannot do so because the Plaintiff has not supported his fee motion with "documentation and other evidence." Nor has the Plaintiff provided any supporting documentation for the costs he requests, which is essential for the Court to determine whether they are reasonable. In addition, Judge Coughenour states that Rule 23(h) also provides procedural protections to the class members: The class counsel must provide notice of its fee motion "to the class members in a reasonable manner" so that they "may object to the motion." There is no evidence in the record showing that the class counsel has complied with these requirements. While the preliminary approval documents informed the class members that the Plaintiff's counsel intended to seek attorney fees and costs "of no more than $73,520," they did not include "the fee motion itself" or the forthcoming "time sheets detailing how many hours were spent by each attorney on specific tasks." Therefore, the class members have not received the requisite notice. As to Motion for Final Class Certification and Settlement Approval, Judge Coughenour states that the relationship between the class counsel's fee request and the benefit obtained for the class is also one of the key factors the Court examines when analyzing whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Among other things, the Court must examine that the class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interests and that of certain class members to infect the negotiations. Judge Coughenour cannot apply that heightened standard without adequate documentation supporting the Plaintiff's fee request. Finally, the Judge is concerned that the preliminary approval notice informed the class members that the fairness hearing would occur on Dec. 8, 2020, in the courthouse, but that hearing did not occur because the courthouse has been closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour defers consideration of the Plaintiff's motions for final class certification, final settlement approval, and attorney fees. He orders that within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Plaintiff's counsel will file their timesheets and documentation supporting their requested costs and the parties will submit supplemental briefing that addresses: 1. When the parties can provide notice of the Plaintiff's attorney fee motion and supporting documentation to the class, when the Court should set the deadline for the 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 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 the Plaintiff requests. Judge Coughenour holds only that it cannot do so on the present record. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 27, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4wskm6n6 from Leagle.com. FCA US: Completion for Class Status Related Discovery Due April 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marksberry v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02724 (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric F. Melgren entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time until April 5, 2021, for the completion of discovery related to class certification. The May 7, 2021 deadline for any class certification motion remains unchanged, says the Court. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other.[CC] FEDEX GROUND: Seeks to Modify Class Status Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HINDS, an individual, and TYRONE POWELL, an individual, on behalf of themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and BAY RIM SERVICES, INC., a California corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-01431-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant FedEx Ground asks the Court for an order granting modification of the current class certification briefing schedule, in light of the January 26, 2021, Order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse (USMJ Order). The Defendant FedEx says that such modifications would allow the parties to fully address all potential class certification issues at once, rather than in piecemeal fashion, as would be required if Plaintiffs were to file a second class certification motion on the basis of the requested data. The requested modification is also in line with the Court's prior rulings providing for approximately 60 days for FedEx Ground's opposition, and approximately 60 days for Plaintiffs' reply, and providing for up to 35 pages for the principal briefs. Alternatively, if the Court is inclined to vacate the USMJ Order as is requested in FedEx Ground's accompanying motion for such relief, a more modest extension may be warranted to simply allow the Court time to consider such motion. However, because the Court's ruling may not be known for up to 14 days, FedEx Ground's requested relief is warranted at this time given the February 5, 2021 deadline for FedEx Ground's opposition. If the USMJ Order is vacated, FedEx Ground will stipulate to file its opposition to the pending certification motion within one (1) week of such order. The USMJ Order, issued less than two weeks prior to the deadline for FedEx Ground's opposition to the Plaintiffs' pending class certification motion, requires FedEx Ground to produce (1) a massive amount (25% of package pickups and deliveries in California since 2014) of "stop-level" data (data emanating from hand-held scanners used by package pickup and delivery drivers showing the timing and, to a certain extent, durations of "stops" when one or more packages may be delivered); and (2) samples and a declaration showing the extent of GPS data kept by FedEx Ground in relation to such pickups and deliveries. Fedex Ground provides package delivery services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and business addresses throughout North America. A copy of Defendant FedEx's motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxSptD at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., are: Brandy T. Cody, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 4040 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 242-4262 Facsimile: (503) 242-4263 E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com - and - Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 2050 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 851-2424 Facsimile: (949) 851-0152 E-mail: cahearn@fisherphillips.com - and - Sean F. Daley, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 S Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2957 Telephone: (213) 330-4500 Facsimile: (213) 330-4501 E-mail: sdaley@fisherphillips.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces Eisenberger Suit Over Misleading Letter ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOV EISENBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., CAVALRY SPV I, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00866 (S.D.N.Y., January 31, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendants seeking damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to creditor Citibank, N.A. arose out of transactions involving medical services some time prior to November 4, 2020. According to the complaint, the alleged debt was purportedly sold by Citibank to Defendant Cavalry, who contracted with Defendant FRS to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about November 4, 2020, Defendant FRS sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect the alleged debt. However, the collection letter violates Section 1692g(a)(l) because it failed to clearly identify the amount of the debt owed by the Plaintiff. In addition, the collection letter failed to explain the discrepancy between the amount due as of charge-off and the total balance due, thereby making it confusing and deceptive to the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff has incurred an informational injury as he could not ascertain from the deceptive and misleading letter the amount he presently owed on the debt, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com FLORIDA REFORESTATION: Johnston Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS JOHNSTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NORTH FLORIDA REFORESTATION SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation and ROBERTS SITE DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-00539-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to conditionally certify collective action of and facilitating notice to potential class members to: "any and all hourly paid non-exempt Laborers who were/are employees of Defendants who were not paid full and proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as a result of the Defendants' illegal common policies and practices of: (a) manipulating employee pay on timesheets in varying weeks when it suited Defendants to avoid the payment of overtime wages; (b) requiring employees to work "off the clock" including drive-time auto-deducting what was supposed to be "meal breaks" without properly accounting or compensating employees for same as overtime hours worked." The Defendants are site development companies that specialize in site work, reclamation services, dredging/sediment removal, and land clearing services, based in Lake Butler, Florida. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aDmP72 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 10368 W. State Road, Suite 103 Davie, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com FLORIDA: Inmate Shake May Only Proceed Claims Against Warden Payne ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JERRY DONALD SHAKE, Plaintiff v. GEORGE PAYNE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-931-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.), Judge Jon E. DeGuilio of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, granted the Plaintiff leave to proceed with his claims against Deputy Warden Payne. Plaintiff Shake, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed the lawsuit alleging that he has been subjected unconstitutional conditions while housed at the Miami Correctional Facility. In his complaint, Shake alleges that, on July 23, 2020, an inmate assaulted Deputy Warden Payne with urine and feces. Deputy Warden Payne responded to the assault by ordering that the cells of all inmates on the solitary restrictive housing unit be stripped of all personal belongings. Captain Bennett and Lt. Myers assisted with removing the items. After weeks, Deputy Warden Payne's "reign of terror" ended and some items were returned. However, some items taken from inmates were lost or destroyed. Other items remained prohibited, including bowls, soap dishes, toothbrush holders, and shower boxes. Because Shake was prohibited from having shampoo for weeks, his scalp became flaky and began to bleed. He has sued Deputy Warden Payne, Captain Bennett, and Lt. Myers. He seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. He further asks that the matter be certified as a class action. Judge DeGuilio now reviews the merits of Shake's complaint. As an initial matter, he holds that it would be plain error to permit Shake who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action. Under Rule 23(a)(4), a class representative must fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others. This is so because the competence of a layman is clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others. Therefore, Shake may only represent himself on his own claims. Next, the Eighth Amendment prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." In evaluating an Eighth Amendment claim, courts conduct both an objective and a subjective inquiry. The objective prong asks whether the alleged deprivation is "sufficiently serious" that the action or inaction of a prison official leads to "the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." On the subjective prong, the prisoner must show the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate's health or safety. Judge DeGuilio holds that giving Shake the favorable inferences to which he is entitled at this stage of the proceedings, he states a plausible claim against Deputy Warden Payne, as he ordered that the cells be stripped and it can be plausibly inferred that he determined what materials were returned to Shake and when. However, Shake alleges only that Captain Bennett and Lt. Myers assisted in carrying out Deputy Warden Payne's initial order. It was not unconstitutional to briefly deprive inmates of personal items following an incident; it is only the continuation of this order for weeks--as Shake alleges--that implicates constitutional concerns. Because it cannot be plausibly inferred that Captain Bennett and Lt. Myers were responsible for the continuing deprivation, Shake may not proceed against them. For these reasons, Judge DeGuilio granted Shake leave to proceed against Deputy Warden Payne in his individual capacity for monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief for depriving him of constitutional conditions of confinement beginning on July 20, 2020, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Judge dismissed Captain Bennett and Lt. Myers and all other claims. The clerk is directed to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to serve process on) Deputy Warden Payne at the Indiana Department of Correction with a copy of the Order and the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(d). The Indiana Department of Correction is also directed to provide the United States Marshal Service with the full name, date of birth, social security number, last employment date, work location, and last known home address of the defendant if he does not waive service and they have such information. Finally, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g)(2), Deputy Warden Payne will respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claim for which the Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in the screening Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2evuomph from Leagle.com. FOSSIL GROUP: Holden Files Suit in Florida ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against FOSSIL GROUP INC. The case is styled as Lauren Holden, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOSSIL GROUP INC., Case No. 16-2021-CA-000673-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Feb. 4, 2020). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Fossil Group, Inc. is an American fashion designer and manufacturer founded in 1984 by Tom Kartsotis and based in Richardson, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com FRANCE: Begins Public Consultation Amid Class Action v. Police -------------------------------------------------------------- France24 reports that the French government began a public consultation on Feb. 1 aimed at devising ways to increase public confidence in the police following repeated scandals involving allegations of racism and police brutality. The initiative was proposed by President Emmanuel Macron in December in order to diffuse criticism of French security forces which are regularly accused of discrimination and using excessive force. In November, video of Paris police beating and abusing a black music producer inside his studio shocked the country, drawing a rare rebuke from Macron's government. The incident came days after the brutal clearing of a migrant camp in the centre of the capital and months after hundreds of thousands took part in huge protests against police racism and brutality. During months of anti-government demonstrations by "Yellow vest" protesters in 2018-2019, around 20 people lost an eye and dozens were seriously injured by police rubber bullets and stun grenades. "We need to act urgently," Macron wrote on December 8 when announcing the consultation to "consolidate" the link between the police and the French population, which is expected to last until May. "I want to advance quickly and concretely to improve the working conditions for the noble and essential job of keeping the peace," he added. "France hangs together through its police and gendarmes." Balancing act Pitching the idea as both a listening exercise and a way of improving working conditions for officers is a sign of the delicate balancing act faced by the head of state. Despite wide-ranging demands for better community relations, Macron is aware that officers are on the front lines of often violent streets protests, as well as anti-terror operations. 'Separatism' law: Bill aimed at tacking radical islam to go before assembly He angered police unions when he acknowledged in December that identity checks carried out by security forces targeted ethnic minorities disproportionately - a common complaint from residents in high-immigration areas, which has been corroborated by numerous studies. "When you have a skin colour that is not white, you are stopped much more. You are identified as a problem factor. And that cannot be justified," he told the Brut video website. Yves Lefebvre, a trade union leader, wrote to him afterwards to complain, saying that the fault lay in "decades of urbanisation policies that have piled up immigrant populations in the same areas". The consultations will see police union leaders, former officers and local mayors invited to give their opinions in a process overseen by hardline Interior Minister Gerald Darminin. Darmanin is also set to tour the country to meet local officers, but it remains unclear how much civil society groups and academics will be asked to contribute. Controversial security law The conclusions are set to inform a new draft security law which will be brought before parliament before France holds a presidential election in the first half of 2022. A previous draft sparked protests in November and December over a clause that would have criminalised publishing images identifying on-duty officers. Long-standing proposals for improving confidence in French security forces include more local policing focused on problem-solving, rather than simply repression, and a truly independent police complaints process. Critics have dismissed the latest consultations as a PR exercise. Interior Minister Darmanin made his views on police brutality clear in July last year in the wake of the killing in the United States of George Floyd, a black man who choked to death while being arrested. "When I hear the words police violence, personally it makes me choke," Darmanin told a parliamentary hearing. The start of the public consultation comes just days after six non-governmental organisations launched a class-action lawsuit to press the French government into tackling systemic discrimination by police carrying out identity checks. The organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, served Prime Minister Jean Castex and Darmanin with formal legal notice of demands for concrete steps to ensure that police stop targeting Black people and people of Arab descent in their ID checks. The lead lawyer in the case, Antoine Lyon-Caen, said that the legal action is not targeting individual police officers but "the system itself that generates, by its rules, habits, culture, a discriminatory practice". [GN] GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Narrows Claims in AP-Fonden Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-8457 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the putative class action, Lead Plaintiff Sjunde AP-Fonden and Plaintiff the Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, two pension funds, bring claims against General Electric ("GE") and six current or former GE executive. The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. On Nov. 1, 2017, a putative class action suit was filed against GE; Immelt; Jeffrey S. Bornstein, GE's then-CFO; and John L. Flannery, GE's then-CEO. Following consolidation and coordination with related cases and the appointment of Sjunde AP-Fonden as the Lead Plaintiff, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, and, thereafter, the Fourth Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety for failure to state a claim. On Aug. 29, 2019, the Court issued its earlier Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion, and granting the Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Court first dismissed with prejudice all of the Plaintiffs' claims based on statements, omissions, or misrepresentations made before July 25, 2013, and which were not timely raised in an earlier complaint or motion to intervene as time-barred by the five-year statute of repose. It then turned to the Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions relating to GE's LTC portfolio and determined that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for securities fraud based on any LTC-related statement or omission. Next, the Court turned to the Plaintiffs' claims that GE fraudulently engaged in a variety of 'unsustainable' business practices relating to its LTSAs with GE Power customers in an effort to conceal poor performance following a worldwide downturn in energy equipment usage. Here too, it granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to several of the Plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the Court turned to the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It concluded the "certification" claims needed to be dismissed because the Plaintiffs "did not allege specific facts concerning the purportedly deficient internal controls, including how they were deficient, when and why," "failed to adequately allege that GE violated GAAP, and failed to adequately allege that the relevant Individual Defendants acted with scienter in certifying that the LTC-related information in GE's financial statements comported with GAAP. All "control person" claims for which Plaintiffs failed to plead primary violations were also dismissed. The Court, however, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the two Section 20(a) control person claims for which primary violations were adequately alleged in light of "the Defendants' failure to genuinely put the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) pleading at issue." Despite largely granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court "concluded that leave to amend was warranted given the nature of the Court's rulings and the sheer number of issues addressed." In particular, it observed, the Plaintiffs may be able to allege additional facts regarding the Individual Defendants' knowledge, or conscious disregard of, GE's actuarial issues (with respect to its LTC portfolio) and the trends and risks it should have disclosed (with respect to its LTSAs) that would permit the Plaintiffs to clear the scienter bar, and as to their more threadbare claims, to allege facts that may meet the requirements of Rules 8 and 9(b)." Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Complaint on Oct. 25, 2019, which the Defendants now move to dismiss. On Dec. 9, 2020, the Defendants notified the Court that GE had reached a settlement with the SEC, announced earlier that day, arising from an investigation referenced in the Complaint regarding violations of Sections 13(a) and 17(a)(2)-(3) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated thereunder. In a letter filed two days later, the Plaintiffs request that the Court takes judicial notice of the Settlement's detailed factual findings confirming the Plaintiffs' allegations that GE misled investors concerning GE Power and the GE LTC business. The Defendants, meanwhile, urge the Court to infer from the fact of the Settlement evidence of the lack of scienter, on the theory that the Settlement charges only violations of the Exchange Act that lack scienter requirements. Judge Furman will do neither. He opines that although the Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed documents such as the Settlement on a motion to dismiss, it may not do so for the purpose of considering the truth of the facts alleged therein. Nor will the Court affirmatively infer that the non-scienter, non-Section 10(b) settlement weighs in favor of dismissal of the Complaint. Turning to the Motion to Dismiss, Judge Furman begins with the Plaintiffs' claims relating to the LTC insurance portfolio and then turns to their claims relating to the LTSAs. After that, he considers the Plaintiffs' certification and control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Judge Furman says he previously dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions relating to GE's LTC insurance portfolio. In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs drop their claims based on the theory that GE's LTC reserve figures were misstated under GAAP. Instead, they "primarily allege that the Defendants failed to disclose known LTC-related trends, uncertainties, and commitments that were likely to impact GE's financial condition, in violation of Item 303 and Section 10(b)." The Judge opines that the Plaintiffs' new allegations "bolstering the inference of scienter" notwithstanding, he once again concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for securities fraud based on any LTC-related statement or omission. First, the Defendants there were challenging the specificity of allegations with respect to how the confidential witnesses knew of an "alleged slow-down in demand," not how the confidential witnesses knew of any individual Defendant's knowledge of that slow-down. Second, even if the failure to disclose LTC liabilities in the MD&A table were misleading, the Plaintiffs' new allegations do nothing to address the Court's alternative holding that they failed to adequately plead scienter. Third, the Plaintiffs point to the "annual PowerPoint presentations identifying GE's negative LTC claims experience" as adequate allegations of the Defendants' scienter for each of these statements. However, these allegations do not suffice. As to the Plaintiffs' renewed allegations concerning misrepresentations and omissions relating to GE Power's LTSAs, the Court dismissed nearly all of these claims alleged in the FAC. Just two, both stemming from statements or omissions related to GE's extensive factoring of LTSAs, survived. The Complaint refines the LTSA claims, "no longer asserting that GE's reported Contract Asset amounts were false and misleading, focusing instead on the Defendants' omission of material LTSA trends in violation of Item 303. Notwithstanding the new focus on Item 303, Judge Furman once again finds that all of the claims based on statements pertaining to GE's LTSAs must be dismissed, with two exceptions. He denies the motion to dismiss the Complaint's factoring-based Item 303 claim against Defendants GE and Bornstein for GE's filings from 2015 on, and the motion to dismiss as to the claim based on the factoring-related statement in the 2016 Form 10-K. He also denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the surviving Section 20(a) claims against Bornstein. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Furman granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. He granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, except as to (1) the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims concerning (a) factoring in GE's 2016 Form 10-K and (b) GE's failure to disclose factoring in its Class Period financial statements from 2015 on, which survive against GE and Bornstein; and (2) the Plaintiffs' corresponding Section 20(a) control person claims against Bornstein. In their letter requesting that the Court take judicial notice of the facts alleged in the Settlement between the SEC and GE, Plaintiffs include a cursory request in the alternative for leave to amend the Complaint again "to the extent the Court determines" it "is insufficient with respect to falsity or scienter." Judge Furman denied such request. Although leave to amend a complaint should be freely given "when justice so requires," and leave is often granted when a complaint is dismissed under Rule 9(b), it is ultimately "within the sound discretion of the district court to grant or deny leave to amend." The Plaintiffs have been given, and taken, multiple opportunities to amend their pleadings, and were previously warned that they would "not be given any further opportunity to amend the complaint to address issues raised by the Defendants' prior motion to dismiss. The Settlement, which concerns non-scienter-based violations of the Exchange Act, does not change this analysis--particularly because the Court's dismissal of many of the Plaintiffs' claims is grounded primarily in inadequate allegations of scienter, Judge Furman opines. Indeed, in several respects, the Settlement actually undermines the Plaintiffs' allegations of scienter. Thus, the Plaintiffs have not "given any indication that they are in possession of facts that would cure the problems identified." Accordingly, Judge Furman did not grant leave to amend. By separate order to be entered on the same date, the initial pretrial conference will be reinstated and adjourned to Feb. 25, 2021, at 3:15 p.m. (to be held by telephone, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic). In accordance with Paragraph 2.B of the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, the parties are required to file on ECF a joint letter as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter, no later than Thursday of the week prior to the initial pretrial conference. The contents of the joint letter will be described in the separate order to be entered today. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 194 and to terminate Jeffrey R. Immelt, John L. Flannery, Jamie Miller, Keith S. Sherin, Jan R. Hauser, and Richard A. Laxer as Defendants in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2jhgbkws from Leagle.com. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Haft Sues Over Defective Ranges and Wall Ovens ---------------------------------------------------------------- ASHER HAFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a GE APPLIANCES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00506 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021) is a civil class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of all consumers who purchased GE's ranges and wall ovens featuring glass-front doors made with soda lime glass for normal, household use, which contain a defect causing the glass within the glass-front door to unexpectedly break or shatter during normal and foreseeable use. According to the complaint, GE's glass-front Ovens suffer from a common design and/or manufacturing defect, whereby the soda lime glass used in the glass-front doors cannot withstand the high temperatures that are common when the ovens are used for their ordinary purpose, resulting in shattering of the glass within the glass-front door, and rendering the ovens unusable for their intended purpose of safely and properly heating food. General Electric Company and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances are home appliance companies in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Telephone: (917) 471-1894 E-mail: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Rachel L. Soffin, Esq. Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Harper Segui, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: harper@whitfieldbryson.com GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Austin Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 11th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Langston Austin, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LANGSTON AUSTIN, and ERNEST FULLER III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00073-LGW-BWC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a collective action complaint brought against Defendant for their alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees overtime wages for all eligible hours worked. Plaintiffs were hired by Defendant as non-exempt Detention Officers -- Plaintiff Austin is currently employed and has been for at least 3 years, while Plaintiff Fuller was employed for approximately 20 months and ended on July 3, 2020. The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review the Court's Order dated January 8, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Langston Austin, et al. v. Glynn County, Georgia, et al., Case No. 21-10162, filed on Jan. 15, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- The appellant's brief is due on or before February 24, 2021; -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief; -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on January 29, 2021 as to Appellant Langston Austin; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before February 12, 2021 as to Appellee Glynn County, Georgia.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LANGSTON AUSTIN and ERNEST FULLER, III, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Peter Lampros, Esq. Gordon Gerhard Van Remmen, Esq. HALL & LAMPROS, LLP 400 Galleria Pkwy Ste 1150 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 876-8100 E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com gordon@hallandlampros.com - and - Joseph Richard Padgett, Esq. RODEN LAW 333 Commercial Dr Savannah, GA 31406 Telephone: (912) 303-5850 E-mail: jpadgett@rodenlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Withers GILLEN WITHERS & LAKE, LLC 8 E Liberty St. Savannah, GA 31401 Telephone: (912) 447-8400 E-mail: twithers@gwllawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees GLYNN COUNTY, GEORGIA, and E. NEAL JUMP, individually, are represented by: Emily Rose Hancock, Esq. Richard K. Strickland, Esq. BROWN READDICK BUMGARTNER CARTER STRICKLAND & WATKINS, LLP 5 Glynn Ave., PO Box 220 Brunswick, GA 31521-0220 Telephone: (912) 264-8544 E-mail: ehancock@brbcsw.com rstrickland@brbcsw.com - and - Aaron W. Mumford, Esq. GLYNN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 701 G St. Fl. 2 Brunswick, GA 31520-6750 Telephone: (912) 554-7470 E-mail: amumford@glynncounty-ga.gov GREATER CINCINNATI: Kleinhans Seeks Case Managers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ AUSTIN KLEINHANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREATER CINCINNATI BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00070-MRB (S.D. Ohio, January 31, 2021) alleges the Defendants of intentional and willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff brings this collective action complaint on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated case managers employed by the Defendant who were subject to the same unlawful pay practices. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required him and other similarly situated to work in excess of 40 hours in workweek, but the Defendant refused to pay their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable rate at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, statutory liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. Greater Cincinnati Behavioral Health Services provides behavioral services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. MICHAEL L. FRADIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of March 15 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GTT Communications, Inc. ("GTT" or the "Company") (NYSE: GTT) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-00839, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants 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 "Exchange Act"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Exchange Act by publishing false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the Company's stock price. If you are a shareholder who purchased GTT securities during the Class Period, you have until March 15, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. GTT operates a global communications network, providing telecommunications services to large, multinational enterprises, carriers, and governments across five continents. 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. As a result of GTT's inadequate internal controls, the Company announced after market hours on August 10, 2020 that it would delay the 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 Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] HARDER MECHANICAL: Ellis Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GARY ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HARDER MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. C20-02199, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 3, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00844 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including unlawful business practices, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay meal period premiums, failure to pay rest period premiums, and failure to pay final wages upon termination. Harder Mechanical Contractors, Inc. is a company that provides mechanical contracting services, headquartered in Portland, Oregon. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mollie M. Burks, Esq. Sat Sang S. Khalsa, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 1700 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 463-8668 Facsimile: (510) 984-1721 E-mail: mburks@grsm.com skhalsa@grsm.com HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS: Turizo TCPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BLAKE TURIZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. CACE-20-021118, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on February 3, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-60289 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Healthfund Solutions, LLC is a financial consulting firm based in Winter Park, Florida. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Shawn Y. Libman, Esq. Stephanie Simm, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE, LLP Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 995-5600 E-mail: Shawn.Libman@bowmanandbrooke.com Stephanie.Simm@bowmanandbrooke.com - and – Douglas A. Wolfe, Esq. Danya J. Pincavage, Esq. Jennifer Leto, Esq. WOLFE | PINCAVAGE 2937 SW 27th Ave., Ste. 302 Miami, FL 33133-3772 Telephone: (786) 409-0800 E-mail: doug@wolfepincavage.com danya@wolfepincavage.com jennifer.leto@wolfepincavage.com HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Mendoza Suit Over Wrongful Termination ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID MENDOZA v. HI-SHEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, HI-SHEAR CORPORATION, LISI AEROSPACE NORTH AMERICA INC., LISI AEROSPACE HI-SHEAR CORPORATION, CHEMRING PLC, TARA TORRES, ILSE POLANCO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. 21STCV02456 (Cal. Super., Jan. 20, 2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees, seeking damages from Plaintiff's wrongful termination, retaliation, disability and age discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, mistreatment in the workplace, adverse employment actions, and other actionable conduct by the Defendants in violation of the California Govt. Code Sections 12900 and 12940, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Family Rights Act. Mr. Mendoza continuously worked for the Defendants until the date of his wrongful and unlawful termination on June 18, 2020. He is a Hispanic/Latino male and was in a protected class or group based on his COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure, medical condition and physical disability. He does his work as a customer service representative both at the office and while working remotely. Hi-Shear Technology Corporation develops, tests, manufactures, and delivers energetic, mechanical, and electronic subsystems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nancy P. Doumanian, Esq. DOUMANIAN & ASSOCIATES 837 South Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 795-5802 Facsimile: (626) 795-5832 E-mail: nancy@nancylaw.com HIGGINS BENJAMIN: Initial Certification of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK GOLDEN and GENEVA GOLDEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00627-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for settlement purposes as set forth in the parties' proposed settlement agreement; 2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs as the named- representatives of the Class; 4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; 5. approving the form of the proposed class notice and the parties' proposed method of distribution of the Class Notice to the Class; and 6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Defendant is a law firm that is alleged to be a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In connection with the collection of an alleged debt for homeowners association fees, the Defendant sent Plaintiffs written correspondence dated April 22, 2020. The April 22, 2020 correspondence was the Defendant's initial communication with respect to the debt. Thus, it was required to provide Plaintiffs with the FDCPA's validation notices. The April 22, 2020 correspondence purported to provide the required notices: "Unless you dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion, within 30 days after receipt of this letter, the debt will be assumed to be valid." The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. secton 1692g(a)(3) because the statement fails to inform the Plaintiff that the Debt will be assumed to be valid by Defendant. The Defendant disputes the allegations and denies that any violation of the FDCPA has occurred. Higgins Benjamin, PLLC has a law office located in Greensboro, North Carolina. