/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210219.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 19, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 31
Headlines
144 NINTH GOTHAM: Sontay Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
64 FULTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrew et al. Suit Claim
9F INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
9F INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
ABC MART: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rangel Suit Claims
AIKEN COUNTY, SC: Cunningham Suit Must Be Separated Into 4 Suits
ALCON CONTRACTORS: Cox Seeks General Laborers' Unpaid OT Wages
ALDI INC: James Consumer Class Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
ALLY FINANCIAL: Dechirico Suit Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
ALPHA CORE: Velez Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
ALTA LOMA: Website Lacks Accessible Features Info, Garcia Alleges
AMERICAN SOCIAL: Websites Are Non-Compliance With ADA, Lucius Says
AUSTRALIA: Katherine's Landmark PFAS Class Action Payout Delayed
B K WALLCOVERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
B&W AUTOMOTIVE: Phan Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code
BANK OF AMERICA: Mary Alexander & Associates Files Class Action
BASIN VALVE: Labor Class Action Lawsuit Pending in California
BAYADA HOME: Averts Home Health Aides' OT Wage Class Action
BIT DIGITAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BIT DIGITAL: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
BIT DIGITAL: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
BOK FINANCIAL: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Scherer Claims
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Class Action Pending
BROTHERS FIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Final Approval of Ferrell Suit Deal Endorsed
CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Student Athletes' Sex Discrimination Suit
CANADA: Class Action Trial to Proceed by Virtual Means
CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over CERB Pandemic Relief
CAPITAL ONE: Arellano Sues Over Unpermitted Credit Report Access
CARNIVAL CORP: Washington Court Narrows Claims in Lindsay Suit
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Bid to Stay Wolf Pending Ramirez Ruling Denied
CD PROJEKT: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Court Says Swangler Can Assert Individual Claim
CHRISTAL TRANSPORT: Gonzalez Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Archdiocese of Vancouver Responds to Lawsuit
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Faces Mount Cashel Sexual Abuse Class Action
CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of March 22 Deadline
CLEANSPARK INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CLOVER HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline
COLT BUILDERS: Alvarez Sues Over Site Superintendents' Unpaid OT
COUNTERPATH CORPORATION: Klein Balks at Merger Deal With Alianza
CROWN WARDS: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Over Benefits
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
DEIGHAN LAW: Alabama Court Tosses Cook Suit Over RICO Violations
DERMASET INC: Warshauer Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Fund Transfers
DEROSA SPORTS: Underpays Construction Workers, Avila et al. Claim
DRUG ABUSE: Fails to Pay Therapists' Overtime, Plowden Suit Claims
DYNACAST INC: Court Partly Grants Colon's Bid to Remand BIPA Suit
ECOATM LLC: Acaley BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
ERBA MARKETS: Faces Nagler Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
EXXON MOBIL: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline
EXXON MOBIL: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline
EXXON MOBIL: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 29 Deadline
EXXON MOBILE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 29 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: Cliffy Care Files Suit Over Ad Market Monopoly
FACEBOOK INC: Faces New Class Action Over Data Harvesting Practices
FASTLY INC: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Named in Securities Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Victims of Vehicle Fires Launch Class Action
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bid to Toss Smith, Hudock & Buldas Suits Denied
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Paulley Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
FLAGSHIP S B NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bhattarai Suit Says
FONTERRA AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Urges Farmers to Join Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Wins Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
FRUDECO LLC: Misclassifies Employees, Villegas Suit Claims
FSD PHARMA: Morganti & Co Announces Settlement Approval for Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Garces Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Baby Food Products
GLOBAL TECHNICAL: Underpays Laborers, Pippen Suit Claims
GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Daklin et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Coffee Class Suit With Leave to Amend
GOOGLE LLC: Urges Supreme Court to Tighten Privacy Suit Violations
GREAT LAKES: Residents Near Former Steel Plant File Class Action
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
GRIFFIN PERSONNEL: Sanders Jr. Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting
GULF CRANE: Gascho Seeks Damages and Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
GUNITE PROS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Troxel Suit Claims
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
HANOVER INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Stanford Dental Suit
HEALTH INSURANCE: Deposition of Southwell in Belin Suit Precluded
HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class-Action Over Errors in Breast Imaging
HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Claims Errors in Breast Imaging
HEARST MAGAZINE: Court Narrows Claims in Arnold's 2nd Amended Suit
HEARST MAGAZINES: Can't Dodge Magazine Subscription Class Action
HUBLER CHEVROLET: Court Flips Partial Summary Judgment in Endris
INDIGO WILD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Sanchez Suit Claims
International Business: Must Face Class Suit Over Sales Commission
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: RM Law Reminds Investors of April 2 Deadline
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of April 2 Deadline
J. JACOBO FARM: Court Directs Amendment of Class Notice in Gomez
JANSSEN BIOTECH: Co-Lead Counsel in Louisiana Antitrust Suit Named
JUUL LABS: Richland 2 School District Won't Join Class Action
KOCH INDUSTRIES: Sanchez Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
KROGER CO: Must Face Workers' Overtime Wage Class Action Suit
LAVENDER LINGERIE: Townsend Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LAW OFFICES: Friedman Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
LELY NORTH: Counts 1 & 2 in Kruger Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
LIVE NATION: Keller Lenkner Joins as Co-Counsel in Antitrust Suit
LIZHI INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
LIZHI INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
MEDMEN ENTERPRISES: Settles Marijuana Suit for Nearly $1 Million
MGB CATERING: Shipp Seeks Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages & Tips
MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Provide Adkins With Chain-of-Title Documents
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: $6.7-Mil. Lechner Settlement Gets Final Approval
MXD GROUP: $5M Settlement in Kimbo Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
NATIONAL SECURITIES: New York Court Dismissed Johnson Class Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Naqi Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls
NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
NISSAN MOTOR: Suit Alleges Transmission Technology Contain Defects
NORTHERN MANUFACTURING: Sarnes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NVIROTECT PEST: Osbourne Seeks Pest Control Technicians' Unpaid OT
ONTARIO: Proposed Settlement Reached in Assault Class Action Suit
OOMA INC: Faces Class Action Over FREE Home Phone Service
P&E EXPRESS: Fassa Sues Over Failure to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT
PAN PACIFIC: Hotel Workers Vote to Unionize in Wake of Mass Firings
PENNYMAC LOAN: Faces Lepsch FDCPA Suit in D. Massachussetts
PENUMBRA INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
PERATON INC: Faces Shaw Suit Over Aerostat Operators' Unpaid OT
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Letourneau Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Faces Rebolledo Suit
PORNHUB: Alleged Alabama Child Porn Victim Sues in Federal Suit
PRESSED JUICERY: Tunkett Dates Cont'd Pending Mediation in Alvarado
PRO BASEMENT INC: Misclassifies Laborers, Makie Suit Claims
PRO-SEAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barazal Alleges
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand Laures Suit
PROJECT VISUAL: Faces Nieto Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Dumas Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"
RESORT RENTAL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garibay Claims
RHINO BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barboza Suit Alleges
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniluk Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Stock Trading Restrictions
ROBINHOOD: Bonnett Fairbourn Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
S-L SNACKS NAT'L: 9th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Kuehn Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sullivan's Site/Video Won't Be Taken Down
SALPINO FOOD: Faces Baca Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Overtime
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Remand of Kelly Suit to State Court Denied
SENIOR CARE: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SERVICEMAC LLC: Faces Donohue FDCPA Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts
SHREVEPORT, LA: Refunds on Water Bill Overcharges Now Arriving
SMITH & WESSON: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Primus Class Suit
SMITH & WESSON: Danforth Shooting Victims Clear 1st Hurdle in Suit
SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
SONY COMPUTER: PS5 Drift Issue Could be Leading to Class Action
SONY INTERACTIVE: PS5 Controller Drift Sparks Class-Action Lawsuit
SOUTHERN CO: Judge Approves $24.25MM in Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Distribution of Settlement Funds Okayed
STANFORD CREDIT: Trigueros Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
SUPERIOR TOWING: Faces Butler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
TD BANK: Claims of Sales Pressure Spark Shareholder Lawsuit
TENNESSEE: Faces Accord Civil Rights Act in Middle Dist. of Tenn.
THOMSON INTERNATIONAL: Cameron Consumer Suit Goes to D. Montana
TOUCHSTONES STRATEGIES: Misclassifies Nurses, Seifert Suit Says
TRANSUNION: Amici Files Briefs in Support of Credit Agency
TRICIDA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
TRICIDA INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Jackson FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Set to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of April 5 Deadline
UNION PACIFIC: Blankinship Sues Over Disability Discrimination
UNITED PARCEL: Aalfs Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado
UNITED STATES: Class-action Lawsuit Challenges Navy's Policy
VICTOR MENDEZ: IMT Pavilion Seeks More Time to File Review Petition
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 24 Deadline
WHITE PINES: Faces De Sa Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Tip Pooling
[*] Greenberg Traurig Report Summarizes Recent Class-Action Rulings
Asbestos Litigation
*********
144 NINTH GOTHAM: Sontay Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
UAN SONTAY; and ARMANDO DE JESUS SONTAY IXCOY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 144 NINTH
GOTHAM PIZZA INC., d/b/a GOTHAM PIZZA; 1443 YORK GOTHAM PIZZA INC.,
d/b/a GOTHAM PIZZA; 1667 FIRST GOTHAM PIZZA INC., d/b/a GOTHAM
PIZZA; 852 EIGHTH GOTHAM PIZZA, INC., d/b/a GOTHAM PIZZA; LANA
SHAMAILOVQ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01183 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages due to
rounding, unpaid minimum wage and overtime due to invalid tip
credit, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
144 Ninth Gotham Pizza Inc. operates restaurants as a single
integrated enterprise under the trade names "Gotham Pizza". [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
64 FULTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andrew et al. Suit Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, OMAR ANDREW, RODRIGO VASQUEZ, and WASHINGTON CALLE, on
behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,
Plaintiffs v. 64 FULTON ST. FOOD CORP. d/b/a SEAPORT DELI,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01196 (S.D.N.Y., February 10, 2021)
arises from the Defendant alleged unlawful practices, policies, and
patterns that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as deli-men for
the Defendant's Seaport Deli, assert that throughout their
employment with the Defendant, they were required by the Defendant
to regularly work over 40 in a workweek, including "off the clock"
work. However, they were not compensated for all of the hours they
worked, including overtime premium at the applicable overtime rate
in accordance with the law for all of their worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, as well as spread of hours premium. In addition, the
Defendant did not provide them with proper wage statements and with
wage notices, the Plaintiffs added.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a class and collective
action complaint to recover unpaid wages, statutory penalties as a
result of the Defendant's failure to comply with wage notice and
wage statement requirements under the NYLL, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.
64 Fulton St. Food Corp. d/b/a Seaport Deli operates a restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
9F INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
9F Inc. (NASDAQ: JFU)
Class Period: August 14, 2019 - September 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the purported value and benefits of the
Company's financial institution partners and its tri-party
cooperation business model did not in fact exist and/or were
materially overstated, given that 9F and PICC had been engaged in
an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of service fees
under the Cooperation Agreement; (2) the collectability of service
fees owed to 9F by PICC under the Cooperation Agreement was in
doubt and at serious risk of non-payment; (3) there was a
significant risk that PICC would no longer provide credit insurance
and guarantee protection to investors and institutional funding
partners; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
platform, business model, reputation and financial results had been
materially impaired.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
9F INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired 9F Inc. American
Depositary Receipts ("ADR's"): pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and related prospectus in connection with
the Company's August 14, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or
"Offering"); and/or between August 14, 2019 and September 29, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased ADR's of 9F Inc. and incurred losses
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of 9F Inc., you may, no
later than March 22, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to
learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of ADR's
of 9F Inc.
In August 2019, 9F completed its initial public offering ("IPO"),
selling 8.9 million American Depositary Receipts at $9.50 per ADR.
On September 27, 2019, 9F reported its second quarter 2019
financial results for the period that ended prior to the IPO. The
Company stated that its net accounts receivable increased from
RMB277 million as of March 31, 2019 to RMB858 million as of June
30, 2019, a purported 210% sequential increase. On this news, 9F
shares fell $0.59, or 5%, to close at $10.35 per ADR on September
27, 2019.
On December 5, 2019, 9F reported its third quarter 2019 financial
results for the quarter during which the IPO had been conducted.
The Company stated that its net accounts receivables had increased
more than ten-fold from RMB180 million as of December 31, 2018 to
RMB1.9 billion as of September 30, 2019. On this news, 9F shares
fell $0.50, or nearly 5%, over two consecutive trading sessions to
close at $9.60 per ADS on December 6, 2019.
On June 12, 2020, 9F revealed an ongoing dispute with Property and
Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") involving RMB2.2 billion in
unpaid service fees. The Company stated that RMB1.4 billion in
service fees that had previously been recorded as accounts
receivable were now recognized as fully impaired.
On June 17, 2020, 9F described the devastating consequences of the
Company's dispute with PICC, including that the two entities "are
pursuing legal actions against each other" and that 9F sought
damages of approximately RMB2.3 billion from PICC to cover the
outstanding service fees and related late payment losses.
Additionally, 9F had "suspended [its] cooperation with PICC on new
loans under [its] direct lending program since December 2019,"
causing total net revenues to decrease by 54.4% year-over-year. 9F
shares fell $0.31 per ADR, or nearly 5%, to close at $6.00 per ADR
on June 17, 2020.
On June 24, 2020, the Company reported a valuation allowance for
the accounts receivable from PICC of more than $1.4 billion. 9F
shares fell $0.57, or 14%, to close at $4.05 per ADR on June 25,
2020.
On September 29, 2020, 9F announced its unaudited financial results
for the first half of 2020 ended June 30, 2020. The Company
disclosed that its loan origination volume had fallen over 90%, the
number of active borrowers utilizing their platform had decreased
over 80% and the Company's total net revenues had plummeted over
60% during the first half of 2020 as compared to the latter half of
2019. On this news, 9F shares fell $0.20, or 18%, to close at $0.91
per ADR on September 29, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago, and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
ABC MART: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rangel Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL RANGEL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC MART INC. d/b/a ABC MART, RYAN DOE,
RICKY DOE, and MOHAMMED DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00947
(S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2021) brings this collective action
complaint against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful policy
and practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at ABC Mart from
approximately March 2012 until on or about February 12, 2020 as a
merchandise stocker and cashier.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked in excess of 40 hours
per week throughout his employment with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant did not pay him the appropriate minimum wage, overtime,
and "spread of hours" pay for all hours he worked. Instead, he was
only paid a fixed rate regardless of the number of hours he worked.
Moreover, the Defendant did not require the Plaintiff to keep track
of his time, and did not provide him with an accurate wage
statement and any notice of his rate of pay and other information,
the suit says.
ABC Mart Inc. d/b/a ABC Mart operates a home goods store owned by
the Individual Defendants Ryan Doe and Ricky Doe. Mohammed Doe is a
manager of the Corporate Defendant. The Individual Defendants
possess operational control over the Corporate Defendant and
control significant functions of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Fax: (212) 317-1620
AIKEN COUNTY, SC: Cunningham Suit Must Be Separated Into 4 Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Russell Cunningham; Blake Arthur; James Murphy;
Christopher Blitchington, Plaintiffs v. Mike Hunt, Aiken County
Sheriff; Captain Gallam; Sue Ledbetter, Defendants, C/A No.
0:20-4497-SAL-PJG (D.S.C.), Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett of
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina held
that the case should be separated into four different cases as pro
se prisoners cannot bring a class action lawsuit.
The case is a civil rights action filed by four prisoners,
proceeding pro se. The matter is before the Court for initial
review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A and the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.
Based on her review, Magistrate Judge Gossett concludes that the
pro se Plaintiffs cannot proceed together in one action without
counsel and that the case should be separated into different cases,
one for each Plaintiff. She explains that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held that pro se prisoners
cannot bring a class action lawsuit. Moreover, courts in the
district do not allow pro se prisoners to proceed together in one
action.
Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Gossett concludes that the claims of
the four Plaintiffs in the instant action should be separated for
initial review. She orders that the case will pertain only to the
first named Plaintiff--Cunningham. Therefore, the Clerk of Court
is directed to administratively terminate Arthur, Murphy, and
Blitchington as Plaintiffs in the case. The Clerk of Court is
further directed to assign separate civil action numbers to the
Plaintiffs terminated in the case.
The Clerk of Court will file the Order as the initial docket entry
in the newly created cases. The Defendants in the newly created
case will be the same defendants listed in the case until the
Plaintiffs file their own pleadings. The Clerk of Court is
authorized to determine the most efficient way and time for
assigning and entering the new case number, party information, and
pleading information on the court's electronic case management
system.
After the new cases are docketed, the Court will issue orders
pursuant to the General Order issued in In Re: Procedures in Civil
Actions Filed by Prisoner Pro Se Litigants, 3:07-mc-5014-JFA
(D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2007), which will give the Plaintiffs
instructions on how to proceed in their respective cases.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mz9zqxs2 from Leagle.com.
ALCON CONTRACTORS: Cox Seeks General Laborers' Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN COX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALCON CONTRACTORS, LLC and MARK GARCIA,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00124 (W.D. Tex.,
February 9, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants for their alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
general laborer, alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated general laborers as independent
contractors. Although they consistently worked over 40 hours per
week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they
worked over 40 in week, the Plaintiff says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, litigations costs, pre- and post-judgment
interests, and other relief as the Court may find proper.
Alcon Contractors, LLC is a residential and commercial contractor
working in and around the San Antonio area, specializing in site
work and excavation. Mark Garcia is the owner. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberley, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
ALDI INC: James Consumer Class Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA JAMES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALDI, INC.; DOLLAR GENERAL; EBAY; and
KEVIN ACCESSORIES ONLINE, Case No. GD-20-011704, was removed from
the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
February 11, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00209-MJH to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
and the Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act,
conspiracy to commit conversion, unjust enrichment, and
misappropriation/conversion.
Aldi, Inc. is an owner and operator of grocery stores located in
Illinois.
Dollar General is an American chain of variety stores headquartered
in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.
eBay is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in
San Jose, California.
Kevin Accessories Online is an online store doing business in the
United States. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald J. Stubenhofer, Jr., Esq.
Courtney S. Schorr, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3142
Telephone: (412) 667-6000
E-mail: gstubenhofer@mcguirewoods.com
cschorr@mcguirewoods.com
ALLY FINANCIAL: Dechirico Suit Alleges Stock Market Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN DECHIRICO; ANGEL GUZMAN; and JOSHUA PALMER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLY
FINANCIAL INC.; ALPACA SECURITIES LLC; CASH APP INVESTING LLC;
SQUARE INC.; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC; ETRADE SECURITIES
LLC; ETRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; ETRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC;
ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC.; FREETRADE, LTD.; INTERACTIVE BROKERS
LLC; M1 FINANCE, LLC; OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC.; ROBINHOOD
FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC;
IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC; TASTYWORKS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; FF TRADE
REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC; TRADING 212 LTD.; TRADING 212 UK LTD.; WEBULL
FINANCIAL LLC; FUMI HOLDINGS, INC.; STASH FINANCIAL, INC.; BARCLAYS
BANK PLC; CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC; CITADEL SECURITIES LLC;
MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP; SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC; APEX
CLEARING CORPORATION; and THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00677 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 8,
2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, on January 28, 2021, the Brokerage
Defendants, willfully and intentionally restricted retail investors
from purchasing the following securities on their Websites and
mobile applications by disabling all buy features, thereby
manipulating the market: GameStop Corp. (GME), AMC Entertainment
Holdings Inc. (AMC), American Airlines Group Inc. (AAL), Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc. (BBBY), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), Castor Maritime Inc.
(CTRM), Express, Inc. (EXPR), Koss Corporation (KOSS), Naked Brand
Group Ltd. (NAKD), Nokia Corp. (NOK), Sundial Growers Inc. (SNDL),
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (TR), or Trivago N.V. (TRVG)
(collectively, hereinafter the "Relevant Securities").
By conspiring to restrict retail investors from purchasing the
Relevant Securities, the Defendants created a one-way buy-sell
situation thereby forcing retail investors to either hold or sell
their rapidly declining stocks, the suit says.
While the Brokerage Defendants placed restrictions on retail
investors, no such restriction were placed on institutional
investors such as the Fund Defendants. As a result, the only
entities which were permitted to purchase the Relevant Securities
were institutional investors, the the Fund Defendants, many of whom
were leveraged heavily "short" against the Relevant Securities and
had a vested interest in seeing the Relevant Securities' prices
depressed so that they could cover their short sales at a lower
cost, added the suit.
As a result of Defendants' alleged unlawful and anticompetitive
scheme, numerous retail investors, such as the Plaintiffs and the
Class members, suffered significant losses.
Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The
Company offers automotive financial services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq.
Eugene Zaydfudim, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
ALPHA CORE: Velez Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
LIZETTE VELEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALPHA CORE, INC. d/b/a ENJOYMINT DELIVERED,
a California corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00907 (N.D.
Cal., February 5, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
2608 beginning around November 2020 in an attempt to promote its
cannabis products. With the impersonal and generic nature of the
Defendant's text messages, the Defendant purportedly used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in transmitting its
text messages without obtaining the Plaintiff's prior express
written consent. Moreover, the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number has been registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry
since July 27, 2015.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused actual harm to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals, including invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption of their daily
life.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated consumer who
receive the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff
seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring the
Defendant to cease all unsolicited text messaging activities and
prohibiting the Defendant from using an ATDS, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Alpha Core, Inc. sells cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and –
Joshua Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
401 W A Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com
ALTA LOMA: Website Lacks Accessible Features Info, Garcia Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Garcia v. Alta Loma, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company; and Does 1-10, Case No. 21SMCV00232 (N.D. Calif., Feb. 1,
2021) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated challenging the reservation policies and practices of a
place of lodging.
The Plaintiff does not know if any physical or architectural
barriers exist at the hotel and, therefore, is not claiming that
that the hotel has violated any construction-related accessibility
standard. Instead, this is about the lack of information provided
on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff
to determine if there are rooms that would work for him.
On November 16, 2020, while sitting bodily in California, the
Plaintiff went to the Sunset Marquis reservation Website at
https://sunsetmarquis.com/ seeking to book an accessible room at
the location.
The Plaintiff contends that the Website reservation system is owned
and operated by the Defendants. He found that there was
insufficient information about the accessible features in the
"accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for him. For
example, he requires a raised toilet so he can safely transfer from
his wheelchair to the toilet. Without this feature, he risks
falling. The Website does not mention if the toilet has this
feature, he adds.
The complaint seeks for damages and injunctive relief in violation
of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities.
He is substantially limited in his ability to walk. He suffers from
cerebral palsy. He has the use of only one arm. He uses a
wheelchair, walker, or cane for mobility.
Alta Loma owns and operates the Sunset Marquis located at 1200 Alta
Loma Rd., West Hollywood, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
AMERICAN SOCIAL: Websites Are Non-Compliance With ADA, Lucius Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WINDY LUCIUS v. AMERICAN SOCIAL, INC, Case No. 1:21-cv-20432-BB
(S.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2021) is class action action brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of similarly situated disabled
persons against the Defendant asserting civil rights and
monitoring, ensuring, and determining whether places of public
accommodation and/or their Websites are in compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff sues the Defendant for injunctive relief, and
attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
ADA.
The Plaintiff is a Florida resident, lives in Miami-Dade County, is
sui juris, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities as
defined by the ADA. The Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to
fully engage in and enjoy the major life activity of seeing. The
Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. The Plaintiff is unable to
read computer materials and/or access and comprehend internet
Website information without software specially designed for the
visually impaired.
The Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of
public accommodation as defined by the ADA and the regulations
implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. The place of
public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, or leases
is located in Miami-Dade County. The Defendant constructed, or
caused to be constructed, a Website located at
https://americansocialbar.com. The Defendant is the owner,
operator, lessor and/or lessee of the Website. This Website
supports, is an extension of, is in conjunction with, is
complementary and supplemental to, the above-referenced public
accommodation. This Website provides information about the
Defendant's public accommodation, including information about the
special sales, goods, services, accommodations, privileges,
benefits and facilities available to patrons at physical
locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.
J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC
8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 351-2014
E-mail: cc@cunninghampllc.com
AUSTRALIA: Katherine's Landmark PFAS Class Action Payout Delayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Fitzgerald, writing for Katherine Times, reports that
Katherine's landmark PFAS class action payout has been delayed yet
again as an independent council continues a review into the
distribution of just over $56 million.
Katherine residents included in the class action received a letter
from Shine Lawyers alerting them to the set back.
Residents had been anticipating shares of the settlement money to
start landing in bank accounts later this month.
It is now expected payments won't be made until the first week of
March.
The class action was filed against the Department of Defence
seeking compensation for Katherine property owners for economic
loss due to PFAS contamination.
"A Payment Notice will be sent to group members in the week
commencing 26 February 2021 noting the exact payment that will be
made to you," Shine Lawyers state in a letter.
"We anticipate that payments will commence being made from March 4,
2021 in accordance with the court's approved timeframe.
"We understand this is a revision to the previous payment date
advised, and apologise for any inconvenience."
The letter states the independent counsel appointed by the court is
undertaking his review of disputes to the distribution.
Individual payouts have been based on research into property sizes,
location and whether the property has a bore or not to calculate
property values.
"We anticipate that this review will be completed. Upon the
completion of this process, final amendments to the data will be
made, and the calculations will be finalised and reviewed," the
letter states.
In February, the Federal Court approved an historic $212 million
class action settlement for PFAS contamination surrounding air
force bases at Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine.
Katherine residents were first notified of their potential
"settlement statements" in November of 2020, but subsequent delays
have followed.
Last month, Katherine residents involved in the class action voiced
concerns over the ongoing delays and proposed cuts to payments,
after the court accepted 179 late registrations.
Documents obtained by the Katherine Times showed that one resident
was set to receive $55,000, but the late additions to the class
action cut that by almost 50 per cent.
Other residents told the Katherine Times their payments had been
decreased by varying amounts around the 15 per cent mark, and some
up to 30 and 40 per cent.
At the time, Joshua Aylward, Shine Lawyers' Class Actions' practice
leader, said there were "various reasons" as to why certain
payments had increased or decreased since the initial estimated
distribution notice in May 2020, including the additional
registrations, clarification of group member data, and reviews
undertaken at the request of group members.
"For example, if a group member has now confirmed that they did not
live at the property, or that the property does not have a bore,
then this will reduce their final distribution amount," he said.
"Similarly, if upon review of their allocated property value, the
value has increased, then there would be an increase in their
distribution amount." [GN]
B K WALLCOVERING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL B. CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B K WALLCOVERING, INC.; and
HORACIO SAENZ-VIDAL, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60314-AHS (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 9, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, retaliatory damages, and the
costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Ms. Castillo was employed by the Defendants as construction
laborer.
B K Wallcovering, Inc. specialize in custom faux finishes, large
scale murals, wall coverings and decorative motifs for home and
business environments. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
B&W AUTOMOTIVE: Phan Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIEN PHAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public v. B&W AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and
DOES 1-100, Case No. 21STCV03790 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 1, 2021) is a representative action seeking recovery of
penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act of 2004, the California Labor Code against the Defendant.
This action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees of Defendant who worked a shift of at least
five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four hours or a
major fraction thereof, without receiving a 10 minute rest break;
worked qualifying shifts without receiving second meal periods and
second and third rest breaks; and were not provided accurate
itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff and other similar aggrieved employees were entitled
to statutory meal periods, statutory rest periods, accurate
itemized wage statements, payment of wages owed twice a month, paid
sick leave, compensation for all time worked at the regular,
overtime, and double-time rate, and to be paid timely pursuant to
California law and/or to receive timely wages at the time of
termination from the Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and other similar aggrieved employees worked as
non-exempt automotive technicians for the Defendants.
B&W runs vehicle dealerships, including service departments within
Los Angeles County and throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Tony Roberts, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino del Rio North, Suite 205
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 234 2833
Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
BANK OF AMERICA: Mary Alexander & Associates Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
law.com reports that Mary Alexander & Associates filed a class
action lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of
thousands of Californians against Bank of America alleging the
nation's second largest bank failed in its duty to properly protect
their unemployment benefits.
Bank of America (BofA) has an exclusive contract with the
California Employment Development Department (EDD) to administer
EDD benefits through the use of BofA issued debit cards. According
to the complaint, BofA was required to provide secure accounts for
unemployment payments. The complaint alleges BofA failed to provide
even the most basic cyber-security measures. As a result, these
Californians lost their EDD income due to fraudulent transactions
and hacked accounts.
According to the complaint, BofA failed to respond and assist many
of the defrauded cardholders, even though it has a "Zero Liability"
policy. BofA's poor response to the fraud included:
Freezing cardholder accounts without warning or explanation;
Failing to provide proper telephonic response on its customer
service line for EDD cardholders;
Immediately closing claims that were opened (without proper
investigation); and
Not extending provisional credit to these EDD cardholders.
The lawsuit claims BofA violated the California Consumer Privacy
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and Regulation E of the
federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act; breached its contract with
EDD cardholders; failed to warn EDD cardholders about the risks
associated with its EDD debit cards; and negligently performed its
contract with EDD, among other violations of law.
"The events of 2020 were hard enough without Bank of America making
life even more difficult for California's unemployed," said
attorney Mary Alexander. "These are hard-working people who were
unable to pay rent, heat their homes or put food on the table due
to Bank of America's negligence."
About Mary Alexander & Associates
At the law firm of Mary Alexander & Associates, we are proud of our
record and tradition of excellence. Preparing thoroughly for trial
is the trademark of our firm, and we build innovative courtroom
exhibits and technology to help juries understand even the most
complex legal matters. Our innovations, creativity and preparation
have allowed us to achieve an outstanding record of success. We are
justifiably proud of the verdicts and settlements we have obtained
for our deserving clients. [GN]
BASIN VALVE: Labor Class Action Lawsuit Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC
and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Basin Valve Company failed to accurately pay employees' wages and
violated the California Labor Code. The Basin Valve Company, class
action lawsuit, Case No. BCV-21-100069, is currently pending in the
Kern County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of
the Complaint can be read here.
The complaint alleges Basin Valve Company violated California Labor
Code Sections Sections 201, 202, 203, 226.7, 510, 512, 1194, 1197,
1197.1, 2802, and the applicable Wage Order(s) by allegedly failing
to: (1) pay minimum wages, (2) pay overtime wages, (3) provide
legally required meal and rest periods, (4) reimburse employees for
required business expenses, and (5) provide wages when due.
According to the lawsuit, Basin Valve Company failed to compensate
employees for all the time they spent under Defendant's control.
Employees were from time to time interrupted by work assignments
during their meal or rest periods. Basin Valve Company consistently
failed to compensate employees for the legally required minimum
wage and overtime compensation for work performed off-the-clock.
If you would like to know more about the Basin Valve Company
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling
(619) 255-9047.
Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment law
firms with offices located in San Diego and Los Angeles that
dedicate their practices to helping employees and consumers fight
back against employers and corporations for unfair employment
practices. If you need help regarding wage and hour, wrongful
termination, discrimination, and harassment issues in the
workplace, contact one of their attorneys today. [GN]
BAYADA HOME: Averts Home Health Aides' OT Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that nursing
services provider Bayada Home Health Care Inc. defeated an overtime
wage class action, as the Tenth Circuit said on Feb. 9 that the
company's home health aides fell within an exception to the state's
overtime regulation.
Some jobs are exempt from Colorado's time-and-a-half wage
requirement for overtime work. Until 2020 one such exemption
covered "companions, casual babysitters, and domestic employees
employed by households or family members to perform duties in
private residences."
Michele Kennett brought a potential class action on behalf of home
health aides who worked for Bayada without receiving overtime pay.
[GN]
BIT DIGITAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Bit Digital Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)
Class Period: December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its
bitcoin mining operation; and (2) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
BIT DIGITAL: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ: BTBT)
between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important March 22, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Bit Digital securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Bit Digital class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2023.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bit Digital overstated the
extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; (2) as a result,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Bit Digital class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2023.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
BIT DIGITAL: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 9 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Bit Digital, Inc. (
BTBT) between December 21, 2020 and January 8, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=bit-digital-inc&id=2562
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=bit-digital-inc&id=2562
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 22, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; as a result, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
BLUEBIRD BIO: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BLUE) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-00777, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired bluebird securities between May 11, 2020 and
November 4, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company
and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased bluebird securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 13, 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.
bluebird is a biotechnology company that engages in researching,
developing, and commercializing transformative gene therapies for
severe genetic diseases and cancer. The Company's gene therapy
programs include, among others, LentiGlobin (bb1111) for the
treatment of sickle cell disease ("SCD").
In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird
announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics
Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half
of 2021.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data
supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was
insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii)
Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule
for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a
treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead,
citing "feedback" from the FDA requiring the Company to provide
additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for
LentiGlobin for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and
contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts," bluebird
adjusted its submission timing to late 2022.
On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or
16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 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]
BOK FINANCIAL: Underpays Mortgage Loan Officers, Scherer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORI ALEXANDRA SCHERER, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BOK FINANCIAL CORPORATION, and BOKF, N.A. d/b/a BANK
OF TEXAS, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00449 (S.D. Tx., February 9,
2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the
Defendants seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a Mortgage Loan
Officer, alleges that despite she and other similarly situated
employees routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week, including
"off the clock" hours, the Defendant did not properly pay them
overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in week. The Defendant
allegedly miscalculated their overtime at the incorrect rate
because it failed to include all remuneration required to be
included in accordance with the law.
The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all
costs of the action, post-judgment interest, and other relief,
whether legal, equitable or injunctive, that may be necessary to
effectuate full relief to the her and other similarly situated
employees.
BOKF, N.A. is a national banking association doing business in the
state of Texas as "Bank of Texas", and is wholly owned subsidiary
of BOK Financial Corporation. [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
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Data Breach Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Security Boulevard reports that one data breach. Four hundred and
thirty thousand victims. A myriad of personal information and
credit card data stolen. It is the kind of scenario that threatened
to ground one of the world's biggest airlines, IAG-owned British
Airways (BA). But, what's the full story?
In 2018, the UK's British Airways made headlines when criminal
elements accessed the personal details of nearly a half-million of
its clients. In one instance, the hackers lured British Airways
customers to a phony website and succeeded in collecting their
customer data and personal information. While investigating the
breach, investigators realized that a prior breach had also
occurred.
This is data that should have been guarded judiciously but somehow
managed to slip through the cracks. Everyone was unanimous that BA
had breached the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
BA's parent company, IAG, outlined two customer groups impacted by
the earlier breaches, between April and July 2018. Seventy-seven
thousand individuals' names, addresses, and payment information
were compromised. The other group comprised 108,000 people whose
personal details were lost, besides their credit card's CVV number
(the three or four-digit number on the back of your card, to the
right of the signature box).
Implications of the ICO's 20 Million Pounds Fine
An initial fine by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)
on behalf of all EU/EEA member states was just over £183 million.
In the face of Covid-19's impact on the company, British Airways
will only be indebted to the tune of £20 million. A BBC analysis
noted the ICO's initial data breach penalty was 367 times as high
as Facebook's £500,000 fine from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Still, it would only represent 1.5 percent of British Airways'
annual turnover, per the Daily Mail.
While many call it a mere slap on the wrist and say BA's been let
off the hook, a website has already been set up and is actively
able to process customer claims. Multiple law firms are marketing
themselves as able to assist in claims filings as well. All of this
doesn't even take into consideration the deafening blow British
Airways has received to their brand and corporate image. It remains
the largest single penalty that the data regulator has ever
imposed.
Companies as Custodians of Data
Why does this lawsuit matter? Firstly, it is the largest ever class
action in British legal history. The outcome might tempt BA to
believe they are home free. But, this would only be true if you
ignore the fact that more than 16,000 victims are also seeking
compensation from the airline. Each claimant could make a case for
£2,000, according to the law firm taking up the case, Pogust,
Goodhead, Mousinho, Bianchini and Martins.
Data is priceless in the modern world, and companies need to be
accountable for any personal information they handle on their
customers' behalf. PGMBM's Tom Goodhead stated that "British
Airways passengers feel let down by what transpired. They are well
within their rights to be compensated for what was previously a
trusted airline playing fast and loose with their personal
information, leaving it vulnerable for nefarious hackers to take
advantage of." The firm eyes a mouthwatering 800 million pounds if
every victim showed up for the claim. Individual claimants could
potentially receive several thousand pounds in compensation.
Cyber attacks are increasingly common. Typical corporate defense
systems appear to build 10-foot walls, whereas the bad guys have
extensible ten-mile ladders. The message is clear: organizations
must take the lead in securing personal data with systems even more
comprehensively than they use for processing data.
Weak Data Regulation
If the British Airways fine is the final word we hear on this, we
can expect companies never to make data security a priority. The
driving mentality would be that it took two years to reach this
conclusion in the British Airways case. Then, there's Covid-19 -- a
normal in today's world -- to help make a case for arbitrarily low
fines.
It'll be excellent to point out that one of the primary ideas in
Article 1 of the GDPR is that data is a fundamental right. It goes
further to pinpoint the responsibility of ensuring that data
protection remains a priority despite the inevitable increase in
data exchange. This would also be the perfect place to highlight
three objectives of the regulation, namely:
1. This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of
natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and
rules relating to the free movement of personal data.
2. This Regulation protects fundamental rights and freedoms of
natural persons and in particular their right to the protection of
personal data.
3. The free movement of personal data within the Union shall be
neither restricted nor prohibited for reasons connected with the
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of
personal data.
The regulation is clear that if you process data, you're
automatically assuming the role of responsible custodian of that
data. Companies cannot make light of the issue.
BA told the court in a November case management hearing that it was
willing to discuss settlement with the claimants. Only sustained
pressure could have made this possible.
Many such as Aman Johal, director at Your Lawyers, believe justice
will happen. He stated, "Justice will be served, and the decision
will send a strong message to other big corporations that they must
take data protection seriously or face the financial and
reputational consequences."
The meager BA fine could indeed spur a wave of claimants joining
the collective action. It then exposes a less obvious issue, which
is whether the ICO is discharging its mandate effectively. Consumer
groups would have enough grounds to question if the agency is only
a toothless bulldog that would pander to corporate whim for no
apparent reason. Whatever their explanation, organizations will
have made a mental note of their lenient formula for calculating
fines.
Dissecting the Legalese
There are several takeaways from this BA decision. Articles 77-82
of the GDPR provides for EU citizens and nonprofits to approach the
courts in the event of data privacy infringement. There are two
primary mechanisms for this:
1. Group litigation orders (GLOs), and
2. Representative actions
In GLOs, individual claimants "opt in" to form a large pool and
present their case using a single management framework.
On the other hand, representative actions require a lead claimant
to represent the other individuals, except they choose to opt out.
These different individuals must have been victims of the same harm
and have gone through the same loss.
Depending on the peculiarities of the case, a company can be
subject to either of these mechanisms.
According to lawyers, far-reaching penalties by a data regulator
could have adverse effects on a firm's liability to data subjects.
On the other hand, it could bolster affected persons interested in
a class action suit that enables them to claim compensation
directly.
The one significant hurdle is that class actions or collective
compensatory redress are still in their teething stages in many
countries. Could this be a small advantage for defaulting
companies?
The entire BA scenario certainly establishes new parameters for
companies and claimants. There will be a rise in class action
litigation in the UK and several other countries, forcing the
companies involved to funnel liability across the contractual
chain.
Companies will typically attempt to pass the buck and blame their
suppliers and vendors. Also, expect legal duels over who processes
and controls the data under the spotlight.
This responsibility of roping in the contractual chain will most
likely fall on the companies. The reason is that data regulators
are often reluctant to scrutinize third parties to hold them
accountable.
Looking Toward the Future
BA's handling of this situation is irritating to many, but the
behavior is not rare by any standards. Corporate recklessness is a
big part of modern culture, therefore this issue transcends the
airline industry. This reason is the spine behind GDPR.
Compare this to the US Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA offers individuals the right to
know who has their medical and other health-related information.
This right is in addition to the federal requirement that
information in electronic form should have security. Health
insurers, health care providers, and health care clearinghouses
know better than to permit the slightest semblance of tardiness
with respect to client information security.
This is not to say that every industry must develop data security
regulation. That may be an unrealistic expectation, considering the
rapidly blurring lines between industries. The one thing we all
agree on is that data is more significant today than it has ever
been. Governments can take the initiative to forge catch-all laws
that protect the citizen if and when a data breach occurs.
Companies will not like this but they must brace up to the new
reality.
The post Data, Security, and Data Regulation: Analyzing the British
Airways Class Action Lawsuit appeared first on Source Defense.
[GN]
BROTHERS FIRE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Garcia Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JESUS GARCIA; and ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROTHERS
FIRE PROTECTION, INC.; RICK A. SHEFFIELD; and BRIAN A. KENNEY,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60312-WPD (S.D. Fla., Feb. 8, 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.
Mr, Garcia was employed by the Defendants as installer. Plaintiff
Martinez was employed as helper.
Brothers Fire Protection Co. manufactures fire detection devices.
The Company offers fire sprinkler systems, pumps, hydrants,
suppression, alarm protection, intrusion detection, access control,
video management, and monitoring solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
Bayardo E. Aleman, Esq.
Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
12555 Orange Drive, Suite 207
Davie, FL 33330
Phone: 786.485.5232
E-mail: freddy@pba-law.com
bayardo@pba-law.com
valerie@pba-law.com
brody@pba-law.com
BUCKINGHAM PROPERTY: Final Approval of Ferrell Suit Deal Endorsed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEVIN FERRELL, et al., Plaintiffs v. BUCKINGHAM
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00332-NONE-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of a class and collective
action settlement, and the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards be granted.
Plaintiffs Ferrell and Cheryl Baker bring the action on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated against the Defendant,
alleging various wage and hour violations under California state
law, and claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendant specializes in property management of residential
real estate and manages thousands of units in the State of
California. Plaintiff Ferrell was employed by the Defendant as a
non-exempt Maintenance/Painting Technician, and Plaintiff baker was
employed by Defendant as a non-exempt Community Manager.
The Plaintiffs' principal allegations are that the Defendant
violated the California Labor Code and the FLSA by, inter alia,
failing to properly pay minimum and overtime wages, failing to
provide compliant meal and rest periods or pay associated premiums,
failing to timely pay wages upon termination, failing to provide
compliant wage statements, failing to maintain requisite payroll
records, and failing to reimburse necessary business-related
expenses.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's conduct constitutes
unfair business practices under the California Business and
Professions Code and gives rise to penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code Section 2698,
et seq. ("PAGA"). As a result, they contend that they, class
members, and proposed FLSA collective members are entitled to,
inter alia, unpaid wages, penalties including but not limited to
those available under the PAGA, and attorneys' fees.
The Defendant denies any liability of any kind associated with the
claims and allegations, and further denies that the Plaintiffs, the
class members, or proposed FLSA collective members are entitled to
any relief. It Defendant denies that the case is appropriate for
class or representative treatment for any other purpose other than
the proposed settlement, and maintains that it has complied with
federal and California law in all respects. Although not
referenced in the motion for final approval, the Defendant has
obtained release agreements for several putative class members, and
arbitration agreements exist between many of the class members and
the Defendant.
The action proceeds on Plaintiffs' first amended complaint filed
with the state court on March 5, 2019. The FAC brings the
following causes of actions: (1) violation of California Labor Code
Sections 510 & 1198 for unpaid overtime; (2) violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226.7 & 512(a) for unpaid meal
premiums; (3) violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 for
unpaid rest period premiums; (4) violation of California Labor Code
Sections 1194, 1197, & 1197.1 for unpaid minimum wages; (5)
violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 & 202 for final
wages not timely paid; (6) violation of California Labor Code
Section 204 for wages not timely paid during employment; (7)
violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a) for non-compliant
wage statements; (8) violation of California Labor Code Section
1174(d) for failure to keep requisite payroll records; (9)
violation of California Labor Code Section 1198 for unpaid
reporting time pay; (10) violation of California Labor Code
Sections 2800 & 2802 for unreimbursed business expenses; (11)
violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq.; (12) violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 207 for unpaid overtime; (13) violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207 for unpaid minimum
wages; and (14) violation of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004.
Currently before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motions for final
approval of a class and collective action settlement, and the
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
awards. The Court held a hearing on the motion on Feb. 3, 2021.
Having considered the moving papers, the declarations and exhibits
attached thereto, the arguments presented at the Feb. 3, 2021
hearing, the supplemental briefing filed following the hearing, as
well as the Court's file, Magistrate Judge Boone finds that the
settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. She
also finds the requested amount of attorneys' fees and costs,
incentive awards, and administrative costs, to be reasonable and
appropriate.
For these reasons, she recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class action settlement be granted and the
Court approves the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
She also recommended that the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'
fees and costs and incentive awards be granted, and the following
amounts be awarded:
a. Class counsel will receive $210,000 in attorneys' fees
and $$22,612.07 in expenses;
b. Plaintiff Ferrell will receive $3,000 as an incentive
payment;
c. Plaintiff Baker will receive $3,000 as an incentive
payment;
d. Simpluris, Inc., will receive $16,000 in settlement
administration costs and expenses;
Magistrate Judge Boone further recommended that the parties be
directed to effectuate all terms of the settlement agreement and
any deadlines or procedures for distribution set forth therein.
Finally, she recommended that the action be dismissed with
prejudice in accordance with the terms of the parties' settlement
agreement, with the Court specifically retaining jurisdiction over
the action for the purpose of enforcing the parties' settlement
agreement; and the Clerk of the Court be directed to close the
case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district
judge assigned to the action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304. Within 14 days of
service of the recommendation, any party may file written
objections to these findings and recommendations with the Court and
serve a copy on all parties.
Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The district judge will
review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in
the waiver of rights on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://tinyurl.com/7l0j6map from
Leagle.com.
CALIFORNIA STATE: Faces Student Athletes' Sex Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Women's lacrosse team members at California State University,
Fresno (Fresno State), filed a sex discrimination class action
against Fresno State for discriminating against female
student-athletes and potential student-athletes in violation of
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The lawsuit, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
charges the school and school officials with violating Title IX by
depriving women of equal opportunities to participate, athletic
financial aid, and treatment; eliminating the women's lacrosse team
at the end of this academic year; and treating the team far worse
than any other varsity team in the meantime.
Title IX, a civil rights law, prohibits sex discrimination in all
educational institutions that receive federal funds.
A motion for a preliminary injunction and a memorandum in support
seek a court order preserving the women's lacrosse team and
requiring it to be treated equally with other varsity teams while
the case proceeds.
"Fresno State has long been a national Title IX poster child for
sex discrimination in its intercollegiate athletic program," said
Arthur Bryant of Bailey Glasser, LLP, lead counsel for the women.
"In 2016, it announced it had changed its ways. Sadly, that wasn't
true. The school is not close to providing women with gender
equity. Fresno State's elimination and treatment of the women's
lacrosse team are blatant violations of Title IX."
"It is truly sad and disappointing that we have to sue Fresno State
to make it comply with Title IX, treat women equally, and preserve
our team" said Megan Walaitis, co-captain and a senior on the
women's lacrosse team. "But we have to stand up for our rights and
fight. Fresno State actively recruited us. We love being here and
playing. But it's trying to eliminate our team, already treating us
like we're not a varsity team, and discriminating against women
throughout its intercollegiate athletic program."
On October 16, 2020, Fresno State announced it was eliminating its
women's lacrosse team (and its men's tennis and wrestling teams) at
the end of this academic year. When it did so, women were already
receiving less than their fair share of opportunities to
participate in varsity athletics at the school.
On December 3, 2020, Arthur Bryant, at Bailey Glasser's Oakland
office, sent a letter to now former Fresno State President Joseph
I. Castro explaining that the elimination of the women's lacrosse
team violated Title IX and requesting a dialogue about preserving
the team and ensuring the school's Title IX compliance. Nearly
three weeks later, after delaying several times, Fresno State sent
Bryant a "Final Letter" that said it saw "no reason" to "consider
reinstating" the women's lacrosse team, was "in compliance with
Title IX," and expressed no interest in talking.
Fresno State's elimination of the women's lacrosse team and ongoing
gender discrimination are especially alarming because of the
school's long-term, nationally prominent reputation and record for
violating Title IX. A February 12, 2016, article in the Fresno Bee
reported that Fresno State had been under investigation by the U.S.
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for
violating Title IX since 1992, when Associate Athletic Director
Diane Milutinovich "blew the whistle on inequalities between men's
and women's sports." OCR found Fresno State in violation of 11 of
13 areas of treatment. The school "had to meet 45 conditions" and
ended up being "under the nearly 25-year eye of federal Title IX
investigators."
During that time, gender discrimination in Fresno State's athletics
department was such a serious problem that a stunning number of
women in the department had to file lawsuits against the school,
which garnered major publicity and enormous verdicts and
settlements. Women's volleyball coach Linda Vivas charged the
school with retaliating against her for advocating gender equity
and won a $5.85 million jury verdict in July 2007, later reduced to
$4.52 million.
Women's basketball coach Stacy Johnson-Klein made a similar claim
and won a $19.1 million jury verdict in December 2007, later
reduced to $6.6 million. Associate Athletic Director Milutinovich
also alleged she was retaliated against for advancing gender equity
and won a $3.5 million settlement. Fresno State paid significant
sums to settle claims brought by other women, too, including
softball coach Margie Wright and track coach Ramona Pagel.
The 2016 Fresno Bee article quoted Castro as saying the school
would "be a national leader" in compliance with Title IX, but the
elimination of the women's lacrosse team shows otherwise.
As Bryant's letter to Castro noted, Title IX prohibits educational
institutions receiving federal funds from eliminating women's teams
for which interest, ability, and competition are available unless
"intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and
female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate
to their respective enrollments." Fresno State fails that test.
According to the most recent publicly available Equity in Athletics
Disclosure Act data Fresno State submitted and verified to the U.S.
Department of Education, in the 2018-2019 academic year, the school
had an undergraduate population of 11,518 women and 7,828 men. So
undergraduate enrollment was 59.54% women. The school's
intercollegiate athletic teams had 256 men and 323 women, or 55.79%
women-creating a 3.75% gap between the women's undergraduate
enrollment rate and their intercollegiate athletic participation
rate. Given the number of men on the varsity teams, Fresno State
would have needed to add at least 54 women to its athletic program
to be providing equitable participation opportunities for women.
But Fresno State is eliminating opportunities for women, not adding
them.
Based on that data, with the elimination of the teams announced on
October 16, 2020, the school's athletic participation numbers will
drop to approximately 221 men and 295 women, or 57.17% women-which
still leaves a 2.37% gap. Therefore, even with the announced team
eliminations, Fresno State would need to add approximately 30 women
to reach gender equity under Title IX. This is almost exactly the
number of athletes on the women's lacrosse team the school is
eliminating.
In addition to Walaitis, the lawsuit was filed by Fresno State
women's lacrosse team members Taylor Anders, Hennessey Evans,
Abbigayle Roberts (fellow co-captain), and Tara Weir.
In addition to Bryant, the women are represented by Bailey
Glasser's Cary Joshi, Joshua Hammock, Britney Littles, and Elliott
McGraw in Washington, DC, Ben Hogan in Morgantown, WV, Sharon Iskra
and Laura Babiak in Charleston, WV, and Nicole Ballante in St.
Peterburg, FL, along with co-counsel Michael Caddell, Cynthia
Chapman, and Amy Tabor of Caddell & Chapman in Houston, TX, and
Monterey, CA.
The defendants are Fresno State, Athletic Director Terrence Tumey,
Past President Joseph Castro, and Interim President Dr. Saul
Jimenez-Sandoval.
Bryant has successfully represented more women athletes and
potential athletes in Title IX litigation against schools and
universities than any lawyer in the country. He and his co-counsel
recently reached settlements reinstating women's teams and
advancing Title IX compliance with Dartmouth College and East
Carolina University in January 2021, the University of North
Carolina at Pembroke in December 2020, William & Mary College in
October 2020, and Brown University in September 2020. [GN]
CANADA: Class Action Trial to Proceed by Virtual Means
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Arella, Esq. -- aarella@osler.com -- and Karin Sachar, Esq.
-- ksachar@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that in Flying E. Ranche Ltd. v.
Attorney General of Canada 2020 ONSC 8072, Justice Schabas recently
rejected an adjournment sought due to pandemic-related delays, and
ordered a class action trial to proceed via Zoom. In doing so, he
confirmed that the courts have adapted to conducting proceedings
virtually and that parties are expected to make similar efforts and
adhere to court-ordered schedules for virtual hearings.
Background
This action was commenced in 2005, arising from the impact of the
federal government's response to Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(mad cow disease) on Canadian cattle farmers. Similar class actions
were commenced in other provinces but were suspended or postponed
in favour of the Ontario proceeding. A 77-day trial on the merits
was scheduled to begin in January 2021.
In December 2020, the defendants sought an adjournment, stating for
the first time that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted their
readiness and they require more time to prepare for trial. The
defendants also raised concerns about their ability to meet with
and prepare their witnesses virtually and stated some of their
witnesses wished to have counsel present while they testified. As a
result, the defendants sought to adjourn the trial until September
2021.
COVID-19 not a sufficient reason to request an adjournment
Justice Schabas postponed the commencement of the trial by two
weeks but declined to adjourn the trial. He noted that the pandemic
has been ongoing for many months, and in that time the courts and
the legal profession have learnt how to prepare for and conduct
remote proceedings using videoconferencing platforms and other
technologies. Moreover, at no point prior to December 2021 had the
defendant raised any issue regarding COVID-19's impact on trial
preparations.
In response to the defendants arguments that they would not be able
to sufficiently prepare or communicate with their witnesses
remotely, Justice Schabas noted that "[t]he use of virtual breakout
rooms and other means of communication (e.g., chat functions,
email, texts and telephone) between co-counsel and with witnesses
(where appropriate) has allowed for very effective communication
during hearings."
Justice Schabas concluded that an adjournment would be contrary to
the interests of the parties and the administration of justice,
both of which would be better served by ensuring the timely
delivery of justice, particularly during this unprecedented public
health crisis.
Conclusion
This decision underscores the Ontario Superior Court's expectation
that class actions scheduled for trial in the coming months proceed
virtually. Since the release of this decision, Chief Justice
Morawetz emphasized in the Notice to the Profession and Public
Regarding Court Proceedings, that all non-jury proceedings should
proceed virtually wherever possible. Despite their length and
complexity, the Court has signalled that class action trials are
not in and of themselves a reason to require an in-person hearing.
Counsel and parties should therefore take the necessary steps to
adapt to the use of videoconferencing platforms and other virtual
meeting technology as an essential tool in class proceedings for
the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. [GN]
CANADA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over CERB Pandemic Relief
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Ranosa, writing for Human Resources Director, reports that
retired Canadians who earn self-employment income on the side --
but who claimed the CERB pandemic relief in 2020 -- are now among
the hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries being asked to return
the funds received through the programme. Retirees, however, are
set to counter the demand through a proposed class-action suit
against the federal government.
Semi-retired teacher Janet Ryan is leading the complaint, claiming
it isn't the beneficiaries' fault that they claimed the Canada
Emergency Response Benefit based on the information they received.
While the current suit covers only self-employed Canadians like
Ryan, it would likely be extended to represent all other
beneficiaries whose eligibility is being questioned.
"If the court interprets this the way I expect that they will, it's
for everyone," said Jan Weir, Ryan's lawyer, in a Global News
report.
A total of 441,000 recipients of CERB, paid out to Canadians
struggling in the early months of the COVID-19 crisis, received a
notice from the Canada Revenue Agency back in December, warning
that they may have claimed the benefit by mistake.
In the case of self-employed recipients represented in the suit,
the confusion purportedly stemmed from a lack of clarity in the
CRA's eligibility criteria.
CERB recipients supposedly understood the $5,000 income requirement
-- as specified by the CRA at the beginning of the application --
to mean gross income. However, in notices sent out flagging the
erroneous claims, the federal agency clarified that the income
requirement referred to net income.
This subset of CERB recipients are now being asked to pay back as
much as $18,000 because of the missing detail in the criteria. The
revenue agency, however, maintains self-employment income is
calculated as gross income minus expenses.
"This is consistent with how self-employment income is calculated
when dealing with the CRA. To be clear, there has been no change to
this position during the lifecycle of the CERB," CRA spokesperson
Sylvie Branch said in December.
A couple of weeks later, the CRA said "communications on this topic
were unclear in the first days after the CERB was launched". The
lack of clarity was reflected in the wording used across CERB
webpages and the guidelines given to call centre agents.
"We regret that this lack of consistent clarity led some
self-employed individuals to mistakenly apply to the CERB despite
being ineligible," the CRA said. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Arellano Sues Over Unpermitted Credit Report Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE ARELLANO, individually and on behalf of others, Plaintiff
v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00216-DMS-BGS (S.D. Cal., February 4, 2021) brings this
class action complaint against the Defendant seeking for damages
and injunctive relief for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.
The Plaintiff had two credit card accounts opened with the
Defendant in 2017 that was discharged on August 20, 2019 pursuant
to a court order after she filed Chapter Seven Bankruptcy in San
Diego under case number 19-02963 on May 22, 2019. The court order
was sent electronically to the Defendant by the bankruptcy court
informing the Defendant that the Plaintiff's credit accounts were
closed. However, the Defendant did not file any proceedings to
declare the Plaintiff's obligations as "non dischargeable" pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. Section 523 et seq., and did not request relief from
the "automatic stay" codified at 11 U.S.C. Section 362 et seq while
the Plaintiff's bankruptcy was pending to pursue the Plaintiff for
the debts, the suit says.
Nevertheless, without the Plaintiff's consent, the Defendant
illegally accessed the Plaintiff's TransUnion credit report
alleging it had permissible purpose as an account review inquiry.
The Defendant accessed the Plaintiff's private and confidential
information without the Plaintiff's consent or a permissible
purpose thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy. As a result, the
Plaintiff has suffered concrete harm resulting from the Defendant's
alleged willful invasion of privacy.
Capita One Bank (USA), N.A. is a national bank headquartered in
Glen Allen, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Juliana G. Blaha, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (866) 219-3343
Fax: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
Juliana@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and –
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (619) 222-7429
Fax: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
CARNIVAL CORP: Washington Court Narrows Claims in Lindsay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD C. LINDSAY and CARL E.W. ZEHNER, Plaintiffs v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V.
d/b/a HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. LLC, Defendants, Case No. C20-982
TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted in part
and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs Lindsay and Zehner allege the following material facts
in their Second Amended Complaint: The United States reported the
first confirmed COVID-19 case on Jan. 20, 2020. Ten days later,
the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a public health
emergency of international concern. In early February 2020, the
European Union released specific guidelines for the cruise industry
related to the risks posed by COVID-19. Specifically, the
guidelines directed that, in the event of a COVID-19 case, 'close
contacts' of the case individuals believed to have COVID-19 should
be quarantined in their cabin or on shore, and 'casual contacts'
should be disembarked from the ship.
The Plaintiffs further allege that in early February, the
Defendants knew of a COVID-19 outbreak aboard the Diamond Princess,
a cruise ship docked at Yokohama, Japan, and owned by Carnival's
subsidiary, Princess Cruise Lines, LTD. Outbreaks also occurred on
other ships owned by Carnival's subsidiaries, including the Ruby
Princess, a cruise ship docked in Australia, and the M/V Grand
Princess, a cruise ship that departed San Francisco on Feb. 21,
2020.
On March 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs boarded the MS Zaandam, a cruise
ship Carnival owns through Holland, its wholly-owned subsidiary, in
Buenos Aires, Argentina. Four days later, on March 11, 2020, the
WHO declared COVID-19 a global pandemic. On March 13, 2020,
Holland announced that, due to the pandemic, it was suspending its
cruise operations for 30 days.
The passengers aboard the MS Zaandam, however, continued to gather
in large crowds, attend cruise ship events, and share meals
together until March 22, 2020, when Holland asked them to isolate
in their staterooms. Plaintiff Zehner began feeling symptoms
consistent with COVID-19 on March 27, 2020. He later tested
positive for COVID-19. On April 5, 2020, a helicopter transported
Zehner to a hospital in Orlando, Florida. As of the filing of the
SAC, Zehner had returned home, but had not yet made a full
recovery. Plaintiff Lindsay believes he also caught COVID-19 on
the MS Zaandam, but he has not received a positive test confirming
whether he had the virus.
The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on Oct. 30, 2020. On Nov. 20, 2020,
the Defendants filed the motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class allegations, Lindsay's claim for Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress ("NIED"), Carnival as a Defendant,
and both the Plaintiffs' claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress ("IIED"). The Defendants also contend that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief and move to
dismiss the claim.
The Defendants argue that (i) the Court should strike or dismiss
the class allegations because, as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs
waived the right to bring a class action, (ii) the Court should
dismiss Lindsay's claim for NIED because he does not allege any
symptoms, (iii) the Plaintiffs failed to allege that Carnival is
liable for Holland's conduct because they do not sufficiently
allege an independent duty of care, the (iv) the Court should
dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief because they
lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief.
Judge Zilly granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
Motion to Dismis as follows: He dismissed without prejudice
Plaintiff Lindsay's claim for NIED and all the Plaintiffs' claims
for IIED. The Defendants' motion is otherwise denied.
Among other things, Judge Zilly finds that accepting the
Plaintiffs' allegations as true, they fail to rise to the level of
extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to state an IIED claim.
The decision to set sail in the early weeks of what would become a
global pandemic, when much remained unknown about COVID-19, does
not constitute conduct beyond all possible bounds of decency.
Indeed, the Plaintiffs do not allege that the Defendants acted in a
manner inconsistent with what the Center for Disease Control had
recommended at the time. Hence, the dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
claim for IIED without prejudice. And because Lindsay does not
allege that he manifested any symptoms of COVID-19, her claim for
NIED is dismissed without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs will file any amended complaint within 60 days of
the Order with respect to their claims for NIED and IIED. The
Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all the counsel of
record.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/i6iqyg1c from Leagle.com.
CARPENTER HAZLEWOOD: Bid to Stay Wolf Pending Ramirez Ruling Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas L. Rayes of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona denied the Defendants' motion to stay the case, Janis
Wolf, Plaintiff v. Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP,
Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00957-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz.), pending a
decision by the United States Supreme Court in TransUnion, LLC v.