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/36SBzOmat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (888) 332-7252 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua B. Durham, Esq. BELL, DAVIS & PITT 227 W. Trade St., Ste. 1800 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone (704) 502-6275 E-mail: jdurham@belldavispitt.com HIGHLAND BAKING: Citizens Insurance Denies Duty to Indemnify ------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA, a Michigan corporation; and HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation vs. HIGHLAND BAKING COMPANY, INC., an Illinois corporation; and PATRICK YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:21-cv-00239 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2021) seeks a declaration that Plaintiffs have no duty to defend or indemnify Highland Baking under the Policies in connection with a putative class action suit captioned Young vs. Highland Baking Corporation, Inc., bearing Case No. 20 CH 07091, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The lawsuit is an insurance coverage dispute between Citizens and Hanover, on the one hand, and Highland Baking. Citizens issued Commercial Lines Policies to Highland Baking that contain a General Liability Coverage Part and a Cyber Liability Coverage Part. Hanover issued Commercial Follow Form Excess and Umbrella Policies to Highland Baking. According to the complaint, the Young lawsuit for which Highland Baking seeks a defense and indemnity is a putative class action containing three counts, all alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint further asserts that the Young lawsuit is a "claim" that was first made against Highland Baking on December 4, 2020, after the expiration of the 2017 and 2018 policy periods. As a result, Citizens has no defense or indemnity obligation for the Young Lawsuit under the Cyber Liability Coverage Part of the 2017 Policy or the Cyber Liability Coverage Part of the 2018 Policy, the suit says. The Plaintiffs are insurance companies in the U.S. Highland Baking Co., Inc. bakes bread products. It offers table breads, dinner rolls, pan breads, hamburger buns, rolls, and subs, as well as frozen products. The company was founded in 1984 and is based in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Goldwater, Esq. Kelly Ognibene, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 345-1718 Facsimile: (312) 345-1778 E-mail: Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com Kelly.Ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com HORIZON SCRIPTED: Schwanke Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PAUL SCHWANKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HORIZON SCRIPTED TELEVISION, INC., REGINALD GORDON HARPUT, MATTHEW MATZI, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10, Case No. 120STCV38217, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 2, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00964 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide compliant pay stubs, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest breaks, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, untimely wage during employment, and unfair business practices. Horizon Scripted Television, Inc. is a division of the Warner Bros. Television Group based in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Seth E. Pierce, Esq. Stephen A. Rossi, Esq. MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 2040 Century Park East, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-2000 Facsimile: (310) 312-3100 E-mail: sep@msk.com sar@msk.com ICOT HOLDINGS: Bank Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TODD C. BANK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ICOT HOLDINGS, LLC, and ICOT HEARING SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-02554-AMD-PK (E.D.N.Y.), Bank will move the Court for an Order, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 1. certifying the following three classes: -- Federal Robocall Class: "all persons to whose residential or cellular telephone number one or more telephone calls, from April 30, 2014, through April 9, 2020, were placed by ICOT through Prospects DM, Inc., that ICOT has not affirmatively shown to have been placed with proper consent, except to the extent that the claims of such persons were released in Hennie v. ICOT Hearing Systems, LLC, No. 18-cv-02045 (N.D. Ga.)"; -- Federal Do-Not-Call Class: "all persons to whose telephone number, while having been on the National Do Not Call Registry for 31 days or more, at least two telephone calls, during any 12- month period from April 30, 2014, through April 9, 2020, were placed by ICOT through Prospects DM, Inc., that ICOT has not affirmatively shown to have been placed with proper consent, except to the extent that the claims of such persons were released by Hennie v. ICOT Hearing Systems, LLC, No. 18-cv-02045 (N.D. Ga.)"; and -- New York Class: "all persons to whose New York State area-code telephone numbers one or more telephone calls, from April 30, 2015, through April 9, 2020, were placed by ICOT through Prospects DM, Inc., except to the extent that the claims of such persons were released by Hennie v. ICOT Hearing Systems, LLC, No. 18-cv-02045 (N.D. Ga.);" 2. appointing himself as class representative; 3. appointing Daniel A. Osborn as class counsel; and 4. granting Bank any additional relief that is just and proper. The Defendants are part of the retail sector industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36U2HfX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. 119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor Kew Gardens, New York 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Bid to Dismiss Tchatchou Securities Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALDE-BINET TCHATCHOU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INDIA GLOBALIZATION CAPITAL INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. PWG-18-3396 (D. Md.), Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint for Violation of Federal Securities Laws. The case is a consolidated securities class action, in which the Plaintiffs seek to recover damages caused by alleged violations of federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Defendant, India Globalization Capital ("IGC"), is a Maryland company whose common stock trades on the NYSE American exchange under the symbol "IGC." The members of Lead Plaintiff, IGC Investor Group, acquired IGC's common stock between Sept. 26, 2018 and Oct. 26, 2018. In addition to suing IGC, the Plaintiffs also sue Defendant Ram Mukunda, IGC's Executive Chairman, CEO, and President, and Claudia Grimaldi, IGC's Principal Financial Officer. The Plaintiffs allege that IGC attempted to take advantage of a hot market trend by promoting its entrance into a marijuana-based products business in partnership with a manufacturer located in Malaysia, causing its stock price to jump six-fold. However, when the truth was revealed that the product was illusory, and it was illegal to manufacture marijuana-based products in Malaysia, IGC's stock price plummeted, causing investors to lose millions of dollars. Multiple lawsuits followed, including the two related suits that form the consolidated class action. The Plaintiffs bring two causes of action against the Defendants. Count I alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all the Defendants. Count II alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. After an unsuccessful attempt to resolve their disputes through private mediation, the Defendants sought permission to file a dismissal motion. The Plaintiffs declined the opportunity to further amend the complaint, and the Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss on Oct. 11, 2019. They argue that the Plaintiffs' allegations of falsity and scienter are plainly insufficient to plausibly plead a material false or misleading statement, scienter, or loss causation. The Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice and without leave to amend. First, Judge Grimm begin by determining which exhibits are properly under consideration. The Defendants submitted eight exhibits with their dismissal motion, but the Plaintiffs argue that the exhibits have not been authenticated, are not incorporated by reference, or are not proper subjects of judicial notice. In particular, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' Exhibits C and H can only be considered if the Court converts the dismissal motion to a motion for summary judgment. The following exhibits were attached to the Defendants' motion: (i) Exhibit A, ECF No. 61-2, SEC Form S-3 Registration Statement; (ii) Exhibit B, ECF No. 61-3, IGC Press Release, Sept. 25, 2018; (iii) Exhibit C, ECF No. 61-4, Strategic Distributor & Partnership Agreement between Treasure Network and IGC; (iv) Exhibit D, ECF No. 61-5, IGC May 11, 2018 Prospectus Supplement for ATM offering of $15 million common stock, dated Sept. 24, 2018; (v) Exhibit E, ECF No. 61-6, IGC May 11, 2018 Prospectus Supplement for ATM offering of $15 million common stock, dated Oct. 1, 2018; (vi) Exhibit F, ECF No. 61-7, SEC Form 10-Q, for quarterly period ended June 30, 2018; (vii) Exhibit G, ECF No. 61-8, SEC Form 10-Q, for quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2018; and (viii) Exhibit H, ECF No. 61-9, IGC Press Release, Feb. 21, 2019. Judge Grimm accepts only the existence of Exhibit C as referenced in the complaint, but he will not consider its content for any purpose. He takes judicial notice of Exhibit H as a press release that was a public document. The Plaintiffs allege claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (Count I). Judge Grimm finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants intentionally or recklessly made a material, misleading statement that, when the truth was disclosed, resulted in economic loss. Hence, Count I survives the Defendants' dismissal motion. Among other things, he finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the Defendants' press release inference of a manufacturer was materially misleading, (ii) the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that the October 16 Form 10-Q contained a false statement, (iii) the Plaintiffs cannot transform the Defendants' posting on Twitter on Oct. 6, 2018 into a false and misleading statement by simply alleging that IGC actually intended to create a product where it was not legal to do so, (iv) although each of the Plaintiffs' allegations standing alone may be insufficient to support a strong inference of scienter, looked at holistically, the allegations are enough to suggest a strong inference of scienter at this motion to dismiss stage, and (v) the Plaintiffs have alleged detailed facts to support their theory of loss causation, and their theory is not facially implausible. Count II also survives the Defendants' dismissal motion, Judge Grimm holds. The Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants had the power to influence and control IGC's decision-making, including the control over "the contents of the various reports, press releases and public filings which IGC disseminated in the marketplace." They allege that the Individual Defendants are, therefore, liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for IGC's violations. The Defendants argue only that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the underlying 10(b) violation. Section 20(a) liability is derivative of Section 10(b), so a claim of control person liability must allege a predicate violation of Section 10(b). Because the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a viable underlying 10(b) or Rule 10b-5 violation, Judge Grimm holds that they have pleaded a predicate offense on which to base control person liability. Although it is a close case, Judge Grimm concludes that the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded both Count I and Count II. Therefore, he denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and directed the Defendants to answer the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Defendants will file their Answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint by Feb. 15, 2021, after which the Court will enter a Scheduling Order and schedule a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 conference with the parties to discuss further trial proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5edk2swy from Leagle.com. INVITATION HOMES: Rivera Has Until Oct. 29 to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. INVITATION HOMES, INC., A Maryland corporation, Case No. 4:18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiff and Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting their stipulation to the following briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff will file his motion for class certification on or before October 29, 2021; 2. The Defendant's opposition will be filed no later than November 30, 2021; and 3. The Plaintiff will file his reply in support of his motion for class certification, if any, no later than December 20, 2021. Invitation Homes is the nation's premier owner and operator of single-family rental homes in the United States. A copy of the Parties' Stipulation dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p3ftie at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex Tomasevic, Esq. Ethan T. Litney, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 Facsimile: (619) 325-0496 E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org elitney@nicholaslaw.org The Defendant is represented by: Justin Fields, Esq. Aaron T. Winn, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957 3000 Facsimile: (415) 957 3001 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors that purchased iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) common stock between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until April 2, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. iRhythm offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm receives revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors, which include commercial payors and government agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Reimbursement from the CMS and other third-party payors is therefore critical to the Company's business. On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that these rates were "way lower than" the former codes, citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but was now receiving just $42.68. On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00. The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately $2.4 billion. The complaint, filed on February 1, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased iRhythm common stock during the Class Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210201005967/en/ Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] JOHN C. HEATH: Moore Files Suit in Utah Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath. The case is styled as Jennifer Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John C. Heath, doing business as: Lexington Law Firm ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00027-TC (D. Utah, Jan. 15, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and is assigned to Judge Tena Campbell. John C. Heath Attorney at Law is a law firm based in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1200 Brickell Ave Ste 1950 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 496-4469 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Blvd Ste 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rebecca Anne Evans, Esq. LAWHQ LLC 299 S Main St #1300 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (385) 233-6612 Facsimile: rebecca@lawhq.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Hears Appeal in Mesh Implant Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Luke Costin, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that information brochures about pelvic implants that left Australian women with debilitating pain and injuries weren't the be-all-and-end-all of warnings, a lawyer for the manufacturers has told a court. Three Federal Court judges on Feb. 1 began hearing an appeal into a landmark 2019 ruling that Johnson & Johnson Group firms acted negligently and concealed the true extent of complications from the pelvic implants. Hundreds of the synthetic implants eroded, extruded or caused infection without warning - leaving women in chronic pain and with damage to surrounding organs. But Johnson & Johnson says the trial judge's ruling had numerous legal errors, including reversing the onus of proof. A finding that product brochures were deficient - leading surgeons astray - was also wrong, a barrister for the companies, Bret Walker SC, told the appeal hearing on Feb. 1. Justice Anna Katzmann in 2019 found the "Instructions for Use" handed to surgeons minimised harm and exaggerated the benefits of the devices. But Mr Walker said it would be "extremely difficult to justify logically" that the brochures were the only source of information and that surgeons could put aside their own knowledge and experiences to rely solely on the document. "It is sufficiently established that it is simply not right to treat the IFU as the be-all-and-end-all of warnings," he said. He also took aim at the judge's decision to side with evidence of pathologists, rather than surgeons who were supportive of the innovation "The clinicians are the people who use this - they are not at the bottom of the totem pole, they're at the top," Mr Walker said. "(They) did not support the pathologists' view this should not be available." The judgment did not amount to a finding that surgeons broadly were unaware of the potential complications, he said. "No one in particular ever came and said 'this happened or if this happened . . . that was news to me, a bolt from the blue, it never had occurred to me'," Mr Walker said. Johnson & Johnson is appealing Justice Katzmann's 1500-page judgment on 15 grounds. It came after three patients' experiences were examined in an eight-month trial that included 48 witnesses and more than 164,000 pages of written evidence. But - just as the companies had argued at trial - Mr Walker on Feb. 1 said it was significant that the trial lacked evidence from the three patients' surgeons. "It would be wrong to not regard (the surgeons' knowledge) as highly relevant evidence," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court in Sydney. Justice Katzman in 2019 dismissed that argument by stating the safety of goods wasn't dependent on the knowledge of individual surgeons. Since it launched in 2012, more than 1350 Australian women have joined the class action against the manufacturers and marketers of nine pelvic implants. One of the lead litigants, environmental scientist and mother-of-two Kathryn Gill, was aged 36 when implanted with a device called Prolift Total in 2007 to fix a pelvic organ prolapse. Side-effects after surgery included bowel issues, pain during sex and constant aching pain that became severe when Ms Gill coughed or moved suddenly. She and the other two lead litigants were awarded a total of $2.6 million in damages - paving the way for full payout in the hundreds of millions. The appeal before Justices Jayne Jagot, Bernard Murphy and Michael Lee is expected to run until February 9. [GN] K&S TOOL: Settlement in Kraczek Class Suit Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHRISTOPHER KRACZEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. K&S TOOL, DIE & MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-938-pp (E.D. Wis.), Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Service Award, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. On Aug. 18, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Class Certification for the Purposes of Settlement, along with the parties' fully executed "Settlement Agreement and Release." On Oct. 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the parties' settlement. On Dec. 23, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, and the Plaintiff's counsel filed an unopposed Motion for Approval of Plaintiff's Service Award, and an unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. On Jan. 28, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., Judge Pepper conducted a fairness hearing on the parties' request for final approval of their "Settlement Agreement and Release" and determined that the settlement in the matter, the Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees and case-related costs and expenses and the Plaintiff's service award were fair and reasonable. Therefore, Judge Pepper granted the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement, the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Service Award, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Judge Pepper certified, for the purposes of settlement, the Rule 23 Class under FED. R. CIV. P. 23 and the FLSA Collective under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). She appointed (i) Plaintiff Kraczek as the Class Representative, and (ii) Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as the Class Counsel. She approved the settlement payments to the Settlement Class, which includes members of the Rule 23 Class and members of the FLSA Collective. Judge Pepper instructed that (i) the Defendant's counsel is to provide the Plaintiff's counsel with settlement checks for the Settlement Class within 21 calendar days of the Order; (ii) the Plaintiff's counsel is to promptly send the settlement checks to the Settlement Class via U.S. Mail following receipt of the settlement checks from the Defendant's counsel; and (iii) the Settlement Class has 120 days to cash their individual settlement checks, otherwise the individual settlement checks and amounts will revert to and be retained by the Defendant. The Judge granted the Plaintiff's unopposed request for approval of his attorneys' fees and case-related costs and expenses in the amount of $37,800. She also granted the Plaintiff's unopposed request for approval of his service award in the amount of $2,500. The Settlement Class members' released claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the FLSA Claims of the putative members of the FLSA Collective who did not properly and timely opt-into the FLSA Collective in full accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement are dismissed without prejudice. In light of the foregoing, Judge Pepper dismissed the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y47vmknp from Leagle.com. KHANJI & SONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Clerks, Abbas Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALI ABBAS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KHANJI & SONS, INC., and BABOO KHANJI, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00320 (S.D. Tex., February 1, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful wage and overtime policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a clerk at the Defendants' BK Food Mart convenience store from February 23, 2019 until December 1, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants did not compensate him and other similarly situated clerks for all hours they worked and for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including "off-the-clock". Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours in week, the Defendants consistently failed to pay straight-time and overtime wages at the applicable rate in accordance with the law. In addition, the Defendant repeatedly violated the recordkeeping requirements of the FLSA for failing to document the pay owed to its employees, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation from the Defendant pursuant to the FLSA, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, and post-judgment interest. Khanji & Sons, Inc. operates gas stations and convenience stores owned by Baboo Khanji. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Tel: (713) 898-0982 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com LAND OCEAN: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAND OCEAN, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00105-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal., January 20, 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 the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ms. Brooks alleges that the Defendants engaged in acts of intentional discrimination after she encountered multiple access barriers during numerous visits to the Website, https://landoceanrestaurants.com/, that denied her full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services being offered. She seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures so that the Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Land Ocean, Inc. owns, operates, and maintains brick and mortar restaurant locations in the State of California.[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 LANDRY'S PAYROLL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Loaiza Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID LOAIZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDRY'S PAYROLL, INC. d/b/a MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS, a Texas corporation; MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00859 (C.D. Cal., January 29, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied her full and equal access to its facilities, goods, and services offered to the public and made available to the public on the Defendant's Website, https://www.mastrorestaurants.com/, due to the multiple access barriers which he has encountered during his numerous visits to the Website. Because of those access barriers, the Plaintiff was unable to find the Defendant's physical locations and hours of operations of its restaurants on its Website, thereby deterred him from visiting the Defendant's physical locations and enjoying them equal to the sighted individuals, the suit says. The Plaintiff also added that the Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination because of its failure to provide visually impaired consumers with equal access to the Website as result of its non-compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and on behalf of those similarly situated persons to secure redress against the Defendant for its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. Landry's Payroll, Inc. operates restaurant and offers its Website to the public.[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 LIGHTING OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Safetymen's OT, Chappel Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC CHAPPEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTING OILFIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00017 (W.D. Tex., January 9, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a safetyman from December 2018 to October 2019, alleges that despite regularly working over 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not pay him and other similarly situated safetymen overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime, an equal amount of liquidated damages, treble damages, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. Lighting Oilfield Services, Inc. provides transportation services to the oil and gas industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and – Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com LLOYD'S LONDON: Independence Restaurant Appeals Ruling to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiff Independence Restaurant Group, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled INDEPENDENCE RESTAURANT GROUP d/b/a/ INDEPENDENCE BEER GARDEN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, Case No. 2-20-cv-02365, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Independence Restaurant Group brings this putative class action suit, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, seeking a declaratory judgment that its continuing business losses caused by COVID-19 and related government orders are covered under its insurance policy with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London. The Plaintiff is now seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order dated January 14, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case. The Court agrees with Lloyd's that there is no coverage under the Civil Authority Coverage provision. Judge Kenney holds that the government orders did not prohibit access to the described premises. IRG alleges that it meets this requirement because the public was barred from its premises. But neither IRG, its employees, nor the public was barred from the premises, the order says. The appellate case is captioned as Independence Restaurant Group v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, Case No. 21-1175, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed January 29, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant INDEPENDENCE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, DBA Independence Beer Garden, is represented by: Alan M. Feldman, Esq. Edward S. Goldis, Esq. Daniel J. Mann, Esq. Andrew K. Mitnick, Esq. Bethany R. Nikitenko, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com dmann@feldmanshepherd.com amitnick@feldmanshepherd.com bnikitenko@feldmanshepherd.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. David A. Searles, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS 1600 Market Street, Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS LONDON is represented by: Fred L. Alvarez, Esq. WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK One North Franklin Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 244-6748 E-mail: falvarez@walkerwilcox.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Action Suit Filed Over Cover-up of Gas Leak ------------------------------------------------------------------ In a class-action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles by the PARRIS Law Firm, the LA Department of Water & Power (LADWP) is accused of covering up a massive gas leak at the Sun Valley Generating Station for at least three years. The suit alleges LADWP harmed the largely LatinX and African American community when the utility knowingly allowed the Valley Generating Station to leak toxic gas for years. According to the complaint, residents in Sun Valley and Pacoima were exposed to poisonous fumes that caused recurring headaches, bloody noses, shortness of breath, severe anxiety, and nausea. "This dangerous gas leak affected our entire community," said Ruben Rodriguez, Executive Director of Pueblo y Salud - a nonprofit organization that works to protect the public health and safety of communities including the San Fernando Valley areas of Sun Valley and Pacoima. "Those in the neighborhoods surrounding the Station were all breathing the same toxic air," Rodriguez added, "they have been suffering with unexplained health issues for years and had no idea why. Now, we know why." The harm in LADWP's failure to warn residents about the gas leak was also exacerbated because it did so when COVID-19 was spreading like wildfire. LADWP's failure to act, especially during the global pandemic, is inexcusable because exposure to the contaminated gas increases respiratory difficulties and can further complicate someone's ability to recover from COVID-19, the complaint alleges. "Make no mistake about it . . . this gas leak represents an utter breakdown of duty and morality," said attorney R. Rex Parris, founder of the PARRIS Law Firm. "I don't think anyone would have thought that a public entity would knowingly allow its facility to leak toxic fumes into residential neighborhoods for 1,085 days," Parris added. Adding insult to injury, LADWP's own General Manager publicly acknowledged that "the people who live around Valley Generating Station, who breathe the air in that area of the city . . . are making somewhat of a sacrifice in support of the overall efforts of the city." According to the complaint, LADWP violated the public's trust when it made the informed choice to sacrifice residents' health by failing to immediately fix the leak and to notify residents of the gas leak as it happened. "LADWP knew their gas contained toxic chemicals, and yet they still allowed an entire community to breathe the air for years," said PARRIS Law Firm attorney Sylvia Torres-Guillen. "Local residents feel betrayed, and they are deeply concerned about the long term health impact this exposure will have on their families," Torres-Guillen added. The case is Pueblo y Salud, et al. v. City of Los Angeles' Department of Water & Power, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV04346 A copy of the complaint can be found here. About PARRIS Law Firm The PARRIS Law Firm is recognized as one of America's top personal injury, employment, and environmental law firms. With a proven track record of fighting for justice on behalf of families and individuals, the firm boasts numerous seven and eight-figure verdicts and settlements. To learn more about the firm, please go to: www.parris.com [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces ECS Suit for Wrongful Termination -------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., a California corporation; ERIN SHEEHY, an individual; TARA TISOPULOS, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; THE LOS ANGELES HARBOR DEPARTMENT (known as PORT OF LOS ANGELES), a governmental entity; THE BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS, a governmental entity; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV02498 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 20, 2021) arises from the Defendants' unlawful termination of Plaintiffs as a direct retaliation for their complaints over sexual harassment and nepotism in violation of the California Labor Code and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The complaint alleges that throughout Plaintiffs' employment by the Port of Los Angeles, they had to contend with a 1950s-era "old boys' club" environment, in which men made crude jokes, boasted of sexual relationships with subordinates and contractors, and subjected women, including them, to sexualized and misogynistic comments. Plaintiff Environmental Compliance Solutions, Inc. (ECS) is a small woman-owned business founded in 1995. Plaintiffs Erin Sheehy and Tara Tisopulos are ECS's president and vice-president, respectively. The Defendants are public, governmental entities organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Campbell Smith, Esq. CAMPBELL SMITH LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 307-2700 Facsimile: (619) 388-0991 E-mail: david@campbellsmithlaw.com - and - Noam Glick, Esq. GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C. 225 Broadway, 19th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 382-3400 Facsimile: (619) 393-0154 E-mail: noam@glicklawgroup.com MANITOBA: Appeals Decision in Manitoba Developmental Centre Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Bergen, writing for CBC News, reports that a former resident of a Manitoba institution for people with intellectual disabilities is glad it's closing after more than century, after he says he suffered serious abuse there. "I feel happy," said David Weremy, who lived at the Manitoba Developmental Centre in Portage la Prairie, Man. for 18 years. On Jan. 29, the province announced the facility will close after its remaining 133 residents move to community living over the next three years. Weremy says he experienced years of trauma at the facility after he started living there in 1958, which included sexual abuse, physical assault and being confined naked in a room. "Bad things happened every day and every night," he said. Weremy is the representative plaintiff in a $50-million lawsuit against the province, which was filed in October in 2018. The suit was certified as a class-action last May. The province appealed that certification last October. A decision on the appeal is pending. When the lawsuit was filed, the province said it could not comment on its contents because it was before the courts. For the last number of years, Weremy has happily lived independently. "Living at home is better," he said. "I can go anywhere I want -- go out somewhere, go to the casino." He's dedicated much of his life to work with People First of Canada on a task force to help eradicate institutions where people with intellectual disabilities are segregated. He wants to ensure people can live in community and exercise control over their own lives. Of the 133 current residents, Weremy says, "I hope they all find homes quick." Institutionalized people treated as 'second-class citizens' Janet Forbes, the executive director of Inclusion Winnipeg says she's "thrilled" to hear the facility was closing after having advocated for its closure for nearly three decades. "It was a long time coming that we had been hoping we would get that announcement," she said. "People have the right to live in the community and the institutional care is a very old model that never worked for people," she said, "It congregated them, it segregated them -- they basically were living as second class citizens." Forbes says it might be a bit of a challenge to transition those who are still living at the MDC because their families might think it's the best place for them. However, Inclusion Winnipeg -- which works to support people with intellectual disabilities as well as their families -- has met with families who have supported their loved ones as they moved from MDC into the community. "Typically, once the person has moved, they're very happy about their family member being in the community and being in a place that they enjoy because they can see the happiness that their family member is experiencing," she said. "It doesn't matter how long somebody has been there. With good, thoughtful planning, they can have lives in the community where they really thrive." [GN] MASCO CONTRACTORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benitez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE BENITEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MASCO CONTRACTORS INC.; and JAMES STADLER, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00259-CCB (D. Md., Feb. 1, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Benitez was employed by the Defendants as superintendent. Masco Contractors, Inc. provides building and construction services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan K. Mechak, Esq. Sarah M. Block, Esq. McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 Facsimile: (202) 452-1090 E-mail: mkm@mselaborlaw.com smb@mselaborlaw.com MASTERCARD INT'L: Judge Endorses Tossing Scoma Class Status Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., WILLIAM P. GRESS and FLORENCE MUSSAT M.D., S.C., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00041-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy recommends that the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification be denied in its entirety. The Magistrate Judge says that the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the All Fax Recipients Class or the Online Fax Service Class have standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in light of the AmeriFactors Order. While the Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class has standing under the TCPA, he finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class is not ascertainable, that the common questions do not predominate over the individualized inquiries, and that class action is not the superior method by which to adjudicate the claims. The Plaintiffs seek an order certifying a class dubbed the "All Fax Recipients Class" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and formally defined as follows: "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a facsimile on or about December 18-23, 2015, stating "Happy Holiday" and inviting recipients to apply for an "Exclusive Doctors Club World Elite MasterCard" credit card, where the fax either (a) contains no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future faxes; or (b) contains an opt- out notice stating: "Recipient may Opt Out of any future faxes by emailing a request to OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949.202.1777." The Plaintiffs request that if the Court certifies the All Fax Recipients Class, as defined, then the Court also appoint Plaintiffs Scoma, Dr. Gress, and Mussat as class representatives. If, however, the Court "finds it necessary to distinguish between faxes received on a 'stand-alone' fax machine and faxes received via 'online fax service' following the Ameri[F]actors Bureau Order," the Plaintiffs request in the alternative that the Court certify the following classes: Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a facsimile on a stand-alone telephone facsimile machine on or about December 18-23, 2015, stating "Happy Holiday" and inviting recipients to apply for an "Exclusive Doctors Club World Elite MasterCard" credit card, where the fax either (a) contains no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future faxes; or (b) contains an opt-out notice stating: "Recipient may Opt Out of any future faxes by emailing a request to OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949.202.1777"; and Online Fax Service Class "all persons or entities who were successfully sent a facsimile via an "online fax service" on or about December 18-23, 2015, stating "Happy Holiday" and inviting recipients to apply for an "Exclusive Doctors Club World Elite MasterCard" credit card, where the fax either (a) contains no "opt-out notice" explaining how to stop future faxes; or (b) contains an opt-out notice stating: "Recipient may Opt Out of any future faxes by emailing a request to OptOut@TheDrClub.com or by calling 949.202.1777." In this alternative scenario, the Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint “Scoma and [Dr.] Gress to represent the Stand-Alone Fax Machine Class and Mussat to represent the Online Fax Service Class." MasterCard International provides payment processing products. The Company offers products including, credit, debit, prepaid, personal, commercial, chip, and contactless cards, as well as offers security and fraud management services. A copy of the report and recommendation dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aKZ2C7 at no extra charge.