Ramirez, Docket No. 20-297.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(a), by obtaining
her credit report without a legitimate purpose or consent, and
prior to obtaining a judgment against her. Her complaint demands
statutory and punitive damages. The Plaintiff seeks to litigate
the case as a class action on behalf of others whose credit reports
the Defendant obtained under similar circumstances.
The Defendant has moved to stay the action in its entirety, or
alternatively to stay briefing and consideration of the Plaintiff's
class certification motion, pending a decision by the United States
Supreme Court in Ramirez. The Supreme Court recently granted
certiorari in Ramirez, oral argument is scheduled for March 30,
2021, and a decision likely will issue by the end of this term.
The Defendant argues that a stay is appropriate because a ruling in
Ramirez could have a direct impact on this litigation, and more
specifically on the Court's ability to certify a purported class as
the Plaintiff requests.
To determine whether a decision in Ramirez will have a meaningful
impact on the litigation, Judge Rayes first determines what is at
issue in Ramirez.
Sergio Ramirez brought a class action on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated consumers, accusing TransUnion of
violating the FCRA, Sections 1681e(b), (g)(a)(1), and (g)(c)(2), by
incorrectly placing terrorist alerts on the front page of the
consumers' credit reports and subsequently sending those consumers
confusing and incomplete information about the alerts and how to
get them removed. A jury found in favor of the class and awarded
statutory and punitive damages.
On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, TransUnion argued, among other
things, that none of the class members except for Ramirez had
Article III standing, and that the district court should not have
certified the class because Ramirez's injuries were atypical of
those suffered by the class.
On the first question, the Ninth Circuit held that every class
member must have standing to recover damages at the final judgment
stage, and that Ramirez and every class member had standing under
the facts of the case. On the second question, the Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that Ramirez's injuries were more severe than the
injuries suffered by the rest of the class.
But the Ninth Circuit held that these differences did not defeat
typicality. Although Ramirez's injuries were slightly more severe
than some class members' injuries, they still arose from the same
practice that gave rise to the claims of the other class members,
and Ramirez's claims were based on the same legal theory. The
Ninth Circuit reasoned that Ramirez's "injuries were not so unique,
unusual, or severe to make him an atypical representative of the
class."
TransUnion successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari. The question TransUnion has presented to the Supreme
Court is "whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages
class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no
actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class
representative suffered." The Supreme Court will be deciding
whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it concluded that (1) the
class members suffered Article III injuries and (2) the class
representative's injuries were typical of those suffered by the
class.
Judge Rayes finds that the Supreme Court's resolution of the first
question will not meaningfully impact the litigation. Ramirez does
not concern alleged violations of Section 1681b(a) (which is at
issue in the case) and therefore does not speak to whether
consumers suffer Article III injuries when that section is
violated.
This precise issue instead, Judge says, is addressed by an earlier
Ninth Circuit decision, Nayab v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 942
F.3d 480 (9th Cir. 2019). There, the Ninth Circuit held Section
1681b(a) protects a consumer's substantive right to privacy, and
therefore a consumer "has standing to vindicate her right to
privacy under the FCRA when a third-party obtains her credit report
without a purpose authorized by the statute, regardless whether the
credit report is published or otherwise used by that third-party."
Whether Nayab remains good law after Thole does not depend on the
Supreme Court's impending decision in Ramirez.
Nor is Judge Rayes persuaded that the Supreme Court's resolution of
the second question will meaningfully impact the case. Even if the
Supreme Court were to reverse the Ninth Circuit and hold that
Ramirez's injuries were atypical of those suffered by the class as
a whole, the Judge holds that there is far less daylight between
the injuries alleged by the Plaintiff and those allegedly suffered
by the putative class. The Defendant highlights that, unlike the
putative class members, the Plaintiff claims that its hard credit
inquiries might have caused her to be denied an improved interest
rate on a credit card. The discrepancy is minor when compared to
the differences between Ramirez's injuries and those suffered by
the class in that case.
To be clear, the Jude is not prejudging the typicality question.
Defendant remains free to argue in opposition to class
certification that the Plaintiff's injuries are atypical of those
suffered by the putative class, and he will resolve that question
on its merits in the specific context of the case. He merely finds
that the allegations in the case are sufficiently distinguishable
from the facts in Ramirez that the Supreme Court's forthcoming
decision, even if favorable to TransUnion, will not meaningfully
impact the litigation.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Rayes denied the Defendant's motion
to stay. He ordered that the Defendant has seven days from the
date of the Order in which to file a response to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/47weyysb from Leagle.com.
CD PROJEKT: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 22, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired CD Projekt S.A. ("CD Projekt" or the "Company")
(OTC: OTGLF, OTGLY) securities between January 16, 2020 and
December 17, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your CD Projekt 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/cd-projekt-sa/. 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.
CD Projekt develops and distributes videogames worldwide. Cyberpunk
2077 is an "open world, narrative-driven role-playing game" that
was slated to be released in April 2020.
On December 10, 2020, CD Projekt launched Cyberpunk 2077, and
consumers discovered that the Current-Generation Console versions
of the game were filled with errors and difficult to play. One
article stated the game "performs so poorly that it makes combat,
driving, and what is otherwise a master craft of storytelling
legitimately difficult to look at."
On December 14, 2020, the Company held a conference call during
which the joint Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Adam Michal
Kicinski admitted that CD Projekt "underestimated the scale and
complexity of the issues" and "ignored the signals about the need
for additional time to refine the game on the base last-gen
consoles."
Following the game's release, the price of CD Projekt's American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $6.93, or 25% over three
consecutive trading sessions to close at $20.75 per ADR on December
14, 2020, thereby damaging investors. Over the same period, the
price of the Company's common shares fell $21.65, or 20.1%, to
close at $86.00 on December 14, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
On December 18, 2020, Sony and Microsoft issued statements offering
refunds for those who had purchased Cyberpunk 2077, citing "a wave
of complaints about the long-awaited title."
On this news, the price of the Company's ADRs fell $3.44, or 15.8%,
to close at $18.50 per ADR on December 18, 2020. The price of the
Company's common share price fell $9.20, or 10.45%, to close at
$78.80 on December 18, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Cyberpunk 2077 was virtually unplayable on the
current-generation Xbox or Playstation systems due to an enormous
number of bugs; (2) as a result, Sony would remove Cyberpunk 2077
from the Playstation store, and Sony, Microsoft and CD Projekt
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, CD Projekt would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired CD Projekt securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 22,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CHERNE CONTRACTING: Court Says Swangler Can Assert Individual Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL SWANGLER, Plaintiff v. CHERNE CONTRACTING
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00611-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California clarified that prior dismissal
order was a dismissal of the class action complaint without
prejudice to the Plaintiff filing a new complaint asserting his
individual claims.
On Jan. 22, 2021, the Court issued an order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class action
complaint. In that order, the Court ordered that the motion to
dismiss was granted without prejudice to the Plaintiff pursuing his
claims on an individual basis. It then directed the Clerk to close
the case. In response, the Plaintiff filed a request for
clarification that he may continue to prosecute his individual
claim in the case.
To the extent it is necessary, Judge Gilliam clarifies that prior
order was a dismissal of the class action complaint without
prejudice to the Plaintiff filing a new complaint asserting his
individual claims. If the Plaintiff chooses to pursue his claims
on an individual basis, he will need to file a new case in state or
federal court. The Judge also notes that if the Plaintiff chooses
to file in federal court, he will need to properly plead a basis
for federal jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/1vyxntwj from Leagle.com.
CHRISTAL TRANSPORT: Gonzalez Seeks Truck Drivers' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YAMEL GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHRISTAL TRANSPORT, LLC and ORALDO SOSA,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60278 (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to pay overtime in violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a truck driver in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida from approximately September 2011 through
approximately March 15, 2019.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified their truck
drivers as independent contractors outside the protection of the
FLSA. Despite working more than 40 hours every week, the Defendant
did not compensate them for the overtime hours they worked at one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they
worked in a workweek. In addition, the Defendant did not keep track
of their truck drivers' hours worked.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of all truck drivers
of the Defendants, who were denied a proper overtime premium,
seeking payment for all unpaid overtime at the applicable overtime
rate in accordance with the law, liquidated damages, a reasonable
attorney fee and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
Christal Transport, LLC operates nine trucks in the freight
shipping and trucking company and it is owned by Oraldo Sosa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelsey K. Black, Esq.
BLACK LAW P.A.
1401 E. Broward Blvd., Ste. 204
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 320-6220
E-mail: kelsey@kkbpa.com
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Archdiocese of Vancouver Responds to Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic News Service reports that the Archdiocese of Vancouver has
responded to a proposed class-action lawsuit involving allegations
of sexual abuse at two Catholic high schools run by the Christian
Brothers.
The suit, filed in British Columbia's Supreme Court Feb. 8, alleges
that between 1976 and 1983, six men who abused children at Mount
Cashel Orphanage in St. John's, Newfoundland -- run by the
Christian Brothers -- were transferred to the two Vancouver
schools, reported B.C. Catholic, archdiocesan newspaper.
The plaintiff, Darren Liptrot, says he was sexually abused while he
attended Vancouver College from 1980 to 1985. The other school was
St. Thomas More. The claims have not been proven in court.
"The Archdiocese of Vancouver feels great sadness and regret for
anyone who has suffered sexual abuse from a person in power," the
archdiocese said in a statement Feb. 8.
It said the archdiocese and Catholic Independent Schools of the
Vancouver Archdiocese, both named in the proposed suit, do not own
or operate the schools.
"These two schools are both run by independent foundations. They
have their own land and buildings, have their own curriculum, and
make all their own hiring decisions. As a result, we can make no
further comment on this case."
It added that class-action lawsuits "often begin by naming a
multitude of defendants, some of whom have little connection to the
case."
Vancouver College also reacted to the news. In a message to alumni,
President Johnny Bevacqua and Sue Dvorak, chairwoman of the board
of directors, wrote "these are deeply troubling allegations and we
take these claims very seriously." They said they were reviewing
the filing and would "respond accordingly once we have a better
understanding and additional information."
They added that "crimes of abuse are tragic and have lifelong
impacts on those involved. Vancouver College expresses profound
concern and sympathy to anyone who has been impacted in any way by
any abuse . . . it is our top priority that all students come to
school feeling safe and respected."
In January, the Supreme Court of Canada refused an appeal of a
ruling that found the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. John's
liable for abuse at the Mount Cashel Orphanage. The archdiocese was
ordered to pay $2 million in damages.
The St. John's Archdiocese had denied it was responsible for abuse
that occurred at Mount Cashel and came to light in the 1989 Hughes
Inquiry. The archdiocese said it was not involved in day-to-day
operations of the orphanage and that the Christian Brothers who ran
it were a lay organization whose members were not ordained
priests.
The Christian Brothers of Ireland declared bankruptcy in 2012 while
settling abuse lawsuits. The orphanage was demolished in 1992.
This proposed class-action suit is not related to one filed against
the Archdiocese of Vancouver in 2020 claiming the archdiocese was
"systematically negligent" in protecting parishioners from abuse by
clergy. The plaintiff, a woman identified as K.S. in court
documents, alleged she was abused by a priest at St. Francis of
Assisi Parish in the 1980s. [GN]
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Faces Mount Cashel Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed over allegations that children
at two Vancouver-area Catholic schools were abused by members of
the Christian Brothers who had been transferred to B.C. from the
infamous Mount Cashel Orphanage.
The lawsuit says that the abuse at Vancouver College and St. Thomas
More in the period from 1976 to 1995 continued a pattern of
systemic child abuse at institutions run by the Christian Brothers
in Canada first revealed at the Newfoundland orphanage in the mid-
to late-1970s.
It says that after the incidents of abuse in Newfoundland, the
Christian Brothers moved the abusers out of that province to teach
at other schools, including Vancouver College and St. Thomas More.
The move was done to protect the abusers from criminal charges,
according to the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver
on Feb. 8.
"Over the period 1976 to 1983, the (Christian Brothers) moved six
child abusers from Mount Cashel to Vancouver College and St. Thomas
More where they had unfettered access to children, abused children
and/or failed to protect children from their fellow Christian
Brothers," says the suit.
"All six Christian Brothers were later convicted of physically
and/or sexually abusing orphans in their care at Mount Cashel. One
has also been convicted of abuse perpetrated in Vancouver."
The representative plaintiff in the case is Darren Liptrot, who
alleges that he was sexually abused by one of his teachers, Brother
Edward English.
"This man was here for 10 years, in intimate close setting with
young boys the entire time after what he had already done back
east," said Liptrot.
The plaintiff said that the abuse at the hands of English resulted
in him suffering from drug addiction as well as family, work and
relationship struggles. He said he wants to see those in power held
accountable.
English, who was initially sent to St. Thomas More before being
transferred to Vancouver College where he taught Liptrot, according
to the suit, was convicted in the 1990s of multiple counts of gross
indecency and assault against boys at Mount Cashel and was
sentenced to 13 years in prison.
In 1994, English's sentence was reduced on appeal to 10 years and
he has since been released. The lawsuit says that his whereabouts
are unknown.
Joe Fiorante, a lawyer for Liptrot, says that the last anyone heard
from English was when he was released from prison in New Brunswick
and there was a furor in the town where he took up residence.
The class-action lawsuit claims that the defendants, which include
English and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver, failed to
take appropriate measures to protect children at the two schools.
Fiorante said it is unknown at this point as to how many students
suffered abuse.
The Christian Brothers are recognized as a congregation by the
Vatican, but are not clergy.
It is the second class-action lawsuit filed against local Catholic
Church officials in the past year. A lawsuit filed last summer
alleges that the Archdiocese of Vancouver was negligent in
protecting parishioners from abuse by clergy.
In a statement, the Archdiocese of Vancouver said that it feels
"great sadness and regret" for anyone who has suffered sexual abuse
from a person in power.
"We have a robust process in place for dealing with such complaints
and we encourage anyone who has faced abuse to take their
complaints to the police and to receive counselling from an
independent third party. We can help facilitate that counselling if
anyone wishes."
The statement said that the Archdiocese does not own or operate the
two schools in question, which it says are run by independent
foundations.
"We do not know why we were named, but class-action lawsuits often
begin by naming a multitude of defendants, some of whom have little
connection with the case." [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CLSK) from
December 31, 2020 through January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit CleanSpark
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had
overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of
the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related
party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging,
among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of
its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that
it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions."
Specifically, it alleged that the most recent acquisition of ATL
Data Centers, LLC "is another Gutless Promotion Attempt."
On this news, CleanSpark's shares fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to
close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging
investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session
by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15,
2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cleansparkinc-clsk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-356/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of March 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
CleanSpark, Inc. (NASDAQ: CLSK)
Class Period: December 31, 2020 - January 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and
contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent
acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CLEANSPARK INC: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, on Feb. 11
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against CleanSpark,
Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CLSK) and certain of
its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If
you purchased CleanSpark stock or securities between December 31,
2020 and January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a
loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional
information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
CleanSpark provides advanced software and controls technology
solutions, including end-to-end microgrid energy modeling, energy
market communications, and energy management solutions.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the 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, CleanSpark failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its
customer and contract figures; and (2) that several of the
Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party
transactions.
The Class Period begins on December 31, 2020, when the Company
issued a press release touting a "record revenue" year, stating in
part that the Company had purchased ATL Data Centers, LLC through
an "all stock" transaction and that therefore the Company expected
to increase Bitcoin production at potentially the lowest total
energy cost in America.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report, which
alleges that CleanSpark "fabricated key elements of its business,
including purported customers and contracts." More specifically,
the Culper Research report accuses CleanSpark of not disclosing (i)
an imminent rate hike from its power provider, making production
less feasible; (ii) that a large residential project that the
Company stated it would provide microgrid solutions for was
actually wasteland; and (iii) that multiple notable contracts the
Company entered into were undisclosed related party transactions.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.63, over 9%, to
close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021. The stock continued
to decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 12.7%, to close at
$31.15 per share on January 15, 202.
What You Can Do
If you purchased CleanSpark securities between December 31, 2020
and January 14, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is March 22, 2021.
About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices
in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio.
Contacts:
Joe Pettigrew
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6982
jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Clover Health Investments Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CLOV) from October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Clover securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Clover Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
According to the complaint, Clover and its senior management misled
investors about the fact that it was the subject of an
investigation by the Department of Justice ("DOJ"). The truth was
revealed to investors on February 4, 2021, when Hindenburg Research
published a report stating that Clover had been under active
investigation by the DOJ for at least 12 issues, ranging from
kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals.
Clover had not revealed the existence of the DOJ inquiry prior to
the merger.
On this news, Clover shares fell 12.3% from a closing price of
$13.95 on February 3, 2021 to a closing price of $12.23 on February
4, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 6, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Clover securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cloverhealthinvestmentscorp-clov-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-360/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Feb. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of investors that purchased Clover
Health Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) securities between
October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December
2020 Merger. Investors have until April 6, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Clover Health provides healthcare insurance services and purports
to use proprietary technology to collect, structure, and analyze
health and behavioral data.
On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and Clover's common shares began
trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOV," closing at
$15.90 per share, and on January 11, Clover's redeemable warrants
began trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOVW,"
closing at $3.36 per warrant.
On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a report stating
that prior to the merger, Clover has been under active
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues ranging
from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party
deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active investigation
by the DOJ.
On this news, shares of Clover common shares (CLOV) plummeted from
their February 3, 2021 closing price of $13.95 per share to close
at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, to close at $3.39 per warrant on
February 4, 2021.
The complaint, filed on February 5, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are
driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to
disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased Clover Health securities during the Class Period
and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- 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.
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]
CLOVER HEALTH: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-clover-health-investments-corp-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Clover Health Investments,
Corp. ("Clover Health" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CLOV) and reminds
investors of the April 6, 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 Clover Health
stock or options between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021 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/CLOV.
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)
Clover was under active investigation by the Department of Justice
for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing
practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to the Company, since
it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales
were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and
misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported
"best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover
sales were by way of an undisclosed relationship between Clover and
an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
Specifically, on February 4, 2021, analyst Hindenburg Research
published a report entitled "Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs'
Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business Facing an Active,
Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." In this report, Hindenburg
"reveal[ed] how Clover Health and its Wall Street celebrity
promoted, Chamath Palihapitiya, misled investors about critical
aspects of Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC
go-public transaction last month." Hindenburg stated that its
investigation "spanned almost 4 months and has included more than a
dozen interviews with former employees, competitors, and industry
experts," as well as "dozens of calls to doctor's offices, and a
review of thousands of pages of government reports, insurance
filings, regulatory filings, and company marketing materials."
On this news, shares of Clover common stock plummeted from their
February 3, 2021 closing price of $13.95 per share to just $12.23
per share on February 4, 2021, representing a one day drop of
approximately 12.3%. This represents a loss of approximately $700
million in market capitalization. Moreover, shares traded as low as
$11.86 per share intraday on February 4, 2021.
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 Clover Health's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 6, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV,
CLOVW) ("Clover Health" or the "Company") f/k/a Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III (NYSE: IPOC) ("Social Capital III")
securities: (1) between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the December 2020 Merger of Clover and Social Capital III (the
"Registration Statement").
If you suffered a loss on your Clover 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/clover-health-investments-corp/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research released a report entitled
"Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into
a Broken Business Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ
Investigation[.]" The report alleged, among other things, that
"Clover has not disclosed that its business model and its software
offering, called the Clover Assistant, are under active
investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which is
investigating at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to
marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
On February 5, 2021, Clover issued a response in which it admitted,
among other things, that it was aware of the DOJ investigation. The
Company also disclosed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), indicating that it is
conducting an investigation and requesting document and data
preservation from January 1, 2020 to the present.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing
practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to the Company, since
it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales
were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and
misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported
"best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover's
sales were by way of an undisclosed relationship between Clover and
an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 6, 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]
CLOVER HEALTH: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 6, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications
in securities class action lawsuits against Clover Health
Investments, Corp. (NasdaqGS: CLOV, CLOVW) f/k/a Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III (NYSE: IPOC), if they purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between October 6, 2020
and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") or pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the December 2020 merger of Clover and Social
Capital III. This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
What You May Do
If you purchased securities of Clover and/or Social Capital as
above and would like to discuss your legal rights and how these
cases might affect you and your right to recover for your economic
loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via
email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-clov/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by April 6, 2021.
About the Lawsuit
Clover and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On January 7, 2021, the Company completed its merger with Social
Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and began to trade on the
NasdaqGS under "CLOV." On February 4, 2021, a report issued by
Hindenburg Research revealed that the Company was under active
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice prior to the merger
relating to potential kickbacks and marketing practices, which was
not disclosed by the Company. Then, on February 5, 2021, the
Company acknowledged that it was aware of the DOJ investigation
before entering into the merger, and also disclosed the receipt of
an SEC inquiry following publication of Hindenburg's report.
On this news, the price of Clover's shares plummeted.
The first-filed case is Bond v. Clover Health Investments, Corp.,
et al., No. 3:21-cv-00096.
About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contacts:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850 [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) ("Clover") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded
securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and/or purchased or acquired Clover
securities pursuant or traceable to Clover's registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger.
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover
publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/clover-health-investments-corp-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=clover
According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance
services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with
IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business
Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October
6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On
October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC
(the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was
amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared
effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted
Clover's growth as strong and organic.
On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research
published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship
platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including
illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed
related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's
sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales
practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell
$1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February
4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%,
to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021.
On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form
8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and
requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this
news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3%
during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on
February 5, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing
practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it
derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were
driven by a major undisclosed related-party deal and misleading
marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class"
technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover sales were from an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-clover-health-investments-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html)
on Feb. 11 disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to
represent purchasers of Clover Health Investments, Corp.
(NASDAQ:CLOV) (formerly known as Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. III) Class A common stock and warrants to purchase Class A
common stock (collectively, the "Securities") between October 6,
2020 and February 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"). This action was
filed in the Middle District of Tennessee and is captioned Yaniv v.
Clover Health Investments, Corp., No. 21-cv-00109.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Clover Health Securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Clover Health
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Clover Health class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Clover Health class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
in any potential future recovery of the Clover Health class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Clover Health class action
lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
February 8, 2021. If you wish to discuss the Clover Health class
action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Mary K.
Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800-449-4900 or 631-454-7719 or via
e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint
as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-clover-health-investments-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Clover Health class action lawsuit charges Clover Health and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Clover Health is a health
insurance service company that provides Medicare Advantage health
plans. Clover Health began the process of going public during the
summer of 2020, ultimately merging with Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp III, an already publicly listed special-purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC").
The complaint alleges that Clover Health's statements throughout
the Class Period, including in the registration statement used to
complete the SPAC transaction, omitted facts required to make its
other statements not misleading and failed to comply with Items 303
and 503 of Regulation S-K. Specifically, the registration statement
failed to disclose that Clover Health was subject to an ongoing
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"), including
its software "Clover Assistant" purportedly designed to serve
"low-income and often overlooked communities," as well as
kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed third-party deals.
With the price of Clover Health Securities trading at
fraud-inflated prices based on their false and misleading
statements, Clover Health's senior officers and directors,
including all but one of the defendants, along with certain other
venture capital financiers, took steps to cash-in, filing an
additional registration statement with the SEC that would register
for resale and permit them to sell hundreds of millions of their
personally held Clover Health Securities at fraud-inflated prices.
Once again, the registration statement filed with the SEC to permit
the insiders and venture capital financiers to cash out their
shares omitted facts required to make its other statements not
misleading and failed to comply with Items 303 and 503 of
Regulation S-K.
On February 4, 2021, stock investment firm Hindenburg Research
disclosed the existence of the ongoing DOJ investigation by
publishing an investigative report entitled "Clover Health: How the
‘King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business
Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." Among other
things, according to Hindenburg, prior to the merger, Clover Health
had received a civil investigative demand letter from the DOJ "and
the corresponding investigation present[ed] a potential existential
risk for a company that derives almost all of its revenue from
Medicare, a government payor." Hindenburg also described a
relationship between Clover Health and its subsidiary Seek
Insurance as "thinly disclosed," noting that it did not mention the
subsidiary on its website yet told seniors that it would provide
them with unbiased information on finding Medicare plans. On this
news, the price of Clover Health Securities fell more than 12%,
damaging investors.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
About Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Mary K. Blasy, 800-449-4900
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Feb. 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (NASDAQ: CLOV) (NASDAQ: CLOVW) ("Clover" or "the
Company") violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
Clover securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or purchased or otherwise
acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
December 2020 Merger of Clover and Social Capital III, are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 6, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Clover was the subject of an active DOJ
investigation of at least 12 issues including kickbacks and
deceptive marketing. The investigation represented a major threat
to the Company's future due to its dependence on Medicare for
revenue. The Company's sales were not driven by its "best-in-class"
technology as it touted, but rather by misleading marketing
practices aimed at senior citizens. A considerable portion of the
Company's sales were derived from an undisclosed relationship with
a brokerage firm controlled by the Clover's head of sales. 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 Clover, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
COLT BUILDERS: Alvarez Sues Over Site Superintendents' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLT BUILDERS CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00143 (W.D. Tex., February 10, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a site
superintendent from November 2019 until December 2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated Site Superintendents as salaried
employees, exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA.
Although they regularly worked over 40 hours each week, the
Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek, the suit says.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff's employment was unlawfully terminated by
the Defendant on December 7, 2020 due to his COVID-19 sickness,
which was diagnosed in early November and continued to suffer from
it after his return to work on November 25.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorney' fees and costs.
Colt Builders Corp. is a construction and commercial wood framing
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merideth Q. McEntire, Esq.
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: merideth@sanfordlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
COUNTERPATH CORPORATION: Klein Balks at Merger Deal With Alianza
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COUNTERPATH CORPORATION, TERENCE MATTHEWS, OWEN
MATTHEWS, CHRIS COOPER, BRUCE JOYCE, LARRY TIMLICK, and STEVEN
BRUK, Case No. A-21-828719-B (D. Nev., Feb. 1, 2021) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and and on behalf of other public
shareholders of CounterPath Corporation against the CounterPath
Board of Directors together with the Company for breaching their
fiduciary duties owed to the class in connection with Alianza,
Inc.'s proposed acquisition of CounterPath.
On December 7, 2020, CounterPath and Alianza announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which Alianza, through its various subsidiaries, will acquire all
the outstanding shares of CounterPath in an all-cash deal (the
"Proposed Merger"). Each CounterPath shareholder will receive $3.49
in cash per share for each share of CounterPath common stock they
own (the "Merger Consideration"), implying an approximate market
value of $25.7 million.
The Merger Agreement appears to be the result of a conflicted sales
process intended to benefit certain CounterPath insiders, whose end
goal was a sale of CounterPath to Alianza. Aliana and CounterPath
"were familiar with each other," as the parties entered into a
Master Service Agreement on April 11, 2018, pursuant to which
Alianza supplied CounterPath with communication services, and, on
July 7, 2020, during the purported sales process that resulted in
the Proposed Merger, the parties entered into a commercial
arrangement, under which Alianza purchased a 36-month software
subscription and certain related professional services from
CounterPath.
On January 22, 2021, in order to convince CounterPath shareholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, CounterPath filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission a materially incomplete and
misleading proxy statement (the "Proxy"). The Proxy provides
materially misleading information and omits material information
regarding the process that culminated in the Proposed Merger and
the financial forecasts prepared by the Company's management, the
suit says.
Unsurprisingly, in light of these material omissions, the Merger
Consideration undervalues CounterPath, given its capitalization on
recent trends and strong growth prospects. The $3.49 share price
represents a discount from the Company's 52-week high of $5.55 per
share and its share price of $5.44 as recently as July 20, 2020,
the day the Company announced its financial results for 4Q 2020 and
FY 2020. The results for 4Q 2020 reported 42% growth in revenue, a
79% increase in billings, and 25% growth in subscription, support,
and maintenance revenue (i.e., recurring revenue) in 4Q 2020, as
compared to 4Q 2019. When this growth is combined with
CounterPath's 85% reported gross margins, $3.49 per share
represents inadequate compensation for CounterPath's shareholders,
added the suit.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants exacerbated their
breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to unreasonable
deal-protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that all but
foreclose potential bidders from submitting a superior offer to
acquire CounterPath, including a provision that requires
CounterPath to pay Alianza a total termination fee of 1.5 million
if the CounterPath Board terminates the Merger Agreement to accept
a superior proposal.
The special meeting of CounterPath shareholders to vote on the
Proposed Merger is currently scheduled to be held on February 22,
2021. It is imperative that the material information omitted from
the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's shareholders prior to the
forthcoming shareholder vote so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Merger
and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger or, in the
event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages
resulting from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith, and fair dealing.
The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a
shareholder of CounterPath.
CounterPath Corp. designs, develops, and sells software and
services that enable enterprises and telecommunication service
providers to deliver Unified Communications ("UC") services,
including voice, video, messaging and collaboration functionality,
over their Internet Protocol, or IP, based networks. CounterPath
common stock trades on the NASDAQ Capital Market under the ticker
symbol "CPAH". The Individual Defendants are directors of the
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
G. Mark Albright, Esq.
Jorge L. Alvarez, Esq.
ALBRIGHT, STODDARD, WARNICK & ALBRIGHT
801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D-4
Las Vegas, NE 89106
Telephone: (702) 384-7111
Facsimile: (702) 384-0605
E-mail: gma@albrightstoddard.com
jalvarez@albrightstoddad.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
CROWN WARDS: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Over Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against the Province of Ontario on behalf of Crown Wards who were
victims of crime but did not receive compensatory benefits. The
action was certified as a class proceeding on March 30, 2017. In
Ontario, a child may be removed from the care of his or her parents
for reasons that include physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or
neglect. In Ontario, permanent wards were called Crown wards and,
since April 30, 2018, are referred to as children in extended
society care. The class consists of persons who were alive as of
January 22, 2012 and became Crown wards in Ontario at any time
between January 1, 1966 and March 30, 2017 and suffered physical or
sexual assault before or while they were a Crown Ward.
The lawsuit alleged that the Province owed a duty to consider and,
where appropriate, apply for compensatory benefits on behalf of
Crown Wards who were victims of criminal or tortious acts prior to
or while in care and did not do so. The primary benefits in dispute
were Criminal Injuries Compensation Board benefits. The Province
denies these claims and a court has not decided whether the Class
or the Province is right. Instead, both sides have agreed to a
settlement.
If the proposed Settlement is approved, it will provide eligible
class members up to $3,600.00. These payments are not compensation
for any crime suffered by former Crown Wards. They are only
compensation for the fact that the Crown Wards did not receive
benefits available to victims of crime. In many instances, Class
Members will be able to commence or continue separate lawsuits
seeking compensation for harm directly resulting from any crime(s)
they suffered.
The Court will hold a Settlement Approval Hearing in the coming
months. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the
Class, and whether to approve the settlement.
More information is available on Class Counsel's website:
kmlaw.ca/cases/crown-ward-class-action or by contacting them at
1.866.778.7985, or by email at OCWclassaction@kmlaw.ca. [GN]
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: March 16 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
DECN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/decision-diagnostics-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
BTBT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
AZN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Decision Diagnostics Corp. (OTCMKT:DECN)
DECN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 3, 2020 -
December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/decision-diagnostics-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Decision
Diagnostics Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Decision Diagnostics
had not developed any viable COVID-19 test, much less a test that
could detect COVID-19 in less than one minute; (ii) the Company
could not meet the FDA's EUA testing requirements for its purported
COVID-19 test; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had misrepresented the
timeline within which it could realistically bring its COVID-19
test to market; (iv) all the foregoing subjected Defendants to an
increased risk of regulatory oversight and enforcement; and (v) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:BTBT)
BTBT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21,
2020 - January 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bit
Digital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Bit Digital overstated the
extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN)
AZN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 21, 2020 -
November 20, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form?prid=12801&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
http://www.zlk.com[GN]
DEIGHAN LAW: Alabama Court Tosses Cook Suit Over RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama grants
UpRight's motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned ANGELA COOK and
WILLIAM COOK, Plaintiffs v. DEIGHAN LAW LLC, LAW SOLUTIONS CHICAGO
LLC, and UPRIGHT LAW LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00457-CLM
(N.D. Ala.).
The Cook hired Defendant UpRight to help them file for Chapter 7
Bankruptcy. But UpRight was anything but. Unknown to the Cooks,
UpRight and a third party, Brian Fenner, had cooked up a national
scheme that caused many of UpRight's clients to incur additional
debt in order to finance their bankruptcy cases, according to the
Court's Memorandum Opinion.
The Cooks now bring a class action lawsuit against UpRight for
violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d), as well as 11 U.S.C.
Section 526.
UpRight teamed up with Fenner and Fenner's two companies--Fenner &
Associates and Sperro LLC--to carry out what the Department of
Justice has called "the Fast Fee Scheme." The gist of the scheme is
that: UpRight agreed to represent potential debtors in their
bankruptcy cases in exchange for the debtors surrendering their
vehicles to Fenner (by Sperro LLC). Once Fenner had the vehicle,
he paid the debtors' attorney's fees to UpRight. Fenner would tow
the vehicle to one of three States with unusual mechanic's lien
laws and charge the debtors exorbitant towing and storage fees.
Fenner would then exploit the States' liens laws by using the
exorbitant fees to gain a mechanic's lien on the vehicles. Once
Fenner had the lien, he would sell the vehicle at a "sham auction,"
so-called because the buyer in almost every instance was one of
Fenner's business partners (who would typically pay the exact value
of the mechanic's lien). Fenner could then remove the lien,
leaving the debtors still in debt to the bank. In the end, the
debtors incurred more debt (because they had lost their car as
collateral) as the price for UpRight handling their bankruptcy
cases.
Though federal authorities eventually charged and obtained an
indictment against Fenner for his role in the scheme, UpRight never
faced criminal penalties. But both parties knew how the scheme
worked, and many federal courts documented the cooperation between
them. At least one court held UpRight's then-managing partner
responsible for the creation and implementation of the scheme,
finding that UpRight intended the scheme to "increase the speed and
likelihood of receipt of attorney fees" (Allen v. Fitzgerald, Tr.
for Region Four, No. 5:18-CV-00057, 2019 WL 6742996, at *5-6 (W.D.
Va. Dec. 11, 2019)).
The Cooks found UpRight on the Internet and contacted them in
October 2015. In their initial conversation, UpRight advised the
Cooks that if they would surrender their Nissan truck to Sperro,
Fenner would cover their attorney's fees. UpRight then contacted
Sperro to make an appointment for the Cooks to turn over their
vehicle. Within days, the Cooks and Sperro entered into a
Transporting and Storage Authorization Agreement ("TSAA") and a
towing company picked up the vehicle on Sperro's behalf. Consistent
with the scheme, Fenner had the Cooks' vehicle taken to Indiana,
where Sperro charged excessive transportation and storage fees.
Like other victims, the Cooks retained the debt on the truck but no
longer had the truck itself to return to the bank as collateral.
Once this happened, UpRight confirmed that Sperro had paid the
Cooks' attorney's fees.
A few weeks later, in November 2015, an UpRight partner named
Mariellen Morrison filed the Cooks' Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition.
Two months after that, in January 2016, the U.S. Bankruptcy
Administrator for the Northern District of Alabama ("BA") filed a
"Motion to Examine Debtors' Transactions with Attorney, Order
Disgorgement and Other Relief" related to UpRight's representation
of the Cooks ("Cook Motion"). Among other things, the BA asked the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama to
examine whether UpRight and Morrison's representation had violated
11 U.S.C. Sections 526(a) and 707(b)(4) and to order the
disgorgement of all fees paid to UpRight and Morrison. The Clerk
of Court sent a copy of the Cook Motion to the Cooks by United
States Mail.
Besides noting that Morrison's initial Disclosure of Compensation
form did not accurately reflect the source of compensation to
UpRight for representing the Cooks (Morrison later amended the form
to list Sperro as the payer after inquiry from the BA), the BA
raised questions about the scope of representation and
reasonableness of the attorney fees charged. The BA concluded that
absent a reasonable explanation, any fee paid to UpRight was
excessive and unreasonable. Regarding the relationship between
UpRight and Sperro, the BA stated that it is unclear whether there
has been any type of undisclosed sharing arrangement or referral
fees.
Two months later, in March 2016, the BA filed a "Complaint for
Declaratory Relief, Disgorgement, Civil Penalties, Sanctions and
Injunctive Relief" ("Cook Complaint") against UpRight and Morrison.
The Cook Complaint made many of the same allegations as the Cook
Motion and sought civil penalties and injunctive relief under 11
U.S.C. Section 526(c)(5). Unlike the Cook Motion, the record
doesn't show whether the Clerk of Court sent a copy of the Cook
Complaint to the Cooks themselves. Eventually, UpRight and the BA
negotiated a settlement of the case.
In July 2016, Nissan sent the Cooks a Notice of Deficiency in the
amount of $14,355.15. The Cooks claim this notice made them aware,
for the first time, that UpRight's scheme had injured them by
causing them to incur more debt and have less collateral. Nissan
later filed an unsecured claim in the Cooks bankruptcy case.
The Cooks filed the complaint against UpRight alleging violations
of 11 U.S.C. Section 526(a)(4) and RICO Act Sections 1962(c) and
(d) in April 2020.
UpRight makes several arguments for dismissing the Cooks'
complaint. The Court says it will only discuss one, because it is
dispositive: the Cooks' failure to file their complaint within the
statute of limitations.
Civil claims for relief under both RICO and Section 526(c)(5) face
a four-year statute of limitations. The RICO statute of limitations
begins running on the date that a plaintiff knew--or should have
known--of the injuries that justify the allegations in the
complaint, District Judge Corey L. Maze notes, citing Rotella v.
Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 554-55 (2000).
In Rotella, the Supreme Court adopted this "injury discovery" rule,
as opposed to the "pattern discovery" rule, for RICO claims. The
injury discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock "when
a plaintiff knew or should have known of his injury," while under
the pattern discovery rule, "a claim accrues only when the claimant
discovers, or should discover, both an injury and a pattern of RICO
activity."
The Cooks filed the lawsuit on April 3, 2020. So the statute of
limitations would bar the Cooks' complaint if the Cooks knew or
should have known that they had been injured by the Fast Fee scheme
before April 3, 2016, Judge Maze notes.
The Court agrees with UpRight that the Cook Motion put the Cooks on
notice in January 2016. So it does not address whether the earlier
TSAA also put the Cooks on notice. The BA's filing of the Cook
Motion to begin an investigation into the Cooks' case gave the
Cooks ample reason to know or strongly believe that they had been
injured and thus seek out further legal assistance to discuss
remedies.
The Cooks also argue the statute of limitations ought to be
equitably tolled. This argument, too, is unpersuasive, Judge Maze
holds.
Equitable tolling may be available to a litigant who shows "(1)
that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely
filing," Judge Maze states, citing Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S.
408, 418 (2005). But it "is an extraordinary remedy which should be
extended only sparingly." Under this framework, equitable tolling
doesn't apply in the case, Judge Maze points out.
The Cooks argue that they had no reason to seek legal assistance
following the BA's filing of the Cook Motion because "they had
already put their trust in UpRight" and "had the right to believe
that UpRight would provide services with honesty, good faith,
fairness, integrity, and fidelity." But even the most forgiving
reading of the BA's Cook Motion dispels any notion that the Cooks'
trust was well-placed, Judge Maze holds. While the Cooks are
blameless for initially hiring UpRight to handle their bankruptcy
case, once they knew that the Bankruptcy Administrator was
investigating Upright for a shady fee agreement, the Cooks knew
that their belief in UpRight was misplaced. After all, UpRight took
their truck.
At that point, the Cooks knew or should have known that they needed
different (more trustworthy) counsel to discuss their legal
options. No "extraordinary circumstance" prevented the Cooks from
doing so, Pace, 544 U.S. at 418, nor do the Cooks claim one. So
equity does not toll the four-year statute of limitation, Judge
Maze adds.
For the reasons stated, UpRight's motion to dismiss is due to be
granted. The Court will enter a separate order carrying out this
finding.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated Feb. 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/53mrqs8p from
Leagle.com.
DERMASET INC: Warshauer Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Fund Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY WARSHAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DERMASET INC. and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-at-00128 (E.D. Cal., February 11, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act, the California Business and Professions Code, and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of debiting the
Plaintiff's and Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the
Plaintiff's and Class members' accounts. Moreover, the Defendant
allegedly failed to properly inform consumers of its autorenewal
terms and failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of
its autorenewal and additionally conditions its purchase on an
illegal negative option.
Dermaset Inc. is an online cosmetics company, headquartered in
Hollywood, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780,
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
DEROSA SPORTS: Underpays Construction Workers, Avila et al. Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS SERGIO VAZQUEZ AVILA, RAMON JORGE CARDOZO, RODOLFO CISNEROS
RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. DEROSA SPORTS CONSTRUCTION INC., MATHEW DEROSA
(individually and in his official capacity), and any other related
persons or entities, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01014 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendants to
recover for their alleged numerous violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers, claim that the Defendants regularly required them and
other similarly situated construction workers to work more than 40
hours per week, including "off-the-clock" works. However, the
Defendant failed to pay them overtime premiums at one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40
per week, and spread-of-hours. In addition, the Defendants
automatically deduct 30 minutes per day for lunch regardless of
whether the Plaintiffs and other construction workers actually take
the lunch, which they are frequently unable to do, and regularly
shaved approximately 2 to 2 and a half hours per day from their
pay. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them with complete
and accurate weekly wage statements, and with the Wage Theft
Notice, the suit says.
Derosa Sports Construction Inc. provides sports construction
services, including the development of tennis court, football
fields, baseball diamonds to soccer fields. Mathew Derosa is an
owner, principal, and/or manager of the Corporate Defendant who
exercised substantial control over the operations and policies and
practices of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea E. Batres, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Tel: (516) 280-3008
Fax: (212) 656-1845
E-mail: ab@belllg.com
DRUG ABUSE: Fails to Pay Therapists' Overtime, Plowden Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
BERNITA PLOWDEN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
DRUG ABUSE FOUNDATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 9:21-cv-80920-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover all
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant in approximately
April 23, 2017 until December 29, 2020 as a Therapist.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant misclassified her and other
similarly situated therapists as exempt employees under the FLSA.
Although she and other therapists worked over 40 in a workweek, the
Defendant did not pay them at the federally mandated rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the hours worked
over 40 in a week. Allegedly, the Defendant intentionally and
willfully refused to pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation, the Plaintiff added.
Drug Abuse Foundation of Palm Beach County, Inc. provides substance
abuse prevention, intervention, and mental health treatment
services to individuals battling addiction. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
DYNACAST INC: Court Partly Grants Colon's Bid to Remand BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA COLON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DYNACAST, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-3317 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rober M. Dow, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.
Plaintiff Colon initially filed the suit in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, alleging that the Dynacast violated the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") through its timekeeping system.
Defendant removed the case.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 2013 to 2018. During
this time, the Defendant used a biometric scanner for timekeeping
purposes. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the BIPA in four ways: (1) by failing to
publicly provide a written data retention and deletion policy, as
required by section 15(a); (2) by failing to inform employees in
writing that their biometric information was being collected and
stored, as required by section 15(b)(1); (3) by failing to inform
employees of the purpose and length of time for which their
biometric information was being collected and stored, as required
by section 15(b)(2); and (4) by failing to obtain written releases
from employees before collecting and storing their biometric
information.
The Plaintiff filed her complaint in state court on April 23, 2019,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The Defendant
removed the case, but the Court remanded it after determining that
the alleged BIPA violations did not constitute concrete injuries
sufficient to confer Article III standing.
After the Court remanded the case, the Seventh Circuit held in a
different case--Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617, 626
(7th Cir. 2020)--that a company's failure to obtain written consent
and provide information required by section 15(b) of BIPA does
constitute a concrete injury such that the plaintiff had Article
III standing. After Bryant, the Defendant again sought to remove
the case.
The Plaintiff contends that the Court must remand because the
Defendant's removal was not timely. Specifically, she argues that
the Seventh Circuit's decision in Bryant did not constitute an
"other paper" that would restart the 30-day removal clock under
Section 1446(b)(3). The Defendant counters that the removal is
timely because the removal clock never began to run and,
alternatively, because Bryant was an intervening event that reset
the 30-day clock.
Judge Dow finds that the face of the complaint does not provide
specific and unambiguous notice that the Plaintiff's individual
damages exceed $75,000 or that the class damages exceed $5 million.
Further, the Plaintiff does not suggest that she provided
Defendant a different "litigation paper facially revealing that the
grounds for removal are present." Because no litigation document
provided by the Plaintiff facially establishes that the amount in
controversy is met, the Defendant's removal is timely.
The Plaintiff next argues that the Court should remand because the
amount in controversy is not met. The Defendant counters that the
Court has jurisdiction under CAFA because the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million. It states that the class damages from the face
of the complaint total $4 million. This amount is based on a class
size of 200 individuals. The Defendant provided an affidavit
stating that from April 3, 2014 to Feb. 6, 2017, 305 employees
"used the time clocks at issue." Relying on this affidavit, it
argues that the amount in controversy is actually $6.1 million, or
$20,000 for each of the 305 class members.
Although the affidavit could have been worded more explicitly,
Judge Dow concludes that he, along with the complaint, supports by
a preponderance of the evidence that the CAFA amount in controversy
is met. The Defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy for the class is over $5
million, which suffices to establish jurisdiction under CAFA.
The Plaintiff argues that if the case is not remanded in its
entirety, the Court should at least remand the portion of her claim
based on section 15(a) of BIPA. She asserts that the Court lacks
jurisdiction because violations of this section do not give rise to
concrete injuries that satisfy Article III standing requirements.
Judge Dow holds that the Plaintiff's complaint is arguably
ambiguous as to whether it alleges a failure to comply with data
policies or only a failure to disclose those policies. On the one
hand, the complaint explains that one of BIPA's mandates is to
create and publish a retention and deletion policy and to "actually
adhere to that retention schedule and actually delete the biometric
information." As such, he reads the complaint as alleging a
section 15(a) claim based only on the Defendant's failure to
publish its data policy -- not the Defendant's failure to comply
with any data policy.
As explained in Bryant, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this
claim. Therefore, Judge Dow severs and remands the Plaintiff's
section 15(a) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
retains jurisdiction over the remaining claims. Finally, given the
novelty of the issues presented, not to mention the split decision,
the Judge exercises discretion not to award any fees to either side
in regard to the motion.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Dow granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiff's motion to remand. He severed the Plaintiff's
claim arising out of an alleged violation of 740 Ill. Comp. Stat.
Ann. 14/15(a) and directed the Clerk to remand that claim to the
Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department - Chancery Division
for further proceedings. The Court retains jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's remaining BIPA claims.
Due to the passage of time and the possibility of intervening case
law, Judge Dow struck the Defendant's motion to dismiss without
prejudice and with leave to refile no later than Feb. 24, 2021. He
directed the counsel to file a joint status report, including a
discovery plan, a statement in regard to any interest in a referral
to the Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference, and a proposed
briefing schedule on Defendant's anticipated renewed motion to
dismiss no later than March 3, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Memorandum Order &
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/6r7o8kaj from
Leagle.com.
ECOATM LLC: Acaley BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRANDY ACALEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ECOATM, LLC, Case No. 2021-CH-00034,
was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
February 11, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00792 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection, storage,
usage, and dissemination of the Plaintiff's biometric identifiers
and information without receiving his informed written consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
ecoATM, LLC is a company that develops and manufactures automated
self-serve kiosk systems, with its principal place of business in
San Diego, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Debra R. Bernard, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 324-8400
Facsimile: (312) 324-9400
E-mail: DBernard@perkinscoie.com
- and –
Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
Anna Mouw Thompson, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
ERBA MARKETS: Faces Nagler Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE NAGLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERBA MARKETS, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00989 (C.D. Cal., February
3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent telemarketing text
messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in
9066 beginning on or about July 20, 2020 in an attempt to promote
its cannabis products. The impersonal and generic nature of the
Defendant's text message demonstrates that the Defendant used an
"automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) in transmitting the
messages. The Plaintiff never provide his prior express written
consent to be contacted by the Defendant using an ATDS. In
addition, the Defendant cellular telephone number has been
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since December 3,
2007, the suit says.
Due to the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the Plaintiff
suffered actual harm. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks an actual and
statutory damages, treble damages, an injunction prohibiting the
Defendant from using ATDS and to cease all unsolicited text
messaging activity, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary.
Erba Markets is a cannabis dispensary. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and –
Joshua Moyer, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
401 W A Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com
EXXON MOBIL: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of March 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Exxon Mobil
Corporation ("Exxon" or the "Company") (NYSE: XOM) between November
6, 2019 and January 14, 2021 , inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than March 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Exxon investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Exxon Securities Class Litigation
Exxon, headquartered in Irving, Texas, explores for and produces
crude oil and natural gas in the U.S. and abroad. The action
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that (1)
Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic assumptions regarding
the timelines for well drilling in the Permian Basin, currently the
highest-producing oil field in the U.S.; (2) the foregoing
assumptions artificially inflated the value of the Company's well
operations in the Permian Basin; and (3) the foregoing conduct,
when revealed, subjected Exxon to an increased risk of regulatory
investigation and oversight.
On January 15, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled "Exxon Draws SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset Valuation"
revealing that the SEC began probing the company after a
whistleblower complaint. According to the article, the
whistleblower complaint alleges that Exxon forced workers to use
unrealistic assumptions about how quickly wells in the Permian
Basin could be drilled to reach a higher valuation during a 2019
internal assessment. At least one worker who complained about the
assumptions was fired. The Wall Street Journal previously reported
that there had been disagreements about the valuation. On this
news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%, to close
at $47.89 on January 15, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
EXXON MOBIL: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of March 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE: XOM)
investors that acquired shares between November 6, 2019 and January
14, 2021. Investors have until March 29, 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.
The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Exxon is the subject of a Wall Street
Journal article published on January 15, 2021, titled, "Exxon Draws
SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset Valuation." According to the
article, the SEC is probing the Company following a whistleblower
complaint. The complaint alleged that the Company forced employees
working on an internal assessment to use unrealistic assumptions
about how quickly its wells in the Permian Basin could be drilled
to achieve a higher valuation. According to the complaint, at least
one employee who complained about using the unrealistic assumptions
was then fired. Based on this news, shares of Exxon dropped by more
than 4.8% on the same day.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 29,
2021.
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]
EXXON MOBIL: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 29 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Exxon Mobil
Corporation (NYSE: XOM) between November 6, 2019 and January 14,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=exxon-mobil-corporation&id=2573
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=exxon-mobil-corporation&id=2573
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 29, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - Exxon forced its employees to use unrealistic assumptions
regarding the timelines for well drilling in the Permian Basin; the
foregoing assumptions served to artificially inflate the value of
the Company's well operations in the Permian Basin; the foregoing
conduct, when revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and oversight; and as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
EXXON MOBILE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 29 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Feb. 9 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Exxon Mobil Corporation from November 6, 2019 through
January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Exxon securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Exxon Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) Exxon forced its employees to
use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines for well
drilling in the Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing assumptions
served to artificially inflate the value of the Company's well
operations in the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing conduct, when
revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On January 15, 2021, pre-market, the Wall Street Journal published
an article entitled "Exxon Draws SEC Probe Over Permian Basin Asset
Valuation." The article reported that the SEC probe stemmed from a
whistleblower complaint that, during a 2019 internal assessment,
workers were forced to use unrealistic assumptions about how
quickly wells in the Permian Basin could be drilled to reach a
higher valuation, and that at least one worker who complained about
the assumptions was fired.
On this news, Exxon's stock price fell $2.42 per share, or 4.81%,
to close at $47.89 per share on January 15, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 29, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Exxon securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/exxonmobilecorporation-xom-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-358/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Cliffy Care Files Suit Over Ad Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFY CARE LANDSCAPING LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE LLC;
and ALPHABET INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00360 (D.D.C., Feb.
9, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to allocate to
one another the advertisers and publishers affiliated with each
network and to eliminate competition between them in the open
display advertising market. The Defendants allegedly conspired to
allocate to one another the advertisers and publishers affiliated
with each network and to eliminate competition between them in the
open display advertising market.
Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website. The Company
website allows people to communicate with their family, friends,
and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the
sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan L. Rubin , Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
1615 M Street, NW, Third Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 630-0616
Facsimile: (877) 247-8586
E-mail: jrubin@moginrubin.com
-and-
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Jennifer M. Oliver, Esq.
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
joliver@moginrubin.com
tlacomb@moginrubin.com
-and-
Richard F. Lombardo, Esq.
Peter F. Rottgers, Esq.
SHAFFER LOMBARDO SHURIN
2001 Wyandotte Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 931-0500
Facsimile: (816) 931-5775
E-mail: rlombardo@sls-law.com
prottgers@sls-law.com
FACEBOOK INC: Faces New Class Action Over Data Harvesting Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirstin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that Facebook is
facing a second London High Court class action over allegations it
failed to protect the personal details of about one million people
in England and Wales, in the latest lawsuit to spring from a
scandal over data harvesting.
Journalist and writer Peter Jukes said on Feb. 9 he had filed a
lawsuit for unspecified but "substantial" damages three years after
the social media giant was fined in Britain over how third-party
app "This Is Your Digital Life" gathered Facebook users' data
without consent between 2013 and 2015.
The lawsuit is the second to allege Facebook allowed third-party
apps to harvest the data of friends without their permission or
knowledge. Litigation firm Milberg London, which is advising on a
similar claim filed last October, said it was surprised to hear
about the rival lawsuit.
The cases cast a fresh spotlight on a scandal that began with
allegations that Cambridge Analytica, a British political
consultancy hired by former president Donald Trump's 2016 U.S.
election campaign, accessed the personal data of millions of
Facebook users.
The UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in 2018 fined
Facebook 500,000 pounds ($687,000) for processing the personal data
of users unfairly by allowing app developers access to their
information and that of their friends without sufficiently clear
and informed consent between 2007 and 2014.
A Facebook spokesperson said: "The Information Commissioner's
Office investigation into these issues . . . found no evidence that
any UK or EU users' data was transferred by ("This Is Your Digital
Life" app developer Dr Aleksandr) Kogan to Cambridge Analytica,"
without giving any further comment.
Cambridge Analytica, which started bankruptcy proceedings in 2018,
has denied that it made use of such data for the 2016 U.S. election
campaign. It has also said its pitch for work for the Leave.UK
campaign for Brexit in 2016 was unsuccessful.
The latest London claim is being brought on behalf of adult
Facebook users who were "friends" with a user of the app before May
2015. Jukes is being advised by U.S.-based law firm Hausfeld and
the claim is being funded by Balance Legal Capital.
U.S.-style "opt-out" data privacy class actions, which bind a
defined group automatically into a lawsuit unless individuals opt
out, are still unusual in Britain.
The UK Supreme Court is expected to determine the law in April,
when it hears a bellwether case against Internet giant Google over
alleged unlawful tracking of iPhone users in 2011 and 2012 through
third party cookies. [GN]
FASTLY INC: Lead Plaintiff and Counsel Named in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California appointed Andrew Zenoff as the Lead
Plaintiff in the case, In re FASTLY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 20-cv-06024-PJH
(N.D. Cal.), and approved Zenoff's selected lead counsel, Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP.
Before the Court is movant Zenoff's motion to consolidate two
related securities actions, Betancourt v. Fastly, Inc.,
20-cv-6024-PJH and Habib v. Fastly, Inc., 20-cv-6454-PJH, appoint
him as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and approve
Robbins Geller as lead counsel. Also before the court is movants
Ramiro Pineda's and William Feit's ("P&F") competing motion to
consolidate the above actions, appoint P&F as lead plaintiffs, and
approve Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C. as lead counsel.
On Aug. 27, 2020, Plaintiff Marcos Betancourt filed the instant
putative securities class action against Defendants Fastly, Joshua
Bixby, and Adriel Lares. At core, Betancourt alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") by failing to
disclose Fastly's business relationship with "ByteDance," which, at
the subject time period, served as the operating entity of
"TikTok." According to Betancourt, that fact is material because
the United States government had heavily scrutinized TikTok (a
mobile app for making and sharing videos) as a means for potential
espionage by China.
Betancourt alleges that, because the Defendants omitted information
about Fastly's relationship with ByteDance, shareholders purchased
its common stock at "artificially inflated prices" between May 6,
2020, and Aug. 5, 2020.
In his complaint, Betancourt alleges the following two claims: (i)
violation of Title 15 U.S.C. Seciton 78j(b) against the Defendants
for making false and misleading statements, and (ii) violation of
Section 78t(a) against Bixby and Lares premised on the above
referenced primary violations under Section 78j(b).
On Sept. 15, 2020, Plaintiff Rami Habib filed his class action
complaint against the Defendants. The Habib complaint rests on
materially similar facts and legal theories as those advanced in
the Betancourt complaint. It also premises its securities claims
on the same May 6, 2020 through Aug. 5, 2020 class period. On Oct.
27, 2020, following a stipulation by the parties, the Court
consolidated the two related actions.
On Aug. 27, 2020, the counsel for Betancourt published notice of
the Betancourt action detailing (1) its pendency, (2) the claims
asserted, (3) the proposed class period, and (4) the right to move
for appointment as lead plaintiff. The instant motions do not
indicate whether the counsel for Habib published like notice of his
action.
On Oct. 26, 2020, six Fastly shareholders moved to consolidate
Betancourt and Habib, to appoint each movant as lead plaintiff, and
to approve his or her selected lead counsel--Xinhua Wei motion,
Paul Worland motion, Kalpesh Bhetia motion, Andrew Zenoff motion,
and P&F motion. Wei withdrew his or her motion on Nov. 6, 2020.
Bhatia filed a statement of non-opposition to Zenoff's motion on
Nov. 9, 2020. Worland failed to oppose Zenoff's or P&F's motion.
Worland also failed to file any reply in support of his motion.
Thus, only Zenoff's and P&F's motions remain in contest.
However, as noted, the Court consolidated Betancourt and Habib
pursuant to the parties' stipulation one day after the above
motions were filed. Thus, both Zenoff's and P&F's requests to
consolidate those actions are moot. Only their competing requests
for appointment and approval of counsel remain pending.
Judge Hamilton considers each. As a preliminary point, Zenoff and
P&F filed their motions within 60 days of the notice published on
Aug. 27, 2020. Given that, both movants satisfy the PSLRA's filing
condition. Judge Hamilton determines which movant has a larger
financial interest and whether that movant satisfies the typicality
and adequacy requirements in turn.
She finds that Zenoff satisfies both Rule 23 requirements. With
respect to adequacy, she does not see any evidence in the record
suggesting that his interests are antagonistic to class members
generally. Quite the opposite, the magnitude of Zenoff's purported
loss supports the inference that he has a tangible incentive to
actively litigate this action and monitor counsel. With respect to
typicality, Zenoff provides evidence showing that he acquired
138,000 shares of Fastly common stock during the class period.
On the limited record before it, Jduge Hamilton does not see any
reason suggesting that the Defendants may raise any defenses unique
to Zenoff or his transactions. While the evidence shows that
Zenoff made multiple sales of his shares during the class period,
neither P&F nor any other movant argue that such sales render him
atypical. Again, based on the record before her, the Judge also
does not see any reason to suggest that those sales make Zenoff
atypical. She finds that Zenoff is the presumptive lead plaintiff.
And no party attempts to rebut Zenoff's presumptive status as lead
plaintiff. Accordingly, she appoints him as such in the action.
No party has objected to Zenoff's selection of Robbins Geller as
lead counsel. Judge Hamilton is familiar with Robbins Geller's
reputation and experience litigating securities class actions.
Robbins Geller generally performs quality work. Given that, she
finds Zenoff's choice of counsel reasonable.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Hamilton granted Zenoff's motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of
lead counsel. Given that the Court has already consolidated
Betancourt and Habib, Judge Hamiton terminated any request to
consolidate those actions as moot. She appointed Zenoff as the
Lead Plaintiff in the consolidated action and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel. She denied Pineda's and Feit's
competing motion, as well as all withdrawn or abandoned motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y9arhmub from Leagle.com.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Victims of Vehicle Fires Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Class actions have been commenced on behalf of all Canadian owners
and/or lessees of 2017-2020 Model Year Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In
Hybrid vehicles affected by a dangerous electrical system defect
which can cause spontaneous and catastrophic fires. These vehicles
are subject to Transport Canada Recall 2020-254.
The claims have been brought by Marisa Chong and Eric Fabroa of
Aurora, Ontario, Emil Florea and Jeffrey Hall of Montreal, Quebec,
and David Wilson of Elmira, Ontario. Each plaintiff suffered the
catastrophic loss of their Chrysler Pacific Plug-In Hybrid minivan
during a spontaneous fire. The Plaintiffs allege that these fires
were caused by a dangerous defect in the electrical system of their
vehicles.
On June 10, 2020, Transport Canada issued a recall for 3,404
Chrysler Pacific Plug-In Hybrid vehicles. The recall documentation
noted that the vehicles were affected by a dangerous electrical
system defect which can cause spontaneous fires without warning,
whether the vehicle is on or off. This recall came too late for the
Plaintiffs, who suffered through the trauma of losing their
vehicles to fire prior to the recall and Fiat Chrysler's
acknowledgement of the existence and risk of the dangerous
electrical system defect.
Proposed Representative Plaintiff Marisa Chong, whose Pacifica
Plug-In Hybrid was destroyed in a fire caused by the electrical
system defect, described the fire and her reaction: "The van filled
with smoke so fast. We were lucky to have an extinguisher but the
flames kept coming back. What if I were driving with my kids? What
if it were parked in my garage?"
Proposed Representative Plaintiff Emil Florea, whose Pacifica was
also destroyed in a similar fire stated: "As parents, I cannot
describe how concerned we are about the potential psychological
consequences to our children. They regularly travelled in our
Pacifica and even witnessed the fire themselves."
Joel P. Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP who has issued the
claims in Toronto and Montreal, stated: "Canadian consumers expect
that the cars they put their families in will be reasonably safe to
operate and free from dangerous defects. They are entitled to
timely and warnings from manufacturers who know, or ought to know,
that their products are dangerously defective. We are concerned by
the unexplained inaction by Fiat Chrysler following numerous
reports of spontaneous vehicle fires in the months prior to
Transport Canada ordering its recall. Car manufacturers need to do
more to prioritize consumers and the safety of their vehicles."