[CC] MAVENIR INC: Magistrate Judge Endorses Dismissal of Wayne ERS Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WAYNE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of Itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAVENIR, INC. F/K/A XURA, INC., PHILIPPE TARTAVULL, HENRY R. NOTHHAFT, SUSAN D. BOWICK, JAMES BUDGE, NICCOLO DE MASI, MATTHEW A. DRAPKIN, DORON INBAR, and MARK C. TERRELL, Defendants, Case No. 18-1229-CFC (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the Court: (i) grants the motion to dismiss filed by Mavenir and the Outside Director Defendants; and (ii) grants the motion to dismiss filed by Mr. Tartavull without prejudice. On Aug. 10, 2018, Plaintiff Wayne County Employees' Retirement System initiated the action against the Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act arising from the dissemination of allegedly false or misleading proxy materials in connection with a merger transaction between Siris Capital Group, LLC4 and Xura. Xura, which offered products and services to telecommunications companies and other businesses, became a publicly traded company in 2012. As president and CEO of Xura, Mr. Tartavull initiated discussions with Siris about a potential merger transaction beginning in October 2013. In January 2015, Siris expressed interest in acquiring Xura for $24 per share, but then reduced its offer to $20 to $22 per share the following month after conducting due diligence. Xura's board rejected Siris' proposal on Feb. 11, 2015. Siris submitted another indication of interest to Xura in October 2015, proposing an acquisition price of $30 to $32.50 per share. Xura's board again rejected the proposal. Siris thereafter increased its proposal to $35 per share. In November 2015, Xura retained Goldman Sachs as its financial advisor to continue negotiations with Siris. Siris sent a letter reaffirming its $35 per share offer on Dec. 2, 2015. The following day, the Xura board formed a "Strategic Committee" comprised of Mr. Tartavull, Mr. Nothhaft, and Mr. Drapkin to "review, evaluate and negotiate the terms of a potential transaction with Siris and to make certain decisions between meetings of the board of directors." Xura and Siris held a series of due diligence sessions starting in January 2016. On Jan. 25, 2016, Mr. Tartavull spoke with Frank Baker, a managing partner at Siris, without disclosing the conversation to Goldman Sachs. He had a number of other undisclosed conversations with Siris personnel, despite a request by Goldman Sachs to be included in all such conversations. Goldman Sachs reached out to numerous other potential bidders in January 2016, and four of those potential bidders executed nondisclosure agreements. On Feb. 18, 2016, Siris advised Goldman Sachs that it intended to reduce its offer price as a result of negative findings in the due diligence process. In a February 24, 2016 meeting between Mr. Tartavull and Mr. Baker that was not disclosed to the Strategic Committee, the Xura board, or Goldman Sachs, Mr. Tartavull suggested that Siris revise its merger price to $28 per share. The following day, Siris revised its offer from $35 per share to $28 per share. Mr. Tartavull continued to have direct communications with Siris without notifying Goldman Sachs. On March 13, 2016, the Carlyle Group provided Goldman Sachs with an indication of interest between $26 and $27 per share, conditioned on the results of its due diligence analysis. In response, Goldman Sachs pressured the Carlyle Group to raise its price to $28 per share and speed along any remaining due diligence. The Carlyle Group then dropped out of the bidding process, and Xura and Siris entered into an exclusivity agreement that prevented Xura from soliciting additional offers. Siris continued to lower its offer price during the exclusivity period, and Xura and Siris eventually came to an agreement on a price of $25 per share. Xura publicly announced that it was in negotiations to sell itself for $25 per share to an unnamed entity on April 15, 2016. Francisco Partners then expressed interest in competing to bid on Xura. But instead of submitting a competing proposal, Francisco Partners contacted Siris about a potential co-investment to buy Xura, which never materialized. The board approved the merger agreement to sell Xura to Siris for $25 per share on May 22, 2016. On the following day, Xura and Siris executed the merger agreement and formally announced the merger. Xura filed its preliminary proxy statement with the Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") on June 28, 2016, and the final proxy statement was filed on July 12, 2016. On July 26, 2016, Xura filed its supplemental proxy statement with the SEC. The record date for Xura shareholders to be eligible to vote on the merger was July 11, 2016. The shareholders voted to approve the merger on Aug. 16, 2016, and the merger closed three days later after a majority of Xura shareholders voted to approve the merger. Four months later, Mr. Tartavull left his position as CEO of Xura. Presently before the Court in the action for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 are the following motions: (1) the motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), filed by Defendants Mavenir and outside directors Henry R. Nothhaft, Susan D. Bowick, James Budge, Niccolo De Masi, Matthew A. Drapkin, Doron Inbar, and Mark C. Terrell; and (2) the motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), filed by Defendant Tartavull. The Defendants first argue that the amended complaint should be dismissed for lack of standing because the Plaintiff does not adequately allege an injury-in-fact. According to them, the Plaintiff's allegation that it owned Xura stock on the record date of the merger is not sufficient to support an award of post-closing damages. They contend that the lack of pleaded allegations regarding the Plaintiff's participation in the merger or actual receipt of inadequate merger consideration for the Xura shares are fatal to the claims. In response, the Plaintiff contends that the amended complaint adequately pleads an injury-in-fact because it contains allegations that the false or misleading proxy materials caused Plaintiff to accept the inadequate merger consideration, resulting in Plaintiff's economic loss. It submits a declaration with its responsive brief establishing that it owned Xura shares through the closing of the merger on Aug. 19, 2016. Magistrate Judge Fallon recommends that the Court grants the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion. She finds that the amended complaint does not expressly allege that the Plaintiff owned Xura shares on the closing date of the merger, or that it actually received the allegedly inadequate merger consideration. The fact that the amended complaint specifically alleges the Plaintiff's ownership of the stock on the record date of the merger, but remains silent on its ownership interests on the closing date of the merger, does not suffice to show the existence of an injury-in-fact. The Defendants then allege that the amended pleading fails to state a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, which prohibits soliciting a shareholder's vote in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe. The parties dispute whether the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") extend to the Plaintiff's cause of action under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, which sounds in negligence. Consistent with recent case authority from the assigned District Judge in the matter, Magistrate Judge Fallon recommends that the Court applies the heightened pleading standard of the PSLRA to the Plaintiff's securities claims because the text of the statute expressly provides that it applies "in any private action arising under the Exchange Act." Accordingly, the Plaintiff must "plead the who, what, when, where and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story." Under either pleading standard, however, the amended complaint in the case fails to adequately plead a material misstatement or omission in the proxy materials. Finally, the Defendants contend that the amended complaint fails to plead "control person" liability against Mr. Tartavull under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. To state a claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must first plead "a primary violation of the federal securities laws by a controlled For the reasons she set forth, Magistrate Judge Fallon finds that the amended complaint fails to adequately plead a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. Consequently, she recommends the dismissal of the Plaintiff's cause of action under Section 20(a). For the reasons she discussed, Magistrate Judge Fallon recommended that the Court grants the Defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice. The parties may serve and file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. The objections and responses to the objections are limited to 10 pages each. 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 Oct. 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the Court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/rt4nj98t from Leagle.com. MDL 2670: Court Stays Proceedings in Antitrust Suit for 14 Days --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Joint Motion for Approval of Stipulation for Stay of Proceedings and Extension of Time to File Renewed Motion to Seal. The document relates to: DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION. The Joint Motion is filed by Defendants Tri-Union Seafoods LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International and Thai Union Group PCL (together "COSI Defendants") and the Direct Purchaser Class ("DPPs"). The COSI Defendants and DPPs have reached a settlement in principle. Pending the completion of a long-form settlement agreement, which will be presented to the Court for approval, they request a stay of essentially all proceedings as to COSI Defendants, and approval of a stipulation to enter a set-aside order as requested by DPPs in their pending motion. Although the parties have shown good cause for a stay of limited scope and duration, Judge Sammartino finds that the relief they request is presented in vague and open-ended terms. Accordingly, she granted the Joint Motion insofar as the Court granted a 14-day stay. In all other respects, she denied the Joint Motion without prejudice to applying for an extension upon the expiration of 14 days, provided the parties comply with the terms of the Order. The Order stayed for 14 days all discovery and pre-trial deadlines as they relate to COSI Defendants. If the parties wish to extend the stay, they must identify the pending deadlines, including the most recent scheduling order setting them. The parties seek a stay of seven summary judgments and Daubert motions listed in the Joint Motion but only to the extent that they concern the COSI Defendants and not any other Defendant or party to the litigation. While Judge Sammartino is not inclined to decide issues that are no longer relevant, she is equally disinclined from considering the already-briefed, interrelated motions in a piecemeal fashion. Accordingly, a stay beyond 14 days is denied, unless COSI Defendants and DPPs can carve out and justify discrete, logical portions by identifying specific filings by docket and page numbers. If they can, those filings or portions of filings will not be considered. Judge Sammartino will also not consider those filings or portions of filings at a later time, unless they are wholly independent of the other summary judgment and Daubert issues. The parties further request an order that the COSI Defendants are excused from participating in any hearings on summary judgment and/or Daubert motions. No party has been ordered to participate in hearings. Hence, Judge Sammartino denied the request as premature. The parties also request a stay of any motion concerning the sealing of documents associated with the seven listed summary judgment and Daubert motions as to the COSI Defendants only until the COSI Defendants have an additional opportunity to file a renewed motion to seal documents. Judge Sammartino ordered that any such renewed motion will be filed not later than Feb.y 4, 2021. The COSI Defendants have already filed two renewed motions to seal. They are granted leave to file a third renewed motion to seal no later than Feb. 4, 2021, on condition that they file a notice withdrawing their second renewed motion to seal. Finally, the parties request Court approval of their stipulation for "the entry of the order proposed by DPPs in their Set Aside Motion as to the COSI Defendants, with the right to move to vacate the Order if the settlement is not finally approved." Judge Sammartino finds that the COSI Defendants have not filed an opposition to DPPs' Set Aside Motion. They have therefore consented to granting the relief requested in the motion. Accordingly, on the present record, the Judge is not inclined to consider any motion filed by the COSI Defendants to vacate an order on DPPs' Set Aside Motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/1watdho0 from Leagle.com. MDL 2873: Adams Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ---------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY G. ADAMS 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-00173-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 allegedly 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 Adams case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Basaca Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ----------------------------------------------------------- MARCO ANTONIO BASACA 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-00169-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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. Allegedly, 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 Basaca case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS -------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS LEE COX 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-00178-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint asserts that 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 Cox case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Espinoza Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE ESPINOZA 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-00176-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint asserts that 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 Espinoza case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Jacobson Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK STEVEN JACOBSON 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-00170-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further asserts that 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 Jacobson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Martinez Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------- SAMMY CABEZUELA MARTINEZ 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-00174-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further asserts that 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 Martinez case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: McManis Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID MICHAEL MCMANIS 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-00177-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further contends that 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 McManis case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Morgan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ----------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY JOSEPH MORGAN 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-00171-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further contends that 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 Morgan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Roddy Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ---------------------------------------------------------- DUANE RODDY 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-00175-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further asserts that 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 Roddy case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2873: Sumption Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic PFAS ------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER RAY SUMPTION 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-00172-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 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 complaint further asserts that 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 Sumption case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. The 3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, US health care, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 - and - J. Edward Bell, III, Esq. Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 25442 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 MDL 2875: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Complaints Over HBP Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Actions, MDL No. 2875 (RBK/KW) (D.N.J.), Judge Rober B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, issued Opinion 4 that resolved the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Master Complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) for various claim specific deficiencies. The Multi-District Litigation involves the sale of a generic blood pressure medication found to be contaminated with probable human carcinogens. Millions of Americans suffer from high blood pressure. Two common medications used to treat the condition are Diovan and Diovan HCT and Exforge and Exforge HCT. The case involves their generic counterparts, Valsartan and its combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide and Amlodipinevalsartan and its combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (collectively the valsartan-containing drugs or "VCDs"). While generic drugs are supposed to be bioequivalent to their brand-name counterparts, at some point these VCDs were found to be contaminated with probable human carcinogens known as N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA") and N-nitrosodiethylamine ("NDEA"). This led to a recall of the VCDs in July of 203.8. The current lawsuits stem from the Defendants' manufacturing, promotion, and sale of the VCDs and their subsequent recall. The Plaintiffs, consumers and Third-Party Payors ("TPP") who purchased or made reimbursements for the Defendants' contaminated VCDs, brought an economic damage and a medical monitoring class action against Defendants. They also brought a personal injury action against defendants, which are entities with various and sometimes overlapping roles within the supply chain. They include the manufacturers ("Manufacturing Defendants") of the drug (both the manufacturers of the active pharmaceutical ingredient and the manufacturers that make the finished drug product), the wholesalers ("Wholesaler Defendants") who obtain the finished drug product and resell it to retailers, and consumer-level distributors ("Pharmacy Defendants"). Lawsuits quickly followed the recalls of the VCDs. Approximately, 75 actions that were pending in 20 different jurisdictions were consolidated and transferred to the Court for pretrial proceedings. These jurisdictions included: (1) Louisiana; (2) New York; (3) New Jersey; (4) Missouri; (5) Tennessee; (6) Illinois; (7) California; (8) Alabama; (9) Arkansas; (10) Florida; (1A) Georgia; (12) Indiana; (13) Massachusetts; (14) Minnesota; (15) Ohio; (16) Pennsylvania; (17) Mississippi; (18) Kansas; (19) Kentucky; and (20) Michigan. After the Court issued its direct filing order, approximately7 19 were directly filed into the MDL. These cases include both individual and class actions. The Plaintiffs filed three Master Complaints in the MDL (the Economic Loss Master Complaint ("ELMC"), the Personal Injury Master Complaint ("PIMC"), and the Medical Monitoring Master Complaint ("MMMC")) for administrative convenience and asserted a number of claims against the Manufacturer, Wholesaler, and Pharmacy Defendants. In the ELMC, the Plaintiffs allege six fraud based claims: (1) affirmative misrepresentation, omission, and concealment individually and on behalf of consumer class members against all the Defendants; (2) affirmative misrepresentation, omission, and concealment individually and on behalf of the TPP class members against all the Defendants except the pharmacy defendants; (3) negligent misrepresentation and omission individually and on behalf of consumer class members against all the Defendants; (4) negligent misrepresentation and omission individually and on behalf of TPP class members against all the Defendants except the pharmacy Defendants; (5) violation of the state consumer protection statutes individually and on behalf of consumer class members against all the Defendants; and (5) violation of the state consumer protection statutes individually and on behalf of the TPP class members against all the Defendants except the pharmacy Defendants. In the MMMC, the Plaintiffs allege one claim of fraud/fraudulent concealment individually and on behalf of the class against all the Defendants. In the PIMC, the Plaintiffs allege fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the state consumer protection statutes claims against all the Defendants. The Plaintiffs also brought products liability claims against the Defendants. In the PIMC, the Plaintiffs asserted a strict liability design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn claim. In the MMMC, they only asserted strict liability manufacturing defect and failure claims. The Plaintiffs did not assert any products liability claims in the ELMC. The Manufacturer, Wholesaler and Pharmacy Defendants all moved to dismiss the Master Complaints under Rule 12(b)(6) for various claim specific deficiencies. The Wholesalers and Pharmacy Defendants also argued that all products liability claims against them should be dismissed under various state innocent seller statutes. The parties' submissions (without a hearing in accordance with Rule 78.1 (b)) relate to the fraud-based claims, including negligent misrepresentation, and on the strict liability claims for failure to warn and for design defect. Because the MTDs seek dismissal of several claims for each set of Plaintiffs, the Court is issuing a series of opinions to resolve the motions. Each opinion will be numbered with the instant Opinion being the fourth in the series. Judge Kugler ruled as follows on the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the Master Complaints on the fraud-based claims, including negligent misrepresentation, and on the strict liability claims for failure to warn and for design defect: A. As for the Fraud-based Claims: a. Against the Manufacturing Defendants: Judge Kugler denied the Manufacturing Defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud-based claims frudulent misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment; fraud by omission; state consumer protection statute claims that sound in fraud) as well as the negligent misrepresentation claims, in the ELMC, the PIMC, and the MMMC. b. Against the Wholesaler Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants: The Judge granted the Pharmacy Defendants' and the Wholesaler Defendants' motions to dismiss the fraud-based claims (fraudulent misrepresentation; fraudulent concealment; fraud by omission; state consumer protection statute claims that sound in fraud) in the ELMC, the PIMC, and the MMMC. He dismissed these claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend these Master Complaints as to the fraud-based claims against the Pharmacy Defendants and the Wholesaler Defendants, according to the deadline set forth in the accompanying Order. B. As for the Negligent Misrepresentation Claims: a. Against the Wholesaler Defendants and the Pharmacy Defendants: Judge Kugler granted the Pharmacy Defendants' and the Wholesaler Defendants' motions to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claims in the in the ELMC, the PIMC, and the MMMC. He dismissed these claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may file a motion for leave to amend these Master Complaints as to the negligent misrepresentation claims against the Pharmacy Defendants and the Wholesaler Defendants, according to the deadline set forth in the accompanying Order. C. As for Strict Liability-Design Defect Claims Relating to Manufacturing Defect: a. Against the Manufacturing Defendants in the PIMC: Judge Lugler granted the Manufacturing Defendants' motion to dismiss the strict liability-manufacturing defect claim in the PIMC that arise under the laws of Delaware, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. He dismissed these claims with prejudice. D. As for Strict Liability-Design Defect Claims NOT Relating to Manufacturing Defect: Judge Kugler denied the Manufacturing Defendants' motion to dismiss the strict liability-design defect claims in the PIMC that arise under the laws of states that do NOT prohibit strict liability-design defect claims. E. As For Strict Liability-Failure To Warn Claims in the PIMC and MMMC: a. Against Manufacturing Defendants: Judge Kugler denied the Manufacturing Defendants' motion to dismiss the strict liability-failure to warn claims in the PIMC and the MMMC that arise under the laws of states that do not prohibit strict liability failure to warn claims. He granted the Manufacturing Defendants' motion to dismiss the strict liability-failure to warn claims in the PIMC and the MMMC that arise under the laws of states that prohibit liability failure to warn claims. b. Against Wholesaler and Pharmacy Defendants: Judge Kugler denied the Wholesaler Defendants' and the Pharmacy Defendants' motions to dismiss the strict liability-failure to warn claims in the PIMC and the MMMC. These Defendants, at a later, appropriate stage of these proceedings, may raise the issue with the Court by way of a motion for summary judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy7u72np from Leagle.com. MELTECH INC: Must Appear at Feb. 19 Contempt Hearing in Grove Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ANDREA GROVE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals; and CHRYSTINA WINCHELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals; Plaintiffs v. MELTECH, Inc.; H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., and SHANE HARRINGTON, Defendants, Case No. 8:20CV193 (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ordered the Defendants to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt at a hearing before the Judge on Feb. 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. The case is a conditional collective class action for recovery of wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act. On Dec. 3, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and ordered the Defendants to produce names and contact information for collective action members within 14 days of the date of that order. The Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on Jan. 12, 2021, ordering them to respond to its earlier order by Jan. 19, 2021. In that order, the Court also ordered the Defendants to obtain local counsel. The Defendants have not complied with those orders to date. The Plaintiffs seek an order finding the Defendants in civil contempt, directing the Defendants to comply with the order on conditional certification, and impose a monetary fine against them in the Court's discretion. Judge Bataillon explains that if the Court finds clear and convincing evidence of civil contempt, it may impose sanctions either to coerce the Defendant into compliance with a court order or to compensate the complainant for losses sustained, or both. But before a district court may impose sanctions, the Defendant must receive notice that sanctions against it are being considered and an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, Judge Bataillon finds that a hearing on the Plaintiffs' civil contempt motion will benefit the Court. Accordingly, he ordered the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion and renewed motion for civil contempt within 14 days of the date of his Order. The Defendants will appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt at a hearing before the Judge on Feb. 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yk4j2un5 from Leagle.com. MELTON TRUCK: Faces Williams Suit Over Illegal Prerecorded Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONICA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MELTON TRUCK LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00838-JAK-AFM (C.D. Cal, January 29, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant send pre-recorded call to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (626)-343-XXXX on September 9, 2020 in an attempt to offer information regarding a job working for the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not provide her prior express consent to the Defendant to receive such calls, and she did not inquire about any job offered by the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited calls, the Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed because their privacy has been violated, their telephone lines and telephones have been occupied, they were annoyed and harassed, and they were charged of incoming calls. On his own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Class, the Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining the Defendant and its affiliates, agents and related entities from using pre-recorded messages to call cellular telephones, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, just and proper. Melton Truck Lines, Inc. offers trucking and shipping services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Tel: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com MERCEDES-BENZ US: Spitzley Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SPITZLEY and JESSIE STALLWORTH, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries, in and on behalf of the MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC. RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC. RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE FOR THE MERCEDESBENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL, INC. RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS PLAN, and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 7:21-cv-00074-RDP (N.D. Ala., Jan. 15, 2021) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for the benefit of the Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan and its participants, including the Plaintiffs, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA against the Plan's fiduciaries. According to the complaint, Defendants caused the Plan to pay unreasonable and excessive fees for retirement plan services in relation to the services being provided to the Plan, instead of leveraging the Plan's substantial bargaining power to benefit Plan participants and beneficiaries. Allegedly, Defendants breached their duties by failing to monitor the retirement plan service fees paid by the Plan to ensure that they were reasonable, failing to understand the methodology by which fee payments such as revenue sharing are paid to retirement service providers, failing to take standard and customary actions to understand the market for retirement plan services in order to monitor for reasonableness the retirement plan service fees paid by the Plan in relation to the retirement plan services received, and failing to monitor the fees of plan investment advisory service providers paid by the Plan to ensure that they were reasonable. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. (MBUSI) is a Mercedes-Benz automobile manufacturing plant near Vance, Alabama. As the Plan administrator, MBUSI is a fiduciary responsible for day-to-day administration and operation of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Eubank, Esq. W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III , Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: james.eubank@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - Franklin D. Azar, Esq. Paul R. Wood, Esq. FRANKLIN D. AZAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 14426 East Evans Avenue Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: (303) 757-3300 Facsimile: (720) 213-5131 E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com woodp@fdazar.com - and - Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: sas@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com MERCK & CO: Carl Sues Over Undisclosed Zostavax Vaccine Risks ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID L. CARL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00444-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentations, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed, developed, marketed, and sold by Merck with the intended purpose of preventing shingles. The patient information sheet, as well as the label and prescribing information for Zostavax, did not adequately, if at all, address the risk of viral infection. Despite the potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and within a relatively short period of time developing an infection, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to the patient and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Lovett, Esq. Michael Goetz, Esq. T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4737 E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com MGoetz@ForThePeople.com MMorgan@ForThePeople.com MERCK & CO: Irons Suit Alleges Distribution of Harmful Vaccine -------------------------------------------------------------- NATALIE IRONS, individually and as the administrator of the estate of KAREN LEE LUMMUS, deceased, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00465-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, wrongful death, and punitive damages. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed, developed, marketed, and sold by Merck with the intended purpose of preventing shingles. The patient information sheet, as well as the label and prescribing information for Zostavax, did not adequately, if at all, address the risk of viral infection. Despite the potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and within a relatively short period of time developing an infection, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to the patient and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged negligent misrepresentations, the decedent suffered amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and untimely died on February 2, 2019. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Lovett, Esq. Michael Goetz, Esq. T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4737 E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com MGoetz@ForThePeople.com MMorgan@ForThePeople.com MERCK & CO: Lewis Class Suit Alleges Defective Zostavax Vaccine --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES FRANKLIN LEWIS and LINDA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ CORP (FICTITIOUS NAMES), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00448-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, punitive damages, and loss of consortium. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark T. Sadaka, Esq., Michael H. Bowman, Esq. SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC 155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 266-5670 Facsimile: (201) 266-5671 E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com MERCK & CO: McPheeters Sues Over Failure to Warn on Vaccine's Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLITA MCPHEETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ CORP (FICTITIOUS NAMES), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00445-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Sadaka, Esq., Michael H. Bowman, Esq. SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC 155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 266-5670 Facsimile: (201) 266-5671 E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine "Defective," Looney Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA LOONEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00450-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed, developed, marketed, and sold by Merck with the intended purpose of preventing shingles. The patient information sheet, as well as the label and prescribing information for Zostavax, did not adequately, if at all, address the risk of viral infection. Despite the potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and within a relatively short period of time developing an infection, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to the patient and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Lovett, Esq. Michael Goetz, Esq. T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4737 E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com MGoetz@ForThePeople.com MMorgan@ForThePeople.com MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Lemarr Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARY F. LEMARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00462-HB (E.D. Pa., February 01, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Lovett, Esq. Michael Goetz, Esq. T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-4737 E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com MGoetz@ForThePeople.com MMorgan@ForThePeople.com MERCK & CO: Zostavax Vaccine Causes Viral Infection, Singer Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JERI L. SINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; and XYZ CORP (FICTITIOUS NAMES), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00494-HB (E.D. Pa., February 03, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection, resulting from its use, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment and injury. Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey. Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Sadaka, Esq., Michael H. Bowman, Esq. SADAKA ASSOCIATES, LLC 155 North Dean Street, Suite 4-D Englewood, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 266-5670 Facsimile: (201) 266-5671 E-mail: mark@sadakafirm.com MICHIGAN: Tippins Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tippins V. Warden Les Parish, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00045-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class action. The Plaintiff contends that prison officials spread the COVID-19 at Oaks Correctional Facility. There are 40 inmates that has contracted the virus because the Officials release the inmates -- who where quarantine for 10 and were not even given vitamins – back I general population, thus spreading the virus. Oaks Correctional Facility is a Michigan Department of Corrections facility in Manistee Township, Michigan, near Manistee. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2MCxV4mat no extra charge.[CC] MIDWESTERN PET: Faces Johnson Suit Over Contaminated Pet Food -------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MIDWESTERN PET FOODS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00009-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., Jan. 15, 2021) is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and a class of purchasers of dog and cat food manufactured, marketed and distributed by the Defendant, which contain Aflatoxin, a toxin produced by the mold variety Aspergillus flavus. The complaint alleges that despite Defendant's claim that its products are high quality, when pets ingest the pet food that is contaminated with Aflatoxin, it can result in serious medical peril, including vomiting, loss of appetite, jaundice, diarrhea, colitis, liver damage, and death. As a result of Defendant's business practices, Plaintiff's and Class members' purchases of Midwestern Pet Food have caused them to suffer an ascertainable loss of money and/or property, the suit says. Based in Evansville, Indiana, Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes, sells and warrants pet foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Lori G. Kier, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF, LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com lgk@sstriallawyers.com MIKE BLOOMBERG: Myrick Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramzi Abed, et al., v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02231-CBM-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Consuelo B. Marshall entered an order denying the Plaintiff Christopher Myrick's Motion motion to certify class without prejudice. If the Plaintiff chooses to file a motion for class certification, a notice motion must be filed no later than March 1, 2021, says the Court. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time to file Motion for Class Certification on November 24, 2020, and requested that the Court extend the deadline from December 3, 2020 to January 22. 2021. On December 3, 2020, while the stipulation was still pending, the Plaintiff Myrick filed the Motion. The Plaintiff Myrick states in his reply filed in support of the motion to certify the class that he received "key facts" regarding third-party software text-messaging systems from the Defendant four days before the Motion deadline, and Plaintiffs Michael Flowers and Lauren Levitt "intend to file a supplemental motion for class certification" based on that information. Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc. is the principal campaign committee of Michael Bloomberg, a businessman and former mayor of New York City. The campaign committee began when he filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission for the office of President of the United States as a member of the Democratic Party on November 21, 2019. A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rpHDFU at no extra charge.[CC] MIKE STINSON: Brice High-Interest Loans Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMETRA BRICE, EARL BROWNE, and JILL NOVOROT, v. MIKE STINSON,et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-01481-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 10, 2021 to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all individuals who resided in California at the time he or she: (i) obtained a loan(s) from Great Plains Lending, (ii) obtained a loan(s) from Plain Green prior to June 1, 2016, or (iii) obtained a cash advance(s) from MobiLoans prior to May 6, 2017, and made a payment in excess of 10% interest on the loan; 2. appointing themselves as class representatives on all claims; 3. appointing Kelly Guzzo, PLC, Tycko & Zavareei LLP,and Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. as class counsel; and 4. directing the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified classes. This case involves a notorious payday lending company, Think Finance, which was one of the pioneers of the tribal lending model. After federal regulators shut down its rent-a-bank arrangement, Think Finance started to look for "small easy to control" tribes that it could use as the conduit for its illegal loans. To recruit tribes, Think Finance touted that it had "a unique turnkey solution for helping tribes enter this lucrative market," which would allow the participating tribes "to generate millions of dollars in cash flow with no investment in technology, lending capital, or marketing costs, and with no risk of loss." Think Finance found and contracted with three tribes to participate in its scheme and, beginning in 2011, it started originating high-interest loans in the names of new brands: Plain Green, Great Plains Lending, and MobiLoans. These three tribal entities that served as the fronts for Think Finance's alleged illegal loans. The Defendants -- the founders, funders, and closely held owners of Think Finance -- aided, abetted, facilitated, and oversaw Think Finance's scheme, and they received millions of dollars as a result. The Plaintiffs are California consumers, who in a moment of desperation, took out high-interest loans with Plain Green, Great Plains, and/or MobiLoans. Each of Plaintiffs' loans carried triple-digit interest rates -- often more than 40 times the 10% interest rate cap set forth in California's Constitution. The Defendants include LINDA STINSON; THE STINSON 2009 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY TRUST; 7HBF NO. 2, LTD.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE PARTNERS, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL IX, L.P; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH FUND III, L.P.; SEQUOIA ENTREPRENEURS ANNEX FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH III PRINCIPALS FUND, LLC; SEQUOIA CAPITAL FRANCHISE FUND, L.P.; SEQUOIA CAPITAL GROWTH PARTNERS III, LP.; STARTUP CAPITAL VENTURES, L.P.; and STEPHEN J. SHAPER. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p12vS2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna C. Haac, Esq. Mark A. Clifford, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com mclifford@tzlegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew Guzzo, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com - and - Sabita Soneji, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone (510) 254-6808 Facsimile (510) 210-0571 E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Amy Leigh Austin, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com amyaustin@clalegal.com MILAD'S KITCHEN: Faces Ariannezhad Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- REZA ARIANNEZHAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILAD'S KITCHEN CORPORATION, d/b/a WEST VILLAGE CAFE, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV04133 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, and failure to reimburse business expenses. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as Website designer and social media marketing representative from on or about August 2, 2020 until on or about November 20, 2020. Milad's Kitchen Corporation, doing business as West Village Cafe, Inc., is a restaurant owner and operator in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zavosh Rashidi, Esq. RASHIDI LAW, PC 22020 Ventura Blvd. Ste. A Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (833) 727-4434 Facsimile: (213) 289-1957 E-mail: zavosh@rashidilaw.com MISSION CONSTRUCTORS: Acosta Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mission Constructors, Inc., et al. The case is styled as VICTOR HUGO ACOSTA and VICTOR MONTANO, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated v. MISSION CONSTRUCTORS, INC., a California corporation, JAIME MACIEL GONZALEZ, an individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. CGC21589188 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 20, 2021). The case arises from claims made by non-exempt employees. A case management conference is set for June 23, 2021 before Judge Samuel K. Feng. Mission Constructors, Inc. provides construction services. The Company constructs commercial, corporate, liturgical, industrial, institutional, retail, parks, and recreation facilities, as well as subcontractor management and field engineering services. Mission Constructors serves clients in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Palau, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP 212 9th St., Ste 314 Oakland, CA 94607-4479 Telephone: (510) 269-4200 Facsimile: (510) 269-4200 E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com MOOREGROUP: Seeks Extension to File Opposition on Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Porter v. MooreGroup Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07405-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order extending their time to serve their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In the Letter Motion, the Defendants' counsel says, "the current deadline for the Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' motion is February 5,2021. Unfortunately, one of our colleagues recently contracted COVID-19 and has been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. As a result, the Defendants' counsel is short-staffed and respectfully requests a one week extension of time, until February 12, 2021, to respond to Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel consents to the one week extension and advised they were open to discussing a further extension, if circumstances demanded same. This is the first request for an extension of time to serve the Defendants' opposition. The Plaintiffs' deadline to serve the reply papers and for the parties to upload the motion papers via ECF would be extended from February 12,2021 to February 19,2021." Mooregroup is carrier company. A copy of the Letter Motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rCjtrV at no extra charge.[CC] MOUNTAIN STATE: Davis Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the following collective action, pursuant to 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 in the three years prior to the date of this Order (the Putative Collective Members); and 2. approving the Parties' proposed forms for notice to the Putative Collective Members, consent to join, email notification, and reminder postcard. The Court further orders that the Parties follow the following schedule in connection with notice to the Putative Collective Members: Deadline Subject 10 Days from the The Defendant to provide to date of this Order: the Plaintiffs Counsel in Excel (xlsx) format the 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 the date The Plaintiff's Counsel shall of this Order: send a copy of the Coutt-approved Notice 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 Plaintiffs Counsel shall close of the: send a reminder notice to the Notice period Putative Collective Members by First Class U.S. Mail using only the form of Reminder Postcard 60 Days from mailing The Putative Collective Members of Notice and Consent shall have 60 days to return Forms to Putative their signed Consent forms Collective Members: to the Plaintiff's Counsel for filing with the Court. Mountain States Pressure is an oil and gas service company headquartered at 28 Wilkins Peak Drive, Rock Springs, Wyoming. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tDHzUY at no extra charge.[CC] MPC HOLDINGS: Morris Seeks to Certify Class of Day Rate Inspectors ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCUS MORRIS, v. MPC HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A PLATTE RIVER INSPECTION SERVICES, Case No. 1:20-cv-02840-CMA-NYW (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice be sent to: "all current and former inspectors who worked for or on behalf of Platte River Inspection Services and who were paid according to its day rate pay plan in the past three years ("Day Rate Inspectors"); The Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. In fact, they regularly worked 50-84 hours per week. Despite the Plaintiff and the Day Rate Inspectors regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they never received any overtime compensation, says the complaint. Platte River offers inspection services that span all aspects of inspection -- from pipeline and facility construction to maintenance and operational requests, as well as safety and environmental oversight. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3pYGvsBat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Defendant is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Carl A. Fitz, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com cfitz@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 NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES: Claims Distribution in Securities Suit OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re NAMASTE TECHNOLOGIES INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:18-CV-10830-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan. The Judge adopted the administrative recommendations of the Court-approved Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services ("SCS") to accept the Timely Eligible Claims set forth in Exhibit B-1 to the Bravata Declaration and the Late But Otherwise Eligible Claims set forth in Exhibit B-2 to the Bravata Declaration. He also adopted the Claims Administrator's administrative recommendations to reject the inadequately documented claims that have not been successfully cured and wholly ineligible Claims as set forth in Exhibits D and E to the Bravata Declaration. In support of the motion, the Plaintiffs submitted materials and arguments, including the Declaration of Josephine Bravata in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Distribution Plan (the "Bravata Declaration" or "Bravata Decl."). SCS is directed to distribute 100% of the Net Settlement Fund, after deducting all payments previously allowed and the payments approved by the Court in the Order, and after deducting payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, to Authorized Claimants who would receive at least $10 based on their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund, which is based on each Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim as compared to the Total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants as set forth in paragraph 9(a)-(b) of the Bravata Declaration and the Court-approved Plan of Allocation. In order to encourage Authorized Claimants to promptly cash their checks, all Distribution checks will bear the following notation: cash promptly, void and subject to re-distribution 180 days after issue date. Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Distribution checks within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit all recovery from the Settlement unless good cause is shown, and the funds allocated to all such stale-dated checks will be available to be re-distributed to other Authorized Claimants, if the Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determine that it is cost-effective to conduct a second distribution. Similarly, Authorized Claimants who do not cash their second or subsequent distributions (should such distributions occur) within the time allotted will irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the Net Settlement Fund unless good cause is shown. After SCS has made reasonable and diligent efforts to have Authorized Claimants cash their Distribution checks, but no earlier than eight months after the Distribution, SCS shall, if the Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determine that it is cost effective to do so, conduct a second distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, in which any amounts remaining in the Net Settlement Fund after the Distribution, after deducting SCS's fees and expenses incurred in connection with administering the Settlement for which it has not yet been paid (including the estimated costs of such Second Distribution), and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be distributed to all Authorized Claimants in the Distribution who cashed their Distribution check and who would receive at least $10 from such re-distribution based on their pro rata share of the remaining funds. Additional re-distributions, after deduction of costs and expenses as described above and subject to the same conditions, may occur until Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determine that further re-distribution is not cost effective. At such time as the Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS, determines that further re-distribution of the funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund is not cost effective, and if any funds will remain in the Net Settlement Fund after the payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection with administering the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, will be contributed to non-sectarian, not-for-profit organization(s), to be recommended by Lead Counsel and approved by the Court. Judge Woods ordered that no new Claims will be accepted after July 31, 2020, and no further adjustments to Claims received on or before July 31, 2020, that would result in an increased recognized claim amount will be made for any reason after July 31, 2020, subject to the following exception. If Proofs of Claim are received or modified after July 31, 2020, that would have been eligible for payment or additional payment under the Plan of Allocation if timely received then, at the time that the Lead Counsel, in consultation with SCS determines that a re-distribution is not cost effective as provided, after the payment of any unpaid fees or expenses incurred in connection with administering the Net Settlement Fund and after the payment of any estimated taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any escrow fees, such claimants, at the discretion of the Lead Counsel, may be paid their distribution amounts or additional distribution amounts on a pro rata basis that would bring them into parity with other Authorized Claimants who have cashed all their prior distribution checks to the extent possible. No responses to deficiency and/or rejection notices received after Jan. 26, 2021 will be accepted. All persons involved in the review, verification, calculation, tabulation, or any other aspect of the processing of the Proofs of Claim Forms submitted in the Action, or who are otherwise involved in the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, are released and discharged from any and all claims arising out of such involvement, and all Settlement Class Members, whether or not they receive payment from the Net Settlement Fund, are barred from making any further Claims against the Net Settlement Fund, the Plaintiffs, the Lead Counsel, the Additional Counsel, the Stanford Consulting Group, Inc., the Claims Administrator, the Escrow Agent or any other agent retained by the Plaintiffs or the Lead Counsel in connection with the administration or taxation of the Settlement Fund or the Net Settlement Fund, or any other person released pursuant to the Settlement beyond the amounts allocated to Authorized Claimants. All of SCS' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the administration of the Settlement and estimated to be incurred in connection with the settlement are approved, and the Lead Counsel is directed to pay the outstanding balance of $11,939.50 in additional fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund to SCS to conduct the initial distribution. Finally, Judge Woods ordered that unless otherwise ordered by the Court, one year after the final distribution date, SCS will destroy the paper copies of the Proofs of Claim and all supporting documentation and, three years after all funds have been distributed, SCS will destroy electronic copies of the same. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/c80stqig from Leagle.com. NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Modification of Certified Class Sought -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.T., by and through his parents and guardians, K.T. and W.T., individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan, v. NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, SALVATORE J. CHILIA, ROBERT P. KLEIN, DARRELL L. MCCUBBINS, GEARY HIGGINS, LAWRENCE J. MOTER, JR., KEVIN TIGHE, JERRY SIMS, AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, Case No. 2:17-cv-00004-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the plaintiff asks the Court for an order modifying the class in this litigation by certifying a slightly more specific settlement class as follows: "all individuals who: (1) have been, are or will be participants or beneficiaries under the NECA-IBEW Family Medical Care Plan at any time between January 4, 2011 and March 31, 2021, inclusive; and (2) while they were eligible for benefits under the Plan and during the Settlement Class Period incurred out-of-pocket expenses or incurred but not yet paid expenses for neurodevelopmental therapy (speech, occupational or physical therapy) or applied behavior analysis therapy to treat a "Qualified Mental Health Condition." "Qualified Mental Health Condition" shall mean a condition listed in Appendix A of the Settlement Agreement and excluded under the Plan's Development Delay Exclusion. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants will amend the Plan to provide coverage of ABA and NDT therapy for treatment of Qualified Mental Health Conditions on a prospective basis on April 1. The Plan's new coverage provisions will be applied consistently to all class members consistent with the remaining terms and conditions of the Plan. The class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(1), the Plaintiff says. On March 26, 2019, the Court certified a class in this case, defined as follows: "all individuals who: (1) Have been, are or will be participants or beneficiaries under the NECA-IBEW Family Medical Care Plan at any time on or after January 4, 2011; and (2) Require neurodevelopmental therapy (speech, occupational or physical therapy) or applied behavior analysis therapy to treat a qualified mental health condition.” Definition: The term "qualified mental health condition" shall mean a"condition listed in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association to which defendants applied and/or currently apply the Plan's Developmental Delay Exclusion. The Plaintiff brought this class action lawsuit against the Trustees of the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care Plan and the NECA/IBEW Family Medical Care itself seeking coverage for medically necessary treatment of his developmental delay condition, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and that of similarly situated individuals. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3aOi4rv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Daniel Gross, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-0303 Facsimile: (206) 223-0246 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com dgross@sylaw.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Freeman Suit Removed to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jerold Freeman, Karen Kuo, Rajveer Sachdev, Peihu Wang, Andrew Wolff, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. New York University, Case No. 160861/2020 was removed from the Supreme Court, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 4, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01029 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract under the Class Action Fairness Act. New York University -- https://www.nyu.edu/ -- is a private research university in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Keara M. Gordon, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP (NY) 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 335-4632 Fax: (212) 884-8632 Email: keara.gordon@dlapiper.com NEW YORK: Prelim. Injunction Bid Denial in Nnebe Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jonathan Nnebe, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JONATHAN NNEBE, et al., Plaintiffs v. MATTHEW DAUS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 06-cv-4991, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory civil appeal to review the District Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 31, 2020: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; and -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction, such that the Defendants will modify the timeframe for rendering suspension decisions in accordance with this Opinion and Order, and denying as to the remainder of the Plaintiffs' requests. The Court's Opinion and Order marks the latest installment in a pair of long-running cases involving the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") and licensed taxi drivers, who have been suspended after being charged with crimes. Plaintiffs Nnebe, Eduardo Avenaut, and Khairul Amin, together with the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, brought a putative class action against Defendants Daus, Charles Fraser, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, the TLC, and the City of New York, alleging that the TLC's policy of summarily suspending taxi drivers upon notification of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York state law, and New York City municipal law. The appellate case is captioned as Nnebe v. Daus, Case No. 21-173, filed on January 29, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Jonathan Nnebe, Kharirul Amin, Eduardo Avenaut, and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel L. Ackman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN 165 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (917) 282-8178 E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net Defendants-Appellees Matthew Daus, The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, The City of New York, and Charles Fraser are represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Stallworth Appeals Injunction Bid Ruling to Second Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Anthony Stallworth, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Anthony Stallworth, et al., Plaintiffs v. Matthew Daus, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-7119, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs are seeking an interlocutory civil appeal to review the District Court's Opinion & Order dated Dec. 31, 2020: -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; and -- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction, such that the Defendants will modify the timeframe for rendering suspension decisions in accordance with this Opinion and Order, and denying as to the remainder of the Plaintiffs' requests. The Court's Opinion and Order marks the latest installment in a pair of long-running cases involving the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") and licensed taxi drivers, who have been suspended after being charged with crimes. The Plaintiffs, together with the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, brought a putative class action against Defendants Daus, Charles Fraser, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, the TLC, and the City of New York, alleging that the TLC's policy of summarily suspending taxi drivers upon notification of their arrest violates the United States Constitution, New York state law, and New York City municipal law. The appellate case is captioned as Stallworth v. Daus, Case No. 21-170, filed January 29, 2021, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Stallworth, Parichay Barman, Noor Tani, and New York Taxi Workers Alliance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Daniel L. Ackman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL L. ACKMAN 165 Broadway New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (917) 282-8178 E-mail: d.ackman@comcast.net Defendants-Appellees Matthew Daus, The New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, Joseph Eckstein, Elizabeth Bonina, The City of New York, and Charles Fraser are represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Stock Purchase Agreement Related Suits Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 1, 2021, that the company continues to defend suits related to its stock purchase agreement with Indy US Bidco, LLC and Indy Dutch Bidco B.V. On October 31, 2020, Nielsen Holdings plc, Indy US Bidco, LLC ("US Purchaser") and Indy Dutch Bidco B.V. ("Dutch Purchaser"), entered into a stock purchase agreement, pursuant to which Purchaser will acquire the Company's Global Connect business (such business, "Connect," and the acquisition of Connect, the "Transaction") by means of a sale of the equity interests of certain subsidiaries held by the Company which operate Connect. On December 23, 2020, Nielsen filed a definitive proxy statement in connection with the Transaction with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As of February 1, 2021, five lawsuits had been filed relating to the Transaction in federal and state courts, including one purported class action lawsuit, by purported Nielsen shareholders against Nielsen and the members of the Nielsen board of directors. The cases are, in the order by which they were filed: Jeffrey Oram v. Nielsen Holdings plc, et al., 1:20-cv-10893 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2020), which was subsequently dismissed and re-filed as Jeffrey Oram v. Nielsen Holdings plc, et al., 1:21-cv-0067-UNA (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2021); Brian Levy v. Nielsen Holdings plc, et al., Index No. 66687/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 29, 2020); Bryan Anderson v. Nielsen Holdings plc, et al., 1:21-cv-00374 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2021); Frank Gallo v. Nielsen Holdings plc, et al., 2:21-cv-00433 (C. D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021); and Marc Waterman v. Nielsen Holdings plc. 2:21-cv-00319 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2021). The Actions generally allege that the Proxy Statement misrepresents and/or omits certain purportedly material information and assert violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules promulgated thereunder or negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment in violation of New York common law and breach of duty of disclosure under the laws of England and Wales. The alleged material misstatements and omissions relate to, among other topics, certain forecasted financial information for Connect prepared by Nielsen's management, the opinion of J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Nielsen's financial advisor, in connection with the Transaction, the interests of Nielsen's directors and officers in the Transaction and certain background events that occurred in connection with the Transaction. The plaintiffs in each of the Actions seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the Transaction or, in the alternative, rescission damages, as well as an award of costs and expenses (including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses). The Proxy Statement is modified and superseded by, and should be read as part of, and in conjunction with, the disclosures set forth in the Current Report on Form 8-K. To the extent that information in the Current Report on Form 8-K differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy Statement, the information in the Current Report on Form 8-K shall supersede or modify the information in the Proxy Statement. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/2YT3klv. Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom. NISSAN SHAPIRO: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to May 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Huebner v. Nissan Shapiro Law P.C., Case No. 1:19-cv-05747 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Eric R. Komitee entered an order that: 1. The deadline for the plaintiff to move for class certification is extended to May 3, 2021. 2. The Plaintiff is granted leave to serve the Defendant through e-mail and file proof of service on the docket. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. Nissan Shapiro is a Brooklyn law firm.[CC] OHIO: Pharma City Sues Over OBWC's Unrefunded Excess Premiums ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned CITY OF PARMA, OHIO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated public employers v. ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Case No. CV21 943131 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., Jan. 20, 2021) is a refiling of a prior class action proceeding that was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on March 11, 2020, arising from the Bureau's unlawful collection and retention of premiums payments, in violation of the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act and potentially other Ohio constitutional restrictions, laws, and regulations. The Bureau's group-rating plan, introduced in 1991, permitted employers, including qualifying public employers, to join a group for rating purposes and pool the risk of the employers in the group. The Plaintiff alleges that the Bureau will continue to violate the Workers' Compensation Act, its fiduciary obligations, and other duties imposed by law by continuing to refuse to refund the excess premiums that were collected from the public employers through the plan unless enjoined and restrained from doing so. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation is an instrumentality of the State of Ohio that is charged with administering the Ohio Workers' Compensation system in accordance with law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Craig Bashein, Esq. BASHEIN & BASHEIN Co., L.P.A. Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 771-3239 E-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com - and - John P. Hurst, Esq. BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A. Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 771-3239 E-mail: jhurst@basheinlaw.com - and - Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO. 1600 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue West Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 781-1111 E-mail: dgoetz@weismanlaw.com - and - Paul W. Flowers, Esq. Louis E. Grube, Esq. PAUL W. FLOWERS, CO., L.P.A. Terminal Tower, 40th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 344-9393 E-mail: pwf@pwfco.com leg@pwfco.com - and - Frank Gallucci, Esq. PLEVIN & GALLUCCI 55 Public Square, Suite 2222 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 861-0804 E-mail: fgallucci@pglawyer.com OJ SMITH: Faces Suit Over "Stolen" Back Wages Paid to Farmworkers ----------------------------------------------------------------- patch.com reports that several major North Carolina growers have agreed to compensate a group of seasonal farmworkers for stolen wages and other expenses in settlements totaling more than $160,000. OJ Smith Farms, Reynolds American and national nursery chain Greenleaf all relied on a farm-labor contractor who lied to workers, withheld pay, and didn't reimburse travel expenses. The lawsuit was filed by 18 members of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee. Plaintiff Jorge Bautista arrived in the state in 2019 with the promise of work. Through a translator, the Mexican citrus farmer and seasonal farmworker said he wasn't reimbursed for his travel, was forced to purchase poor-quality food, and was misled about the amount of work available. "That is the reason you go there, to work - and well, there wasn't," said Bautista. "And that was why we decided to start the fight, to improve this whole situation." Experts say cases like Bautista's are common among workers in the US on temporary, employer-sponsored H-2A visas. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor investigated about one thousand cases of agricultural wage theft, according to the Economic Policy Institute. More than 200,000 workers traveled to the U.S. that year on H-2A visas, and some of their advocates believe wage-theft incidents are much higher. Bautista said winning the case and being paid back his wages and travel money should inspire other migrant workers to fight for their rights. "Because many people in the U.S, as it happened to me at the beginning, I was afraid to speak and all that," said Bautista. "But all that can be improved, it can be solved. They just have to speak out, they just have to decide and come together. Change can be possible." The president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee has said he's committed to helping the more than 200 North Carolina workers who were wage theft victims collect the money owed to them. [GN] OLD NAVY: Holden Files Suit in Florida -------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OLD NAVY LLC. The case is styled as Lauren Holden, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OLD NAVY LLC, Case No. 16-2021-CA-000672-XXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval Cty., Feb. 4, 2020). The case type is stated as "Circuit Civil." Old Navy -- https://oldnavy.gap.com/ -- is an American clothing and accessories retailing company owned by American multinational corporation Gap Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com OREGON: Faces Class Action Over Handling of COVID-19 in Prisons --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Spurr, writing for The Bulletin, reports that as COVID-19 cases spread last fall in Oregon's prisons, Laurie Howard feared for her brother, an inmate at Deer Ridge Correctional Institution in Madras. Howard, a 53-year-old elementary school teacher in Beaverton, stopped receiving regular phone calls from her brother, Ryan Monahan, around the time the Madras prison identified its first case of coronavirus on Nov. 13. Howard's concern grew as quickly as the virus in Deer Ridge. To date, 275 inmates have tested positive and four have died out of a population of about 675, according to the Oregon Health Authority. Statewide, 3,346 inmates have contracted the virus and 42 have died. Prison staff statewide have 795 confirmed cases, as of the latest data released Jan. 28. The pandemic has left relatives of Oregon inmates feeling shut out. Families are not allowed to visit due to the virus and only hear about the worsening prison conditions through letters and occasional phone calls. Like Howard, they hear about their loved ones being transferred to other prisons while sick with the virus and grouped together in close quarters with other inmates and staff who are not wearing masks. They worry the conditions are a possible death sentence. "I was afraid I was going to get some call that said your brother has died," Howard said recently. "I was terrified I wasn't going to be able to say goodbye or know what was going on." Earlier in January, Howard received a letter from her brother. He said he had tested positive for the virus and had a 103-degree temperature, but he was still transferred in a bus, along with staff and other prisoners, to Snake River Correctional Institution in Ontario. After two weeks, he returned to Deer Ridge, wearing the same clothes and without personal medication that was lost in the move. He sensed disorganization among the prison staff. "I'm just tired of being moved around," Monahan wrote to his sister. "I've been moved eight times since COVID broke out. I've been on and off my medications because staff lost it." The letter left Howard even more unsettled. "I'm worried for him," Howard said. "It just doesn't seem like the prison knows what they are doing." Some relief came in January when inmates across the state started receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. So far, 1,434 inmates have received the vaccine out of about 13,000, according to the Oregon Department of Corrections. But prisoner advocates say vaccines are not being administered fast enough to stop the spread of the virus. They say the damage has already been done. Tara Herivel, head of the Oregon Habeas Strike Force, a group of attorneys representing about 330 prisoners across the state, including 17 at Deer Ridge, said there is no consistency for how vaccines are given in the prisons. "Prison to prison, we are getting totally different reports," Herivel said. "But what I've heard is that they had extremely limited supplies for prisoners." Meanwhile, the virus continues to get worse in the prisons, she said. In addition to Herivel's group, a separate class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Eugene over the handling of COVID-19 in the prisons. The Oregon Justice Resource Center, which handles civil rights cases, filed the lawsuit earlier in January to compel Gov. Kate Brown and the Department of Corrections to vaccinate everyone in custody against the virus. The resource center, which alleges that a refusal by prison staff to wear masks "has massively contributed to the unacceptable spread" of COVID-19, said Oregon prisons "have consistently been among the most dangerous workplaces during the pandemic." "Everybody has been on edge since March of last year," said Juan Chavez, an attorney with the center. "They haven't seen their loved ones. They are watching guards come in without masks. They are watching other people engage in risky COVID behavior and they are scared." Chavez said the lawsuit aims to have inmates vaccinated at the same rate as senior citizens and teachers, which should be possible since the inmate population is much smaller. "It makes sense that if you are at high risk of catching the disease then you need to be a priority for vaccination," Chavez said. Chavez understands if there are not enough vaccines available at a given time, but he believes the prisons need more urgency to address the spread of the virus. "We are saying that they have ignored this," Chavez said. "They acknowledge it's a problem, but they have ignored the solutions." Both groups of prisoner advocates are hearing the same concerns. Inmates, like Howard's brother, are troubled by how often they have been transferred to other prisons during the pandemic. They're also unhappy with how little information they are given about plans to combat the virus and many are concerned by how few staff and other inmates have complied with wearing masks to protect against the virus. Herivel said she was appalled when she heard prison officials admit in court they have been transferring inmates who are infected with the virus. "They are doing it and they are spreading the virus that way," Herivel said. Jennifer Black, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Corrections, said the department has heard the concerns from families and advocates about inmate transfers. But it's necessary to bring infected inmates to prisons that are better equipped for medical care, she said. "We are required to medically care for those in our custody and sometimes that requires they be moved to another institution," Black said. "For example, not all of our institutions have 24/7 medical care." As an advocate for prisoners, Herivel does not bother trying to convince people prisoners are deserving of care. Instead, she says there is a logical reason prisoners need to be protected from the virus. If vaccine distribution is prioritized by need, then prisons have to be included with nursing homes, hospitals and food process facilities because each has experienced COVID-19 outbreaks, Herivel said. "Those are the top areas that are the highest levels of contraction," Herivel said. "So that's just an objective measure." Howard understands the lack of compassion for prisoners. She certainly does not excuse her brother's crimes and knows he must serve his time. But he does not deserve to die in prison from a virus, she said. Monahan, 49, was in and out of jail for many years from drug use. He was convicted of rape in 2008 and sentenced to 15 years in prison. "I believe in my heart he would have never done that if he hadn't been high out of his mind on methamphetamine for so many days," Howard said. Howard wants to see her brother again when he is released in three years. She hopes the advocacy groups will help keep him safe in the meantime. Still, Howard is discouraged. Her brother sounded happy at Deer Ridge when they talked on the phone regularly over the summer. He was making progress on his mental and physical health after a life of drug addiction led him to prison. That all changed when the virus began to spread. "He seemed really upbeat, and now it's all gone," Howard said. Howard is still unable to regularly hear from her brother. Lately, she's missed his calls from a Umatilla number she doesn't recognize, but could mean he was transferred to Two Rivers Correctional Institution. "It's sad," Howard said. "I just don't understand the moving around of inmates during all of this." And the lack of information only fuels her dread. All she knows about the Umatilla prison is it has the most COVID-19 deaths in Oregon. In January alone, 13 inmates died. [GN] OREGON: Settlement Proposed in Employment Class-Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- ktvz.com reports that the Oregon Employment Department and the Oregon Law Center announced they have submitted a proposed settlement in a class-action lawsuit over delayed jobless benefit payments. The suit, filed by 14 Oregonians who waited weeks or months for unemployment benefits, sought to resolve issues related to timeliness challenges and language barriers faced by Oregonians filing for unemployment benefits through the Employment Department. "Both parties wish to avoid unnecessary litigation and instead work together to improve the Employment Department's timeliness in serving unemployed Oregonians." said the agency's announcement, which continues in full below: "I am pleased that we are one step closer to finalizing this settlement," said Oregon Employment Department Acting Director David Gerstenfeld. "Our priority has always been to serve Oregonians in need, and to pay everyone the benefits they are eligible for as quickly as we can. "We have made significant headway since the onset of the pandemic, improving our communication with claimants, offering more services and resources in languages other than English, processing claims more quickly, and closing in on our backlog. We are committed to doing right by the Oregonians relying on us, reaching the goals set forth in the proposed settlement, and being transparent about our progress along the way." Lisa Exterovich, a single mother who lost work because of the pandemic, is one of the named petitioners. "After I lost my job, I applied for unemployment. I waited months for benefits to begin without knowing what was happening -- I couldn't pay rent, and I really worried about how it would affect my daughter and I. I decided to join the lawsuit to be an advocate for myself and other people with similar stories," she said. Exterovich said she supports the settlement because "the Employment Department is committing to paying people benefits more quickly, working to improve communications with those seeking benefits, and providing assistance to people who don't speak English." As part of the settlement, the Employment Department has committed to meeting certain timeliness targets and providing services to Oregonians with limited English proficiency (LEP). In addition to increasing staffing and training so as to process UI, PUA, and other claims more quickly, and expanding service options for LEP individuals, the Employment Department has agreed to: Meet federal timeliness targets for paying benefits, by March 1, 2021, and for adjudicating claims, by April 1, 2021; Completely work through all claims in adjudication as of mid-January, by March 1, 2021; Address long wait times for people who have had to restart their claims; Improve phone access and access to benefit applications for LEP individuals, and; Allow eligible LEP individual who were unable to apply for unemployment benefits due to language barriers to backdate their claims to the extent the law allows and create an action plan to address this issue. In addition, the agreement makes allowances for more time in certain circumstances (for example, when there are issues verifying a claimant's identity). The full text of the proposed settlement and answers to Frequently Asked Questions can be found at oregonlawcenter.org/oed-class-action-lawsuit/. For more information about unemployment benefits, visit unemployment.oregon.gov. Gerstenfeld also issued this update Wednesday on related issues: Pandemic Unemployment Assistance We have three issues we want to highlight: Some PUA claims will begin expiring because our Unemployment Insurance system is designed for claims to be paid for one year. Even with an expired PUA claim, people are still eligible to receive up to 11 additional weeks of PUA provided through the federal Continued Assistance Act (CAA). * We are working on paying these PUA benefits along with the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits retroactively. It is important to keep filing for PUA every week even if you see in the Online Claim System that your claim is expired. * We want people to know that they will receive PUA benefits on time the week their claim expires, however, future benefits will be delayed until our system programming is complete. We have already begun work on this, as it is a top priority for us. * You can find out when your PUA claim expires by logging into the Online Claim System and clicking on "Time and Money Left on Claim." 2. We know moving back and forth among different benefit programs can be confusing for many people, so we have been actively reaching out to claimants. Unfortunately, about 1,400 people claimed the week ending Jan. 30 under PUA. We emailed them this morning and sent out a social media update letting them know they need to file their weekly claim again using the "Regular UI Weekly Claim" option because their PUA benefits have stopped and PEUC benefits are available to them. 3. The Continued Assistance Act (CAA) passed by Congress provides up to 11 additional weeks of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) benefits. We have received new guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Labor stating that everyone in the PUA program is entitled to an additional 11 weeks of benefits. * The CAA only allows us to begin paying CAA benefits after Dec. 27, 2020. * Although PUA is limited to 50 weeks, because of High Extended Benefits, some people will receive more than 50 weeks of PUA benefits and others will receive less. We have created a page on our website to help people understand how these benefits work. * The webpage mentions a PEUC and PUA phase out period that is in the CAA. Although PUA and PEUC benefits expire after the week ending March 13, 2021, the phase out period allows some people receiving PUA and PEUC to claim benefits through the week ending April 10. We will talk more about this in March. People may be eligible for the phase out period if: * They receive a benefit payment for the week ending March 13 AND * There are weeks left on the person's PEUC / PUA claim 2021 Employer Payroll Tax Relief * We recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted some businesses across Oregon. OED is taking additional action in 2021 to help employers by offering relief for 2021 UI payroll taxes. * Penalties or interest may not be assessed for taxes covering calendar year 2021 for some employers. Employer requirements are in our UI Payroll Tax fact sheet. * This payroll tax relief continues efforts we started in 2020 when we used our existing authority to offer relief to businesses impacted by the pandemic. * Our UI Payroll Taxes web page has UI Trust Fund and employer payroll tax FAQs, fact sheets and additional information. Unemployment Webinar * Our next unemployment webinar is scheduled for 1 pm Thursday, Feb. 11. We will talk about CAA updates, including the PUA clarifications mentioned in this statement. Legislative update This week, Acting Director David Gerstenfeld testified before legislative committees and provided background information on SB 495 and SB 496. * We presented on our budget requests for next biennium and stated that our priorities are: * Continuing to improve how quickly we can get people their benefits, * Increasing focus on helping workers find new jobs and businesses find workers as we move more into the recovery from the recession, * Modernizing our technology, * Building the PFMLI program, and * Providing reliable data and analyses about the workforce and labor market to inform policymakers and others * Senate Bill 495 * Special provisions apply to UI benefits for people who work for educational institutions. Generally speaking, that means people who work for them cannot get benefits during school breaks if they are likely to do the same type of work after a break as they did before. * These are very technical state and federal laws. They make a distinction between those doing what federal law calls 'professional' work and everything else. States are required to apply these types of provisions to people who do professional work, but have more leeway for those doing other types of work. "Professional" means people who do instructional, research, or principal administrative work. * Federal law requires us to look at the type of work being done, not the job title or licensing requirements. * We have asked the U.S. Department of Labor for a preliminary determination on this bill, but have not yet heard back. Although SB 495 has a 'savings clause' saying the provisions will not be effective if the US Dept. of Labor tells us they are prohibited by federal law, it would mean having laws 'on the books' that have no effect. This is an important point because leaving the language in could confuse the public when they try to figure out how laws apply to them. * Senate Bill 496 * This proposed bill also addresses the special UI laws applicable to educational employees. It includes an exception for services performed as an employee of a federal Head Start program. We believe this would violate federal requirements. We have asked the U.S. Dept. of Labor for a preliminary determination on this bill, but have not yet heard back. Prior formal guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Labor on these topics makes it clear that in some circumstances, states are required to apply school employee laws to Head Start employees. While school employee laws do not generally apply to Head Start employees, in some circumstances they are required to. * Prior U.S. Dept. of Labor guidance also makes it clear that when making exceptions to the school employee laws, the exceptions need to be based on certain factors - primarily the timing of the work performed and the type of services performed. Making distinctions based on who the employer is, whether it is a private or public-sector school, where the employer is located, and many other variables, is not allowed. * A provision in this bill will increase benefit payments to people during school breaks who do food preparation and service work for educational institutions. Most educational employers do not pay UI taxes, but instead reimburse the UI Trust Fund, dollar for dollar, for any benefits paid out. Most of the increase in benefits paid as a result of this bill, would be reimbursed to the UI Trust Fund by educational employers. * We are working on cost projections for this bill. Very rough preliminary estimates show this will cost educational employers about $1.6 million annually. [GN] PCH & LOYNES: Faces Garcia ADA Suit Over Hotel Room Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PCH & LOYNES, LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 21LBCV00054 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 1, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information about the accessible features in the rooms at the Golden Sails Hotel on its reservation Website, https://www.goldensailshotel.com, for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit alleges. PCH & Loynes, LLC is an owner and operator of the Golden Sails Hotel located at 6285 Pacific Coast Hwy., Long Beach, 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 PENNANT GROUP: Faces Bills Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ SARA BILLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNANT GROUP, INC. and CRANBERRY COURT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00123 (E.D. Wis., January 29, 2021) brings this class and collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful compensation system that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants into the position of Lead Caregiver in March 2019 to work at the Defendants' Cranberry Court Assisted Living Community until January 2021. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were hourly-aid and non-exempt employees throughout their entire employment with the Defendants. Although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated non-exempt employees regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant failed to compensate them at the correct and lawful overtime rate of pay for all hours they worked and worked performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek because the Defendant failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation in their regular rates of pay when calculating their overtime compensation. The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid overtime premium pay, pre- and post-judgment interest at the applicable legal rate, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief that the Court deems just and equitable. The Corporate Defendants operate numerous senior care and residential living facilities across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Tel: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walchekeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com PENNSYLVANIA: Mack Files Suit v. State Police --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State Police. The case is captioned as Martin Mack, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Pennsylvania State Police, Case No. 9 MD 2021 (Pa. Commw. Ct., Jan. 15, 2021). The civil action lawsuit is categorized as a miscellaneous case. The Pennsylvania State Police is the state police agency of the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, responsible for statewide law enforcement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Bennett Smith, Esq. Charles Kannebecker, Esq. KANNEBECKER AND MINCER LLC 104 W High St. Milford, PA 18337 Telephone: (570) 296-6471 The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Canton Beck, Esq. GOVENOR'S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 1800 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (410) 396-2496 PENUMBRA INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming March 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or the "Company") (NYSE: PEN) common stock between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Penumbra 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/penumbra-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. One of the Company's flagship products is the Jet 7 Xtra Flex, an aspiration catheter to remove blood clots. On September 14, 2020, the Foundation for Financial Journalism published an article raising concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety profile, including that there had been 12 reported deaths since the product was introduced in mid-2019. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.77, or 3%, to close at $193.66 per share on September 14, 2020. On November 9, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management issued a research report on the Company entitled "Penumbra and its 'Killer Catheter': A tale of corporate greed and seemingly blatant disregard for patients' lives[.]" The report accused Penumbra of a "seemingly blatant disregard for patients' lives." The Company continued to insist that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe" and refuted any claims to the contrary by stating they made "no sense" and there "isn't an issue." On November 23, 2020, the Journal of NeuroInventional Surgery published an article presenting three cases of patients who had suffered due to malfunctions with the Jet 7 Xtra Flex. The article was widely disseminated over the next two days. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $30.59, or 12%, to close at $224.12 per share on November 25, 2020. On December 8, 2020, Quintessential Capital Management released a follow-up research report entitled "Is Penumbra's core scientific research authored by a fake person?: The incredible story of Penumbra's Dr. Antik Bose[.]" The follow-up report alleged that some of Penumbra's scientific research pieces appear to have been incorrectly attributed or even authored by a fake individual. On this news, the Company's share price fell $19.95 per share, or almost 9%, to close at $204.07 per share on December 8, 2020, thereby injuring investors. On December 15, 2020, after the market closed, Penumbra announced that it was voluntarily "recalling its JET 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter may become susceptible to distal tip damage during use[, which] may result in potential vessel damage, and subsequent patient injury or death." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $13.84 per share, or almost 7%, to close at $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that 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, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Penumbra common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 16, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] PENUMBRA INC: Schall Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Penumbra, Inc. ("Penumbra" or "the Company") (NYSE: PEN) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before March 16, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/3a1RhZB to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Penumbra's Jet 7 Xtra Flex suffered from known design flaws that made the product unsafe. The Company did not properly address the risk of serious injury or death caused by the use of Jet 7 Xtra Flex despite such incidents having already occurred. Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues. 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 Penumbra, 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] PENUMBRA INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased Penumbra stock or other securities between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Penumbra to submit their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. The case alleges that Penumbra and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use; (2) Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact already occurred; and (3) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues. Interested Penumbra investors have until March 16, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] PHH MORTGAGE: AG Joins Coalition Opposing Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney General William Tong on Jan. 31 joined a bipartisan coalition of 33 attorneys general in opposing a proposed class action settlement that would permit a mortgage servicer to profit from illegal payment processing fees charged to homeowners making normal mortgage payments online or by phone. The coalition filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief, opposing the proposed settlement in Morris et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al., where mortgage servicer PHH Mortgage Corporation and its predecessor corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (collectively PHH), would be able to continue to profit from illegal processing fees the company has been charging to nearly one million homeowners nationwide, including 17,264 homeowners residing in Connecticut alone. "This settlement is unacceptable. Thousands of Connecticut residents were affected, and this settlement provides little to no relief to the homeowners who had to pay the unlawful fees. The settlement also allows PHH to keep profiting from their illegal practices and does nothing to protect homeowners from these fees in the future," Attorney General Tong said. "These homeowners deserve better." For years, PHH charged nearly one million homeowners an illegal fee -- ranging from $7.50 to $17.50 -- each time a homeowner made a monthly mortgage payment online or by phone. Nowhere in these homeowners' mortgage contracts is there authorization for such fees and PHH does not charge "processing" fees for any other customers, including those who pay by check or those who set up automatic debit payments. Charging fees not mentioned in the mortgage contract is illegal. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, PHH will not only be permitted to continue to charge these illegal fees, but will be able to actually increase fees -- up to $19.50 per month -- for the remaining life of the loan, which, for many homeowners, could be another 20 to 30 years. In exchange, homeowners will receive a paltry one-time monetary payment. Further, the proposed settlement seeks to authorize these unlawful fees through an unwritten, mass amendment of the mortgages -- a violation of most states' statutes of frauds, a centuries old legal doctrine that requires contracts related to property to be in writing and signed by the parties. This unwritten, mass amendment also means PHH will evade many states' recording requirements for modified mortgages, resulting in confusion and enabling PHH to avoid state and local recording fees. Additionally, the coalition objects to the inadequacy of the monetary relief, as the proposed settlement is designed to ensure that a portion of the monetary relief intended for homeowners will actually end up in PHH's hands. Homeowners whose loans are still serviced by PHH will not receive any direct monetary payments for prior unlawful payments received by PHH. Instead, these homeowners will only receive a credit to their account that will only be applied to the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage after any late fees are first paid -- costing homeowners more in the end. Moreover, any settlement funds not distributed to the class member homeowners will be returned to PHH, ensuring the settlement further benefits PHH and not impacted class members. Joining Attorney General Tong, New York Attorney General Letitia James and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in filing the amicus request is a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Assistant Attorneys General John Langmaid, Lorrie Adeyemi and Joseph Chambers, head of the Finance Department, assisted the Attorney General with this matter. [GN] PLAN BENEFIT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Set for Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERIBERTO CHAVEZ, EVANGELINA ESCARCEGA, AND JORGE MORENO, v. PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES, INC; FRINGE INSURANCE BENEFITS, INC.; AND FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order that the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify the Class is set for February 23, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., Austin, Texas time by video conference. The hearing will be conducted via Zoom. Zoom invitations will be circulated by email by Samantha Oakes, Courtroom Deputy. On October 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion to Certify the Class, to which the Defendants timely responded. Plan Benefit Services Inc. provides consulting, management and brokerage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39WQl8w at no extra charge.[CC] POLAND: Fur Industry to Launch Class Action Over Mink Mass Culls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Charlish and Pawel Florkiewicz, writing for Reuters, report that Poland has found its first case of COVID-19 in mink, the agriculture ministry said, raising fears of costly culls in an industry that counts over 350 farms in the country. With new variants of the coronavirus threatening global efforts to get the pandemic under control, authorities in several countries have begun mass culls of the animals due to fears of a mutated strain of the illness being transmitted to humans. Late on Jan. 31 the ministry said in a statement it had been informed by veterinary inspectors on Jan. 30 of a case in Kartuzy county in northern Poland. "I hope this is a single case, although we must take all measures to limit possible transmission of the virus," Deputy Health Minister Waldemar Kraska told local broadcaster Radio Gdansk on Feb. 1, adding that all mink at the affected farm would be culled. Denmark, the world's top exporter of mink furs, ordered a cull of the country's entire population of some 17 million mink in 2020, and in January announced it would compensate farmers with up to 19 billion Danish crowns. ($3.09 billion). In a statement sent to state-run news agency PAP, representatives of the Polish fur industry said the state was not offering any compensation for culled animals, and that they would launch a class action lawsuit demanding damages. The agriculture ministry did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. The Medical University of Gdansk said on Nov. 24 it had found eight cases of COVID-19 in mink at a farm in northern Poland, but veterinary inspectors later said there was no evidence of infection at the farm. Poland is one of the world's top producers of mink fur, with 354 farms, containing around 6 million mink. [GN] PRESIDIO INC: Apollo & Directors Dismissed From Stockholders Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI TRUST, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of PRESIDIO, INC., Plaintiff v. PRESIDIO, INC., ROBERT CAGNAZZI, STEVEN JAY LERNER, PANKAJ PATEL, TODD H. SIEGEL, HEATHER BERGER, CHRISTOPHER L. EDSON, SALIM HIRJI, MATTHEW H. NORD, MICHAEL A. REISS, APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LLC, AP VIII AEGIS HOLDINGS, L.P., BC PARTNERS ADVISORS L.P., and LIONTREE ADVISORS, LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. 2019-0839-JTL (Del. Ch.), Judge J. Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff is a former stockholder of Presidio. The complaint supports a reasonable inference that the Company's financial advisor tipped one of the bidders during the Company's sale process, resulting in a price below what the Company's board of directors otherwise could have achieved. The Company merged with an acquisition vehicle controlled by BC Partners Advisors L.P. ("BCP"), a private equity firm. The merger resulted in each of the Company's publicly held shares being converted into the right to receive $16.60 in cash. The Company's controlling stockholder, Apollo, received the same per-share consideration as the public stockholders. Before the Company started its sale process, Apollo and its financial advisor--LionTree Advisors--met with BCP and another private equity firm, Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"). Later, LionTree and Robert Cagnazzi, the Company's chairman and CEO, met with CD&R. CD&R signaled its interest in a transaction, but did not indicate that it would retain existing management. Unlike BCP, CD&R had a portfolio company that operated in the same industry. CD&R, therefore, could pay a price that included synergies, but it also had an existing management team, meaning that Cagnazzi might not keep his job in a deal with CD&R. BCP, by contrast, was purely a financial buyer. BCP could not offer a price that included synergies, but BCP was eager to retain existing management. A month later, BCP contacted LionTree to express interest in a transaction. Based on LionTree's description of the earlier contacts with CD&R, the Board opted to pursue a single-bidder strategy with BCP, rather than also engaging with CD&R. At this stage of the proceeding, it is reasonable to infer that LionTree's description of its earlier contacts was incomplete. With LionTree now working as the Company's financial advisor, the Board entered into discussions with BCP. The Board made clear that any transaction would be subject to a post-signing go-shop. The discussions resulted in a merger agreement that contemplated a transaction at $16.00 per share, subject to a go-shop ("Original Merger Agreement"). During the go-shop phase, CD&R offered to acquire the Company for $16.50 per share, thereby qualifying as an "Excluded Party" under the Original Merger Agreement. As a result, the Company could continue negotiating with CD&R for another ten days and only would have to pay a termination fee of $18 million to terminate the Original Merger Agreement for a deal with CD&R. If the Company reached a deal with any other party, the Company would have to pay $40 million. Unbeknownst to the Board, LionTree tipped BCP about the price of CD&R's bid. BCP immediately submitted a revised bid at $16.60 per share, outbidding CD&R by just 10 cents. BCP conditioned its bid on the Company increasing the termination fee to $41 million for any competing deal, regardless of the counterparty's status as an Excluded Party. BCP demanded that the Company respond within 24 hours. Oblivious to LionTree's tip, the Board instructed LionTree to ask CD&R to strengthen its bid. To meet BCP's deadline, the Board required that CD&R respond in less than 20 hours. CD&R met the deadline and represented that it could raise its bid to at least $17 per share. CD&R objected to any changes in the go-shop process and indicated that it would likely walk if the Company increased the termination fee. After receiving CD&R's response, and still oblivious to LionTree's tip, the Board accepted BCP's offer and entered into an amended merger agreement ("Amended Merger Agreement"). After the Company publicly announced the Amended Merger Agreement, CD&R walked. The complaint names as Defendants Cagnazzi, the other members of the Board, Apollo, LionTree, and BCP. The Plaintiff maintains that Cagnazzi, the other directors, and Apollo breached their fiduciary duties during the sale process by (i) approving the Amended Merger Agreement and (ii) failing to disclose all material information to the stockholders in connection with the vote on the Merger. The complaint maintains that LionTree and BCP aided and abetted the fiduciary defendants in breaching their duties. It asserts a claim in the alternative against Apollo for aiding and abetting, but the Defendants did not dispute that Apollo was a controlling stockholder that owed fiduciary duties to the Company and its other stockholders. The complaint contains six counts: a. Count I contends that Apollo was the controlling stockholder of the Company and that Apollo breached its fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by benefit[ting] itself at the expense of Presidio's common stockholders. b. Count II contends that the directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care by negotiating the Company's sale through a fatally flawed process that resulted in an unfair price for Presidio's public stockholders and failing to disclose all material facts. c. Count III contends that Cagnazzi breached his fiduciary duties as a director and officer by preferring his own interests to those of Presidio and its public stockholders. d. Count IV contends that BCP aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Apollo, the Board, and Cagnazzi. e. Count V contends in the alternative that if Apollo was not the Company's controlling stockholder, then Apollo aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the Board and Cagnazzi. f. Count VI contends that LionTree aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Apollo, the Board, and Cagnazzi. All of the Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Judge Laster analyzes Apollo's potential liability as a fiduciary rather than as an aider and abettor. He opines that the complaint pleads a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against Cagnazzi. It also pleads claims against LionTree and BCP for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. However, Judge Laster dismisses all of the claims against Apollo, the Apollo Directors, and the Outside Directors. Among other things, he opines that (i) the allegations against Apollo are insufficient to overcome the presumption that Apollo's interests were aligned with those of the stockholders as a whole; (ii) the complaint does not plead a non-exculpated claim against the Outside Directors, does not allege that the Outside Directors faced any conflicts with respect to the Merger, and the complaint does not allege that any of the Outside Directors lacked independence from a conflicted party; (iii) the complaint fails to state a claim for monetary damages against Apollo; and (iv) the Plaintiff has not provided any authority to support Apollo having an independent duty of disclosure. Based on the foregoing, Judge Laster granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. He granted the motion as to Apollo and the other members of the Board and dismissed all of the claims against Apollo, the Apollo Directors, and the Outside Directors. He denied the motion as to Cagnazzi, LionTree, and BCP. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/324j0d1r from Leagle.com. Michael Hanrahan -- mhanrahan@prickett.com -- Samuel L. Closic -- slclosic@prickett.com -- Stephen D. Dargitz -- sddargitz@prickett.com -- Jason W. Rigby -- jwrigby@prickett.com -- PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Lee D. Rudy, J. Daniel Albert, Stacey A. Greenspan, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, in Radnor, Pennsylvania; Attorneys for Plaintiff. Kevin R. Shannon -- kshannon@potteranderson.com -- Berton W. Ashman, Jr. -- bashman@potteranderson.com -- Daniel M. Rusk, IV -- drusk@potteranderson.com -- POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Ryan A. McLeod, Alexandra P. Sadinsky, Wilfred T. Beaye, Jr., WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, in New York City; Attorneys for Defendants Robert Cagnazzi, Steven Jay Lerner, Pankaj Patel, Todd H. Siegel, Heather Berger, Christopher L. Edson, Salim Hirji, Matthew H. Nord, and Michael A. Reiss. William M. Lafferty -- wlafferty@morrisnichols.com -- John P. DiTomo -- jditomo@morrisnichols.com -- Alexandra M. Cumings -- acumings@morrisnichols.com -- Sara Toscano -- stoscano@morrisnichols.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Scott B. Luftglass, Rebecca L. Martin, Anne S. Aufhauser, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Defendants Apollo Global Management, Inc. and AP VIII Aegis Holdings, L.P. Raymond J. DiCamillo -- dicamillo@rlf.com -- Kevin M. Gallagher -- gallagher@rlf.com -- Megan E. O'Connor -- oconnor@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A, Wilmington, Delaware; John L. Hardiman, SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Defendant LionTree Advisors LLC. A. Thompson Bayliss -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- E. Wade Houston -- Houston@AbramsBayliss.com -- ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Matthew Solum, Courtney A. Carvill, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Defendant BC Partners Advisors L.P. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Dolson Sues Over Mislabeled Shampoo Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA DOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00868 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for falsely marketing and labeling its Vanilla Honey & Vitamin B Shampoo ("Product"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to the Defendant's purported endorsement, reasonable consumers are led to believe the Product only contains ingredients that come from plants and are not subject to chemical modification or processing, which materially alters the ingredients' original plant-based composition. However, the main ingredients in the process are synthetic substances, which are not understood by consumers as "botanicals" or plant ingredients. Had the Plaintiffs and the proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it. As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the Product is sold at a premium price, the suit says. The Procter & Gamble Company manufactures and markets consumer products in countries throughout the world. The Company provides products in the laundry and cleaning, paper, beauty care, food and beverage, and health care segments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cutter Mill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Tel: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PSCU INC: Court Refuses to Move Gibbons FLSA Suit to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Adam Gibbons, Plaintiff v. PSCU Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-01719-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), Judge Douglas L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied PSCU's motion to transfer venue, and denied as moot PSCU's motion for a stay pending a ruling on its motion to transfer venue. Defendant PSCU is a Florida-based company that operates customer service call centers around the United States. Plaintiff Gibbons is an Arizona resident who formerly worked for PSCU in Phoenix. Gibbons alleges that PSCU violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay him properly for all hours worked. He brings the putative class action on behalf of all similarly situated PSCU customer service call center employees in Arizona. The case mirrors an earlier-filed action in the Eastern District of Michigan, Brown v. PSCU, Case No. 2:20-cv-11510-CPH-DRG, which alleges the same violations against PSCU, but on behalf of all similarly situated PSCU customer service call center employees in Michigan. On July 2, 2020, PSCU filed a motion in the Michigan Action seeking a transfer of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. PSCU later filed a similar motion to transfer venue in the instant case, along with a motion to stay pending a decision on its motion to transfer. On Dec. 4, 2020, after briefing closed on PSCU's motion to transfer venue in the matter, the district court overseeing the Michigan Action denied PSCU's motion to transfer venue. Citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986), Judge Rayes states that PSCU, as the moving party, bears the burden of demonstrating transfer is appropriate, and must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff's choice of forum. PSCU has not made such a strong showing. Mr. Gibbons has chosen Arizona as his forum, and he brings the putative collective action on behalf of an Arizona-based class. Although PSCU's wage policies likely were created at its headquarters in Florida, the action concerns application of those wage policies to employees in Arizona. PSCU has identified several Florida-based employees who might be relevant witnesses, but members of the putative class and their supervisors and coworkers (some of whom are also likely witnesses) are in Arizona. Both parties have significant contacts with Arizona, as the putative class works there, and PSCU employed them there. PSCU acknowledges that most documents relevant to the litigation are likely available in electronic format, rendering the physical location of documentary evidence less of a concern. Likewise, because the action concerns a federal statute, familiarity with the governing law is less of a concern; the Court and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida are equally familiar with federal law. At bottom, Judge Rayes holds that PSCU's motion is more about reducing litigation costs. PSCU argues that, if the Michigan Action is transferred to the Middle District of Florida while this action stays in Arizona, then the parties will be forced to expend resources litigating two substantially similar cases in two different forums. But the argument loses all force now that the district court overseeing the Michigan Action has denied PSCU's motion to transfer venue. The Judge finds that PSCU does not ask the Court to transfer the action to the Eastern District of Michigan; it asks for a transfer to the Middle District of Florida. As a result, the parties will be litigating two substantially similar cases in two different forums regardless of whether the Court grants or denies PSCU's motion to transfer venue. For these reasons, Judge Rayes denied PSCU's motion to transfer venue, and denied as moot its motion for a stay pending a ruling on its motion to transfer venue. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y032d5yv from Leagle.com. PURITAN'S PRIDE: Sharp "BOGO" Price Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARCEY SHARP, MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, PENELOPE MUELLER, JAY WERNER, DIANE CABRERA, MEG LARSON, GARY OPAS, and JOANNE PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., a New York Corporation; THE NATURE'S BOUNTY CO. f/k/a NBTY, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 11, 2021 to enter an order: 1. certifying the following class: "all individual consumer residents of California who purchased the Defendants' Products pursuant to a buy some- quantity get some-quantity free (BOGO) price, directly from the Defendants, within the applicable statutory limitations period, including the period following the filing of the date of this action;" and 2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives. According to the complaint, in addition to being unlawful, the Defendants' BOGO prices are deceptive, misleading, and unfair because consumers are not receiving any Product "Free" with the purchase of another Product. Instead, based on the frequency and duration of the BOGO prices, the Defendants build the cost of the "Free" Products into the BOGO prices. This is all the more evident given that they offer BOGO promotions on substantially all of their branded Products, rendering the Defendants' claimed "regular price" or "single unit price" for any one of their branded Products wholly fictitious. In fact, the Defendants seemingly conceal to consumers that they may buy single bottles of the Products outside of BOGO price by hiding this information in footers, on only certain pages in the catalogs and on a separate, innocuous page on their website: www.puritans.com/singles (which page itself in fact has 19 a BOGO promotion at the top of the page it as of the date of this filing). Tellingly, no substantial sales are made at single unit price at any time during the Class period (or seemingly for the Defendants' entire existence). Puritan's Pride provides nutritional supplements. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39Y5Kp4 at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com - and - William Hansult, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF W. HANSULT 1399 Ramona Avenue, No. C Grover Beach, CA 93433 Telephone: (805) 489-1448 E-mail: hansultlaw@aol.com - and - Tina Mehr, Esq. VISION LEGAL, INC. 445 S. Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (877) 870-9953 Facsimile: (877) 348-8509 E-mail: tmehr@visionlegalinc.com PYE BARKER: Stoutzenberger Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTAL STOUTZENBERGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PYE BARKER FIRE & SAFETY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00516-SCJ (N.D. Ga., February 3, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees at required minimum wage and failing to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant from March 25, 2002 to the present. Pye Barker Fire & Safety, LLC is a fire protection company, with its principal place of business located at 11605 Haynes Bridge Rd., Ste. 350, Alpharetta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Benson, Esq. KENNETH S. NUGENT, P.C. 4227 Pleasant Hill Road Building 11, Suite 300 Duluth, GA 30096 Telephone: (770) 820-0817 Facsimile: (770) 820-0717 E-mail: dbenson@attorneykennugent.com QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Faces Investor Class Action Following Stock Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Motavalli, writing for Autoweek, reports that the solid-state battery company QuantumScape debuted its stock last Nov. 27, and it promptly soared into the stratosphere -- up 256% in less than a month. Media reports gushed that the startup was rivaling Tesla and had launched one of the most valuable stocks in the auto industry. Bill Gates became an investor. But then shares plunged 60% from the high, "with the trajectory resembling a free fall," said InvestorPlace.com. An investor group filed a class-action suit against the company. What happened? First, let's define our terms. Solid-state batteries show enormous promise. They do away with the liquid electrolyte that makes conventional lithium-ion batteries heavy, as well as dangerous at high temperatures. These batteries can be lighter, with greater energy density, more range, lower cost, and faster recharge times. But the stock exuberance hides the fact that getting solid-state batteries to the market is difficult and will take some time. Companies are mostly working on them at the cell level -- the battery packs for cars are far from ready. QuantumScape, a California-based 2010 spinoff from Stanford University that has a joint venture with Volkswagen Group (which invested more than $300 million), said in January that it is indeed making great strides toward commercializing the cells. The company said it had created fire-resistant test batteries that continue to function after 1,100 cycles, retaining at least 80% of its capacity. "This corresponds to over 300,000 miles for a 300-mile battery pack and over 500,000 miles for a 500-mile battery pack," the company said in a tweet. It hopes to commercialize its cells by 2024. Two things sent the company stock in a downward trajectory. One was a Jan. 4 report published on Seeking Alpha, a crowd-sourced content service for financial markets, saying that QuantumScape's batteries "are small and unproven" (smaller than an iWatch battery) "and never tested outside a lab." Said the report, "They will likely never achieve the performance they claim." According to Seeking Alpha, "Building a solid-state battery that will function at the rates and temperatures needed for real-world applications is hard -- very, very hard. So hard, in fact, that nobody has done it." Only a few days later, the New York law firm Gainey McKenna & Egleston announced a class-action lawsuit against QuantumScape on behalf of investors, noting a 40% drop in the stock price after the Seeking Alpha story ran. Investors have until March 8 to apply to become part of the class action. Calls to the listed attorneys, Thomas McKenna and Gregory Egleston, were not returned. QuantumScape has made clear the batteries are still in the development stage, with results from testing small prototypes, not full packs. "There is much work ahead of us," chief technology officer Tim Holme said Jan. 15. In an interview, QuantumScape founder and CEO Jagdeep Singh said the company did not misrepresent its technology. "The Seeking Alpha story had no merit," he said. "It read like it was written by someone who didn't know anything about batteries." Singh is passionate that his approach, using a ceramic solid-state separator, will succeed where others have failed. Clearly, auto companies would love to have viable solid-state batteries, and some are reportedly further along than others. Nikkei.com reported in December, "Toyota plans to be the first company to sell an electric vehicle equipped with a solid-state battery in the early 2020s. The world's largest automaker will unveil a prototype next year." Toyota confirmed its solid-state plans, but was a little more cautious about the timetable. "Next-generation batteries, such as solid-state and metal-air batteries, are safer and demonstrate higher performance than lithium-ion batteries," said Ed Hellwig, Toyota Motor North America safety and quality communications manager. "We are currently working on the research and development, including the production technology of solid-state batteries, and we have achieved ultra-small battery electric vehicle driving. We are accelerating development aiming for commercialization by the first half of the 2020s." General Motors has also worked on solid-state batteries, but isn't being specific about its research, instead pointing to advances with its conventional Ultium batteries. By mid-decade, GM expects to have cells that will cost 60% less than today's batteries, with twice the energy density. "We haven't said much about future battery technology," said spokesman Phil Lienert. Ford and Hyundai have investments in Solid Power, a Colorado-based solid-state company. Solid Power CEO Doug Campbell told Autoweek that his company is seeing very good results from liquid-free 22-layer sulfide-based cells. "We hope to see commercially viable production, meaning batteries in cars that won't cost an arm and a leg, around 2026," he said, adding that major developments from Solid Power will come soon, perhaps at the end of the first quarter. "Stay tuned," he said. Solid Power said its cells have higher energy density than any currently available lithium-ion battery and can surpass 400 watt-hours per kilogram by 2022. The company said its "secret sauce" is the sulfide electrolyte powder it produces at its Louisville, Colorado, facility. Spokesman Will McKenna said, "Solid Power will transfer cell production to an external entity while producing solid electrolyte at scale." Campbell says that hype based on early solid-state results has been a problem. "The battery community has developed a bad reputation for overpromising and under-delivering," he said. Absorbing this lesson might reduce the expectation among stock speculators for overnight miracles from battery companies. Thomas Edison nailed the issue in 1883, when he said, "The storage battery is, in my opinion, a catchpenny, a sensation, a mechanism for swindling the public by stock companies." Analysts agree on the likely benefits -- and the hurdles to overcome. "Solid-state cells have tremendous promise and the potential to solve a number of challenges such as stability when fast charging," said Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst for e-mobility at Guidehouse Insights. "However, no one as yet has managed to transition from hand-made samples to scaling up both cell size and production volume to the point where it would actually be practical to power a vehicle. Most people I've spoken with who actually know about batteries don't expect to see solid-state cells in any volume until late in the decade." Abuelsamid said that Toyota isn't expected to actually launch its solid-state batteries before 2025, and GM and its LG partner "are also going down this path, but don't expect solid-state to be useful until late in the 2020s at the earliest." About QuantumScape, he said that its design "looks interesting, but I'm not sure it's actually that viable with the idea of building up the anode while charging." One hang-up for workable solid-state batteries is that when they use lithium-metal anodes, small crystal branch-like spikes called dendrites develop, leading to shorter cell life and safety issues. Samsung claims to have solved this problem with silver-carbon composite layer anodes. It said last year that its cells could be used for downsized batteries with 500-mile range and 1,000 cycles -- with 500,000 miles of potential life. Samsung doesn't have a timetable for commercialization, though. "The product of this study could be a seed technology for safer, high-performance batteries of the future," the company said. Singh is dismissive of Samsung's approach and says QuantumScape is the only company to have actually solved the dendrite problem. Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, its chief battery expert for many years, is on QuantumScape's board and said during a Zoom call last December, "It's incredibly exciting to see these results and what the team has achieved." Also encouraging on the same call was Nobel Prize winner Stanley Whittingham, a lithium-ion battery pioneer. "It looks like real progress at QuantumScape," he said. Despite automaker plans and supplier breakthroughs, there have also been setbacks and ambiguities. In 2015, the British vacuum cleaner giant Dyson paid $90 million for the Ann Arbor, Michigan-based Sakti3, a solid-state battery company headed by former University of Michigan engineering professor Ann Marie Sastry. Dyson was going to spend billions and build its own electric cars. But in 2017, Dyson abandoned at least some of its expensive Sakti3 patents. And in a statement to employees last year, founder and chief engineer James Dyson said, "Though we have tried very hard throughout the development process we simply can no longer see a way to make [the battery car project] commercially viable . . . . There's huge sadness and disappointment. Ours is a life of risk and of failure. We try things, and they fail." Sastry, who declined to speak on the record, left Dyson (also in 2017) and then announced Amesite, "an artificial intelligence-powered software company that delivers engaging and cost-effective online courses and programs for K-12 schools, universities and businesses on its cloud-based platform." In a statement to Autoweek, Dyson said its solid-state battery work is ongoing. "We are absolutely still investing in solid-state and continue to work on this technology in Ann Arbor," the company said. "Dyson engineers are working on cells, materials, and electrodes, which enable higher energy densities, and are safer and more environmentally friendly. Dyson's research spans the U.S., Japan, Singapore, and the U.K. A key focus is the commercialization of Dyson's proprietary solid-state battery technology. It promises safer, cleaner, longer-lasting, and more efficient energy storage than today's existing batteries." French billionaire Vincent Bollore was the driving force behind Autolib', an electric car rental business, in 2011, using approximately 2,500 small vehicles with his company's own solid-state Lithium-Metal-Polymer (LMP) batteries. It started in Paris and spread to other French cities, eventually opening a branch, BlueIndy, in Indianapolis with the same cars. But the French service closed down in 2018, and BlueIndy in 2019. The company says its batteries, as seen in the articulated Daimler eCitaro G Bluebus coaches and Autolib' cars, have covered more than 186 million miles. The Bollore Group remains committed to its technology and through its Blue Solutions subsidiary has constructed factories in France and Canada to build LMP batteries. Adrian Tylim, head of business development in North America for Blue Solutions, said the car rental businesses served their purpose and proved the efficacy of LMP batteries. Tylim pointed out that Bollore has the world's only commercially viable solid-state battery packs, and that gives it a lead in developing the next generation of cells, which should be able to function at ambient temperatures. "We're not there yet, but it's incremental progress that we need," he said. Ram Chandrasekaran, principal analyst for transportation and mobility at Wood Mackenzie, makes a crucial point. Automakers might be able to put solid-state batteries into cars by the latter part of the 2020s, but it may initially be as a showcase for the technology -- not quite yet a viable market proposition. "They will still be much more expensive than conventional lithium-ion batteries," he said. "It will take a bit more time for them to become affordable and trickle down to installation in mass-market cars." The solid-state space, dormant for many years, is now heating up. Other players include Ionic Materials and Sion Power. Will one of these companies produce the battery of the future? It seems likely. [GN] RAFEK AEZAH: Faces Ibrahim Suit Over Cashiers' Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, AHMED IBRAHIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAFEEK AEZAH, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00032-BSM (E.D. Ark., February 1, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for failing to pay proper overtime compensation. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid cashier from July 2020 until December 2020, brings this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs as a result of the Defendant's overtime provision violation. The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked over 40 hours in a week, approximately between 70 and 94 hours per week, the Defendant only paid his regular rate for all hours he worked. Accordingly, the Defendant deprived him and other similarly situated employees of sufficient overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked, the suit says. Rafeek Aezah owns and operates a gas station in Osceola, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com RAVE RESTAURANT: Santucci Sues Over Retention of Biometrics Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAURA SANTUCCI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RAVE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Case No. 2021L000049 (Ill. Cir., 18th Jud. Dist., Dupage Cty., Jan. 15, 2021) seeks damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and information without obtaining the requisite prior informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, from approximately April 2015 through April 2017, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its facility in Elmhurst, Illinois where she was required to use her fingerprint to clock in and clock out of work on a daily basis. Allegedly, Defendant does not have written, publicly available policies identifying their retention schedules, or guidelines for permanently destroying any of these biometric identifiers or biometric information. RAVE Restaurant Group, Inc. owns, operates and franchises Pie Five and Pizza Inn restaurants in Illinois, including at its facility in Elmhurst, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 391-5059 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste 1140 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com RBC GLOBAL: B.C. Court Certifies Claim Alleging Investors Overpaid ------------------------------------------------------------------ James Langton at advisor.ca reports that a proposed class action against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. (RBC GAM) alleging that investors overpaid for active management in an RBC fund that actually closely tracked its index has been certified by a British Columbia court. The Supreme Court of B.C. ruled that a proposed class action lawsuit against RBC GAM for alleged closet indexing in the RBC Canadian Equity Fund can proceed. According to the court, the plaintiffs in the case argue that they've suffered damages by paying for active management in a fund that is largely just tracking its index, and that the firm has been "unjustly enriched" as a result. The court said that the plaintiffs argue that they paid 1.60% to 1.75% in management fees for a fund that only provided benchmark returns, versus MERs of between five and 25 basis points for index-tracing ETFs. The decision noted that RBC GAM denied the allegations, arguing that it did not employ a closet indexing strategy and that the fund's investors received the numerous benefits of active management, including stock selection, risk management and portfolio construction, among other things. Without ruling on the merits of the case, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims aren't doomed to fail and that the various tests for proceeding as a class action -- that there are common issues and that a class action is the preferable procedure -- are met in this case. As a result, the court certified the suit as a class action. [GN] RHODE ISLAND: March 16 Extension for Class Status Response Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HANSON and RANDALL PELLETIER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SCOTT R. JENSEN, in his official capacity as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Case No. 1:20-cv-00232-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Defendant Scott R. Jensen ask the Court for an extension of time up to and including March 16, 2021 to object or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The RI Department of Labor and Training provides workforce development, workforce security and workforce protection to the state's workers, employers and citizens. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cNZmmk at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brenda D. Baum, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 150 South Main St. Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 274-4400 Facsimile: (401) 222-2995 E-mail: bbaum@riag.ri.gov ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Class Actions Over Gamestop Trades ------------------------------------------------------------- WION reports that The House Committee on Financial Services investigating GameStop saga has come under increased scrutiny after it was revealed that it had received its maximum funding from Robinhood executives. According to the latest report, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev and co-founder Bajnu Bhatt had contributed $2,800 to Maxine Waters and $1,200 to Robert McHenry, who are the chair and ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee. Robinhood Markets Inc's user agreement is likely to protect the brokerage app from a barrage of lawsuits filed by customers after it blocked a frenzied trading rally in companies such as GameStop Corp that was fueled on social media forums. The owners of internet platforms where much of the discussion took place are likewise shielded from liability for users' activity under a 25-year-old law known as Section 230. At least a dozen proposed class-action lawsuits accuse Robinhood of breaching its contract with customers when it restricted trading on Jan. 28. Robinhood's users were at the centre of a wild rally in a handful of stocks that had been heavily shorted by hedge funds and championed by individual investors in online chatrooms including Reddit's WallStreetBets. The lawsuits, brought in federal court, alleging that the Menlo Park, California-based company breached its contractual obligation as a regulated broker to execute orders promptly and effectively. However, Robinhood is not legally bound to carry out every trade and the lawsuits will not succeed without evidence the company restricted trading for an improper reason, such as to favour certain investors, according to several legal experts. The user agreement on Robinhood's website says it "may at any time, in its sole discretion and without prior notice to Me, prohibit or restrict My ability to trade securities." Robinhood's fee-free and simple-to-use app has made it popular with a new generation of small-time traders and its restrictions on Jan. 28 drew a heavy backlash from high-profile politicians and celebrities. Retail investors using Robinhood and other apps drove the so-called "Reddit rally" that pushed up shares of GameStop Corp and other companies championed on social media platforms including Reddit, resulting in heavy losses for big hedge funds that had shorted the shares. [GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Illegally Control Stock Trades, Minnick Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN MINNICK and JHANNA WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00489 (E.D. Pa., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manipulation of the market for the following securities and options contracts including GameStop Corporation (GME), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC), Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY), Express, Inc. (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS), Naked Brand Group Ltd. (NAKD) and Nokia Oyj (NOK). Specifically, on or around January 28, 2021, Robinhood (1) delisted these assets from its trading platform, (2) prohibited its users from purchasing shares of the manipulated stocks, only permitting them to sell shares they already owned, (3) unilaterally sold these assets at rock-bottom prices from the accounts of some unlucky users without their knowledge or consent, and (4) accepted trade users' orders for these assets and cancelled them unilaterally. On information and belief, Robinhood took these extraordinary actions with the intent to drive down the price of the manipulated stocks in order to reduce its own obligations and potential liabilities these stocks, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered loss of money and/or property. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel N. Peckham, Esq. Samuel C. Wilson, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market St., Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 - and – Alexander G. Cabeceiras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Suite 4905 New York, NY 10119 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Sues Over Restraint of Stock Trade ------------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN KRUMENACKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00838 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manipulation of the market for GameStop Corporation (GME) and other stocks. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in manipulative acts by interfering with and manipulating the market as it relates to these stocks by limiting trading of the same by disallowing any buying of the stocks and only allowing selling. This had the effect of depressing the share price for the stocks by creating something of a one-way ratchet by depressing purchases while incentivizing selling. The Plaintiff and the Class suffered damage because the value of the stocks plummeted as a result of the Defendants' market manipulation, the suit says. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a brokerage, banking and financial advisory services provider, with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com - and – Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Manipulates Stock Trading, Feeney Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK FEENEY and JASON FOSSELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00833 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged manipulation of the market for the following securities and options contracts relating thereto: GameStop Corporation (GME), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), Nokia Oyj (NOK), AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC), American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL), Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (BBBY), Castor Maritime Inc. (CTRM), Express, Inc. (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS), Naked Brand Group Ltd. (NAKD), Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL), Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR), and Trivago NV (TRVG). Specifically, between January 27, 2021 and January 28, 2021, Robinhood (1) delisted these assets from its trading platform, (2) prohibited its users from purchasing shares of the manipulated stocks, only permitting them to sell shares they already owned, (3) unilaterally sold these assets at rock-bottom prices from the accounts of some unlucky users without their knowledge or consent, and (4) accepted trade users' orders for these assets and cancelled them unilaterally. On information and belief, Robinhood took these extraordinary actions with the intent to drive down the price of the manipulated stocks in order to reduce its own obligations and potential liabilities these stocks, the suit says. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered loss of money and/or property. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Selin Demir, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 489-7004 - and – Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Bryan Faubus, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Scalia Sues Over Removal of Stocks From App ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL D. SCALIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-80238-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendants' removal of Gamestop Corp. (GME), Nokia Oyj (NOK), and AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC) stocks from their web-based application in the midst of an unprecedented stock rise thereby deprived retail investors, including the Plaintiff, of the ability to invest in the open-market. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that the Defendants purposefully and knowingly pulled the stocks in their trading platform to manipulate the market for the benefit of people and financial intuitions other than the Defendants' own client investors. As a result of the Defendants' actions, the Plaintiff and the Class were damaged because they were prevented from using their accounts and making planned trades or exercising options, which would have been very lucrative, the suit says. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald P. Weil, Esq. Marguerite Snyder, Esq. Luke T. Jacobs, Esq. WEIL SNYDER & RAVINDRAN, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Citigroup Center, Suite 720 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-5352 Facsimile: (305) 372-5355 E-mail: RWeil@weillawfirm.net MSnyder@weillawfirm.net Luke@weillawfirm.net ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Football Coaches Suit Over Stock Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dale Ellis at nwaonline.com reports that two Pulaski County football coaches called foul in federal court Thursday over a decision by the Robinhood stock trading app to halt its customers' trades in shares of GameStop and other stocks that they said cost them -- and millions of other retail investors around the country -- huge losses when they wound up stuck with rapidly devaluing stocks and stock options. Kevin Kelley, the head coach and athletic director at Pulaski Academy, and his son Zackary Kelley, who coaches football and basketball, are named as the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Little Rock by the Thrash Law Firm seeking unspecified damages from Robinhood Markets Inc.; Robinhood Financial LLC; Robinhood Securities LLC; TD Ameritrade Inc.; and E Trade Financial Corporation. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Kelleys and investors similarly situated in the U.S. and, alternatively, in Arkansas who were harmed by the actions of the defendants. The introduction to the lawsuit says that it seeks class certification and damages for the "Defendants' scheme to stop retail trading customers from buying stocks and selling their option contracts, when these securities hit dramatic highs," alleging that those actions harmed their customers in an effort to benefit "hedge funds with substantial short positions in the same stocks." The lawsuit alleged that during January, stocks in GameStop were being heavily shorted by hedge funds betting that the company's stock would decline in price. Shorting a stock is an investment strategy in which an investor speculates on the decline of a stock or other security's price by borrowing stocks that are likely to decrease in value by a set date, selling those stocks at the market price and buying them back before the expiration date, presumably at a lower price, then returning the stocks to the lender. If the stocks lose value, the investor pockets the difference. If the stocks increase in value, however, the investor must make up the difference. When millions of amateur investors, called "retail investors," began buying GameStop and a handful of other stocks that were being shorted, those prices rose dramatically, putting hedge funds holding those options at risk for billions of dollars in losses. The lawsuit alleged that Melvin Capital Management lost 53% of its investments in January and on Jan. 25, received a $2.75 billion emergency influx of cash from Citadel LLC and Point72 Asset Management. The lawsuit said that GameStop stock prices opened at $19 a share on Jan. 4 and closed on Jan. 27 at over $347.51 per share. While not as meteoric, other stocks also had sharp increases in the price per share in the same time period, with AMC increasing from $2.20 per share to $19.90, BlackBerry increasing from $6.70 to $25.10, and Bed Bath and Beyond increasing from $17.97 to $53.90. But then, on Jan. 28, the lawsuit alleged that the defendants stopped retail investors from purchasing GameStop, BlackBerry, AMC and other stocks, only allowing them to sell those stocks, and prevented those investors from selling option contracts on those same stocks. The lawsuit said the ban, which did not apply to institutional investors, caused the stocks to drop rapidly in value. GameStop stocks, the lawsuit said, closed at $347.51 on Jan. 27 and closed at $193.60 on Jan. 28, a loss of $153.91 in 24 hours. In that same 24 hours, the lawsuit said, AMC closed at $8.63 for a loss of $11.27 per share, Bed Bath & Beyond lost $20.23 per share to close at $33.64, and BlackBerry dropped from $25.10 to close at $14.65. At close of trade Thursday, GameStop closed at $53.50, BlackBerry closed at $12.15, Bed Bath &Beyond closed at $27.01, and AMC closed at $7.09. Kevin Kelley, in an interview Thursday with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, said he has been involved in stock trading for years, and over time educated his son in stock trading as well. "He just graduated college and is about to get married so I was teaching him some of the ins and the outs," Kelley said. "Then, lo and behold, last week happened." What happened, Kelley said, was that retail investors from all around the country converged on various social media forums and, having discovered that a number of stocks were being shorted by hedge funds, made a decision to purchase those stocks and drive the share prices back up. "They got on chat rooms and Twitter and everything else and somehow, for the first time in American history, got people from all walks of life to come together and want to screw those hedge funds and drive this price up," he said. "Now, what do GameStop and BlackBerry and AMC and those other stocks have in common? What they did was they found stocks the hedge funds had bet on to go down in value." As the buzz mounted and more people began to get involved, Kelley said, the stock prices continued to climb and momentum continued to build. That momentum, Kelley said, was largely fueled by a desire among retail investors to exact retribution against the institutional investors which he said many people believed had spent years gaming the system. "If you just say, 'Hey, let's go buy this stock,' nobody's going to do it," he said. "But if you say, 'Hey, let's go screw the hedge funds,' a lot of people think that's a fun idea." As the idea caught on and gained momentum, Kelley said, the stock prices just kept climbing. "People were going out there and buying one share just to be a part of history," he said. "That's how much momentum this had." But on Jan. 28, Kelley said, Robinhood, TD Ameritrade and E Trade pulled the plug without warning, leaving their customers holding stocks they could only sell and stock options they could only watch drop in value. "GameStop is the one everyone knows about but they also did it on AMC, Nokia, BlackBerry," he said. By restricting sales of those stocks for a time, Kelley said, the defendants illegally manipulated the stock prices. The lawsuit filed Thursday alleges that the defendants' actions violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, constituted breach of contract, demonstrated negligence on the part of the defendants toward their customers, unjustly enriched the defendants at the expense of their customers, and that the defendants conspired to harm the plaintiffs and classes. Ultimately, Kelley said, he wants to see someone held responsible for the actions of the defendants. "I have no fantasies about getting all my money back," he said. I really don't. I hope I get some of it back and that these other people get their money back, but I really want them to nail somebody. If they get off easy, it sets a precedent that it's OK to do this and it's not OK." [GN] S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Maisel Suit Over Mislabeled Cleaning Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH MAISEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., a Wisconsin Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-00413-TSH (N.