The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven in
court. The plaintiffs and the proposed class members are
represented by Rochon Genova LLP. [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Bid to Toss Smith, Hudock & Buldas Suits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the cases, JACOB SMITH, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY
CORP. AND FIRSTENERGY SERVICE CO., Defendants; BRIAN HUDOCK AND
CAMEO COUNTERTOPS, INC., Plaintiffs v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al.,
Defendants; and JAMES BULDAS, Plaintiff v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et
al., Defendants, Case Nos. 22:20-cv-03755, 03954, 03987 (S.D.
Ohio).
In the summer of 2020, former Speaker of the Ohio House of
Representatives Larry Householder and his political associates were
indicted for a $60 million-dollar federal racketing conspiracy.
The criminal complaint alleged that in exchange for hefty bribes
from "Company A," Householder and members of his racketeering
enterprise worked to pass and uphold House Bill 6 ("HB 6"), a near
billion-dollar nuclear power plant bailout for "Company A" and its
affiliates. According to the Complaint, it is widely known that
"Company A" is FirstEnergy Corp.
In the instant case, the Plaintiffs, individual and commercial
ratepayers of FirstEnergy, bring civil claims on behalf of a
proposed class against Defendants, FirstEnergy Corp., FirstEnergy
Service Co., and various individuals in decision-making roles at
either entity. The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of
FirstEnergy's racketeering alongside the Householder Enterprise,
they have been injured by having to pay costs and fees set forth in
HB 6.
As extensively alleged in the federal criminal indictment and
complaint, both of which the Plaintiffs incorporate in their
amended complaint, Defendant FirstEnergy Corp., a public utility,
owned two failing nuclear power plants. According to the
Complaint, Householder appeared to hold the keys to such a
solution. The Plaintiffs claim that as he was seeking to regain
his seat in the Ohio House and his role as Speaker, he and
FirstEnergy began to cultivate a relationship. The Complaint
asserts that a charitable entity called Generation Now, formed
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(4), began to receive payments
from FirstEnergy. Generation Now was secretly controlled by the
Householder Enterprise.
The Complaint claims that the Householder Enterprise via Generation
Now received more than $60 million dollars in bribes from
FirstEnergy between 2017 and 2020. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Householder Enterprise spent the money on 10 Ohio House campaigns
in which the candidates were likely to support Householder's bid
for Speaker. The Complaint also claims that large sums were spent
on a campaign to defeat a referendum of HB 6 after it was passed,
including media outreach, investigations to conflict out
signature-collection firms, and bribery of signature collectors.
On Oct. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the operative amended
class-action complaint raising five counts. First, they allege
that the Defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
by committing mail fraud, wire fraud, bribery, money laundering,
and other offenses to obtain passage of HB 6 in violation of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act ("OCPA"). The
Plaintiffs also raise state-law claims of civil conspiracy, injury
through criminal acts, unjust enrichment, and negligence and/or
gross negligence.
The Defendants subsequently filed the instant motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. On Dec. 21, 2020, a state court judge
entered a preliminary injunction, enjoining Energy Harbor Corp.,
previously FirstEnergy Services, and various state officials and
entities from accepting or collecting fees associated with HB 6.
The Defendants raise two primary arguments in their motion to
dismiss: that the Plaintiffs do not identify a cognizable injury or
plead the requisite level of causation for their RICO and OCPA
claims. The Plaintiffs respond that they have alleged cognizable
injuries and causation for the RICO claims and that the Defendants
fail to address the OCPA separately, which is interpreted more
broadly than the RICO statute. The Defendants also contend that
the lack of injury and causation doom the Plaintiffs' other
state-law claims.
Judge Sargus first considers the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's RICO and OCPA claims before turning to the other
state-law claims.
The crux of the Plaintiffs' RICO and OCPA claims is that the
Defendants violated the statutes by engaging in a pattern of
racketeering activity by making bribes to the Householder
Enterprise to ensure the ultimate enactment of HB 6. RICO provides
a civil cause of action to (1) any person injured in his business
or property" (2) "by reason of" (3) "a violation of section 1962,"
which prohibits a pattern of racketeering activity.
The Defendants explain that the grounds for their motion to dismiss
do not include any challenges to their alleged 18 U.S.C. Section
1962 violations. Instead, they argue that the Plaintiffs fail to
plead an injury and causation under Section 1964(c). For the
reasons, the Plaintiffs' complaint pleads both injury and causation
adequately under Section 1964(c), and thus the OCPA, which is
interpreted more broadly than federal civil RICO.
Judge Sargus holds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead injuries
from the surcharge, decoupling, and legacy provisions and that they
are entitled to equitable relief. He finds that (i) the Defendants
provide no authority that supports the proposition that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Section 1964(c) by alleging
an imminent and ascertainable injury, (ii) the Defendants do not
persuade that the doctrine should apply to rates that are not filed
by the carriers, (iii) the Complaint contains sufficient
allegations such that the Defendants are on notice that the
Plaintiffs' civil RICO claims are premised on the passage of HB 6,
in which the decoupling and legacy provisions are included, and
(iv) the Plaintiffs have pleaded a sufficient injury as set forth
in the Complaint.
Next, Judge Sargus finds that the parties' arguments require him to
clarify what Section 1964(c)'s "by reason of" language refers to --
statutory standing, traditional common-law causation, or Article
III standing. As an initial matter, Article III standing, on which
the Plaintiffs rely in making their traceability arguments, the
Judge opines, is simply not at issue on the motion to dismiss; the
Defendants neither raise this argument nor do the authorities that
they cite. However, whether statutory standing or proximate cause
is at issue is less clear. He finds that the Plaintiffs plausibly
plead that their surcharge, decoupling, and legacy provision
injures were "by reason of" Defendants' RICO violations.
First, the Plaintiffs' allegations show that there is no better
plaintiff or group of plaintiffs to bring this civil RICO claim,
which argues that the Defendants, through their alleged bribery to
enact HB 6, caused the increased costs to them as ratepayers.
Second, the Complaint alleges that no other possible defendants are
to blame directly for the Plaintiffs' injuries.
As to their state-law claims, the Defendants also argue that the
Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for civil conspiracy, injury by
criminal acts, unjust enrichment, and negligence/gross negligence
claims, all state-law claims. They argue that like the RICO and
OCPA claims, all claims except the unjust enrichment claim fail for
a lack of injury, a lack of proximate cause, and because the
filed-rate doctrine blocks them. But for the same reasons he
stated,, Judge Sargus holds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead
injury and causation, and the filed-rate doctrine does not apply.
Finally, the Defendants argue that because no Plaintiff has yet to
pay a surcharge, the Complaint fails to state the Plaintiffs
conferred a benefit upon the Defendants. But again, the Judge
holds that the surcharge injury is imminent, ascertainable, and
specific, and the Defendants provide no authority that such
injuries are incognizable under Ohio law. Their argument goes to
the proper relief eventually available, as opposed to the legal
cognizability of an injury. Moreover, the Defendants mount no
argument as to the other injuries that the Plaintiffs plead from
the decoupling and legacy provisions. The Plaintiffs allege that
they paid charges related to this provision, and so they allege
that they conferred a benefit upon Defendants. Thus, the
Plaintiffs adequately states state-law claims for relief.
Accordingly, Jduge Sargus denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4brh5m4z from Leagle.com.
FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Paulley Sues Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY PAULLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSHIP CREDIT ACCEPTANCE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 210200488 (Pa. Com. Pl. Ct., February 4, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking damages and injunctive
relief for its alleged negligent and willful violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed multiple calls on
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number (908) XXX-6587 by using
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) and prerecorded
voice in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt. Despite
the Plaintiff's repeated request to the Defendant to cease its
calls, the Defendant continued to bombard her with autodialed and
pre-recorded calls. Additionally, the Defendant did not obtain her
prior express consent to placed automated calls to her cellular
telephone using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice, the
suit alleges.
Flagship Credit Acceptance LLC provides various business services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Tel: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
FLAGSHIP S B NEW YORK: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Bhattarai Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSHIL BHATTARAI; RAMCHANDRA ADHIKARI; and BHOJA KHANAL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FLAGSHIP S B NEW YORK LLC (d/b/a SARAVANAA BHAVAN);
SARAVANA BHAVAN LLC (d/b/a SARAVANAA BHAVAN); MATHAIAH RAMAIAH; and
VEENA RAMAIAH SHAHUL HAMEED, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01148
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as waiters.
Flagship S B New York LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at
New York, New York, under the name Saravanaa Bhavan. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shawn R. Clark, Esq.
PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES,
Attorneys at Law, PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 430
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 248-7431
Facsimile: (212) 901-2107
E-mail: sclark@tpglaws.com
FONTERRA AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Urges Farmers to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Nadge, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that the law
firm leading a class action against Fonterra Australia has renewed
calls for farmers to register before it is too late.
The case, which seeks compensation for farmers affected by
Fonterra's clawback in 2016, was lodged in the Supreme Court of
Victoria in June.
Adley Bursryner is representing the plaintiffs in the case, Lynden
and Geoffrey Iddles.
Founder David Burstyner said around 350 farmers had registered so
far but it was imperative that more people joined.
"In the nearly five years we've been working up this case, we've
heard hundreds and hundreds of farmers who've been in support," he
said.
"The support is very, very good on one sense but what we need to
make the case go forward, to ensure it continues, is
registration."
He stressed that Fonterra did not have a list of names of the
people registered.
He was also concerned there were farmers looking to benefit from
the outcome from the case without getting involved.
"What the ones who come to the meetings and engage with us tell us,
is that pretty much every farmer they know wants to benefit of this
case and wants it to go ahead, but they're getting on with their
day to day and that is the nature of farmers," he said.
"I also think there's some concern you can be a free-rider and
avoid the cut that the funder takes, and that's wrong.
"There is no free riding in this system and the judge doesn't allow
a benefit in a class action to go to someone if they don't
register.
"What they do is they jeopardise the whole case going ahead,
because if there aren't enough registrations the case may have to
stop."
He said about 600 registrations would be enough to proceed, but the
case was currently short of that.
"We have a case management conference coming up later this month,"
he said.
"The judge might then ask us about doing what's called a 'class
closure', that's when you confine who's in and who's out.
"If there's not that critical mass that makes it economically
worthwhile for the funder, then they pull the plug."
The case is funded by Litigation Lending Services and there is no
cost to farmers.
Mr Burstyner said costs were a common theme raised at information
sessions.
"Farmers also - like in a lot of class actions - want to make sure
that there's enough money in it for them and it's not a lawyers
picnic or funders picnic," he said.
"We're working in a dynamic where the courts make sure that a
reasonable and fair percentage goes back into the pockets of what
are called group members, in this case farmers."
The next stage of the process would see the parties exchange
documents related to the case, he said.
"I'd imagine we'd be getting around 100 000 documents from them,"
he said.
"The documents we're likely to get will be board minutes of that
setting of that farmgate price, all the internal papers and emails
and minutes of meetings that Fonterra had for the setting the
price."
The class action claims Fonterra allegedly breached contractual
obligations by implementing a step down in milk price.
It also alleges Fonterra engaged in "misleading conduct about the
likelihood of a step down" and acted "unconscionably" towards
suppliers, court documents reveal.
In a statement, Fonterra said it denied the allegations in the
class action and was defending the case vigorously.
"Over the past four and a half years, we have completely overhauled
the relationship with our farmers, starting with the recently
formed Fonterra Australia Suppliers Council which replaced BSC, and
the benchmark agreement," a spokesperson said.
"We are proud of the good relationship we have today with our
farmers and industry."
It noted the ACCC investigated the 2016 milk price reduction and
decided not to take any action against Fonterra.
"The class action relates to the milk price step-down in the
2015/16 season following changes in the global market," the
statement read.
"The class action is funded by a litigation funding provider whose
business is to fund litigation in order to gain a commercial
return."
Fonterra also said it had not commenced any new debt recovery
proceedings against potentially affected suppliers in light of the
class action.
Farmers can register at www.fonterraclassaction.com.au [GN]
FORD MOTOR: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gill, Esq. -- gilll@bennettjones.com -- Ashley Paterson, Esq.
-- patersona@bennettjones.com -- Christine Viney, Esq., Cheryl
Woodin, Esq., of Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
report that a recent decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
addresses the challenges of considering a pre-certification
application to stay a class action when the decision may impact an
overlapping proceeding in another jurisdiction. The decision aligns
with an emerging shift in class action litigation, which supports
national coordination and communication between courts to
adjudicate issues in multijurisdictional class actions.
In Britton v Ford Motor Company of Canada, 2021 ABQB 17, the
plaintiff commenced a proposed class action in 2019 against Ford
Motor Company of Canada alleging that Ford had designed,
manufactured or distributed vehicles with defective engines and
spark plugs. The same law firm that acted for the plaintiff had
started a nearly identical proceeding in Saskatchewan seven years
earlier. Ford applied to stay the Alberta action before the
plaintiff's certification application, arguing that it was an abuse
of process because both the Alberta and Saskatchewan actions were
parallel claims, advanced against the same defendants, and involved
the same dispute. Ford argued that the Alberta action was
duplicative and did not have a legitimate purpose.
In considering Ford's application for a stay, the Court cited the
Alberta Court of Appeal's decision in Ravvin v Canada Bread
Company, Limited, 2020 ABCA 424, which our Class Action Litigation
group recently discussed in Pre-Certification Stays in
Multijurisdictional Class Actions: Ravvin v Canada Bread Company,
Limited. Ravvin confirmed that stay applications before
certification are discretionary and may be appropriate where the
case management judge has a sufficient understanding of the nature
and particulars of the proposed class proceeding, and where doing
so would advance the objective of judicial economy. In Britton, the
court reiterated that duplicative national class proceedings that
do not serve a legitimate purpose ought to be avoided because they
often undermine the three policy objectives of class proceedings
(judicial economy, access to justice and behaviour modification),
noting that the challenge in managing multijurisdictional class
actions was the lack of a national, coordinated approach to class
action management.
The Court dismissed Ford's application for a stay on the basis that
Ford had not met the onus of establishing an absence of a
legitimate purpose for the duplicate claims. The Court noted that
Ford had effectively reversed the onus and left it to the plaintiff
to justify why the parallel proceeding in Saskatchewan was not
abusive. The plaintiff advanced two arguments on this point. First,
the plaintiff was dissatisfied with the progress in the
Saskatchewan action: "I am advised by [my lawyers] that they are
unable to get the court in Saskatchewan to do anything at all
regarding the claim…I should not have to wait on a proposed class
action in Saskatchewan where the assigned judge . . . seems
unprepared to take the case forward at any time much less in a
timely manner." Second, the plaintiff sought to preserve limitation
periods for Alberta class members who did not know about the
Saskatchewan action. The fact that limitation issues were one
consideration among others presumably distinguishes this case from
BCE Inc v Gillis, 2015 NSCA 32, where the Nova Scotia Court of
Appeal held that it is an abuse of process to file a claim solely
to toll the limitation period without an intention to proceed.
The Court here noted that Class Counsel was conducting both actions
with cooperation from both plaintiffs, and that Class Counsel had
"given mixed signals" as to whether it intended to pursue the
Saskatchewan action. While the fact that the Saskatchewan action
was not close to certification may justify the Alberta action,
there was no assurance that the Saskatchewan action would not
ultimately be pursued. Further, if the Saskatchewan action was
discontinued, the claims of Alberta residents could be prejudiced
by the passage of time under the limitations legislation in a
manner that was not present in Saskatchewan. In the circumstances,
the Court held that it was more appropriate to consider those
issues during the certification application in the context of the
objectives set out in the class action legislation.
The Court raised several related issues for the parties to address
at the certification hearing, including whether certification of
the Alberta action would lead to uncertainty and class fracturing
arising from potential limitation issues. In furtherance of the
Court's earlier comments on promoting national coordination of
class action management, the Court also requested submissions on
facilitating a joint discussion with the Saskatchewan court.
Britton suggests that courts may be reluctant to grant stays prior
to certification when class members could be potentially prejudiced
by applicable limitation periods. The decision also highlights the
complex considerations involved in weighing whether a
pre-certification stay should be granted in overlapping proceedings
in multijurisdictional class actions. Of particular importance to
parties and counsel involved in multijurisdictional class actions,
the decision reinforces the "evolution of a culture shift" referred
to in Ravvin for managing overlapping and duplicative class actions
in multiple provinces, and the inclination toward communication
between courts managing parallel class actions that was recently
encouraged by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Winder v
Marriott International Inc, 2020 ONSC 7701. [GN]
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY: Wins Class Action Over Tuition Fee Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryam Beshara, writing for The Observer, reports that Fordham
University won a class action lawsuit in January 2021, dismissing
the calls for refunds on tuition and campus-related fees following
the suspension of in-person classes due to the coronavirus
pandemic.
The plaintiff, Kareem Hassan, Fordham College at Rose Hill '21,
filed the class action lawsuit in April 2020 after classes shifted
to online learning and he was unable to access laboratory
facilities. As an undergraduate student majoring in chemistry,
Hassan said he believed that he was not able to receive the same
quality of education that he paid for in order to further his
education.
"Online learning options offered are subpar in practically every
aspect, from the lack of facilities, materials, and access to
faculty," Hassan claimed in the lawsuit. "Students have been
deprived of the opportunity for collaborative learning and
in-person dialogue, feedback, and critique."
Hassan represented his fellow students as a petition circulated
around Fordham demanding a response. Hundreds of students signed
the petition and several Fordham families added to the request for
lowering tuition costs and removing added on-campus fees. The
university did not alter the cost of tuition.
"Fordham University has proven once again that they are incapable
of standing for what is right in the name of their students," Tess
Gutenbrunner, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) '21 and an
organizer of the petition, said. "No one actually thinks that the
quality or level of education we are getting online, regardless of
the thankless work and struggle of our professors, is anywhere near
worth what it was before the pandemic."
Gutenbrunner, along with several fellow petition organizers, voiced
her opposition to Fordham's financial response to the coronavirus
pandemic as the institution neglected to recognize the impact the
pandemic had on its students.
"Fordham uses any and all legal, financial, and biblical
justifications for these tuition charges. What else can we expect
from a private university that has always prioritized profits,
reputation, and maintaining order," Gutenbrunner said. [GN]
FRUDECO LLC: Misclassifies Employees, Villegas Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROSELIN V. VILLEGAS, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. FRUDECO LLC, KELLY MOSES, and YARDEN
WEISS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20559-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., February 9, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a full-time,
non-exempted, hourly employee from approximately July 6, 2020 until
February 5, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees as independent
contractors and misinformed them about their rights to be paid
overtime hours. Despite Plaintiff and the Class members regularly
worked 6 days per week, more than 40 hours weekly, the Defendant
did not properly pay them overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a week. Allegedly, the Defendant paid them weekly with checks
without paystubs providing information of their hours worked, wage
rate, employee taxes withheld, etc.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover all unpaid
overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney fees, costs, and expenses, and additional relief as the
interests of justice may require.
Frudeco LLC operates a specialty bakery co-owned by Kelly Moses and
Yarden Weiss. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
FSD PHARMA: Morganti & Co Announces Settlement Approval for Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Morganti & Co, P.C., announces that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court") has approved the class action
settlement regarding Anne Miller v. FSD Pharma, Inc., bearing Court
File No. CV-19-614981-00CP (the "Action").
Read this notice carefully as it may affect your rights.
This Notice is directed to all persons and entities, excluding
certain persons associated with the Defendant, wherever they may
reside or be domiciled, who purchased or otherwise acquired FSD
Pharma, Inc. ("FSD") class B common shares in the secondary market,
on or after September 20, 2018, and held some or all of those
shares until after the close of trading on February 6, 2019 ("Class
Members" and the "Class").
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE:
A class action brought on behalf of Class Members has been settled.
The Settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. This Notice provides Class Members with information about
how to submit a Claim Form to the Administrator in order to
participate in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount on a
pro rata basis.
THE ACTION:
On February 22, 2019, a proposed class action was commenced on
behalf of investors who purchased FSD class B common shares in the
secondary market during the Class Period, against FSD in the
Ontario Superior Court: Anne Miller v. FSD Pharma, Inc.
CV-19-614981-00CP (the " Action"). The Plaintiff in the Action
alleges that the Defendant made misrepresentations during the Class
Period related to FSD's business, operations and finances by
omitting from core documents, non-core documents and statements,
material facts regarding the status of its project with Auxly
Cannabis Corp. to build-out 220,000 square feet of cannabis
cultivation space in Cobourg, Ontario.
The settlement of the Action, without an admission of liability on
the part of the Defendant, was approved by The Honourable Justice
Edward Morgan on February 4, 2021. This notice provides a summary
of the settlement.
SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS:
FSD and its insurers will pay CAD $5.5 million (the "Settlement
Amount"), in full and final settlement of all claims against FSD in
the Action. Class Counsel Fees, including out-of-pocket expenses
and taxes, were fixed by the Court as a first charge on the
Settlement Amount in the amount of thirty (30) percent of CAD
$5,500,000.00, plus disbursements, plus taxes. The settlement for
the Class, less the Class Counsel Fees and disbursements,
administrator's expenses, and taxes, will be distributed to the
Class on a pro rata basis in accordance with the Court-approved
Plan of Allocation. The Settlement Agreement and Plan of Allocation
may be viewed at https://morgantico.com/fsd-pharma-inc/,
www.fsdsecuritiesclassaction.com.
HOW TO MAKE A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION:
CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION MUST BE RECEIVED BY JUNE 21, 2021, 5:00 PM
EST.
Each Class Member must complete and submit a Claim Form
electronically using the online claims administration portal on or
before the Claims Bar Deadline of June 21, 2021, 5:00 PM EST, in
order to participate in the settlement. The online claims
administration portal and Claim Form can be accessed at
https://portal.fsdsecuritiesclassaction.com or obtained by calling
the Administrator at 1-877-400-1211.
If you do not submit a completed Claim Form by the Claims Bar
Deadline of June 21, 2021, you will not receive any part of the Net
Settlement Amount.
The Court appointed Paul Battaglia of Trilogy Class Action Services
as the Administrator of the settlement to, among other things: (i)
receive and process Claim Forms; (ii) decide eligibility for
compensation; and (iii) distribute the net Settlement Amount to
eligible Class Members. The Claim Form should be submitted to the
Administrator by using the secure online claims administration
portal at https://portal.fsdsecuritiesclassaction.com/. You may
submit a paper Claim Form only if you do not have internet access.
[GN]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
harrismartin.com reports that a federal appeals court has refused
to revive a proposed class action accusing General Electric of
causing its stock to plummet by failing to ensure that its
insurance subsidiaries had adequate reserves, finding the
plaintiff's suggestions as to what the company should have done
might "do more harm than good."
In a Feb. 4 summary order, a 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
panel concluded that GE did not violate the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. [GN]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a class action filed by Zimmerman Law Offices PC, the
ingredients in certain baby food products are tainted with
dangerously high levels of arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. The
lawsuit cites to the United States House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform's Subcommittee on Economic and
Consumer Policy report entitled "Baby Foods Are Tainted with
Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury"
(Subcommittee Report), which found several brands of baby food
contain unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals, including Gerber baby
food, Earth's Best baby food, Beech-Nut baby food, and HappyBABY
baby food. The lawsuit seeks damages arising out of consumers'
purchase and use of the contaminated baby food.
The complaint cites to the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) that has declared these toxic heavy metals
dangerous to human health, as these toxic heavy metals have no
established health benefit and lead to illness, impairment, and in
high doses, death. The lawsuit also cites to the Subcommittee
Report's finding that exposure to toxic heavy metals causes
permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity,
and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in
children, and that toxic heavy metals endanger infant neurological
development and long-term brain function.
"We are concerned about the harmful effects these toxic heavy
metals may have on neurological development in infants and
children, and baby food companies need to ensure that their food is
safe for infants and children to eat," said Thomas Zimmerman of
Zimmerman Law Offices PC, who represents the plaintiff in this
matter. Zimmerman continued: "The companies must remove unsafe
toxic heavy metals from their baby food, and take responsibility
and pay for the damages they caused. It is both the ethical and
legally-mandated resolution to this tragedy."
The case is Aileen Garces v. Gerber Products Co., et al., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A
copy of the complaint is available upon request, as are interviews
with the attorneys in this matter. The lead plaintiff may also be
available to speak with the media on a limited basis.
If you have purchased Gerber baby food, Earth's Best baby food,
Beech-Nut baby food, or HappyBABY baby food, please contact us for
more information.
CONTACT:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
tom@attorneyzim.com
Zimmerman Law Offices PC
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 [GN]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Garces Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AILEEN GARCES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO.; and THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00719 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 8,
2021) is an action alleging that the Defendants' baby food products
contained elevated levels of toxic heavy metals.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants knew
that the presence of toxic heavy metals in their baby food was a
material fact to consumers, yet omitted and concealed that fact
from consumers.
Despite touting the lack of certain dangerous substances in their
respective brands of baby food, the Defendants allegedly fail to
disclose elevated levels of toxic heavy metals on the labels of
their baby food products.
Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well
as offers life and health insurance products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Sharon A. Harris, Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Blake, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
sharon@attorneyzim.com
matt@attorneyzim.com
jeff@attorneyzim.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Baby Food Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that as some of readers may know, the U.S. House of
Representatives subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy
released a report on February 4th 2021 which reported on the levels
of heavy metals -- including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury --
found in baby foods produced by seven of the largest baby food
manufacturers in the U.S. The baby food manufacturers named in the
report were: (1) Nurture Inc. (which sells Happy Family Organics,
including baby food products under the brand name HappyBABY); (2)
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; (3) Hain Celestial Group (which sells
baby food products under the brand name Earth's Best Organic); (4)
Gerber; (5) Campbell Soup Company (which sells baby food products
under the brand name Plum Organics); (6) Walmart Inc. (which sells
baby food through its private brand Parent's Choice); and (7)
Sprout Foods, Inc.
The report is based on results from the first four of the
above-listed companies because the others did not comply with the
subcommittee's requests for internal documentation and test
results. While acknowledging that for the majority of heavy metals
the FDA has not set thresholds for the level allowed in baby foods
(one notable exception is a 100 ppb limit for arsenic in infant
rice cereals), it concluded that "commercial baby foods contain
dangerous levels of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium . . .
[that] pose serious health risks to babies and toddlers." The
report advocates several changes to the regulation of baby foods
including mandatory testing of finished products for heavy metals,
reporting of heavy metal content on food labels, and new
regulations setting limits for heavy metals in baby foods.
As expected, the report has instigated the filing of class action
lawsuits against the baby food manufacturers named in the report.
On February 5th, the day after the report's release, a pair of
consumer class action complaints were filed—one against Gerber in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the
other against Plum, PBC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The complaint against Gerber draws heavily from the report's
conclusions and alleges violation of various consumer protection
statutes on the theory that Gerber falsely and deceptively failed
to disclose the presence of unsafe levels of heavy metals in their
baby foods. The complaint against Plum takes a broader approach and
alleges that their baby food products were falsely and deceptively
advertised because the manufacturer was obligated to disclose (and
did not disclose) "any level of Heavy Metals or undesirable toxins
or contaminants" (emphasis added). While a court is unlikely accept
the latter theory (see our prior post rejecting a similarly broad
theory of deceptive advertising in the petfood context),
allegations that the levels of heavy metals in the baby food
products are unsafe may present viable litigation theories. [GN]
GLOBAL TECHNICAL: Underpays Laborers, Pippen Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PIPPEN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL TECHNICAL RECRUITERS INC., and LIBERTY
STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00311 (N.D.
Ohio, February 5, 2021) brings this class and collective action
complaint against the Defendant seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Overtime Law.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a laborer for several
months in 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay him and
other similarly situated laborers for compensable pre-shift work
and improperly deducted a full 15 minutes of clocking out a few
minutes early. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay them all
overtime compensation earned at a rate of at least one and one-half
times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
make, keep, and preserve accurate records of all the hours worked
by its laborers, the suit says.
The Corporate Defendants individually and jointly operate as an
enterprise, with the Defendant Global Technical providing employees
to the Defendant Liberty Steel in its business of processing coated
cold rolled, and hot rolled steel and providing a variety of
stamping and blanking services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Ste. 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 824-5770
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES: Daklin et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIANA DAKLIN and SAMANTHA THALER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBALTRANZ ENTERPRISES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-JJT (D. Arizona, February 8,
2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendant as Logistics
Representatives in its Minneapolis, Minnesota office. Plaintiff
Daklin was an Account Coordinator, LTL Representative, and
Logistics Representative from approximately September 2018 to March
2020, while Plaintiff Thaler as a Logistics Representative from
approximately January 2019 to March 2020.
According to the complaint, in or around April 2019, the Defendant
reclassified the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated from
hourly, non-exempt employees to salaried, exempt employees. As a
result, although the Defendant required them to work more than 40
hours per week, they were not paid overtime pay at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendant did not make, keep, or
preserve adequate or accurate records for all of the hours its
Logistics Representatives worked, the suit says.
GlobalTranz Enterprises, LLC is a freight brokerage company
specializing in LTL (less-than-truckload), full truckload,
expedited and managed transportation solutions with a freight
network that consists of over 25,000 shippers and more than 30,000
carriers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: schlesinger@nka.com
srey@nka.com
- and –
Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
36 South Charles St., Suite 1700
Baltimore, MD 21201
Tel: (410) 244-7005
E-mail: bdavis@nka.com
GOOGLE LLC: Court Dismisses Coffee Class Suit With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN COFFEE, MEI-LING MONTANEZ, AND S.M., a minor by
MEI-LING MONTANEZ, S.M.'S parent and guardian, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03901-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, granted Google's motion to
dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) with leave to amend.
In the putative nationwide class action, the Plaintiffs allege that
Loot Boxes--a feature of certain video games--constitute illegal
"slot machines or devices" under California's gambling laws. Loot
Boxes may be purchased during game play, using virtual currency.
Each Loot Box offers a randomized chance at receiving an item
designed to enhance game play, such as a better weapon, faster car,
or more desirable player appearance. The Plaintiffs characterize
buying a Loot Box as "a gamble, because the player does not know
what the Loot Box actually contains until it is opened."
Defendant Google operates the Google Play store from which software
applications, including video games containing Loot Boxes, may be
downloaded. Google does not create the video game apps or Loot
Boxes. The Plaintiffs nonetheless allege that Google violates
state consumer protection laws by offering video games containing
Loot Boxes in its Google Play store and profiting from in-app
purchase of Loot Boxes.
The Plaintiffs assert three state law claims against Google: (1)
unlawful and unfair business practices in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq.; (2) unfair and deceptive acts and practices in
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; and (3) unjust enrichment
under unspecified state law.
Google seeks dismissal of all three claims under Rule 12(b)(6). It
disputes the Plaintiffs' characterization of Loot Boxes as illegal
slot machines or devices under California's gambling laws.
However, it argues that the Court need not reach the legality of
Loot Boxes in order to grant the motion to dismiss, because Google
is immune from liability under Section 230 of the CDA. Google also
asserts that Plaintiffs have not alleged essential elements of
their claims. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that Google is
not immune from liability under the CDA, that Loot Boxes constitute
illegal slot machines or devices under California law, and that all
claims in the complaint are adequately alleged.
At the hearing, the Court indicated that it would dismiss the
complaint on immunity grounds under Section 230 of the CDA, with
leave to amend, and that it might defer to a later stage of the
proceedings the question of whether Loot Boxes constitute illegal
gambling devices. That question presents several thorny issues,
the resolution of which could have a profound impact on video
games, developers, and players. The Court concludes that it would
be imprudent to address those issues on the scant record before it,
particularly when all claims in the complaint are subject to
dismissal on other grounds. For purposes of the present motion, it
is unnecessary to determine whether Loot Boxes are illegal slot
machines or devices under California's gambling laws.