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 2021) alleges that the Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels certain of its "ecover" brand cleaning products with the following claims: "Plant-based ingredients," "With plant-based ingredients," "Plant-based & mineral ingredients," or "With plant-based and mineral ingredients" in an effort to increase profits and to gain an unfair advantage over its lawfully acting competitors. According to the complaint, the products contain numerous ingredients that do not come from plants or minerals, contrary to the labeling. In light of the plant-based representations, reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, believe the products only contain ingredients that come from plants and/or from plants and minerals, and that are not subject to chemical modification or processing, which materially alters the ingredients' original plant-based or mineral composition, the suit says. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. is an American multinational privately held manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Katherine A. Bruce, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Christopher D. Moon, Esq. Kevin O. Moon, Esq. MOON LAW APC 228 Hamilton Avenue, 3rd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (415) 730-0387 Facsimile: (650) 618-0478 E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com kevin@moonlawapc.com SAN DIEGO, CA: Montoya Seeks to Certify Class of Disabled Residents ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX MONTOYA, REX SHIRLEY, PHILIP PRESSEL, and WYLENE HINKLE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:19-cv-00054-JM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs all move the Court on March 1, 2021 to enter an order: 1. granting their motion for class certification on behalf of: "residents of the City of San Diego with mobility and/or visual impairments who, based on their disabilities, have been denied free, safe, and independent access to public pedestrian walkways in the City, including sidewalks, cross-walks, and transit stops; have been denied equal enjoyment of these walkways; and/or, who have been deterred from using these walkways because of the obstructive presence of dockless vehicles on the City’s rights-of-way;" 2. designating Mr. Montoya, Mr. Pressel, Mr. Shirley and Ms. Hinkle as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing their counsel as Class Counsel. The City of San Diego must -- pursuant to Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California Gov't Codes section 4450 et seq. and section 11135 et seq. -- maintain accessible rights-of-way, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and transit stops, so that people with mobility and/or visual disabilities may move about freely. But instead of doing so, the City has applied uniform policies and practices to regulate -- or not regulate -- an obstacle course of dockless vehicles strewn on the City's public right of-way in a manner that denies people with mobility and/or visual disabilities access to free, safe, and independent travel through the walkways that people without disabilities enjoy, says the complaint. San Diego is a city on the Pacific coast of California known for its beaches, parks and warm climate. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cUK679 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Frank, Esq. Matthew R. Souther, Esq. NEIL, DYMOTT, FRANK, McCABE & HUDSON A Professional Law Corporation 110 West A Street, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1712 Facsimile: (619) 238-1562 - and - Ann E. Menasche, Esq. Nichole Mendoza, Esq. Navneet K. Grewal, Esq. Ben Conway, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 530 B Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-7861 Facsimile: (619) 239-7906 E-mail: Ann.menasche@disabilityrightsca.org Nichole.Mendoza@disabilityrightsca.org Navneet.Grewal@disabilityrightsca.org Ben.conway@disabilityrightsca.org SANMEDICA INT'L: Bid to Partly Quash Subpoena in Pizana Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RAUL PIZANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part Defendant SanMedica's Motion to Partially Quash or Modify Subpoena to the Federal Trade Commission. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on May 9, 2018, challenging the advertising and efficacy of SeroVital-hgh, a purported Human Growth Hormone ("HGH") supplement produced by Defendant that was purchased by the Plaintiff in early 2017. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on Nov. 13, 2019, asserts three causes of action: (1) a violation of California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq., the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); (2) a violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500, et seq., the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); and (3) a violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). The crux of the Plaintiff's suit is that the Defendant's Product, despite being marketed as an HGH supplement that can "make users look and feel decades--not years, but DECADES--younger," is no more effective for its advertised purposes than a placebo and is, therefore, worthless to California consumers. The Plaintiff seeks to assert claims on behalf of a proposed class defined as: All persons residing in California who purchased the Product for personal use and not for resale during the time period May 9, 2014, through the present. On March 6, 2020, the Court entered a scheduling order that bifurcated merits from class certification discovery and set a deadline of Dec. 18, 2020, for class discovery only. On Dec. 2, 2020, the Plaintiff served a subpoena on the FTC, requesting 10 categories of documents pertaining to the Defendant and 10 other non-party companies, collectively referred to as the "Basic Research Enterprise," and the Product and two other products (Growth Factor-9 ("GF-9") and Thrive-hgh) not identified in the SAC. On Dec. 11, 2020, the Defendant filed the instant motion. It objects to the scope of the Subpoena on the grounds of relevance and trade secret confidentiality. As to relevance, Magistrate Judge Oberto finds, although not raised by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant lacks standing to contest the Subpoena--issued to non-party FTC--under Rule 45 on the basis that the information sought is irrelevant. But in the interest of judicial economy, she construes the Defendant's Motion to Quash as a motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c). Turning to the substance of the Subpoena, Topic Nos. 1 & 3-8 request documents and correspondence relating to the Basic Research Enterprise, which is defined by the Subpoena to include the Defendant and 10 non-party companies. Based on the operative complaint, the proposed class in the case is defined as "all persons residing in California who purchased the Product for personal use and not for resale during the time period May 9, 2014, through the present," and the only named Defendant is SanMedica. Magistrate Judge Oberto finds that the Plaintiff has not shown how information regarding non-party companies and products not identified in the definition of the proposed class is likely to substantiate his class allegations. Therefore, she holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to that discovery at this stage of the case. The Plaintiff's request for this information may be renewed after the class certification issues are settled. Accordingly, she granted the Defendant's request to limit Topic Nos. 1 & 3-8 to Defendant SanMedica and Topic No. 2 to the SeroVital-hgh Product. As to trade secrets, Topic Nos. 4 & 5 seek both redacted and unredacted versions of documents filed and documents served in any FTC enforcement action against any company within the Basic Research Enterprise. The Defendant contends Topic Nos. 4 & 5 should be modified to require the production of only redacted versions, as the redactions "would have almost certainly constituted" a protected trade secret or other confidential information. The Plaintiff counters that the Protective Order adequately safeguards the Defendant's confidentiality interests. Magistrate Judge Oberto finds that the Defendant has not shown that any redacted information in documents responsive to Topic Nos. 4 & 5 constitutes protected trade secrets or other confidential information. Its cursory and speculative statements that the Subpoena "calls for information that is likely to be trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information" and that "anything that was redacted in the sought for filings, would have almost certainly constituted a protected trade secret or other confidential information" is wholly insufficient to satisfy the requisite standard. Moreover, Magistrate Judge Oberto finds, the Defendant fails to address why the Protective Order in the case is insufficient to protect its confidentiality interests. By its own terms, the Protective Order "governs potential discovery from third parties who would not otherwise be subject to a private agreement," and the FTC was served with a copy of the Protective Order along with the Subpoena. Therefore, Magistrate Judge Oberto denied the Defendant's request to limit Topic Nos. 4 & 5 to only the redacted versions of responsive documents. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Quash is granted in part and denied in part. Construed as a motion for a protective order under Rule 26(c), the Defendant's request to limit Topic Nos. 1 & 3-8 to information and documents pertaining to only Defendant SanMedica and Topic No. 2 to documents regarding only the SeroVital Product is granted. The Defendant's motion to limit Topic Nos. 4 & 5 to require the production of only redacted versions of any responsive documents is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yszsyf3z from Leagle.com. SANRIO INC: Cota Files Suit in Calif. Over ADA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanrio, Inc. et al. The case is captioned as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sanrio, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 3:21-cv-00179-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2021). The case is brought over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and is assigned to Judge Janis L. Sammartino. Sanrio, Inc. operates as an e-commerce Website. The Company offers the retail sale of toys, games, hobby, clothes, jewelry, bags, accessories, and craft kits. Sanrio operates worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Gibbs Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay for Specialists ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CONNIE GIBBS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-00202-GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., January 29, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a "Return to Work Specialist" since in or around November 2016. The Plaintiff alleges that although she and other similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Defendant failed to pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep proper records for all hours worked by its employees, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages in an amount equal to unpaid overtime, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief that the Court finds just and equitable. Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. provides claims and productivity management services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary E. Lytle, Esq. David V. Barszcz, Esq. LYTLE & BARSZCZ 533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor Maitland, FL 32751 Tel: (407) 622-6544 Fax: (407) 622-6545 E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney SMITHS DETECTION: Nguyen Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled VIET NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMITHS DETECTION, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20084058, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00800 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages and overtime, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair competition. Smiths Detection, Inc. is a provider of threat detection and security screening technologies, headquartered in Maryland. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Melinda S. Riechert, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1400 Page Mill Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 E-mail: melinda.riechert@morganlewis.com - and – Maureen N. Beckley, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Market Street, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-1000 Facsimile: (415) 442-1001 E-mail: maureen.beckley@morganlewis.com SOBER LIVING: Hearin Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY HEARIN, DEREK LEWIS, JAMES GRIMES, ALLEN KIRKLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES v. SOBER LIVING AMERICA, INC. AND JAMES C. deVARENNES, Case No. 1:21-cv-00270-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 15, 2021) is brought against the Defendant as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former employees. The Plaintiffs were employed by SLA, Inc. as guest service employees, work development employees, van drivers and city directors at various times in Georgia. Sober Living America, Inc. is a community service organization based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John W. Roper Georgia, Esq. THE ROPER LAW FIRM 233 12th Street Suite 602 Columbus, GA 31901 Telephone: (706) 596-5353 Facsimile: (706) 780-1014 E-mail: johnroper@roperlaw.com - and - J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com rmorelli@jsyc.com SOLARWINDS CORP: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo!News reports that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against SolarWinds Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") (NYSE:SWI) and reminds investors of the March 5, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in SolarWinds stock or options between February 24, 2020 and December 15, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: http://www.faruqilaw.com/SWI. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Specifically, on December 14, 2020, SolarWinds filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, disclosing that it had been the subject of hack on its Orion monitoring products. On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.93 per share, or 17%, to close at $19.62 per share on December 14, 2020, damaging investors. Then, on December 15, 2020, Reuters published an article stating that, last year, security researcher Vinoth Kumar "alerted the company that anyone could access SolarWinds' update server by using the password 'solarwinds123.'" The article also disclosed that, according to Kyle Hanslovan, the cofounder of Maryland-based cybersecurity company Huntress, "days after SolarWinds realized their software had been compromised, the malicious updates were still available for download." On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.56 per share or 8% to close at $18.06 per share on December 15, 2020, damaging investors. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding SolarWinds's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] SPARTAN RACE: Court Denies as Moot Fruitstone Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fruitstone v. Spartan Race Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-20836 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Beth Bloom entered an order denying as moot Motion to Certify Class. The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance. Spartan Race is an operator of an obstacle race and endurance brand intended to offer sports challenges and courses.[CC] STARBUCKS CORP: Fails to Provide Seats to Employees, Estrada Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA DONNEY ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV03867 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 1, 2020) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide adequate seats to their employees. Plaintiff Estrada was employed by the Defendants as staff. Starbucks Corporation retails, roasts, and provides its own brand of specialty coffee. The Company operates retail locations worldwide and sells whole bean coffees through its sales group, direct response business, supermarkets, and on the world wide web. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Karczewski, Esq. Saima Ali Gipson, Esq. EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1120 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 382-2222 Facsimile: (213) 382-2230 STARKIST CO: Partly Compelled to Show Docs From Dongwon in Gardner ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WARREN GARDNER, et al., Plaintiffs v. STARKIST CO., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-02561-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for the issuance of a letter rogatory to compel the production of documents from StarKist's parent company, Dongwon Industries Co. Ltd. The Plaintiffs are purchasers of Defendant StarKist tuna from various states who bring the class action lawsuit alleging that StarKist promises consumers that its tuna products are dolphin-safe and sustainably sourced and that those promises are false and misleading. In his first Dec. 2, 2019 motion to dismiss order, Judge Orrick found that the Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded their state law fraud claims against StarKist because they alleged that: (i) they purchased StarKist tuna because they believed it was dolphin-safe based on the Defendants' statements about the product; (ii) the statements were not true given that the fishing methods used by the Defendants are known to harm or kill at least some dolphins"; and (iii) "they would not have purchased the products if they had known the statements were not true." While the claims against StarKist were plausibly pleaded, Judge Orrick granted Dongwon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because the Plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case that StarKist and Dongwon are alter egos or agents of each other. On March 31, 2020, Judge Orrick granted Dongwon's second motion to dismiss with prejudice because the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint did not fix the insufficiently pleaded alter ego or agency theories. But he denied StarKist's second motion to dismiss, reiterating the conclusion he made in his first ruling. Judge Orrick also rejected StarKist's argument that the Plaintiffs fail to allege how reasonable consumers would interpret StarKist's dolphin-safe label and statements as guaranteeing no harm or injury whatsoever to dolphins. Therefore, the fraud claims against StarKist were sufficiently stated and continued past the pleading stage. In his most recent Oct. 19, 2020 order denying without prejudice StarKist's motion to deny class certification, Judge Orrick found that StarKist's motion was premature and that the Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to gather evidence to support their claims. On Nov. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for the issuance of a letter rogatory to compel the production of documents from Dongwon. StarKist opposed on grounds that the Plaintiffs are attempting to bring dismissed-Defendant Dongwon back into the case and that their request for documents is not relevant and proportional. An oral argument on was held on Jan. 20, 2021. The question presented in the case is whether StarKist violates its own dolphin-safe and sustainability promises to the Plaintiffs and other consumers when it sources its tuna in ways it knows kill and harm dolphins. The Plaintiffs asked StarKist to produce "Documents and Communications relating to any harm or killing, whether intentional or unintentional, of dolphins by any fishing by Your fishing fleet, or any boat in which You or Your owners have any financial interests." They argue that they are entitled to discovery from Dongwon now that StarKist has put Dongwon and Dongwon's fishing practices directly at issue. The categories of documents the Plaintiffs request from Dongwon include: (a) Dongwon's procurement of tuna for StarKist; (b) Dongwon's use of fishing methods such as purse seine nets, fish aggravating devices ("FADs"), and longlines to capture tuna for StarKist; and (c) dolphin harm or deaths during Dongwon's capture of tuna. StarKist contends that of the 16 separate document requests the Plaintiffs seek to serve Dongwon, only six--Nos. 4 through 8 and 16--are limited in any way to materials relevant to StarKist or its business: (4) Documents sufficient to show by name, country of origin, ownership, call sign, International Maritime Organization (IMO) number, Maritime Mobile Service Identity number, and flag all boats that supplied the tuna in StarKist's Products or that was involved in transshipping that tuna. (5) All documents relating to or concerning the fishing method(s) used by each boat that supplied the tuna in StarKist's Products, including, but not limited to, the percentage of tuna procured for StarKist by each fishing method. (6) For each boat identified in Request No. 4, above, produce documents identifying the name, address, and contact information of all captains and observers, if any, on board and the time period during which they served. (7) All documents and communications relating to or concerning captain and observer compensation on each boat identified in response to Request No. 4, above. (8) All documents relating to or concerning StarKist's compensation of Dongwon for supplying tuna for its Products. (16) All documents and communications between you and StarKist regarding dolphin safety, bycatch, FADs, and fishing methods. StarKist argues that the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of demonstrating that these document requests are necessary and appropriate because they are duplicative of discovery that it has already agreed to produce and thus are neither proportional to the needs of the case nor necessary. It also argues that the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden with respect to the remaining 10 requests, which request documents and communications regarding dolphin safety, harm, or death in Dongwon's procurement of tuna generally. The 10 remaining requests include: (1) All documents and communications relating to or concerning documented instances of dolphins harmed or killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in your procurement of tuna. To avoid doubt, this includes any harm to dolphins occurring in fishing for tuna, even if that harm was attributable to a tuna catch that was segregated out as non-dolphin safe or where the tuna caught did not otherwise end up in tuna products. (2) All documents and communications relating to any harm or killing, whether intentional or unintentional, of dolphins by any fishing by Dongwon's fishing fleet, or any boat in which Dongwon has any financial interest. (3) All documents related to or concerning tuna that was separately stored because dolphins were harmed during its procurement. (9) All documents constituting or regarding inquiries, complaints, or communications regarding tuna caught by Dongwon's fishing vessels pertaining to dolphins, either domestic or international. (10) All documents and communications concerning dolphin safety and FADs. (11) All documents and communications concerning dolphin safety and longlines. (12) All documents and communications concerning dolphin safety and purse seine nets. (13) All documents and communications with either ISSF, EII, WWF, NFI, or any other Non-Governmental Organization regarding dolphin safety, FADs, and bycatch. (14) All documents concerning Dongwon's dolphin-safe policies or procedures. (15) All documents and communications which refer or relate to the software, program, and other methods you use to track the chain-of-custody of your tuna and verify its dolphin-safe, including, but not limited to, any in-house digital supply chain mapping system. Judge Orrick granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' application to issue a letter rogatory. He granted Request Nos. 4 to 8. He denied Request No. 16 to the extent that it would be less burdensome for StarKist to produce such information. StarKist is ordered to produce information covered by Request No. 16. Judge Orrick denied Request Nos. 10 to 13, without prejudice, at this juncture. If, after the Plaintiffs have reviewed the documents produced by StarKist and Dongwon, they have a good faith reason to believe that such documents are unreliable, insufficient or inadequate, the Judge will consider whether it is appropriate for Dongwon to produce a broader set of documents covered by Request Nos. 10 to 13. Finally, he denied Request Nos. 1 to 3, 9, 14 to 15 because the Plaintiffs have not explained why such information is relevant or necessary for the claims brought in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vwntpao1 from Leagle.com. STATE FARM: Jama Car Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYSAL A. JAMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 20-cv-00652-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting his motion to certify a class of: "all persons and entities within the State of Washington that have made first-party property damage claims under contracts of automobile insurance with State Farm that provided for payment of the actual cash value of the policyholder's vehicle (less any applicable deductible) in the event of total loss, and (1) where policyholders experienced a total loss of their insured vehicle covered under such policy, (2) where such claims for total loss were evaluated by State Farm using the Autosource valuation system, and (3) where such claims were paid by State Farm to the policyholder or a lienholder without the parties agreeing to use, and using, an alternative appraisal process described in the policyholder's policy;" 2. appointing him to serve as class representative; and 3. appointing his counsel as class counsel. This action arises from State Farm's practice of improperly valuing class members' totaled vehicles, thereby reducing the amount paid to its policyholders. Under the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), when adjusting total loss claims using "actual cash value," the value of comparable vehicles used may be adjusted only for "options, mileage, or condition." Further, those adjustments must be itemized, explained, verifiable and appropriate in dollar amount. Although the statute only allows deductions for options, mileage, or condition, State Farm applies a fourth and unlawful deduction: typical negotiation. The Plaintiff contracted with State Farm for an automobile insurance policy providing coverage for physical damage for his 2009 Honda Civic Hybrid sedan. On May 25, 2019, the Plaintiff's Honda Civic sustained damage which State Farm deemed a total loss. State Farm "selected Audatex, an independent vehicle valuation company, to prepare a comprehensive vehicle valuation for your vehicle." In the "Valuation Detail" section of the Autosource report, Audatex identified four different "comparable" vehicles, identifying the year, make, model, location, transmission, and odometer reading of each vehicle. Autosource then adjusted the value of comparable vehicles to account for differences with the Plaintiff's vehicle, including mileage and options. The value of these comparable vehicles was then used to establish the alleged "actual cash value" of Plaintiff's vehicle. State Farm operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36Ra6MZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Whitmore, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE, PS 6840 Fort Dent Way, No. 210 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 329-8400 Facsimile: (206) 329-8401 E-mail: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com - and - Duncan C. Turner, Esq. Mark A. Trivett, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NW, No. 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 Facsimile: (206) 621-9686 E-mail: dturner@badgelymullins.com mtrivett@badgelymullins.com STATE FARM: Ngethpharat Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANYSA NGETHPHARAT and JAMES KELLEY, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00454-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting their motion to certify case as a class action. "all State Farm [Mutual] insureds with Washington first party personal line policies issued in Washington State, who received compensation for the total loss of their own vehicles under their First Party (Comprehensive, Collision, and UMPD) coverages, and who received a total loss valuation from Audatex based upon the value of comparable vehicles which took a deduction/adjustment for "typical negotiation";" Excluded from the Class would be (a) the assigned Judge, the Judge's staff and family, and State Farm employees; (b) claims for accidents with dates of loss occurring before March 25, 2014; (c) claims where the total loss was on a "non-owned" (borrowed or rented) vehicles; and (d) claims where the insured submitted written evidence supporting a different valuation, and the amount of that different valuation submitted by the insured was paid by State Farm to settle the total loss; 2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives; and 3. appointing their counsel as class counsel. This case challenges State Farm's uniform claims practice of underpaying its insured's total loss claims using computer-generated reports ("Autosource Reports") which it licenses from a vender. The Plaintiffs allege does not authorize a deduction for "typical negotiations," that the deduction fails to meet the specific requirements of Section 391 as to what data can be used in calculating the deduction, and that State Farm's use of the reports which contain the deduction violate its obligations under WAC 284-30-380(7) to insure that the deduction being taken accurately reflects the claimed ask-to-sold adjustment which each insured. State Farm operates as an insurance company. The Company offers automobile, property, casualty, health, disability, and life insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 29, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cQe63X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Hansen, Esq. Scott P. Nealey, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN, PS Law Office of Scott P. Nealey 315 Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 231-5311 Facsimile: (415) 231-5313 E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com SUNPOWER CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Moore Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ TYLER BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNPOWER CORP; MODERNIZE INC.; and QUINSTREET, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00790-NC (N.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2021) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. SunPower Corporation is an integrated solar products and services company. The Company designs, manufactures, and markets high-performance solar electric power technologies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com TD BANK: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Duplicative NSF Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP commenced a lawsuit this week against TD Bank. The lawsuit alleges that TD Bank routinely charges more than on NSF fee on a single attempted transaction. The action is on behalf of all Canadians who have been forced to pay these allegedly illegitimate charges. The Representative Plaintiff attempted to make a purchase from his TD account. His account was less than one dollar short of the purchase price. TD charged him not one, but two NSF fees on this single attempted purchase. Being less than $1 short of the purchase price cost him almost $100. The Plaintiff alleges that these charges violated his contract with TD, were unfair and deceptive. Adam Tanel, a lawyer at Koskie Minsky, says: "TD's practice of double and triple NSF charges is grossly unfair. It directly targets low-income Canadians at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet. This practice must stop, and the illegitimate profits should be returned to the ordinary Canadians who were forced to pay them." These allegations have not yet been proven in court. [GN] TECH MAHINDRA: Williams Discrimination Suit Tossed W/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, LEE WILLIAMS, individually and in his representative capacity, Plaintiff v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04684 (BRM) (LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint. The matter stems from the Plaintiff's employment at Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) ("TMA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tech Mahindra, Ltd., an information technology ("IT") company located in India. TMA, a company incorporated in New Jersey with its principal place of business in Freehold, New Jersey, provides IT outsourcing and consulting services to clients within the United States and has approximately 5,100 employees. According to the Complaint, TMA hires a "grossly disproportionate" number of South Asian and Indian employees due to "TMA's intentional pattern and practice of employment discrimination against individuals who are not South Asian, including discrimination in hiring, staffing, promotion, and termination decisions." The Plaintiff, "is of Caucasian Race and American national origin," resides in Florida, and was employed by TMA in Columbus, Ohio at all relevant times. TMA operates under a "general policy of discrimination in favor of South Asians and against individuals who are not South Asian." This "general policy of discrimination" is "manifested" through TMA's practice of securing H-1B visas (and other visas) for South Asian workers located overseas, preferential treatment to South Asian applicants located in the United States over non-South Asian applicants, preferential treatment to South Asians over non-South Asians in making promotion decisions, and finally, due to TMA's "discriminatory preference for South Asians, TMA terminates non-South Asians at disproportionately high rates, compared to South Asians." The Plaintiff is a "highly skilled senior technology sales executive with over 20 years of professional experience," who holds a B.S. in Business Management from Indiana Wesleyan University. He specializes in new logo acquisition, account management, and team leadership, and sells both technology and services to clients. He has held a variety of director and vice-president level sales roles throughout his career. The Plaintiff was hired by TMA for a Regional Manager/Senior Director of Business Development sales role based out of Columbus, Ohio in May 2014. He began his employment on June 2, 2014. In this position, the Plaintiff was a "hunter" responsible for generating business and sales from new banking clients in the Midwest and developing relationships with these new accounts. He was one of only two non-South Asian employees out of approximately eight employees in the new "hunter fields sales group." He reported to a Manish Sharma, who "like the vast majority of TMA's managerial and supervisory staff," was "of South Asian race." Shortly after joining TMA, the Plaintiff was asked to enter his professional banking contacts into "TMA's Salesforce CRM system," to which he complied and continued to update his contacts in the Salesforce CRM system throughout his tenure with TMA. Due to TMA's poor business relationship with various banking clients, "it often took months" to coordinate "meetings with these accounts and deals were lost to competitors due to TMA's poor history with the accounts." When the Plaintiff asked for help in overcoming these problems, his requests for help went unanswered. Despite these challenges, the Plaintiff "performed well" and successfully identified opportunities for future sales which included "four opportunities with PNC totaling over $3 million in potential sales revenue." In February 2015, the Plaintiff was provided with a small raise by TMA for his efforts, however, because of TMA's "pattern or practice of discrimination it never promoted" the Plaintiff. In June 2015, Sharma informed the Plaintiff he was not meeting his sales goals and would be placed on a "Performance Improvement Plan" ("PIP") effective June 15, 2015. Under the PIP, TMA set "unreasonable revenue goals" for the Plaintiff that were "unattainable" due to TMA's poor working relationship with the accounts in the Plaintiff's territory. TMA terminated the Plaintiff on Aug. 19, 2015. On Sept. 7, 2015, the Plaintiff "curiously" received a letter from TMA's Group Manager of Human Resources noting his "resignation had been accepted" and that he was "relieved from the services of TMA effective Aug. 19, 2015." The Plaintiff did not resign, but rather he was terminated because of TMA's pattern or practice of discrimination. On April 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a one-count putative class action Complaint alleging disparate treatment on the basis of race under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. On June 9, 2020, TMA filed a motion to dismiss. On July 13, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an opposition. On July 27, 2020, TMA filed a reply. TMA argues the Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim fails for three main reasons. First, the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a claim for hiring or staffing discrimination, and his putative class claim should be dismissed for the same reason. Second, the Complaint must be dismissed as it is time-barred. Third, the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to plausibly support a Section 1981 claim. The Plaintiff opposes arguing he has standing to assert hiring and staffing claims and TMA's argument is a premature challenge to class certification, his claims are not time-barred, and he has adequately stated a claim for disparate treatment. First, Judge Martinotti opines that contrary to TMA's argument, the Plaintiff has established he has standing to pursue claims against TMA. The Complaint asserts he suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of TMA. Specifically, the Complaint alleges after the Plaintiff was hired he was placed on a PIP despite "performing well," and was required to meet "unreasonable revenue goals," and was, among other things, never promoted because of "TMA's pattern or practice of discrimination," by favoring members of the South Asian Race or Indian national origin. In other words, the Plaintiff alleges he was the victim of TMA's discriminatory conduct. Therefore, Judge Martinotti finds that the Plaintiff sufficiently pled he suffered an injury in fact. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's injuries are likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision of the Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff has established Article III standing: that he suffered an injury in fact, that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of TMA, and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Accordingly, TMA's Motion to Dismiss based on lack of standing is denied. Second, Judge Martinotti examines whether the Plaintiff's individual and class claims are time-barred under American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). American Pipe tolls the statute of limitations during the pendency of a putative class action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action individually or file individual claims if the class fails. But American Pipe does not permit the maintenance of a follow-on class action past expiration of the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff's employment was terminated on Aug. 19, 2015. Therefore, the time for him to bring a claim for hiring discrimination must have been brought on or before Aug. 19, 2019. The Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to American Pipe tolling. Turning as to whether American Pipe tolling applies to successive class actions, Judge Martinotti finds it does not. He says American Pipe created a generous tolling rule that applies broadly to protect putative class members in pending class actions. Yet the rule is not without limits. Accordingly, TMA's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim as time-barred is denied with respect to the Plaintiff's individual claim, and granted with respect to the Plaintiff's class action claim. Finally, TMA contends the Plaintiff's claim under Section 1981 should be dismissed because he has not made any plausible allegations of race discrimination. In essence, TMA argues the Plaintiff has crafted conclusory accusations that are unsupported by any specific factual allegations and have failed to "nudge his claims of invidious discrimination across the line from conceivable to plausible." The Plaintiff argues he has sufficiently alleged TMA engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination against non-South Asians. Judge Martinotti does not find the Complaint contains sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face under the but-for causation standard. True, the Plaintiff has alleged, among other things, that his termination was an actionable adverse employment action and termination does qualify as an adverse employment action. However, he opines that the Plaintiff fails to provide non-conclusory allegations that plausibly suggest his race, national origin, or a relevant protected activity, was a "but-for" cause of his termination or lack of promotion. The Plaintiff can point to no racially discriminatory statements or conduct by TMA, his supervisors, or anyone conceivably involved in the decision to fire him or refuse to promote him. Rather, the Plaintiff simply (and conclusory) alleges because of "TMA's pattern or practice of discrimination, it never promoted him" and TMA "terminated [Plaintiff] because of TMA's pattern or practice of discrimination." According to the Judge, these are boilerplate assertions unsupported by specific facts. The Plaintiff has failed to show racial discrimination was a but-for cause of TMA's decision to terminate or refuse to promote him. Therefore, he has failed to state a plausible claim of intentional discrimination based on his race. Accordingly, TMA's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Section 1981 claim is granted. For the reasons set forth, TMA's Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yriuzh4k from Leagle.com. TECHNIPFMC PLC: March 19 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JOSEPH PRAUSE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TECHNIPFMC PLC, TORE HALVORSEN, and DIANNE B. RALSTON, Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES This notice is for all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired TechnipFMC Common Stock in the United States, including but not limited to TechnipFMC Common Stock acquired through the merger of FMC Technologies SIS Limited and Technip S.A., between January 16, 2017 and July 24, 2017, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period") and were injured (the "Settlement Class"). A complete list of the TechnipFMC Securities is available at www.TechnipFMCSecuritiesLitigation.com. and is set forth in the full printed notice of the settlement referred to below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Class Representative in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $19,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on March 19, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Alfred H. Bennett at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Courtroom 8C, Bob Casey United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated December 13, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.TechnipFMCSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at TechnipFMC Securities Litigation., c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91369, Seattle, WA, 98111–0107, 1–877–545–0232. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than May 15, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than February 26, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than February 26, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, TechnipFMC, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. For any questions, visit www.TechnipFMCSecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free at (877) 545-0232 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 661–1100 jalieberman@pomlaw.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: TechnipFMC Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91369 Seattle, WA 98111–0107 (877) 545–0232 www.TechnipFMCSecuritiesLitigation.com By Order of the Court [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Dormer Fraud Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Scott Dormer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Case No. 20STCV46318, was removed from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on January 15, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00419-FLA-PD to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from alleged fraud claims. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Nicholas Barthel, Esq. Pamela Erin Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com nicholas@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com - and - Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 321 North Mall Drive Suite R108 St. George, UT 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5522 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. Lily Bu, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com lbu@gibsondunn.com TRITERRAS INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of Feb. 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts Triterras investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Triterras stock or other securities (NASDAQ:TRIT) between August 20, 2020 and December 16, 2020. TRIT investors may visit www.tenlaw.com/cases/triterras-inc/ to learn about the case and the lead plaintiff process. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. Triterras investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be eligible to recover as class members. The case alleges that Triterras and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose: (1) the extent to which Triterras' 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; and (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos platform. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 allows any investor who purchased the securities at issue in the case during the Class Period to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action and can select a law firm of their choice to litigate the lawsuit. Serving as a lead plaintiff does not impact an investor's share in any potential recovery. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff to be a member of the class. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. Interested Triterras investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys represent individual and institutional investors in lawsuits to recover damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] TYSON FOODS: Mason Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANNA MASON, BARRY MASON, MITCHELL MASON, JONATHAN TIPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., TYSON CHICKEN, INC., TYSON BREEDERS, INC., TYSON POULTRY, INC., PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, PERDUE FARMS, INC., KOCH FOODS, INC., KOCH MEAT CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH POULTRY CO., SANDERSON FARMS, INC., SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION), SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION), and SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), Case No. 5:20-cv-07049, was transferred from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on February 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-00033-RJS-CMR to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act by entering into anticompetitive agreements to suppress broiler chicken grower compensation below competitive levels. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork products, headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. Tyson Chicken, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. Tyson Breeders, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. Tyson Poultry, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods, Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a chicken producer headquartered in Greeley, Colorado. Perdue Farms, Inc. is a chicken, turkey, and pork processing company in the United States, headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland. Koch Foods, Inc. is a food processor and distributor based in Park Ridge, Illinois. Koch Meat Co, Inc., doing business as Koch Poultry Co., is a producer and distributor of meat products, headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois. Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry producer, headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Moneet Kohli, Esq. 1355 Taylor Street #3 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (781) 354-3600 Email: moneet@kohli.com - and – Marsha Mason, Esq. MASON LAW FIRM LLC P.O. Box 1837 Alexander City, AL 35011 Telephone: (256) 329-1313 Facsimile: (888) 597-7171 UAW-LABOR EMPLOYMENT: Diaz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UAW-LABOR EMPLOYMENT AND JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TRAINING CORPORATION, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV01847 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 15, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code. The complaint contends that the Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff and all other aggrieved employees with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods, failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods, failed to properly record their meal and rest breaks, failed to properly pay them on a semi-monthly basis, failed to provide them with accurate written wage statements and failed to pay them all of their final wages following separation of employment. Mr. Diaz was employed by the Defendants in the State of California as an hourly, non-exempt employee from approximately January 13, 2020 through March 5, 2020. UAW-Labor Employment & Training Corp. operates as a non-profit organization. The organization provides employment and training programs. UAW-Labor Employment & Training serves employers, unions, job seekers, and public grant agencies in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com david@setarehlaw.com UNITED STATES: Southern District of Florida Closes Tamayo v. SSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ursula Ungaro of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed without prejudice the case, LUIS TAMAYO, ROLANDO GUERRA, and JORGE MALAGON, Plaintiffs v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20009-UU/LMR (S.D. Fla.). The cause is before the Court upon the Plaintiffs' pro se Complaint and the Plaintiffs' pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperi. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid, who, on Jan. 8, 2021, issued a Report recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice because: (1) the Plaintiffs cannot bring a pro se class action; (2) relatedly, pro se litigants may not represent the interests of others; and (3) the Complaint fails to state a claim. The Plaintiffs were given 14 days to file objections to the Report. They did not file objections. Upon de novo review, Judge Ungaro agrees with Magistrate Judge Reid's recommendations and concurs in all her findings. Accordingly, she ratified, adopted, and affirmed. The Plaintiffs' pro se Motion for Leave is denied and the case is dismissed without prejudice. The case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 29, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3c4h92x4 from Leagle.com. VIKING CLIENT: Vasquez Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ottho Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Viking Client Services, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00593 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Viking Client Services -- https://www.vikingservice.com/ -- is a national provider of electronic payment solutions, customer care, billing and collection and recovery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com WALMART INC: Flores Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MANUEL FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WALMART, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIV DS 2007143, was removed from Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on February 1, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00181 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law including failure to pay lawful wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods of compensation in lieu thereof, failure to timely pay wages due at termination, failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions, and unfair competition. Walmart, Inc. 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 Defendant is represented by: R. Omar Riojas, Esq. GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3950 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 452-0260 Facsimile: (206) 397-3062 E-mail: riojas@goldfarb-huck.com WASHINGTON: Faces Suit for Shuttling Foster Kids Among Placements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press reports that Washington state is failing hundreds of foster children by shuttling them among placements, including short-term stays in hotels and state offices, advocacy groups alleged in a federal lawsuit -- a problem that the responsible state agency has recognized. Disability Rights Washington, the National Center for Youth Law and the Seattle law firm Carney Gillespie sued the Department of Children, Youth and Families in U.S. District Court on Jan. 28. The complaint said the department has a duty to protect and support children and help return them to their families if possible, but that instead the instability of the placements hurts them. One 13-year-old plaintiff who has been diagnosed with PTSD has been placed in 30 different foster or group homes across the state since 2016, and he has been placed in hotels or state offices 20 times for stays ranging from one night to two months, it said. "DCYF's practices are re-traumatizing children, destroying their ability to bond with and trust adults, interrupting delivery of mental health care, disrupting educational attainment, and extinguishing any hope that children and their families will have the long-term stability they need and deserve," the complaint said. In a statement on Jan. 29, department Secretary Ross Hunter declined to comment on the specific litigation but generally acknowledged the failings, some of which were also highlighted in December in a report from the Washington State Office of the Family and Children's Ombuds. "I shared then, and still feel, that this is an egregious problem that can only be solved through investments by the state," Hunter said. "While the number of children and youth who experience these exceptional placements is small compared to the overall number in out-of-home care, these children and youth have complex needs that are not easily met and require significant resources." He noted that the department's child welfare policy team had proposed solutions. The lawsuit, a class action, was filed on behalf of three children identified by only their initials in the complaint. The 13-year-old wants to return home but is being kept in a group home where he is isolated from his family and segregated from his community, advocates said. The other children are a 16-year-old boy who has had 15 foster care placements, including in institutions in Idaho, Tennessee, and Utah, in the past five years, and a 16-year-old girl who is cycling between one-night stays in hotels and DCYF offices, the complaint said. The lawsuit accuses the state of violating the children's constitutional rights as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. It asks the court to force systemic changes, including more support for family reunification and an end to hotel and office placements. [GN] WOOD GROUP: Faces Culpepper et al. Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY CULPEPPER and JOSE RESENDEZ, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WOOD GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., C2 LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS, LLC, and JAMES CLARK, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., February 1, 2021) brings this collection action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged failure to regular rate of ay and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant C2 Logistics as hourly-paid employees, Plaintiff Culpepper as a safety advisor during the month of November 2020, and Plaintiff Resendez as a foreman in October and November 2020. The Plaintiffs assert that even though they worked substantial overtime prior to the transition of ownership, they were not paid by the Defendants any wages during their final weeks of employment. Wood Group Management Services, Inc. is a U.S. based subsidiary of a multinational energy service company called John Wood Group, PLC. The Wood Group purchased the assets and operations of the Defendant C2 Logistics in the fall of 2020 and continued to employ a substantial number of the Plaintiffs in this complaint. C2 Logistics installs and maintains wind turbines in Oregon, Kansas, Wyoming and oter states. John Clark was the President and owner of C2 Logistics. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave., Suite 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 425-6445 Fax: (713) 888-535-9271 E-mail: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com - and – Vic Shapiro, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF B. VIC SHAPIRO 1800 St. James place, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 780-3230 Fax: (713) 780-4884 E-mail: vshapiro@bvshapiro.com Y.Y.G.M. SA: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Brooks Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Y.Y.G.M. SA d/b/a BRANDY MELVILLE, a Swiss Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00078-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal., Jan. 15, 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 violation of 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 after she encountered multiple access barriers during numerous visits to Defendants' Website, https://us.brandymelville.com/, denying her full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services being offered. She seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendants' policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant owns, operates, and maintains brick and mortar store locations in the state of California.[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 [*] Borden Ladner Attorneys Report Class Action Developments ------------------------------------------------------------ Glenn Zakaib, Esq., Markus Kremer, Esq., Michelle Maniago, Esq., Anne Merminod, Esq., Jean Saint-Onge Ad. E., Esq., and Brad Dixon, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report the TOP 3 Legal Developments of 2020. 1. Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock: In this significant decision for class actions, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the notion of waiver of tort as a cause of action under Canadian law, restricted the availability of disgorgement as a remedy for breach of contract and made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to advance class actions in cases where damages cannot be proved on a class-wide basis. The theory behind waiver of tort was that a negligent defendant could be ordered to pay plaintiffs the gains the defendant obtained from the wrongful conduct, even without proof that the plaintiffs suffered losses as a result. In the past plaintiffs often pled waiver of tort, because it seemed to offer the potential to bring class actions on behalf of large classes, without the need for individual proof of loss. The need to prove causation and damages on an individual basis often renders class actions unmanageable. For this reason, the Court's rejection of waiver of tort is likely to have significant repercussions for future litigation. Read BLG's commentary on the decision and its implications, or watch a presentation on the case from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (the relevant portion begins at 1:14:12). 2. 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc.: The majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held in this case that there is no general duty in negligence to avoid causing pure economic loss (although such losses may be recoverable in specific circumstances, such as in the case of a negligent misrepresentation). In the past, many class actions sought recovery for pure economic losses. These claims were attractive to class counsel because they would not require class members to prove personal injury, damage to property, or a contractual relationship with the defendant. Read BLG's commentary on the decision and its implications. 3. Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller: This decision of the Supreme Court of Canada addresses the enforceability of arbitration clauses and, in particular, the scope of the unconscionability doctrine. In the class actions area, however, it may raise more questions than it answers. The Court has held previously that legally enforceable arbitration clauses can preclude parties from participating in class actions. In holding that such clauses may be unenforceable pursuant to the unconscionability doctrine, the Uber decision raises interesting questions about how that issue should be determined in a class actions context. The inequality of bargaining power that is a prerequisite for the application of the doctrine would seem to be something that, at least in some cases, could vary from one class member to another. This begs the question: is the enforceability of an arbitration clause an individual issue that must be answered separately for each class member or group of class members, or can it be determined on a class-wide basis? Read BLG's commentary on the decision and its implications. TOP 3 Trends of 2020 1. A good year for plaintiffs. 2020 was a good year for class action plaintiffs. The proportion of contested motions that resulted in certification increased by 13 per cent over the previous year, and more than 80 per cent of outcomes on appeal also favoured plaintiffs. It remains to be seen whether the legal developments described above, and the amendments to Ontario's class actions legislation, will create a less hospitable environment for plaintiffs in Ontario in 2021. 2. The COVID-19 effect. COVID-19 appears to have had an interesting effect on the timing of new class action filings. In past years, a summer lull in filings was often preceded by a spike in late spring. COVID-19 seems to have delayed that spike to the summer. Filings for the period from March to June were less than half what they were the previous year, but came roaring back from July to September 2020, more than doubling the filings over the same period in 2019. Over the course of the year, we saw an increasing number of COVID-related claims, including a large number of claims against long-term care facilities and claims for denial of coverage under business interruption and travel insurance policies. Read BLG's COVID-19 2020 year-end class actions update and forecast or watch a presentation on the trends from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (the relevant portion begins at 1:34:19). 3. The Bill 161 buzzer-beater. After almost 30 years, Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992, received a comprehensive overhaul, with the changes coming into effect on Oct. 1, 2020. The amendments to the Act will significantly affect how class actions are litigated in Ontario. Perhaps most importantly, plaintiffs will now have to demonstrate that the common issues in a case "predominate" over individual issues. This requirement, new to Ontario, should raise the bar for certification. That certainly seems to be the view taken by class counsel, who commenced a number of new class actions at the end of September (almost twice the number issued in September 2019), in an apparent attempt to "get in under the wire." Most of the changes implemented by Bill 161 apply only to proceedings started on or after Oct. 1, 2020. Read BLG's commentary on the amendments or watch a presentation on them from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (the relevant portion begins at 0:01:45). TOP 3 Things to Watch for 1. Class Actions in the time of COVID. Expect to see the pandemic continue to give rise to many new class actions in 2021. There has already been a spike in such cases in the United States, and, in Ontario, the beginning of a spike in cases in the second half of 2020. There will likely be more claims related to cancelled trips, sporting and entertainment events, insurance claims and the provision of healthcare and related services, among others. Read BLG's COVID-19 2020 year-end class actions update and forecast or watch a presentation on the case from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (the relevant portion begins at 1:34:19). 2. Possible court-shopping by plaintiffs. Ontario arguably became a less plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in 2020. The amendments to Ontario's Class Proceedings Act, 1992, among other things, imported the requirement that common issues "predominate" over individual issues and encourage pre-certification motions. At the same time, the Divisional Court's decision in Kuiper v. Cook (Canada) held that, to succeed on a certification motion, plaintiffs must show that there is some basis in fact to support both the existence of the proposed common issues, and that they are common to the whole class. These changes, when combined with Ontario's "loser pays" costs regime and the fact that a national class can be certified in any province, could lead some plaintiffs' lawyers to look for greener pastures for class actions. It will be interesting to see whether 2021 brings a reduction in the number of plaintiffs who choose to litigate in Ontario, as opposed to commencing claims in other provinces or in Federal Court. Read BLG's commentary on the legislative amendments or watch a presentation about them from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (relevant portion begins at 0:01:45). Read BLG's commentary on the Kuiper case. 3. Is the Supreme Court of Canada pumping the brakes? It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court's decisions in Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock and 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc. are isolated cases dealing with narrow issues, or signal a more general intention on the part of the Court to push back against class actions in which class members cannot prove they suffered direct and foreseeable damages. It is notable in this regard that the Majority in Atlantic Lottery acknowledged that uncertainty about the remedies available at law can result in the certification of doubtful claims and that, once claims are certified, defendants are under tremendous pressure to settle. Read BLG's commentary on the Atlantic Lottery decision and its implications or watch a presentation on the case from BLG's latest Class Actions Seminar (the relevant portion begins at 1:14:12). Read BLG's commentary on the Maple Leaf decision. TOP 3 TAKE-AWAYS 1. Prepare for more COVID-19 claims. Companies and organizations whose ability to perform their normal functions has been undermined by the pandemic should be prepared to face class actions from patients, customers and insureds who may have been adversely affected. Companies should seek advice before they are sued in order to reduce the risk of claims and improve their chances of successfully defending any claims they do face. 2. Be prepared for claims in other jurisdictions. As a result of changes in the law in Ontario, we may see more plaintiffs commencing national class actions in other provinces and in the Federal Court, rather than in Ontario. Companies and organizations will need legal counsel able to represent them in all of Canada's key class actions jurisdictions (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and in the Federal Court). 3. Keep an eye on the "hot spots." Companies and organizations should continue to monitor policies and procedures that relate to likely "hot spots" in the time of COVID-19: consumer protection, securities, employment, privacy, healthcare, insurance and products liability. They should consult legal counsel as soon as they identify issues or receive complaints relating to these areas, in order to prepare for potential class actions before claims are brought. To get a sense of where your risk lies, monitor and track complaints whether sent directly to you or expressed through social media.[GN] [*] CBD Cos. Must Avoid Health Claims or Face Class Action Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Asa Waldstein, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that it's the Wild West out there!" How often have you heard that statement made about health claims for products containing CBD? But here's the thing: It's not the Wild West, Lesley Fair, senior attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, noted in a recent blog post. Gone are the days when a CBD company could make "health claims" or "disease claims," as they are referred to by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, without fear of strict government retribution. The FDA does not allow disease claims such as "suggested treatment for anxiety" to be made on dietary supplements or hemp products in any form. During the past two years, the FDA and the FTC have increased enforcement actions against companies making online marketing claims in blogs, social media, websites and more. What is a claim? Before marketing a CBD product, it's important to know what constitutes a health or disease claim. Here are a few general rules to help determine if a claim is being made: Anything ending in "itis" refers to inflammation, such as arthritis. Anything a drug is "indicated for," such as Xanax being indicated for anxiety. Anything with "anti" in the name, such as anti-inflammatory. The name of any illness, such as depression. To find out if the FDA already has sent out warning letters related to a health claim, search the terms "FDA warning letter + insert claim." What can/can't I say? Marketing rule No. 1: Be truthful and don't mislead the consumer; at the same time, be effective in growing the business. Since nothing in the CBD business is risk-free, it's important to convey a marketing message in an ethical and low-risk manner. For example, a brand might feel it has competent data to make a statement about improved quality of sleep. This same message crosses the line to high risk if it talks about use for insomnia, which the FDA considers a disease claim. Here are two examples: -- Using the words "pain" and "inflammation" are considered midlevel risks and should be avoided. A more compliant way to state such information is to address a product's use for discomfort. -- CBD is widely touted for anxiety, but the FDA is likely to flag companies using this term for making a disease claim. If accurate, replace the term with "happy mood support" or "balanced state of mind." These phrases get the point across without using buzzwords that might increase the chance of drawing the attention of regulators. Again, be sure to never mislead your consumer, and be ready to substantiate any statements if necessary. Topical CBD products are generally thought to carry a lower regulatory risk than ingestible products. Topicals (cosmetics) are defined as products applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness or altering the appearance. A common mistake companies make when marketing topicals is advertising them for inflammation, pain or any other symptomatic relief. By using claims outside of the "beautifying" definition, an otherwise-compliant topical product is turned into a drug simply by using words such as pain. Hashtags and other considerations Many people enter the hemp world from other industries and might not understand the nuances of marketing dietary supplements and hemp-based CBD products. For example, standard practices from tech or apparel such as hashtags and product descriptions do not necessarily translate into compliant strategies for marketing hemp-based CBD products. Here are a few examples: Hashtags and photographs: Tagging a photo #Relief is relatively lower risk, whereas #PainRelief is risky and would shift an otherwise compliant post to an elevated risk level. Depression: A post about depression awareness could be considered compliant, as companies have the right to speak about issues that are important to their business and their customers. This same post would be noncompliant with a hashtag that promotes its product, however, such as #BuyMyCBD. If this same post had zero noncompliant hashtags but contained a product photo, this would be considered an implied depression claim. This is another reason marketing material should pass through a regulatory review before getting posted. Meta tags: SEO companies drive website traffic with meta tags. This is considered advertising and must not be misleading. I have not seen warning letters based solely on noncompliant meta tags, but they are an easily searchable red flag to authorities that might indicate deeper compliance issues. Working with a consultant to develop marketing best practices can help avoid these potentially unforeseen pitfalls. Federal response The FDA and FTC have issued numerous warning letters to CBD companies for making health and disease claims. The letters provide specific examples of what they are enforcing, such as references to depression, cancer and inflammation. News releases sometimes accompany these warning letters and provide more context to their enforcement action. The FTC can take additional action by issuing an administrative complaint, which first happened to a CBD company in April 2020 in relation to the coronavirus. The agency announced that Marc Ching, the owner of Los Angeles-based Whole Leaf Organics, had settled with federal authorities and agreed to stop making health claims about three of his products. Previously, one of the company's ads touted the CBD treatment as an "anti-viral wellness booster." In December, the FTC rocked the CBD world with Operation CBDeceit by issuing fines and sanctions against six cannabidiol companies accused of misleading consumers about the health benefits of the cannabis extract. Possible penalties The most common FDA and FTC penalties come in the form of warning letters. Here are reasons to avoid these letters: They require administrative and legal resources to respond. Repeat warning letters can lead to injunction or seizure. One warning letter puts you on the FDA/FTC "radar." They alert class action attorneys who might use a warning letter as proof of wrongdoing in their lawsuit. Your name and company become a matter of public record and are easily found in a web search. They scare away executive talent and investors, which hurts the company's overall value. Penalties also come in the form of the FTC's administrative complaints, which can have serious ramifications. December's CBDeceit crackdown included fines up to $85,000 -- but this was only the beginning. Companies receiving FTC penalties might be required to inform customers of the complaint via their social-media accounts, website or written notifications. This communication will require business resources and also might hurt the company's reputation and scare away customers. The FTC also can require the company to monitor its compliance and submit reports to the agency. Companies involved in the recent FTC complaints must report on compliance for 20 years. These actions not only carry an administrative burden but can hinder future investment opportunities. They might also require refunding customers, and complaints can lead to class action lawsuits as well. Some go unpunished Not every company making claims will attract trouble. FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy Abernethy recently noted, "We will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products -- prioritizing those that pose the greatest risk of harm to the public." This clearly shows the agency is taking a risk-based approach to enforcement, so knowing which high-risk claims to avoid is important. Most warning letters cite claims made online, although companies are responsible for all marketing materials, including mailers, newsletters and information distributed at trade shows. Authorities look at the 30,000-foot view of a company's total online presence, which includes videos, social media, blogs, FAQs, infographics and even podcasts. One claim might not attract enforcement action, but the combination of a claim in a video, a noncompliant hashtag in social media and a testimonial claim can elevate risk. Authorities piece together claims to create one big picture of noncompliance. They make examples of companies not following the rules -- especially in areas they want to highlight, such as COVID-19, depression, opiate-reduction and claims made in testimonials -- to name a few. [GN] [*] U.S. Marijuana Businesses Faces TCPA Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Omar Sacirbey, writing for Marijuana Business Daily, reports that product liability, partnership disputes, labor-related litigation and RICO suits are among the most common and potentially damaging lawsuits facing marijuana companies. But industry executives also should be alert to at least three other legal dangers that could hurt their businesses. These include: Breach of contract: This is among the most common violations that can kill small businesses, especially upstart grows, said attorney Katy Young of Ad Astra Law in San Francisco. Unlike product liability or RICO lawsuits, where cannabis businesses are the defendants, companies in a breach-of-contract situation tend to be the victim and must decide whether becoming a plaintiff to recover lost assets is worth the cost and effort. "The most common reason I see for breach-of-contract disputes in the supply chain is lack of money. It basically comes down to one business in the supply chain being financially mismanaged and then not being able to pay cultivators or other companies," Young said. "Those are difficult cases because it doesn't make sense to sue if there's no money there. All we get is a judgment, a piece of paper that we chase somebody around with." Cannabis executives who want to avoid being stiffed should document all transactions with lawyer-reviewed contracts, Young said. Furthermore, to avoid expensive litigation, the contracts should include clauses about trying to settle disputes through mediation or arbitration before going to court. Workplace safety: Violations that lead to lawsuits or scrutiny and fines from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are currently less common than some other legal pitfalls, but they can be expected to increase as the cannabis industry matures. "It's simply not the case that because cannabis is federally illegal, OSHA or any number of regulatory agencies are not supposed to visit them and make sure they are in sync with federal laws," said Jesse Alderman, co-chair of the cannabis practice at Foley Hoag in Boston. And given that cannabis cultivation and manufacturing involve large equipment and machinery, companies must ensure their work environments are safe and comply with state and federal workplace-safety regulations. "Cannabis operators that are employers really need to focus on having a thoroughly documented and compliant training program for employees. And (they need to) pay attention to what's happening at the state level -- not only with cannabis regulation but with regulatory changes in general," said attorney Cassia Furman, who manages the California office of Denver-based Vicente Sederberg. "Since we're in the midst of this unprecedent pandemic, there's a lot of new laws on a variety of topics that cannabis operators miss because they're focused on keeping operations going." TCPA violations: An increasing number of marijuana businesses have become defendants in class action lawsuits for allegedly sending consumers unsolicited marketing texts, which is a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Since May 2018, at least a dozen lawsuits have been filed against marijuana businesses for alleged TCPA violations. The most obvious protection against such lawsuits is to ensure you have a consumer's written consent to send them marketing texts or emails. However, a consumer simply leaving their contact information in a guest log or opt-in list provided by outside marketers would likely not offer sufficient protection in TCPA cases, lawyers said. "You need to obtain proper consent from recipients prior to sending your text-message marketing. And consult with counsel to understand what that (consent) needs to include," Furman said. [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 ***