Accordingly, Judge Freeman limits her evaluation of the motion to
Google's arguments that it is entitled to immunity under the CDA
and that the Plaintiffs have not alleged essential elements of
their claims. Before taking up those arguments, however, the Court
addresses the parties' requests for judicial notice. Both parties
request that the Court takes judicial notice of certain of Google's
terms of service.
Google asks the Court to take judicial notice of the Google Play
Terms of Service, and in particular language prohibiting the sale
or transfer of game content. The Plaintiffs do not dispute the
authenticity or accuracy of the copy of the Google Play Terms of
Service submitted to the Court. Accordingly, Google's request for
judicial notice as to the existence and contents of the Google Play
Terms of Service is granted.
The Plaintiffs request judicial notice of the Google Terms of
Service. Specifically, they ask the Court to take notice of
language providing that "California law will govern all disputes
arising out of or relating to these terms, service-specific
additional terms, or any related services, regardless of conflict
of laws rules," and that "these disputes will be resolved
exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County,
California, USA." Google does not oppose te Plaintiffs' request.
Under the reasoning set forth with respect to Google's request for
judicial notice, the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice of the
Google Terms of Service is also granted.
Turning to the arguments for dismissal, Google initially argues
that it is immune from liability under Section 230 of the CDA. The
Plaintiffs contend that Google is not entitled to immunity under
Section 230.
Under the facts as currently pled, Judge Freeman concludes that
Google is entitled to CDA immunity as to all of the Plaintiffs'
claims. Even if she were to find that Loot Boxes constitute
illegal slot machines or devices under California's gambling laws,
and that Google knew as much, the immunity applies because the
Plaintiffs have alleged no more than Google's "passive acquiescence
in the misconduct of its users." The Judge finds that Google
cannot be held liable for merely allowing video game developers to
provide apps to users through the Google Play store, as providing
third parties with neutral tools to create web content is
considered to be squarely within the protections of Section 230.
Moreover, even if a service provider knows that third parties are
using such tools to create illegal content, the service's
provider's failure to intervene is immunized.
It is possible that the Plaintiffs could amend their claims to show
that Google's conduct goes beyond the mere publishing of third
party content. The Plaintiffs make reference to "Google's
predatory Loot Box scheme" in their complaint. They may be able to
allege more facts to support that characterization of Google's
conduct. Moreover, at the hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel made a
passing suggestion that their claims find support in the Ninth
Circuit's decision in HomeAway.com, Inc. v. City of Santa Monica,
918 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2019). The Counsel did not elaborate
on that argument, and the Plaintiffs' opposition brief devotes only
a single sentence to HomeAway, stating that Airbnb was not immune
under Section 230 for allowing its website to facilitate unlicensed
booking transactions."
As she discussed, Judge Freeman holds that the complaint does not
explain with sufficient specificity how Google facilitates
unlicensed gambling. Accordingly, while she finds that the
complaint as currently framed gives rise to CDA immunity, she will
grant leave to amend. Accordingly, all claims of the complaint are
dismissed with leave to amend.
As a separate basis for dismissal, Google next argues that the
Plaintiffs have not alleged the essential elements of their claims.
The Plaintiffs assert that their claims are adequately alleged.
Claim 1 alleges violation of California's UCL, which in relevant
part prohibits an individual or entity from engaging in any
"unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." The
Plaintiffs assert UCL claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs
of Section 17200. Their claim under the unfair prong is based on
the same alleged violations of law and related state legislative
policies.
Google challenges the Plaintiffs' UCL claim on several grounds.
First, it argues that Plaintiffs Montanez and S.M. lack standing to
bring suit under the UCL because they are New York residents and
they do not allege injuries occurring in California. Second,
Google argues that Plaintiffs lack statutory standing because they
no not allege economic injury or causation, which are essential
elements of a UCL claim. Third, it argues that the Plaintiffs do
not allege any unlawful or unfair act or practice because Loot
Boxes do not constitute illegal gambling.
Judge Freeman granted Google's motion to dismiss Claim 1 for
failure to state a claim. She finds that (i) the complaint does
not allege facts showing economic injury or causation, both of
which are required for statutory standing, (ii) the Plaintiffs do
not explain how their purchases of virtual currency resulted in
economic loss, (iii) the Plaintiffs do not allege that Google made
misrepresentations regarding the virtual currency, or "that they
were deprived of an agreed-upon benefit in purchasing" the virtual
currency, (iv) the Plaintiffs do not assert a claim under the UCL's
fraud prong, and they do not allege that Google engaged in false
advertising regarding the purchase of virtual currency or, indeed,
that Google made any representations upon which Plaintiffs relied,
and (v) the Plaintiffs' casino analogy does not address the fact
that virtual currency may be used to make in-app purchases other
than Loot Boxes.
Claim 2 alleges a violation of the CLRA, which makes unlawful
unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to
result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services
to any consumer. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated
the CLRA by representing to the Plaintiffs and the Class members
transactions involving Loot Boxes confer or involve rights to
potentially valuable prizes, when in fact these transactions
constitute unlawful gambling transactions that are prohibited by
law. Google asserts that these allegations fail to state a claim.
Judge Freeman granted Google's motion to dismiss Claim 2 for
failure to state a claim with leave to amend. First, she finds
that the Plaintiffs do not allege that the free download of video
games qualifies as "the sale or lease of goods or services" under
the CLRA. Moreover, courts in the district have held that virtual
currency is not a good or service for purposes of the CLRA.
Second, even assuming for purposes of this motion that Loot Boxes
themselves constitute illegal gambling, Plaintiffs have not alleged
facts to support their casino theory of liability under the CLRA.
Last, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify any
misrepresentations, or indeed any representations at all, made by
Google about Loot Boxes.
Finally, Claim 3 is a claim for unjust enrichment under unspecified
state law. The Plaintiffs allege that Google was unjustly enriched
as a result of the compensation it received from marketing and
selling the unlawful and unfair Loot Boxes to Plaintiffs and the
Class. They seek restitution from Google and seek an order of the
Court disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation
obtained by Google from its wrongful conduct. Google argues that
these allegations fail to state a claim for relief because the
Plaintiffs do not specify which state's law applies, the Plaintiffs
cannot maintain an unjust enrichment claim under California law,
and the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative of their UCL and
CLRA claims.
Judge Freeman agrees with Google that the Plaintiffs cannot proceed
on an unjust enrichment theory without specifying which state's law
they seek to apply. Having made this determination, she need not
reach Google's additional arguments regarding the Plaintiffs'
unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, she granted Google's motion
to dismiss Claim 3 for failure to state a claim with leave to
amend.
Based on the foregoign, Judge Freeman granted Google's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint will be filed
on or before March 12, 2021. Leave to amend is limited to the
claims alleged in the complaint; the Plaintiffs may not add new
claims or parties without obtaining leave of the Court. The Order
terminates ECF 17.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/t7qptarb from Leagle.com.
GOOGLE LLC: Urges Supreme Court to Tighten Privacy Suit Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for DigitalNewsDaily, reports that Google,
Facebook and others in Silicon Valley are urging the Supreme Court
to effectively block consumers from bring federal class-action
lawsuits over a large swath of privacy violations.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Feb. 8, Google, Facebook,
eBay, and the trade groups Internet Association, Technology Network
and Computer & Communications Industry Association argue that
consumers must experience an "actual" and "concrete" injury before
bringing a privacy lawsuit.
The tech companies and trade groups (referred to in the papers as
"amici") write that they are "frequently subjected to opportunistic
lawsuits" based on alleged violations of privacy laws -- including
the Wiretap Act (which restricts the interception of electronic
communications), the Video Privacy Protection Act (which prohibits
companies from disclosing people's video-viewing history without
consent) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (which regulates
robotexting and robocalling).
"Permitting these abusive no-injury class action lawsuits has a
particularly negative impact on amici due to the broad scale of
their operations," the companies write.
Google, Facebook and the others point to several examples of
settlements in privacy lawsuits that, according to the companies,
should not have proceeded in federal court. Among others, they
mention Facebook's $650 million settlement of a lawsuit alleging
that the company violated an Illinois biometrics privacy law by
compiling a faceprint database, and Vizio's $17 million settlement
of claims that its SmartTVs violated various privacy laws by
transmitting data to ad partners.
Google, Facebook and the others are weighing in on a class-action
lawsuit brought by Sergio Ramirez against credit reporting firm
TransUnion.
Ramirez alleged that TransUnion incorrectly labeled him and others
as "terrorists," based on faulty information. He said he learned of
the issue after being denied a car loan.
Ramirez specifically claimed that TransUnion violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to take steps to ensure that the
information was accurate, and adequately notifying consumers about
their rights to remove incorrect data.
A jury sided against TransUnion and ordered the company to pay $60
million to more than 8,000 class members who were wrongly labeled
as terrorists. (That figure was later slashed to $40 million.)
TransUnion argued that Ramirez shouldn't have been able to sue on
behalf of the other 8,000-plus people, because those individuals
may not have been harmed by the incorrect information on their
reports.
The 9th Circuit disagreed with TransUnion, ruling that all of the
class members "suffered a material risk of harm to their concrete
interests" due to TransUnion's "failure to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information
it reported.
The credit reporting company is now asking the Supreme Court to
reverse that finding, arguing that Ramirez didn't show that anyone
other than himself was harmed by the false information.
The tech companies siding with TransUnion argue that judges in the
9th Circuit -- which often decides disputes involving Silicon
Valley -- have wrongly allowed numerous "no-injury" lawsuits to
proceed. Those decisions reflect a misinterpretation of the Supreme
Court's 2016 decision in a dispute between the data aggregator
Spokeo and Virginia resident Thomas Robins, Google and the others
contend.
In the Spokeo matter, the court said Robins could only proceed with
claims that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act if he
could show a "concrete" injury. But the court added that Robins
could do so by showing that Spokeo's data placed him at risk of
future harm.
The tech companies are now telling the Supreme Court that the 9th
Circuit judges have interpreted that ruling too loosely.
"Under the Ninth Circuit's rule, class plaintiffs are permitted to
maintain . . . broad class suits against amici and other technology
companies despite their inability to allege any actual harm," the
companies write. "Commonly, many if not most members of the
putative class are unaware of the defendant's technical violation
and entirely unharmed."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the matter on
March 30. [GN]
GREAT LAKES: Residents Near Former Steel Plant File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller, writing for Legal Reader, reports that more than
thirty people who lived near what was once the Bethlehem Steel
factory have joined a class action lawsuit seeking damages after
the four-day fire in 2016, plaintiffs claim, caused long-lasting
turmoil in their lives. The lawsuit has been filed against Great
Lakes Industrial Development LLC, which purchased the Bethlehem
Steel building years ago, and Great Lakes' tenant, Industrial
Materials Recycling LLC.
The lead plaintiff, Ashley Torres, said her newborn child,
Penelope, suffered respiratory issues as a result of the blaze
while another child later died of brain cancer in 2019. The lawsuit
doesn't directly link the death of Amelia Torres to the fire but
contends the event perpetuated "environmental threats that caused
the death of Torres' mother, Earlene Wozniak," who lived with them.
She died from throat cancer in 2019. Torres and her children
experienced "wheezing, heart palpitations and watery eyes" while
trying to evacuate their home, Ashley said.
"By the time Torres was able to relocate to the Town of Collins,
102 Pine St. had lost about $30,000 in value," the lawsuit states,
listing damages many others in the area also reported to attorney
Jeanne M. Vinal, who is an Erie County legislator. Some of the
damages in the lawsuit are meant to cover property repair expenses
not covered by insurance claims.
The lawsuit blames the defendants for not having a fire suppression
system. However, a "sprinkler system was not required because Great
Lakes had made no changes to the building," Lackawanna Fire
Commissioner Ralph Galanti said when the incident occurred. The
building had passed inspection two years earlier in 2014.
"Some people had injuries including cancers and other injuries,
acute kinds of injuries. Some people had their siding melted off;
their shingles blown off," said Vinal. "The building was built way
before there were any building codes, so the building codes may not
have required them by law to do something, but they still need to
be reasonably prudent for the safety of others and here they didn't
have any fire suppressants. I don't think that it would have cost
them that much to do it, and they chose not to do it."
In court documents filed for another case, Great Lakes indicated
the company was itself victimized by the fire. In 2016, the firm
told the state Health Department and the Department of
Environmental Conservation it would "help affected residents with
cleanup costs and would help analyze the soot and ash."
Even prior to the fire, it seems the site has almost cursed to be
linked to respiratory issues and certain cancers. Those affiliated
with the plant have filed asbestos-related claimed for years after
developing significant lung problems. Thousands of Bethlehem steel
retirees have sought compensation under a federal program for
former employees of the Department of Energy and its contractors,
and local congressional representatives have long called for an
expansion of the timeframe allowable by the program. It's hard to
say whether there were any asbestos concerns when the fire broke
out and plant materials were disbursed into the air. [GN]
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. ("Greenlane" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:
GNLN), a global house of brands and one of the largest sellers of
premium cannabis accessories, child-resistant packaging, and
specialty vaporization products, on Feb. 9 announced that a
complaint filed on December 9, 2019 with the Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida ("the
Court"), Case No. 50-2019-CA-010026, has been dismissed in its
entirety for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiffs in
this action had alleged that the Company's registration statement
related for its initial public offering contained material
omissions and false or misleading statements. As Greenlane
previously announced, a related case in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, concerning the same
claims and issues, was dismissed in its entirety with prejudice on
January 6, 2021. With these dismissals, there are no further class
action securities lawsuits pending against the Company at this
time.
"We're pleased to put this last remaining case behind us and that
the Court has dismissed the complaint as we anticipated," said
Aaron LoCascio, Co-Founder and CEO of Greenlane. "As always, we
remain committed to communicating transparently as we continue to
execute on our strategy to deliver sustained growth and long-term
value for our shareholders."
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits mentioned in this release may pursue
appeals.
About Greenlane Holdings, Inc.
Greenlane (NASDAQ: GNLN) is the leading global platform for the
development and distribution of premium cannabis accessories and
lifestyle products. The company operates as a powerful house of
brands, third-party brand accelerator, and omni-channel
distribution platform. Greenlane serves the global markets with an
expansive customer base of more than 7,000 retail locations,
including licensed cannabis businesses, smoke shops, and specialty
retailers. As a pioneer in the cannabis space, Greenlane is the
partner of choice for many of the industry's leading brands,
including PAX Labs, Storz & Bickel (Canopy-owned), Cookies, Grenco
Science, and DaVinci. Greenlane also proudly owns and operates a
diverse brand portfolio including packaging innovator Pollen
Gear™, the K.Haring Glass Collection by Higher Standards, Marley
Natural™, and VIBES™ rolling papers. Higher Standards,
Greenlane's flagship brand, offers both a high-end product line and
immersive retail experience with groundbreaking stores in both New
York City's Chelsea Market and Malibu, California. Greenlane also
owns and operates both Vapor.com and VapoShop.com, two
industry-leading, direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms in North
America and Europe respectively. For additional information, please
visit: https://gnln.com/. [GN]
GRIFFIN PERSONNEL: Sanders Jr. Sues Over Unlawful Credit Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SANDERS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIFFIN PERSONNEL GROUP, INC.,
Registered Agent: John M. Hessel, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00152
(E.D. Mo., February 5, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged willful violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied employment
because of the information in his background check provided by the
Defendant to RGA, who offered him a full-time job as a Senior
Security Risk Analyst on or about April 20, 2020 which he
immediately accepted. Since the Plaintiff did not receive a copy of
the consumer report, the Plaintiff has no idea why he was being
denied employment or about the information that the Defendant had
reported about him to RGA. Thus, the Plaintiff requested his file
from the Defendant via certified mail on June 9, 2020. However, the
Defendant did not respond nor provide him with any of the
information that it reported to RGA, the suit says.
Allegedly, the Defendant willfully and/or recklessly violated
section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by failing to provide consumers the
required Pre-Adverse Action Notice, a copy of the consumer report,
and a written description of the consumer's rights under the FCRA
before using such reports.
Griffin Personnel Group, Inc. operates a consumer reporting agency.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
BROWN & WATKINS LLC
301 S. US 169 Hwy
Gower, MO 64454
Tel: (816) 424-1390
Fax: (816) 424-1337
E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
watkins@brownandwatkins.com
GULF CRANE: Gascho Seeks Damages and Technicians' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL GASCHO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GULF CRANE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00020 (S.D. Tex., February 8, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant seeking
damages for its alleged willful failure to properly pay overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a technician from on
or about January 2018 until on or about January 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that despite regularly working over 40 hours
in a workweek, the Defendant failed to pay him and other similarly
situated technicians their lawfully earned overtime compensation at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they
worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to
maintain and preserve payroll records which accurately show the
total hours the Plaintiff and other technicians have worked, the
suit says.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated technicians,
the Plaintiff seeks all damages, including back wages, as well
liquidated damages in an amount equal to FLSA-mandated back wages,
legal fees and costs, post-judgment interest, and all other relief
to which the Plaintiff and other technicians ay be justly
entitled.
Gulf Crane Services, Inc. provides crane services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
GUNITE PROS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Troxel Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, MICHAEL TROXEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUNITE PROS, LLC, PAUL CASTILLON
and CARLA CASTILLON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00057 (S.D. Ala.,
February 3, 2021) challenges the Defendants' alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
manager from September 2020 until January 2021.
The Plaintiff asserts that although he regularly worked over 40
hours in a week, the Defendant did not pay him an overtime premium
for hours he worked over 40 each week. In addition, the Defendant
failed to pay him his final paycheck for his final two weeks of
work, thereby failing to pay him a sufficient minimum wage and
overtime premium.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, who
were deprived by the Defendants of their lawfully earned minimum
wages and overtime premium, the Plaintiff seeks unpaid overtime
premiums, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Gunite Pros, LLC operates a gunite finishing business owned and
directed by the Individual Defendants Paul Castillon and Carla
Castillon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Courtney Lowery, 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: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
HALLMARK FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court-appointed Lead Counsel Hagens Berman alerts class members
that Defendants' motion to dismiss a securities class action
against Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: HALL) is now
fully briefed. The Court's order on the motion may pave the way
for Lead Plaintiff to obtain discovery. In the meantime, the Firm
encourages individuals with relevant, non-public information
regarding Hallmark to contact the firm now.
Hallmark Financial Services, Inc. (HALL) Securities Class Action:
The action, captioned Schulze v. Hallmark Financial Services, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:20-cv-1130-X, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on May 5, 2020, on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly-traded common stock of Hallmark during the period from
March 5, 2019, through March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you have information regarding Hallmark's alleged fraud, Hagens
Berman wants to hear from you. Individuals with non-public
information regarding Hallmark are encouraged to contact the firm
by emailing HALL@hbsslaw.com or by calling 844-916-0895.
As alleged in the Amended Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants misrepresented and concealed that: (1) Hallmark
deliberately and systematically manipulated and understated loss
reserves in order to overstate its reported net income during the
Class Period; and (2) lacked effective internal accounting controls
to prevent such manipulation.
Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint,
through a series of disclosures in Mar. 2020, when Hallmark
revealed it (1) was exiting the Binding Primary Commercial Auto
business; (2) had reported a $63.8 million loss development for
prior underwriting years; and (3) fired its independent auditor BDO
over a "disagreement" concerning the Company's estimated reserves
for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses throughout 2019.
These disclosures caused Hallmark shares to decline over 75%
between Mar. 2 and Mar. 18, 2020.
On July 21, 2020, Hagens Berman was named lead counsel in the case
by the Honorable Brantley Starr.
On Sep. 30, 2020, Hagens Berman filed an amended complaint.
On December 4, 2020, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the
complaint. As of February 8, 2021, that motion is fully briefed
and pending before the Court. The Court's order on the motion may
allow Lead Plaintiff to obtain documents and testimony from
Defendants and other relevant parties.
In the interim, the Firm encourages individuals with relevant,
non-public information regarding Hallmark to contact the firm now.
For more information about the case visit:
http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/HALL
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman -- https://www.hbsslaw.com -- is a national law firm
with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty
attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers
and consumers in complex litigation. [GN]
HANOVER INSURANCE: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Stanford Dental Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, STANFORD DENTAL, PLLC, Plaintiff v. THE
HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-11384 (E.D. Mich.).
Stanford Dental owns and operates a dental practice in Livonia,
Michigan. At some point before June of 2019, Stanford Dental
purchased Plaintiff Stanford Dental purchased what it calls an
"all-risk" insurance policy from Defendant Citizens Insurance
Company of America "in order to protect its dental practice" from a
variety of losses. It renewed the Policy for a one-year term
beginning on June 8, 2019.
In 2020, Stanford Dental made a claim for coverage under the Policy
for losses it allegedly suffered after Michigan Governor Gretchen
Whitmer issued an Executive Order that forced it to close for a
period of time. Governor Whitmer issued the Executive Order to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Citizens denied Stanford Dental's
coverage claim for several reasons, including that the Policy
precluded coverage for losses caused by viruses like COVID-19.
On May 29, 2020, Stanford Dental brought the putative class action
against Citizens and Hanover, the claims handler for Citizens. It
alleges that the Defendants wrongfully denied its claim for
coverage under the Policy.
Stanford Dental seeks a declaratory judgment that it is entitled to
coverage under the Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil
Authority provisions of the Policy. It also seeks damages for the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract and wrongful denial of
coverage.
Hanover has moved to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). In the alternative, and
together with Citizens, Hanover moves to dismiss Stanford Dental's
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court held a
video hearing on the Defendants' motion on Jan. 27, 2021.
Judge Leitman begins with Hanover's argument that all claims raised
against it should be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.
He agrees that Stanford Dental lacks standing to pursue its claims
against Hanover because its injury is not traceable to Hanover,
citing Perry v. Allstate Indemnity Co., 953 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir.
2020). Hanover is not a party to the Policy and did not owe any
coverage obligations to Stanford Dental under the Policy. Thus,
Stanford Dental's alleged losses from the failure to provide
coverage are not traceable to Hanover. Accordingly, Stanford
Dental lacks standing to sue Hanover.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reached
the same conclusion in Perry. In that case, an insured filed suit
against Allstate Indemnity Company and several related Allstate
entities. But only Allstate Indemnity was a party to the relevant
insurance agreement. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the
plaintiff lacked standing to sue the entities that were not party
to the insurance agreement, and it ordered the district court to
dismiss those entities from the suit. The same reasoning applies
in the case with respect to Hanover.
For the reasons explained in Perry, Judge Leitman concludes that
because Hanover is not a party to the Policy, Stanford Dental lacks
standing to pursue its breach of contract and declaratory judgment
claims against Hanover. He therefore grants the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the claims brought against Hanover.
Judge Leitman now turns to the merits of Stanford Dental's causes
of action against Citizens. He concludes that the Virus Exclusion
precludes Stanford Dental's claim for insurance coverage. Stanford
Dental's breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims
therefore fail as a matter of law.
The parties vigorously dispute whether Stanford Dental is entitled
to coverage under the Business Income, Extra Expense, and Civil
Authority provisions of the Policy. But the Judge need not resolve
whether Stanford Dental is entitled to coverage under those
coverage provisions. He says, even assuming that Stanford Dental
has adequately alleged that its claims are encompassed by those
provisions, Stanford Dental's breach of contract and declaratory
judgment claims fail because Citizens has demonstrated that the
Policy contains a Virus Exclusion that is plainly applicable to
Stanford Dental's insurance claim. Because the Virus Exclusion
precludes coverage, Stanford Dental cannot succeed on any of its
breach of contract or declaratory judgment claims.
For all of these reasons, the Virus Exclusion bars Stanford
Dental's claim for coverage under the Policy, and its breach of
contract and declaratory judgment claims therefore fail as a matter
of law.
Stanford Dental offers several counter arguments as to why the
Virus Exclusion does not preclude coverage under the Policy as a
matter of law. Its arguments are thoughtful and well presented.
However, Judge Leitman remains convinced that the Virus Exclusion
precludes Stanford Dental's claim for coverage. First, Virus
Exclusion bars coverage even though Governor Whitmer's order may
have been the most immediate cause of Stanford Dental's alleged
losses. Second, since the Virus Exclusion unambiguously applies to
Stanford Dental's alleged losses, the Court may properly dismiss
Stanford Dental's claims at this stage. Third, Stanford Dental has
not persuaded the Court that Michigan courts would apply regulatory
estoppel to limit the scope of an unambiguous policy exclusion like
the Virus Exclusion. Last, Stanford Dental has failed to persuade
the Court that the Virus Exclusion does not bar its claim for
coverage.
Finally, during the hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss,
the counsel for Stanford Dental asked for leave to file an Amended
Complaint substituting a new plaintiff in the event that the Court
dismissed Stanford Dental's Complaint based upon the Virus
Exclusion. The counsel explained that it was his understanding
that not all members of the putative class have an insurance policy
that contains the Virus Exclusion. The counsel sought permission
to add as a new plaintiff in an Amended Complaint one of the class
members whose policy does not contain the Virus Exclusion.
Judge Leitman declines to grant leave to amend under these
circumstances. He says the counsel has not filed a formal motion
to amend nor presented a proposed Amended Complaint. Much more
importantly, the counsel has not identified a specific substitute
plaintiff who may have a viable claim for coverage that is not
precluded by the Virus Exclusion. The Court has only counsel's
belief that some unidentified class members may have policies that
do not include the Virus Exclusion. That is not enough to warrant
leave to amend.
The only claims for relief now before the Court are those brought
by Stanford Dental, and those claims are barred by the Virus
Exclusion and may not be saved by amendment. As the Court in
Turek, _ F.Supp.3d _, 2020 WL 5258484, at *8 n.11 stated, when
rejecting a similar request to amend by Stanford Dental's counsel,
if other class members believe that they can assert a viable action
against Citizens, they "are free to bring their own action." The
action, however, will be dismissed.
For all of the reasons he stated, Judge Leitman granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. He dismissed the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kjdkryut from Leagle.com.
HEALTH INSURANCE: Deposition of Southwell in Belin Suit Precluded
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABEITH E. BELIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. HEALTH
INSURANCE INNOVATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-CV-61430-SINGHAL/VALLE (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Alicia O.
Valle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted the Defendant's Motion for Protective Order from
Deposition of Gavin Southwell.
The Plaintiffs bring the class action against the Defendants
alleging that the Defendants mislead the Plaintiffs and others into
believing they were purchasing major medical insurance when, in
fact, the Plaintiffs were purchasing "limited benefit indemnity
plans" and "medical discount plans."
Defendant Health Insurance Innovations ("HII") filed the instant
Motion seeking a protective order to preclude the deposition of Mr.
Southwell, Defendant HII's CEO and President. The Plaintiffs argue
that Mr. Southwell is a "key witness" and was "personally involved"
with the facts at issue in the case.
Judge Valle finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their
burden. First, based on the date of the Notice of Deposition (Jan.
22, 2021), Defendant HII'S Motion (filed on Feb. 1, 2021) was
timely and it did not waive its challenge to an apex deposition.
Second, although the Plaintiffs attach several emails in their
response to the Motion to support the argument that Mr. Southwell
was "personally involved" in the events surrounding the claims, the
Judge finds that the emails actually reveal that in most instances,
Mr. Southwell was one of several individuals copied on the
communications. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not shown that they
have exhausted other less intrusive means. Lastly, the Plaintiffs
have not shown the balance of interests weighs in favor of taking
the deposition of HII's President and CEO.
Accordingly, for the reasons she set forth, Judge Valle granted the
Defendant's Motion for Protective Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/168zbnd6 from Leagle.com.
HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Class-Action Over Errors in Breast Imaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Everson at northernontario.ctvnews.ca reports that a Toronto
law firm has launched a class-action lawsuit naming Health Sciences
North and their senior administrators.
It claims systemic errors in breast imaging performed at the
hospital in the last several years that would impact patient care
and could lead to catastrophic outcomes for patients.
The statement of claim said the action arises from the systemic
negligence of the radiology service at Health Sciences North in the
performance of and interpretation of breast imaging, including
mammography, breast ultrasound and MRI's.
"It's plain and obvious that senior management was told in 2018
that there were catastrophic outcomes as a result of misread
reports in the radiology department and the radiology department
falling below the standard of care," said lawyer Jordan Assaraf, of
Gluckstein Lawyers. "Management knew about this and did nothing."
Breast Radiology Between 2008-2020
The lawsuit has been filed on behalf of patients who had breast
radiology performed or interpreted at HSN between 2008 and 2020.
According to the claim, Shannon Hayes, a former HSN patient, and
lead plaintiff, alleges she was told her tests were normal when the
imaging showed abnormalities.
"I fear that Shannon's story is the tip of the iceberg," Assaraf
said. "And that this tragic loss will causes these patients to lose
trust in their healthcare institution which is there to care and
protect them at these vulnerable times."
In response to the suit, HSN release the following statement:
"Health Sciences North would like to reiterate its dedication to
providing high quality patient care for families of Northeastern
Ontario. While HSN is unable to comment on this matter as it is
before the courts, we want to underscore our commitment to quality
and timeliness of care.
"HSN strives to uphold stringent standards and best practices to
ensure patients receive the best quality care."
The lawsuit names the hospital and several of its doctors and
radiologists as defendants.
The next step in the process is to have lawsuit certified in court
within a year.
None of the allegations contained in the lawsuit have been tested
in court. [GN]
HEALTH SCIENCES: Faces Suit Over Claims Errors in Breast Imaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
sudbury.com reports that a class action lawsuit launched in
mid-December 2020 claims systemic errors in breast imaging at
Health Sciences North led to missed cancerous lesions and "near
catastrophic outcomes for patients."
The class action, which names HSN and senior administrators,
includes all patients who had breast radiology performed at HSN
between 2008 and 2020.
"A 2018 internal letter obtained by the law firm documents
'countless missed lesions' and 'overt misreads.' The surgeons at
the hospital warned of an 'overwhelming decline below the standard
of care for contemporary breast imaging, which was significantly
impacting their ability to manage patients to an appropriate
standard,'" a press release from Gluckstein Personal Injuries
Lawyers, the firm handling the suit, states.
Gluckstein alleges HSN leadership, including Dr. John Fenton, HSN's
chief of staff, and Dr. Evan Roberts, the former chief of
radiology, were "told repeatedly of the poor quality of breast
imaging and the potential for patient harm."
The firm further claims hospital leadership did little to fix the
alleged problems, going so far as to block efforts to improve the
quality of breast radiology images.
"Health-care professionals at HSN seeking to raise concerns in
radiology and elsewhere at the hospital were subject to bullying
and other punitive action," Gluckstein claims. "The hospital did
not attempt to notify patients or the community of the quality
problems."
The only patient named in the suit at the moment is Shannon Hayes,
a Sudbury woman who is alleging her breast cancer was missed for a
year before being diagnosed after follow-up imaging at another
hospital.
"There needs to be a fundamental change in the culture of safety
and quality at HSN," Hayes is quoted saying in the press release.
"I was outraged to learn that HSN administration knew about
problems for months before my imaging was misread but did nothing
and kept the problems at the hospital under wraps."
The lawsuit is seeking compensation for affected patients from 2008
to 2020, and a court order requiring the hospital to have all
affected breast imaging reviewed by a specialist for errors.
"I fear that Shannon's story is just the tip of the iceberg," said
Hayes' lawyer Jordan Assaraf in the release. "It is apparent that
there have been serious systemic quality problems at HSN which the
management have failed to address. Shockingly, a hospital funded by
taxpayers would punish whistleblowers rather than taking prompt
action to avoid harm to patients. This tragic loss will cause these
patients to lose trust in their healthcare institution, which is
there to care and protect them at these vulnerable times."
The firm further states that it is asking those who believe they
may have been impacted by the alleged issues with HSN's breast
radiology to visit their website, Gluckstein.com. [GN]
HEARST MAGAZINE: Court Narrows Claims in Arnold's 2nd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FENELLA ARNOLD, KELLY NAKAI, and MICHELE RUPPERT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HEARST MAGAZINE MEDIA, INC., a Delaware corporation;
CDS GLOBAL, INC., an Iowa corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-1969-WQH-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge William
Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Hearst and
CDS.
On Sept. 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Arnold and Nakai filed a Class Action
Complaint against the Defendants in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of San Diego. On Oct. 10, 2019,
Defendants Hearst and CDS removed the action to the Court.
On Dec. 9, 2019, Plaintiffs Arnold, Nakai, and Ruppert filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). On June 25, 2020, the Court
issued an Order granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the FAC
and dismissing the FAC without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.
On Sept. 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC, bringing
individual and class claims arising from the Defendants' alleged
violations of California's Automatic Purchase Renewals Statute
("ARL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17600, et seq.
On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the SAC.
They move to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon
which can be granted. On Oct. 26, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On Nov. 2, 2020, the
Defendants filed a Reply.
Defendant Hearst is one of the largest magazine publishers in the
world. It publishes approximately two dozen magazines in the
United States, including Food Network Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Good
Housekeeping, Woman's Day, Country Living, HGTV Magazine, and Car &
Driver. Defendant CDS is the largest magazine fulfillment house in
the United States. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hearst that
provides services to Hearst, including assisting with
subscriptions, billing, collection, and/or other account services.
The Defendants have "implemented a negative option model" for the
renewal of magazine subscriptions. Under this model, the
Defendants "solicit orders for magazine subscriptions that purport
to be fixed for a period of time (e.g., one year, or two years)"
and then "enroll the consumer in a program under which the magazine
subscription will be 'automatically renewed' for subsequent
periods, with corresponding charges posted to the consumer's credit
card, debit card, or other payment account."
The Plaintiffs have been victimized by the Defendants' negative
option model. The Defendants' disclosures of the automatic renewal
terms of their magazine subscriptions were in a smaller type than
the surrounding text, failed to state that the subscriptions will
continue until the consumer cancels, failed to describe a
cancellation policy, failed to state the amount of the recurring
charges, and failed to state the length of the automatic renewal
term. When the Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants' magazines,
they were not aware that the Defendants were going to enroll them
in an automatic renewal program. If they knew that the Defendants
were going to enroll them in an automatic renewal program, they
would not have submitted orders to the Defendants or paid them any
money.
Other consumers have also been victimized by Defendants' negative
option model. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all
individuals in California who, within the applicable limitations
period, were enrolled by Defendants in an automatic renewal program
or a continuous service program and had a credit card, debit card,
and/or a third-party payment account charged by the Defendants as
part of such program."
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Automatic
Renewal Law. Based on the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Automatic Renewal Law, the Plaintiffs bring the following
individual and class claims against Defendants: 1) violation of
California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17535; 2) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq.2; 3) violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sectiosn 17200, et seq.; and 4) unjust enrichment. The
Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
SAC.
As to ARL (Claim 1), the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs
fail to state a claim for violation of the FAL because the
Plaintiffs fail to allege any violation of the ARL. They contend
that the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure applies because the Plaintiff's automatic
renewal theory is based on allegedly misleading conduct.
The Plaintiffs contend that Rule 9(b) does not apply because they
do not allege that the Defendants knowingly made
misrepresentations. They contend that they sufficiently allege
violations of the ARL and FAL under Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). The
Plaintiffs contend that the facts alleged support an inference that
the Defendants failed to disclose all required automatic renewal
terms and failed to disclose the terms in a clear and conspicuous
manner.
Judge Hayes concludes that viewing the facts in the light most
favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs plausibly allege that
Defendants failed to adequately present the terms of the continuous
service program under the ARL. He further concludes that the
Plaintiffs' allegations that they paid the Defendants for term
magazine subscriptions and would not have paid them any money if
they knew they were going to be enrolled in automatic subscription
programs are sufficient to satisfy the standing requirements of the
FAL. The Motion to Dismiss the first claim for false advertising
is denied.
As to UCL (Claim 3), the Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs'
UCL claim is "entirely derivative of their other failed claims,"
and the Plaintiffs' factual allegations are conclusory. They
contend that the Plaintiffs fail to allege independent causation
sufficient to confer standing under the UCL. The Plaintiffs
contend that they sufficiently allege a UCL claim because they
state a claim for violation of the ARL and allege that if they were
aware that they were going to be enrolled in an automatic
subscription program, they would not have purchased the Defendants'
magazines.
In the case, Judge Hayes finds that the Plaintiffs' UCL claim is
based on the same facts underlying their claims for violation of
the FAL. He has concluded that the Plaintiffs sufficiently state a
claim for violation of the FAL. The alleged violation is
"independently actionable" under the UCL. The Plaintiffs'
allegations are sufficient to confer statutory standing under the
UCL. Hence, the Motion to Dismiss the third claim for violation of
the UCL is denied.
As to equitable relief under the FAL and UCL, and unjust enrichment
(Claim 4), the Defendants contend that it should be dismissed
because the Plaintiffs have alleged other claims for damages. They
further contend that the Plaintiffs fail to allege ongoing harm
sufficient to assert a claim for injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs
do not address the Defendants' assertions.
Judge Hayes holds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that they
intend to purchase the Defendants' magazines in the future, and
they cannot demonstrate a likelihood of future injury. The
Plaintiffs fail to allege "a sufficient likelihood that they will
be injured by the Defendants again in a similar way and that the
future injury can be redressed by injunctive relief." The Motion
to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' request for equitable relief and the
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is denied. The Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief is granted.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Hayes granted in part and denied
in part the Motion to Dismiss the SAC. The Motion to Dismiss the
SAC is granted as to the second claim for violation of the CLRA and
as to the request for injunctive relief and is otherwise denied.
No later than 30 days from the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs
may file any motion for leave to amend pursuant to Civil Local
Rules 7.1 and 15.1(c).
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/cuqj13vo from Leagle.com.
HEARST MAGAZINES: Can't Dodge Magazine Subscription Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno at courthousenews.com reports that Californians who
subscribed to cooking, home improvement and women's interest
magazines published by the Hearst media conglomerate will see their
false advertising class action proceed as a federal judge declined
the company's request to dismiss their case.
U.S. District Judge William Hayes found California magazine
subscribers sufficiently alleged Hearst violated the state's
Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law through its
alleged false advertising of temporary one and two-year magazine
subscriptions.
The women claim after paying for the temporary subscriptions, they
were included in an automatic annual renewal program and their
credit cards were charged without their consent.
Fenella Arnold, Kelly Nakai and Michelle Ruppert sued Hearst
Magazine Media Inc. in 2019 for being automatically charged for
subscriptions to Food Network Magazine, HGTV Magazine, Good
Housekeeping, Woman's Day and Oprah Magazine after signing up for
the advertised temporary subscriptions.
Had they known they would be charged upwards of $34.97 in the
automatic renewal scheme after paying as little as $2.00 for a
one-year magazine subscription, the women claim they would not have
purchased the magazine subscriptions.
They also claimed disclosures which notified them of the automatic
renewal programs through payment portals on the magazine websites'
were written in smaller type than surrounding text. Disclosures
made in order confirmation emails were also written in small type,
according to Williams' synopsis of the case.
At least 26 states have implemented their own automatic renewal
laws, which are considered an extension of consumer cyber security
measures. California's law, first adopted in 2010, was amended in
2018 to include new requirements for disclosures related to free
gifts and trials, affirmative consent to an offer under special
pricing and allowing consumers to cancel offers online.
At its core, the law requires "automatic renewal offer terms" be
presented in a "clear and conspicuous" manner, including whether
the subscription continues until the consumer cancels it and if
recurring charges will be posted to a consumer's credit card.
The law also requires those disclosures be "in larger type than the
surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the
surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding
text of the same size by symbols or other marks, in a manner that
clearly calls attention to the language."
In their lawsuit, the women claim at each step in the magazine
subscription purchase process, there were no disclosures alerting
them to the automatic renewal.
"Plaintiffs identify the allegedly deceptive terms on specific
advertisements, emails, and webpages, as well as the dates when
plaintiffs received the advertisements and emails or viewed the
webpages," Hayes wrote in his 15-page order declining to dismiss
the case.
"Plaintiffs attach copies of defendants' paper forms, emails, and
webpages in their possession to the complaint, which support
plaintiffs' allegations that the terms of the continuous service
program were not presented at all or were presented in text smaller
than the surrounding text."
But because the women did not claim they intended to purchase any
of Hearst's two dozen magazines in the future, and therefore would
not suffer a potential future injury, Hayes dismissed their claim
for injunctive relief.
The class members are represented by La Jolla, California-based
attorneys James Hannink and Zach Dostart of Dostart Hannink &
Coveney. Hearst Magazine Media Inc. and GDS Global Inc. are
represented by Hearst General Counsel Jonathan Donnellan and
Greenberg Traurig attorney Robert Herrington.
Attorneys for both parties did not immediately return phone and
email requests for comment. [GN]
HUBLER CHEVROLET: Court Flips Partial Summary Judgment in Endris
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Monte Endris, et al., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. Hubler
Chevrolet, Inc., Appellee-Defendant, Case No. 20A-PL-1628 (Ind.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial court's
ruling granting Hubler's bid for partial summary judgment on the
deduction-related claims, and directing entry of a final judgment
under Trial Rule 56(C).
The class action lawsuit was brought against Hubler on behalf of
certain Hubler sales associates. The lawsuit concerns, inter alia,
whether Hubler made excessive payroll deductions. Hubler obtained
partial summary judgment on the deduction-related claims.
Mr. Endris initiated the action regarding, inter alia, commission
payments to Hubler sales associates. The trial court later
certified a class action. It is undisputed that the Plaintiffs
worked for Hubler as sales associates. Hubler paid minimum wage in
weeks when sales commissions did not exceed minimum wage. If
commissions later exceeded minimum wage, Hubler would pay the
commissions less any prior-paid amount needed to reach minimum
wage.
The parties agree to a table that depicts the payment system. In
the table, the commissions earned in the second workweek are
adjusted by $190. That $190 reflects the difference between the
$100 in commissions earned in the previous workweek--an amount that
fell below minimum wage--and the $290 actually paid to reach
minimum wage. Although the parties agree that the table depicts
how Hubler paid the Plaintiffs, the parties disagree as to whether
Hubler was contractually allowed to offset commissions. According
to the Plaintiffs, they independently earned minimum wage in slow
sales weeks.
In Count II of the complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that Hubler
had violated an Indiana wage statute because its wage-payment
system involved unauthorized deductions from their commissions.
They alleged that they can pursue a cause of action for violation
of the [the deduction-related statute under the Indiana Wage
Payment Act. The Plaintiffs ultimately sought to recover the
alleged improper deductions from their wages.
Hubler moved for partial summary judgment, focusing on Count II.
In seeking summary judgment, Hubler argued that the Plaintiffs'
claims under Count II turned on whether they were paid less than
the amount that they earned under the Plan. It asserted that sales
associates are entitled to receive only commissions earned, nothing
more. In support of its motion, Hubler pointed out that there is
nothing in the Plan that entitles sales associates to receive
commissions plus minimum wage. Hubler ultimately argued that there
had been "no deduction made from the wages earned," i.e., no
underpayment, and so Hubler was entitled to partial summary
judgment.
In response, the Plaintiffs asserted that Hubler's motion for
summary judgment was "based on a faulty premise" that they were
entitled to receive only commissions. They designated deposition
testimony from Endris, who noted that Hubler had sales associates
"in a clock in and clock out situation" and that, in weeks when he
received minimum wage, the payments "matched up with the exact
hours he clocked in and out per week. Endris testified that he
earned commissions based upon the terms set forth in the Plan, but
that he earned minimum wage in slow sales weeks in exchange for the
hours he worked. Endris noted that, to earn his paycheck, Hubler
required him to "run cars through the wash."
Following a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment as to
Count II. Upon a joint motion, the court amended its written
order, identifying no just reason for delay and directing entry of
a final judgment under Trial Rule 56(C).
The Plaintiffs now appeal.
The Court of Appeals explains that Indiana Code Section 22-2-6-2(a)
("Deduction Statute") specifies that the wages of an employee are
subject to deduction only if certain conditions are satisfied. One
such condition is that the employee has executed a written wage
assignment. The Plaintiffs argued, and reassert on appeal, that
Hubler's payment system resulted in unauthorized deductions from
their commission-based wages because thy "did not execute a valid
wage assignment covering the minimum-wage payments."
As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals observes that the state
legislature did not expressly create a private right of action for
a violation of the Deduction Statute. Moreover, the Plaintiffs are
not arguing that there is an implied private right of action for a
violation of the Deduction Statute. Rather, they asserted that
they may pursue their claim under the Wage Payment Act ("WPA").
The essence of Count II is that Hubler made improper wage
assignments--i.e., deductions--resulting in the underpayment of
earned wages. Whereas the Deduction Statute is concerned with the
process of authorizing wage deductions, the WPA imposes a duty upon
employers to pay all wages due to employees. Indeed, the WPA
expressly confers a private right of action, directing that an
employer will be liable to the employee for the amount of unpaid
wages, and the amount may be recovered in any court having
jurisdiction of a suit to recover the amount due to the employee.
In seeking partial summary judgment, Hubler focused on the Plan,
contending that the Plan requires only the payment of commissions.
In response, the Plaintiffs noted that the Plan was silent
regarding (1) minimum wage and (2) the possibility of offsetting.
Because there appears to be no real dispute as to the contractual
nature of the Plan, the Court of Appeals regards it as a contract.
The terms of a contract are exclusive only if the contract is fully
integrated. Thus, if the Plan is not fully integrated, there could
be consistent additional terms regarding earnings and the basis for
minimum wage.
In granting partial summary judgment, the trial court implicitly
determined that the Plan was the exclusive, controlling source of
wage obligations to the Plaintiffs. Indeed, the trial court
determined that the Plan "requires Hubler to pay its employees
their earned commissions" and that Hubler "fulfilled its
obligations under the Plan." Having focused on the Plan, the trial
court generally noted that there is "no evidence in the record, in
the form of an agreement or otherwise, supporting the proposition
that Hubler is required to pay sales associates minimum wage plus
commissions."
Critically, however, the Court of Appeals notes that Endris'
testimony indicates that there was a consistent additional
compensation term regarding minimum wage, which is that the
Plaintiffs earned minimum wage independent of subsequent
commissions, in exchange for performing ancillary tasks. The
testimony about minimum wage, it says, raises a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the scope of Hubler's wage obligations,
i.e., whether Hubler was obligated to pay the Plaintiffs minimum
wage for hours worked on the lot without regard to any subsequently
earned commissions. It therefore concludes that it was improper to
grant partial summary judgment upon the designated evidence.
All in all, the Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court
improvidently granted partial summary judgment. It, therefore,
reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Memorandum Decision
is available at https://tinyurl.com/5l858qjh from Leagle.com.
Richard E. Shevitz -- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Scott D.
Gilchrist -- SGILCHRIST@COHENANDMALAD.COM -- Cohen & Malad, LLP, in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Douglas M. Werman, Zachary C. Flowerree,
Werman Salas P.C., in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Appellants.
Donn H. Wray -- donn.wray@skofirm.com -- Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC,
in Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.
INDIGO WILD: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Sanchez Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INDIGO WILD, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00928-LGS (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2021) brings this
complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking relief
for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil
Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff, who is a visually-impaired and legally blind person
who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using
his computer, alleges the Defendant of failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.indigowild.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or
visually-impaired people, like him.
The Plaintiff asserts that he has encountered multiple access
barriers to the Defendant's Website during his visit, the last
occurring in January 2021. These access barriers have deterred him
from learning about the Defendant's various body care products for
purchase and delivery, and enjoying them equal to sighted
individuals. Additionally, the Defendant allegedly engaged in acts
of intentional discrimination due to its failure to provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired with equal access to its
Website as a result of its failure to comply with the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Guidelines.
Indigo Wild, L.L.C. is a plant-based body care products company
that owns and operates the Website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN @ MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
International Business: Must Face Class Suit Over Sales Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that IBM lost its
bid to dismiss a claim it engaged in unlawful business practices
related to how it structured its commissions for sales
representatives, as a federal court in San Francisco found
sufficient allegations for that part of a potential class action.
IBM periodically gave sales reps "incentive plan letters" outlining
sales targets and commission rates, according to plaintiff Mark
Comin. The IPLs had disclaimers stating that they weren't an
express or implied contract, or a promise to pay commissions, he
says. [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: ClaimsFiler Reminds of April 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 2, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) common stock between August 4, 2020 and
January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your iRhythm 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/irhythm-technologies-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.
On December 1, 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
("CMS") issued its final rule, which finalized reimbursement codes
but did not provide national pricing for certain products and
services offered by iRhythm.
On this news, the Company's stock price opened at $183.00 on
December 2, 2020, down from the December 1, 2020 close of $240.64,
thereby injuring investors.
On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas
Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS's 2021
Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A research analyst from Baird
indicated that these are "way lower" than former codes, citing one
example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but
was now receiving just $42.68.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $82.58, or 32.90%, to
close at $168.42 per share on January 29, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) 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,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm common stock during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 2,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
iRhythm Technologies (IRTC)
Class Period: 8/4/2020 - 1/28/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 2, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-irtc/
Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia
Holdings Corp. III (CLOV, CLOVW, IPOC)
Class Period: 10/6/2020 - 2/4/2021 and/or in connection with the
December 2020 merger of Clover and Social Capital III.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-clov/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients
– including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) ("iRhythm") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired iRhythm common stock between August
4, 2020 and January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Shareholder Alert: Investors who purchased or acquired iRhythm
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 2,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=irhythm
According to the complaint, iRhythm is a digital healthcare company
that 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
includes commercial payors and government agencies, such as the
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). On August
3, 2020, the CMS issued its Calendar Year 2021 Medicare Physician
Fee Schedule Proposed Rule, which would update payment policies,
payment rates, and other provisions for services to be furnished
under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule on or after January 1,
2021.
The Class Period begins on August 4, 2020, when iRhythm held a
conference call with analysts to discuss the CMS proposed rule.
During this call, Kevin M. King ("King"), then President and CEO of
iRhythm, discussed at length how iRhythm "worked hand-in-hand with
the various governing bodies . . . in drafting and constructing"
the language used in the CMS's proposed rule, and that iRhythm was
"well aware and well informed" of the proposed CMS rules. King
praised the impact the proposed rule would have on iRhythm's
business and revenues, stating that "[i]f we were to apply the new
codes and proposed rates, our 2019 revenues would increase
slightly," and that "our total business will be up slightly
overall."
However, the truth began to be revealed on December 1, 2020, when
the CMS issued its final rule, which finalized the codes as
anticipated, but did not finalize national pricing for certain
products and services offered by iRhythm. On December 2, 2020,
iRhythm's common stock opened at $183.00 per share, down from the
December 1, 2020 close of $240.64.
Then on January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor,
Novitas Solutions, published actual reimbursement rates under the
CMS's 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. Following this news, the
price of iRhythm's common stock closed at $168.42 on January 29,
2021, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of
$251.00.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS's
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 iRhythm's business; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
iRhythm investors may, no later than April 2, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) ("iRhythm") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired iRhythm common stock
between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired iRhythm
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than April 2,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/irhythm-technologies-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=irhythm
According to the complaint, iRhythm is a digital healthcare company
that 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
includes commercial payors and government agencies, such as the
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). On August
3, 2020, the CMS issued its Calendar Year 2021 Medicare Physician
Fee Schedule Proposed Rule, which would update payment policies,
payment rates, and other provisions for services to be furnished
under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule on or after January 1,
2021.
The Class Period begins on August 4, 2020, when iRhythm held a
conference call with analysts to discuss the CMS proposed rule.
During this call, Kevin M. King ("King"), then President and CEO of
iRhythm, discussed at length how iRhythm "worked hand-in-hand with
the various governing bodies . . . in drafting and constructing"
the language used in the CMS's proposed rule, and that iRhythm was
"well aware and well informed" of the proposed CMS rules. King
praised the impact the proposed rule would have on iRhythm's
business and revenues, stating that "[i]f we were to apply the new
codes and proposed rates, our 2019 revenues would increase
slightly," and that "our total business will be up slightly
overall."
However, the truth began to be revealed on December 1, 2020, when
the CMS issued its final rule, which finalized the codes as
anticipated, but did not finalize national pricing for certain
products and services offered by iRhythm. On December 2, 2020,
iRhythm's common stock opened at $183.00 per share, down from the
December 1, 2020 close of $240.64.
Then on January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor,
Novitas Solutions, published actual reimbursement rates under the
CMS's 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. Following this news, the
price of iRhythm's common stock closed at $168.42 on January 29,
2021, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of
$251.00.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS's
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 iRhythm's business; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
iRhythm investors may, no later than April 2, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: RM Law Reminds Investors of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. on Feb. 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:IRTC) securities during the period from August 4, 2020
through January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
iRhythm shareholders may, no later than April 2, 2021, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of iRhythm and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' ("CMS") rulemaking caused iRhythm's business to suffer.
The Company's reimbursement rates plummeted as a result. Further
uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business was caused by a
lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule. 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 iRhythm, investors suffered damages.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 2,
2021, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website.
RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.
CONTACT:
RM LAW, P.C.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
484-324-6800
844-291-9299
rm@maniskas.com [GN]
IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Schall Law Reminds of April 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:IRTC) 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 4,
2020 and January 28, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 2, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 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. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' ("CMS") rulemaking caused iRhythm's business to suffer.
The Company's reimbursement rates plummeted as a result. Further
uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business was caused by a
lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule. 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 iRhythm, 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]
J. JACOBO FARM: Court Directs Amendment of Class Notice in Gomez
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
issued an order discharging order to show cause and directing
amendment of the class notice in the lawsuit entitled MARISOL GOMEZ
and IGNACIO OSORIO, Plaintiffs v. J. JACOBO FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-01489-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.).
After approving the parties' joint stipulation to amend the class
notice by modifying the class period in two subclass definitions,
the Court ordered the parties to show cause as to why the subclass
definition for the Plaintiffs' rest period claim should not be
modified in the same fashion. The parties timely filed a joint
response.
The Plaintiffs pleaded nine causes of action, and effectively moved
to certify six class claims. In its original certification order,
the Court certified only the Plaintiffs' claim for wage statement
violations under California Labor Code Section 226. The Court
defined the class for this claim as follows:
All individuals who were employed as a nonexempt field
worker or agricultural worker from September 30, 2012, to
November 5, 2019, by J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.
In so doing, the Court rejected the Plaintiffs' proposal to use
"September 30, 2011" as the class period start date. This date, the
Court explained, was four years before the original complaint was
filed and, therefore, in conflict with the statutes of limitations
governing wage statement claims, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 338
(three years for actual damages) and Section 340 (one year for
statutory penalties). The Court also set a specific end date for
the class period--November 5, 2019, i.e., the date the order was
issued--instead of the Plaintiffs' proposal to use "to the
present."
After the Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, the Court certified
their claim that the Defendant violated California Labor Code
Section 226.7 by failing to pay piece rate employees for rest
periods. It also certified the Plaintiffs' four claims that are
wholly derivative of their rest period claim: federal Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("AWPA") violations
under 29 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq.; California unfair competition
law ("UCL") violations under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200
et seq.; (derivative) wage statement violations under Cal. Labor
Code Section 226; and separation wages violations under Cal. Labor
Code Section 203.
For purposes of all five newly certified claims, the Court defined
a subclass as follows: Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass: All
individuals who have been employed, or are currently employed, by
Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural worker, who
worked on a piece rate basis at any time from September 30, 2011 up
to the present and were not separately compensated for rest periods
during their piece rate shifts.
In a second order modifying the original certification order, the
Court revised the subclass definition to include the same specific
end date as the class definition for the Plaintiffs' non-derivative
wage statement claim: All individuals who have been employed, or
are currently employed, by the Defendant as a non-exempt field
worker or agricultural worker, who worked on a piece rate basis at
any time from September 30, 2011, to November 5, 2019, and were not
separately compensated for rest periods during their piece rate
shifts.
Thereafter, the parties presented for approval a stipulated class
notice that included the following definitions of a general class
and subclasses that have been certified:
6. What General Class Has been Certified?
All individuals who have been employed or are currently
employed by Defendant J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor Inc.
as a non-exempt field worker or agricultural laborer who
worked at any time from September 30, 2011 to November 5,
2019.
7. What Subclasses Have Been Certified?
Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass:
All individuals who have been employed, or are currently
employed, by Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker, who worked on a piece rate basis at
any time from September 30, 2011 to November 5, 2019 were
not separately compensated for rest periods during their
piece rate shifts.
Inaccurate/Incomplete Wage Statement Subclass:
All individuals who were employed as a non-exempt field
worker or agricultural worker from September 30, 2012, to
November 5, 2019, by J. Jacobo Farm Labor Contractor, Inc.
AWPA Subclass:
All individuals who have been employed, or are currently
employed, by Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker, any time from September 30, 2011 to
November 5, 2019, who, due to the violations claimed
herein, were not paid wages due or provided employment
consistent with the terms of the employee's working
arrangements.
Business and Professional Code section 17200 Subclass:
All individuals who have been employed, or are currently
employed, by Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker, any time from September 30, 2011 to
November 5, 2019, who, due to the violations claimed
herein, were employed under unlawful or unfair business
acts or practices.
Final Paycheck Subclass:
All individuals who have been employed, or are currently
employed, by Defendant as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker, any time from September 30, 2011 to
November 5, 2019, who were not paid all wages due when they
were laid off, discharged or quit as required by the
California Labor Code.
The Court approved the class notice on December 8, 2020. On January
21, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation to amend the class
notice by modifying the class periods for the AWPA and Final
Paycheck Subclasses. Specifically, the parties agreed that the
class periods should be modified to "September 30, 2012, to
November 5, 2019," because "both of these subclasses are subject to
a 3-year statute of limitations." The Court approved the parties'
request and directed the parties to amend the class notice to
reflect that the correct class period for the AWPA and Final
Paycheck Subclasses is "from September 30, 2012, to November 5,
2019." At the same time, the Court also ordered the parties to show
cause as to why the definition for the Piece Rate Rest Period
Subclass should not be modified in the same fashion and for the
same reason.
The Court has specifically directed the parties to address the
California Supreme Court's determination in Murphy v. Kenneth Cole
Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094, 1099 (2007), that the remedy
for rest period violations under California Labor Code Section
226.7 is subject to the three-year statute of limitations under
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338(a). As the Court
explained in the order to show cause, Murphy appears to require
modification of the definition for the Piece Rate Rest Period
Subclass on the same basis that the other subclass definitions are
to be modified.
Aside from repeating the Court's direction, the parties have not
addressed Murphy. Instead, in their joint response, the parties
assert that the Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass is properly defined
in the class notice because Plaintiffs' rest period claim is
subject to the four-year statute of limitations governing claims
under the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17208. In support of
this assertion, the parties cite Maravilla v. Rosas Brothers
Construction, Inc., 401 F.Supp.3d 886, 901 (N.D. Cal. 2019). Their
application of this law to their case reads in full as follows:
Section 17208 of the UCL establishes a four-year statute of
limitations, providing that [a]ny action to enforce any cause of
action under this chapter will be commenced within four years after
the cause of action accrued.
In Maravilla v. Rosas Brothers Constructions, Inc. the Northern
District of California found that a Plaintiff who brought a wage
claim under the California Labor Code and also pled a cause of
action under the UCL was entitled to an additional year's worth of
wages. 401 F.Supp.3d 886, 901 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The Northern
District found that the UCL's restitution provision allowed the
employees to reach back one year further than the limitations
period for the wage claim. Id. As such, the class period for
Plaintiffs' rest period claim is subject to a four-year statute of
limitations.
Flatly, this conclusion is wrong, Senior District Judge Anthony W.
Ishii opines. In Maravilla, the court granted judgment in the
plaintiff's favor on his claim for unpaid wages under California
Labor Code Section 1194 and on his UCL claim for an "additional
year's worth of unpaid wages based on hours banking for which he
cannot recover under his section 1194 claim." In other words,
although his Section 1194 claim was subject to a three-year statute
of limitations, the plaintiff could obtain "additional" relief
because his UCL claim was subject to the four-year limitations
period under Section 17208 (relying on Cortez v. Purolator Air
Filtration Prods. Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 178-79 (2000)).
The same dynamic is at play in the case, Judge Ishii finds. The
correct class period start date for the Plaintiffs' rest period
claim is September 30, 2012, as this claim is subject to the
three-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 338(a). Murphy, 40 Cal. 4th at 1099. Judge Ishii
insists that the correct class period start date for the
Plaintiffs' UCL claim is September 30, 2011, as this claim is
subject to the four-year statute of limitations under California
Business and Professions Code Section 17208. See Blanks v. Seyfarth
Shaw LLP, 171 Cal.App.4th 336, 364 (2009).
While Section 17208 provides the statute of limitations for UCL
claims and the Plaintiffs have a UCL claim that the Court has
certified and the Plaintiffs' certified UCL claim is in part
derivative of their allegations that the Defendant's rest period
practices violated Labor Code Section 226.7, the Plaintiffs' UCL
claim is distinct from their rest period claim, Judge Ishii
explains. The Court's order to show cause directed the parties to
address the Plaintiffs' rest period claim, not their UCL claim. In
so far as the class notice separately defines individual subclasses
for all of the certified class claims, the Piece Rate Rest Period
Subclass must be modified.
Rather than order for this change to be made, however, the Court
will direct the parties to modify the class notice in such a way
that clears up other possible confusion arising from the class and
subclass definitions. Specifically, the parties will strike from
the class notice the general class definition and the definitions
of the AWPA Subclass, the Business and Professional Code section
17200 Subclass, and the Final Paycheck Subclass. In other words, a
portion of the stipulated class notice will be revised to read as
follows:
6. What Classes have been Certified?
Inaccurate/Incomplete Wage Statement Subclass:
All individuals who were employed by J. Jacobo Farm Labor
Contractor Inc. as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker at any time from September 30, 2012, to
November 5, 2019.
The Inaccurate/Incomplete Wage Statement Subclass applies
to the certified claim for Defendant's alleged violation of
the California Labor Code for failure to provide accurate
wage statements.
Piece Rate Rest Period Subclass:
All individuals who were employed by J. Jacobo Farm Labor
Contractor Inc. as a non-exempt field worker or
agricultural worker at any time from September 30, 2011, to
November 5, 2019, and who worked on a piece rate basis and
were not separately compensated for rest periods during
their piece rate shifts. The Piece Rate Rest Period
Subclass applies to the certified claim for Defendant's
alleged violation of California Labor Code and Industrial
Wage Order provisions regarding employee rest periods. The
subclass also applies to the following certified claims
that are derivative of the rest period claim: alleged
violations of the federal Agricultural Workers Protection
Act, California's unfair competition law under California
Business and Professions Code, and California Labor Code
and Industrial Wage Order provisions regarding wage
statements and separation wages.
Along with some minor consistency modifications, this revision
ensures the class notice accurately reflects the two subclasses
that the Court defined in its certification orders, Judge Ishii
says. Under this revision, the class period for the Piece Rate Rest
Period Subclass covers the multiple class claims for which this
subclass definition applies. This includes the Plaintiffs' rest
period claim and their derivative AWPA, wage statement, and
separation wages claims, all of which are governed at least in part
by a three-year statute of limitations. It also includes the
Plaintiffs' derivative UCL claim, which is governed by the
four-year statute of limitations under Section 17208.
Revising the class notice in this manner also eliminates another
problem with the subclass definitions for the derivative claims.
When these claims were certified, the Court recognized the
Plaintiffs' position that these claims are wholly derivative of
their rest period claim. Yet, in providing a unique subclass
definition for each claim, the parties' stipulated class notice
omits this connective tissue. As things stand, the class notice
effectively defines the subclasses for the derivative claims as
though the claims are free-standing.
Without tying back to the rest period allegations, the class notice
could give a mistaken impression that certain class claims exist,
when such claims have never been certified, Judge Ishii notes.
While the class notice could be modified to indicate that the
respective subclasses are based on derivative claims, the simpler
and cleaner solution is to entirely remove the separate subclass
definitions from the class notice. Doing so aligns with the Court's
previous certification orders, and comes at no cost given that the
class notice otherwise describes the different alleged violations
that are at issue in the class action lawsuit.
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
1. The order to show cause issued on January 26, 2021, is
discharged;
2. The original certification order and the second
modification order are modified to the extent that the
certified class claims are further defined in this order;
and
3. The class notice will be amended in a manner that is
consistent with the order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4rbzkdkh from Leagle.com.
JANSSEN BIOTECH: Co-Lead Counsel in Louisiana Antitrust Suit Named
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.,
Plaintiffs v. JANSSEN BIOTECH INC., JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC., JANSSEN
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC, and BTG INTERNATIONAL LTD., Defendants.
SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN BIOTECH INC.,
JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC., JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC, JOHNSON
& JOHNSON, and BTG INTERNATIONAL LTD., Defendant, Case Nos.
19-14146 (KM) (JBC), 19-14291 (KM) (JBC) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin
McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting CAC Plaintiffs' proposal that:
a. Thomas Sobol and Lauren Barnes of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, James Dugan of The Dugan Law Firm, Sharon Robertson of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Joseph Meltzer of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, and Joe Leniski of Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC, each be appointed as co-lead counsel for the
proposed class;
b. Thomas Sobol, Lauren Barnes, and Sharon Robertson be
appointed as co-chairs of the co-lead counsel committee; and
c. James E. Cecchi be appointed as interim liaison counsel.
The cases are consolidated, antitrust, class-action cases by
end-payors of Defendants' drug Zytiga. The counsel for the
Plaintiffs named in the Consolidated Amended Complaint ("CAC
Plaintiffs") in Case No. 19-14146 moved to appoint interim lead
class counsel and proposed a leadership structure. The counsel for
Self-Insured Schools of California ("SISC") in Case No. 19-14291
moved to appoint different interim lead class counsel and proposed
a different leadership structure.
The litigation began with Plaintiff end-payors Louisiana Health
Service & Indemnity Co., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Louisiana, and HMO Louisiana, Inc., filing a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Similar cases on behalf of other end-payor Plaintiffs were filed in
that district, and the Plaintiffs proposed that the cases be
consolidated and that interim class counsel be appointed. That
court consolidated the cases and transferred them to the present
District. CAC Plaintiffs then renewed their motion for the
appointment of class counsel.
A few days after the transfer, SISC, another end-payor, filed a
similar complaint in the Court. SISC asked that the cases be
consolidated and that it be included in a counsel-leadership
structure. The cases were consolidated, and the counsel for all
the Plaintiffs were directed to meet and confer on a
counsel-leadership structure or otherwise brief the Court on their
differing positions. CAC Plaintiffs, representing five of the six
total Plaintiffs, disagreed with SISC, the sixth Plaintiff, on
counsel leadership. The cases have been stayed pending issues
related to the appointment of lead counsel.
In addition, there is a related case against the Defendants brought
on behalf of government payors regarding the same drug, United
States ex rel. Silbersher v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. 19-12107.
That case was originally brought by the same counsel as SISC's,
although that counsel has since withdrawn from Silbersher. Because
Silbersher relates to the consolidated antitrust cases, it too has
been put on hold pending resolution of the leadership issues and
recommencement of the antitrust cases, so that discovery and other
pretrial matters can be coordinated to conserve the resources of
the Court and the parties.
CAC Plaintiffs and SISC propose different counsel and leadership
structures in connection with the appointment of interim lead
counsel.
CAC Plaintiffs essentially propose that representatives from each
of the five Plaintiffs act as co-lead counsel and that three
attorneys co-chair a co-lead counsel committee. That is, CAC
Plaintiffs propose that Thomas Sobol and Lauren Barnes of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, James Dugan of The Dugan Law Firm, Sharon
Robertson of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Joseph Meltzer of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, and Joe Leniski of Branstetter,
Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, each be appointed as co-lead counsel for
the proposed class. They further propose that Thomas Sobol, Lauren
Barnes, and Sharon Robertson be appointed as co-chairs of the
co-lead counsel committee. Finally, CAC Plaintiffs propose that
James E. Cecchi be appointed as interim liaison counsel.
SISC asks that its counsel, Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, be appointed as lead or co-lead counsel. It asks that Mr.
Saveri be appointed with either one or two firms from the CAC
Plaintiffs, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll. But SISC also suggests that Mr. Saveri would be sufficient
as sole lead counsel. As support, it argues that Mr. Saveri is
uniquely positioned to serve as lead counsel because he undertook
substantial work investigating and commencing the Silbersher
action, which predates the antitrust actions and has factual and
legal overlap.
Judge McNulty concludes that CAC Plaintiffs' proposed counsel and
structure would better serve the interests of the proposed class.
At the outset, both sets of proposed counsel have shown that they
have performed work related to these actions and possess
experience, knowledge, and resources. Indeed, the counsel for CAC
Plaintiffs and SISC readily acknowledge each others' base
qualifications. Rather, the issue between them boils down to
whether Mr. Saveri's experience with Silbersher makes him uniquely
positioned to lead these cases. Judge McNulty concludes that it
does not.
He opines that CAC Plaintiffs have proposed a structure that has
the support of most Plaintiffs, and Mr. Saveri has not presented
sufficient reason to upend that structure. In fairness to Mr.
Saveri, however, the Judge considers whether he should be
incorporated into CAC Plaintiffs' proposed structure somehow.
Unfortunately, CAC Plaintiffs and Mr. Saveri/SISC have been at
loggerheads over leadership issues for well over a year now.
Indeed, CAC Plaintiffs have already tallied a list of grievances
they have with Mr. Saveri. The Judge does not assign fault, but as
a practical matter it does not seem that Mr. Saveri can be
incorporated into the leadership structure without risking
dysfunction.
The case needs to move forward, a majority of the Plaintiffs and
the counsel agree on the path forward, and minority concerns cannot
easily be accommodated. Accordingly, Judge McNulty approves CAC
Plaintiffs' proposal.
For these reasons, he granted CAC Plaintiffs' motion for
appointment of counsel, and denied SISC's motion. A separate order
will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/d4tcg6d3 from Leagle.com.
JUUL LABS: Richland 2 School District Won't Join Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The State reports that Richland 2 school district will not be
joining a class-action lawsuit against vaping giant JUUL, at least
for now, the board voted on Feb. 9.
The lawsuit alleges JUUL engaged in deceptive marketing practices
and marketed its product to minors. JUUL has said it has curbed
advertising, is less harmful than alternatives and that its
customer base is adults.
Board member Amelia McKie made a motion to join the lawsuit, which
saw support from district Superintendent Baron Davis.
"Sometimes you take on an issue and lend your voice so others who
don't have a voice can have the strength to do so," Davis said. "So
we wanted to join the collective group of school districts that say
'we believe vaping is wrong and we want to do something about
it.'"
"Sometimes you have to be the one to step up and make a stance,"
said Davis, who noted Richland 2 is the fifth-largest school
district in South Carolina.
McKie said schools throughout the country have had issues with
students vaping and she had heard from a local teacher, parent and
a principal they were concerned about vaping in Richland 2
schools.
The motion to join the suit was a 3-3 vote, meaning it fails.
McKie, Cheryl Caution-Parker and Manning voted for joining the
suit. Lashonda McFadden, Agostini and Elkins voted against joining
the lawsuit. Board member Teresa Holmes was not present at the
meeting because she was sick, board chair James Manning said.
Board members Monica Elkins and Lindsay Agostini voted against
joining the lawsuit because Richland 2 has no data to back up how
many students in the district are using JUULs or vapes, they said.
"Richland 2 is a data-driven school district," Elkins said. "I
can't support something in the dark."
If the class-action lawsuit were to be successful, it's unclear how
much money Richland 2 would receive, nor what the money would be
used for, Manning said. However, board members floated ideas such
as teacher pay raises or a scholarship for students pursuing a
degree in medicine.
Richland 2 isn't the first S.C. Midlands school district to
consider joining the suit. In October, Lexington 1 became the first
school district in S.C. to join the case, which is based in
California, The State previously reported.
JUUL, a international corporation, has a footprint in the S.C.
Midlands. In 2019, JUUL announced it would build an assembly and
packaging plant in Lexington County, which promised to create 500
jobs, The State previously reported. [GN]
KOCH INDUSTRIES: Sanchez Says Website Inaccessible to Blind Users
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00959 (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2021) alleges the Defendant of
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 resulting from its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant's Website,
www.dixie.com, has multiple access barriers which denied him full
and equal access to the Website similar to that of sighted
individuals. During his visits to the Website, the last occurring
in November 2020, those access barriers deterred him from learning
about the Defendant's various paper products for purchase and
delivery, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.
Moreover, the Defendant allegedly engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination due to the Defendant's failure to provide the
Plaintiff and other visually-impaired with equal access to its
Website as a result of its failure to comply with the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Guidelines.
The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint seeking a
preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit the Defendant from
violating the ADA, as well as compensatory damages including all
applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, pre- and
post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees,
litigation costs and expenses, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Koch Industries, Inc. is a paper products manufacturing company
that owns and operates the Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN @ MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Tel: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
KROGER CO: Must Face Workers' Overtime Wage Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Karlik, writing for Colorado Politics, reports that a
federal judge has given preliminary approval to a class action
lawsuit against King Soopers and its parent company, Kroger, that
alleges certain workers were denied overtime pay in violation of
federal law.
"The pandemic has hit front line grocery workers hard, and
assistant store managers at King Soopers -- and, indeed, throughout
Kroger's entire operations -- deserve to be paid properly. We look
forward to proceeding to the next phase in the case which will
focus on King Soopers' improper pay policies," said Jason Conway,
the Philadelphia-based attorney who brought the lawsuit.
On Jan. 25, U.S. District Court Judge Raymond P. Moore issued an
order allowing all current and former assistant store managers who
worked for King Soopers or City Market between July 7, 2017 to the
present to join the lawsuit. Within seven days, the Kroger Company
needed to provide the plaintiffs' lawyer with the names and contact
information for all such employees.
Within 21 days of Moore's order, the plaintiffs are to notify all
people who are part of the class about the lawsuit, and Kroger will
post an announcement in an employees' section of each store in
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Finally, employees or
former workers who wish to join must submit consent forms to the
court within 60 days.
The lawsuit concerns allegations that assistant store managers were
exempt from overtime pay, even though they performed largely the
same work as hourly employees, such as moving freight, stocking
shelves and working as cashiers.
Conway filed suit against Kroger, as well as one against
Lakewood-based Natural Grocers, arguing that the company violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime for work
performed above 40 hours per week. He said he expected more than
700 current and former assistant store managers to receive notice
of the lawsuit.
"We expect many will choose to join the case and challenge King
Soopers' policy of denying them overtime compensation for working
50-60 (and often more) hours a week," Conway said.
A spokesperson for King Soopers did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
The case is Powell v. The Kroger Company et al. [GN]
LAVENDER LINGERIE: Townsend Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FELICIA TOWNSEND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAVENDER LINGERIE LLC d/b/a SAVAGE
X FENTY, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-10251-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich.,
February 3, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against
the Defendant seeking injunctive relief pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant sent her automated
marketing text message on January 14, 2021 on her cellular
telephone number ending in 0871 in an attempt to promote its
products. Allegedly, the Defendant did not obtain her express
written consent to receive such text messages using an automatic
telephone.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals, who received the Defendant's automated text
messages, were harmed by the Defendant's unlawful conduct. Thus,
the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
transmission of text messages using an ATDS, as well as statutory
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Lavender Lingerie LLC sells women's lingerie through the website
www.savagex.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com
LAW OFFICES: Friedman Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA FRIEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN COHEN, LLC and
ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00611 (E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2021) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking
damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to WebBank. The alleged debt was purportedly sold by
WebBank to Defendant Accelerated, who contracted with the Defendant
Law Offices to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about
November 19, 2020, Defendant Law Offices sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff concerning the alleged debt owed to WebBank. The
letter is materially misleading because it states that the balance
may increase from day to day due to statutory interest and fees,
which is a threat that overshadows the "g-notice" language and
coerces the consumer not to exert his rights under the FDCPA, and
directly contradicted with the $0.00 "Post Charge Off Interest"
listed in the balance breakdown, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged deceptive, misleading and
unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons have been damaged. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks
damages and declaratory relief on behalf himself and of a class of
New York consumers.
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
LELY NORTH: Counts 1 & 2 in Kruger Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JARED KRUGER, Plaintiff v. LELY NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
LELY INDUSTRIES N.V., LELY INTERNATIONAL N.V., LELY HOLDING B.V.,
and MAASLAND N.V., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-629 (NEB/DTS) (D.
Minn.), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
Plaintiff Kruger purchased a Lely Astronaut A4 robotic milking
system that he alleges contained latent defects that ruined his
milk and caused infections in his cows. Kruger, on behalf of
himself and a putative class, sued several Lely entities: Lely
Holding B.V., Maasland N.V., Lely International N.V., Lely
Industries N.V., and Lely North America, Inc. ("Lely N.A.").
In March 2015, Kruger, a dairy farmer who lives in Wabasha,
Minnesota, contracted with Dairyland Equipment Services, a dealer
of Lely products, to purchase an Astronaut A4 milking system. The
Customer Agreement between Kruger and Dairyland contained a Limited
Product Warranty, which warranted that the A4 system would be free
from defects in material and workmanship.
In November 2015, Kruger began using the A4 system to milk his
cows. In spring 2016, Kruger noticed a heightened somatic cell
count in his cows' milk, which, by August, was high enough that the
milk could no longer be certified as Grade A. He claims this spike
in somatic cell count was due to infection of his cows' udders
caused by defects in the A4 system.
Kruger contacted Dairyland and told it that the A4 system was not
performing as warranted. Specifically, he noted, the system was
not detecting mastitis, properly examining milk quality, or
separating contaminated milk.
Dairyland sent personnel to examine the A4. Despite the Dairyland
personnel washing the system and checking the vacuum pump, the A4
continued to malfunction. Due to the A4's continued defects, in
December 2016, Kruger ceased using it and reverted to his old
milking system.
Kruger, along with three other dairy farmers who had purchased A4
systems, sued Lely in a purported class action. The other dairy
farmers later voluntarily dismissed their claims, leaving Kruger as
the sole Plaintiff. Kruger then filed the Amended Class Action
Complaint, including claims for breach of contract, breaches of
express and implied warranties, negligence, strict liability, and
fraudulent concealment. The Amended Complaint also includes claims
that Lely violated three Minnesota statutes: the False Statement in
Advertising Act, the Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, and the
Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Lely brought two motions to dismiss: one for lack of personal
jurisdiction over several Defendants and one for failure to state a
claim. The Court previously denied the motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction and ordered limited jurisdictional
discovery. The Court now considers Lely's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
For breach of contract, Lely contends that Kruger's breach of
contract claims should be dismissed because Kruger has not alleged
that he is a party to a contract with any of the Lely entities, and
he is not a third-party beneficiary of the Dealer Agreement between
Lely and Dairyland.
Judge Brasel holds that Kruger's breach of contract claims against
Lely fail because Dairyland was not Lely's agent and because he
cannot maintain his duplicative warranty-as-contract claim. She
holds that though, the Customer Agreement's provision for Lely
providing ongoing support for its machines, along with any alleged
express warranties, does not constitute a contract between Lely and
Kruger. The fact remains that Lely was not a party to the Customer
Agreement, and as such, Lely cannot be held liable for an alleged
breach of that contract.
Judge Brasel also dismisses Kruger's third-party beneficiary breach
of contract claim because he was not a third-party beneficiary of
the Dealer Agreement. She finds that although it is true, in an
indirect sense, that Kruger benefitted from the Dealer Agreement
requiring Dairyland to extend Lely's warranty to the purchaser, it
does not make Kruger an intended third-party beneficiary. Rather,
Kruger is better categorized as an incidental beneficiary of the
Dealer Agreement.
Kruger's third-party beneficiary theory also suffers from the same
problem as his argument that he has a contract with Lely by virtue
of Lely's representations and warranties--this theory is
duplicative of Kruger's breach of warranty claim. Aside from its
form, and like his warranty-as-contract argument, it is not clear
what differentiates Kruger's claim that he is a third-party
beneficiary of the Dealer Agreement's warranty provision from
Kruger's breach of warranty claim. As such, Judge Brasel dismisses
Kruger's third-party beneficiary claim.
Lely argues that the Court should dismiss Kruger's claims for
breach of express and implied warranties due to Kruger's failure to
allege pre-suit notice and because the terms of the Customer
Agreement's warranty preclude his implied warranty claims. Kruger
contends that he has adequately pled pre-suit notice and that his
implied warranty claims should not be dismissed because the
Customer Agreement's warranty is void or voidable because it is
unconscionable and fraudulently induced.
Judge Brasel finds that Kruger has adequately pled pre-suit notice
and that the implied warranty claims should not be dismissed.
Kruger has sufficiently alleged that Lely's omissions fraudulently
induced him to purchase the A4 system. Specifically, Kruger
alleges that Lely had knowledge of the A4's defects but did not
disclose them to Kruger or any other purchaser of an A4 system.
Further, he has alleged that he would not have purchased the A4 if
he had known of its defects. As such, Kruger has alleged facts
that support his claim that he was fraudulently induced to purchase
the A4 system. If he were so fraudulently induced, the contract
containing the Limited Product Warranty would be voidable. Because
the disclaimer may be voidable, the Court will not dismiss Kruger's
implied warranty claims at this stage.
Further, there is no indication that Kruger acted in bad faith, and
to dismiss his warranty claims for lack of pre-suit notice would
deprive Kruger, a good faith consumer, of his remedy, thus cutting
against the justification for requiring pre-suit notice. Because
Kruger has alleged that he has given sufficient pre-suit notice,
his breach of warranty claims will not be dismissed.
Lely then argues that the economic loss doctrine bars Kruger's tort
claims to the extent they are based on diminution in value of the
A4 system or on costs to retrofit Kruger's barn. But because
Kruger seeks to recover for damage to property other than the A4
system, and the Court cannot, on a motion to dismiss, limit the
damages Kruger may recover on his tort claims, Judge Brasel will
not dismiss those claims.
Lely's final argument is that the Court should dismiss Kruger's
fraudulent concealment and state statutory claims because he has
not pled fraud with sufficient particularity to satisfy Rule 9(b).
When a plaintiff alleges fraud, he or she must plead the
"circumstances constituting fraud" with particularity. This means
that the plaintiff must plead the "who, what, when, where, and how"
of the alleged fraud. The plaintiff must make more than conclusory
allegations that the "defendant's conduct was fraudulent and
deceptive."
Kruger's fraud claims are adequately pled, Judge Baylson holds.
Kruger has offered more than conclusory allegations that Lely
committed fraud. Because he has sufficiently alleged the
circumstances of Lely's allegedly fraudulent activity, his
fraudulent concealment and state statutory claims will not be
dismissed.
Based on the foregoing and on all the files, records, and
proceedings therein, Judge Brasel granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim. Counts One and Two of the Amended Class Action Complaint
are dismissed with prejudice; and the remaining claims against the
Defendants remain pending.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ykae5jmd from Leagle.com.
LIVE NATION: Keller Lenkner Joins as Co-Counsel in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC on Feb. 10
disclosed that it has joined global business litigation firm Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as co-counsel in a national
antitrust class-action lawsuit against Live Nation and its
Ticketmaster unit for illegally monopolizing the markets for
primary and secondary ticketing services.
"Keller Lenkner is proud to partner with Quinn Emanuel, and we are
eager to bring our antitrust experience and expertise to the table
to help stop the anticompetitive behavior of Live Nation and
Ticketmaster," Keller Lenkner Partner Warren Postman said.
Keller Lenkner's reputation in the antitrust arena has quickly
grown, due in part to ongoing antitrust actions against Google,
Facebook, and Intuit. "We believe in this work, because every
consumer and business benefits from a marketplace in which there is
honest, fair competition," Postman said.
The complaint against Live Nation and Ticketmaster was filed last
year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. It alleges that Ticketmaster and its parent company,
Live Nation, have used their dominance to stifle competition,
control ticketing services, and inflate ticketing prices. As the
largest promoter of concerts at major U.S. venues, Live Nation
purposely reinforces Ticketmaster's dominance by threatening to
withhold shows from those venues that do not work with both
companies.
The case follows a move by the U.S. Department of Justice to review
Live Nation's $2.5 billion merger with Ticketmaster—specifically
scrutinizing the concert promoter's repeated retaliation against
venues that choose to sell tickets through other providers outside
of Ticketmaster.
The consumers are represented by Warren Postman, Ben Whiting, and
Albert Pak of Keller Lenkner LLC and Frederick A. Lorig, Kevin Y.
Teruya, and Adam B. Wolfson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP.
The case is Mitch Oberstein et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment
Inc. et al., No. 2:20-cv-03888 (C.D. Cal.).
About Keller Lenkner
Keller Lenkner LLC represents plaintiffs in complex litigation
matters in federal and state courts throughout the nation. The firm
acts for clients in many types of cases, including class and mass
actions, arbitrations, and multi-district litigation matters. Its
team includes four former law clerks at the Supreme Court of the
United States and former partners and associates from the country's
leading law firms. Since its founding in 2018, the firm has secured
results for more than 100,000 clients.
MEDIA CONTACT:
For Keller Lenkner: Travis Lenkner, Managing Partner –
312.741.5223 – tdl@kellerlenkner.com
http://www.kellerlenkner.com[GN]
LIZHI INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 10 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Lizhi Inc. ("Lizhi" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LIZI) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or
"shares") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 2020
initial public offering ("IPO" of the "Offering"). Lizhi investors
have until March 22, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2OTBzHJ to participate.
In January, 2020, Lizhi conducted its IPO, issuing 4.1 million ADSs
priced at $11.00 per ADS.
On April 20, 2020, Lizhi admitted that before the IPO, as early as
"late 2019," the COVID-19 pandemic was already negatively impacting
its business.
Since the IPO, Lizhi shares are trading below $4 per share, or 63%
below the IPO price.
The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) at the time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already
ravaging China, the home base, principal market, and significant
hub for Lizhi, its employees, and its customers; (2) the
complications associated with the coronavirus were already
negatively affecting Lizhi's business, as employees and customers
contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced
difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content
critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior to the IPO, Lizhi
employees and customers complained of, and to, Lizhi, which harmed
the Company's reputation and financial condition and prospects; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Lizhi securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than March 22, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Lizhi securities, have information or 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LIZHI INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies. Investors have until the
deadlines listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Lizhi Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI)
Class Period: January 2020 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) at the time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already
ravaging China, the home base, principal market, and significant
hub for Lizhi, its employees, and its customers; (2) the
complications associated with the coronavirus were already
negatively affecting Lizhi's business, as employees and customers
contracted the virus, lost employment, or otherwise experienced
difficulty in generating, publishing, and monetizing the content
critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior to the IPO, Lizhi
employees and customers complained of, and to, Lizhi, which harmed
the Company's reputation and financial condition and prospects; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' 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 Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
To be a member of these class actions, 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 these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
MEDMEN ENTERPRISES: Settles Marijuana Suit for Nearly $1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana Business Daily reports that a 2 1/2-year-old class action
lawsuit brought by former employees of multistate marijuana
operator MedMen has almost concluded, with the lead plaintiffs
asking a California judge to approve a proposed $975,000
settlement.
A hearing is scheduled for March 1.
According to Law360.com, the settlement would amount to roughly
$414 for each of the roughly 1,300 participating class members in
the suit.
The lawsuit alleges that Los Angeles-based MedMen:
* Failed to compensate employees sufficiently for the hours they
put in both on and off the clock.
* Did not grant mandatory meal or rest breaks.
* Did not keep accurate logs of employee work hours.
The employees covered by the class action were employed by MedMen
at its California shops between November 2014 and September 2020.
The suit was filed in November 2018.
The lead plaintiffs, Chelsea Medlock and Anthony Torres, are
requesting that the Los Angeles County Superior Court approve the
settlement, which was reached through mediation among the
plaintiffs and the company in 2019, according to a Feb. 2 court
filing.
The settlement amount covers $325,000 in attorney fees, $75,000 for
settlement of penalties, $15,000 for settlement administration
costs and almost $11,000 for litigation costs, Law360.com
reported.
MedMen trades on the Canadian Securities Exchange as MMEN and on
the U.S. over-the-counter markets as MMNFF. [GN]
MGB CATERING: Shipp Seeks Exotic Dancers' Unpaid Wages & Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE SHIPP, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. MGB CATERING, INC. d/b/a MINT
LOUNGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-20546-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February
9, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendant for its alleged intentional and willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an exotic dancer at
its Mint Lounge strip club in Miami Gardens, Florida during the
period of January 2019 through about June 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated exotic dancers were misclassified by the Defendant as
independent contractors. As a result, they were not paid any wages
by the Defendant for hours worked, thereby failing to pay them the
legally mandated minimum wage. Allegedly, the Defendant unlawfully
required them to pay per-shift house fee kickback for each shift
worked, and kept and/or assigned to management their tips and
gratuities received from customers.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages, all tips and
gratuities unlawfully taken by the Defendant, statutory liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief a may be
necessary and appropriate.
MGB Catering, Inc. d/b/a Mint Lounge operates as the Mint Lounge
Strip Club featuring female exotic dancers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Gallup, Esq.
GALLUP AUERBACH
4000 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 265 South
Hollywood, FL 33021
Tel: (954) 894-3035
E-mail: dgallup@gallup-law.com
- and –
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: (301) 587-9373
E-mail: greenberg@zagfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Must Provide Adkins With Chain-of-Title Documents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
orders the Defendant to provide the Plaintiffs with chain-of-title
documents within 15 days in the lawsuit styled STEPHANIE ADKINS
and, DOUGLAS SHORT, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-04107 (S.D.W. Va.).
The Court has received the parties' Joint Report Regarding
Remaining Case Events in Response to the Court's Order of January
25, 2021, filed February 1, 2021. The parties set forth a timeline
to bring the case to judgment. The parties also requested the
Court's guidance on the arbitration and date of breach exclusions.
Regarding arbitration, on June 7, 2019, the Honorable Irene C.
Berger ordered the Defendant to file motions to compel arbitration
with respect to any class member within 30 days. On July 8, 2019,
Defendant Midland Credit Management filed its Motion to Compel
Arbitration in which the Defendant requested additional time to
provide a full list of accounts subject to arbitration. Plaintiffs
Stephanie Adkins and Douglas Short filed their response on August
7, 2019, and the Defendant filed its reply on August 14, 2019. The
case was reassigned to District Judge Frank W. Volk on October 29,
2019.
On September 28, 2020, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration without prejudice and ordered a summary trial
for October 27, 2020. In its order over 14 months after the
Defendant was ordered to submit its motions to compel arbitration,
the Court noted that the Defendant "encounters strong headwinds in
attempting to essentially bypass production of the actual
agreements."
Before the summary trial, the parties filed a stipulation on
October 22, 2020, and identified 5,351 accounts bound by
arbitration agreements to be excluded from the class. The parties
represented they entered into the stipulation in light of the
expected time and anticipated burden of holding a summary trial
regarding whether the accounts were subject to arbitration
agreements.
However, the Defendant stated that it makes this stipulation
without prejudice to the arguments made in its Opposition to Class
Certification and in its briefing on the Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Amend Class Definition that the existence of and
determination whether members of the class are bound by arbitration
agreements or class action waivers, raise individualized issues
that render treatment of this case as a class action
inappropriate.
The Court understands this reservation to mean that the Defendant
continues to resist class certification. It is noteworthy that the
stipulation does not claim there are additional accounts subject to
arbitration agreements, Judge Volk says. Nevertheless, the Court is
obliged to rigorously enforce arbitration agreements. To compel
arbitration, the Defendant must demonstrate the four factors
enumerated in the September 28, 2020 Order. It has offered to
provide the Plaintiffs with chain-of-title documents within 15
days, and the Court orders them to do so.
The parties also requested guidance regarding the process for
excluding accounts regarding the date of breach and calculating the
statute of limitations. The September 28, 2020, Order concluded
that the class definition "incorporates a time period long enough
to ensure that the accounts are past the statute of limitations."
The Court further observed that the ministerial matter of objecting
to class members Defendant wishes to contest does not overwhelm the
common questions of law and fact.
Throughout the litigation, Judge Volk notes, the Defendant suggests
that its records are just onerous enough to search so as to render
it immune to certification. The assertion ultimately proves too
much, however; in sum, the Defendant cannot claim its internal
records are inaccurate when used by the Plaintiffs and accurate
when used to defeat class certification, Judge Volk points out.
As the Court has observed time and again, claims administration is
the choke point to exclude the odd account falling outside the
class parameters.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this written
opinion and order to counsel of record and to any unrepresented
party.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ibs4cyb4 from Leagle.com.
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: $6.7-Mil. Lechner Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska issued a final
order of approval of class-action settlement in the lawsuit titled
TAMERA S. LECHNER, Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha
401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a class of all those
similarly situated; REGINA K. WHITE, Individually, on behalf of the
Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings Plan and on behalf of a
class of all those similarly situated; and STEVEN D. GIFFORD,
Individually, on behalf of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term
Savings Plan and on behalf of a class of all those similarly
situated; Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED
OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 8:18CV22 (D.
Neb.).
The case is an action for alleged violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001,
et seq. The Court held a fairness hearing on the motion on February
1, 2021. The Class counsel and the counsel for the Defendants
appeared at the hearing by videoconference. No one appeared at the
hearing to object to the settlement.
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon finds the following
non-opt-out class should be finally certified under Rule 23(b)(1)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for purposes of the
Settlement Agreement:
All persons who are or were participants or beneficiaries in
one or both of the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Long-Term Savings
Plans and the Mutual of Omaha 401(k) Retirement Savings
Plans (the Plans) at any time during the Class Period,
including any Beneficiary of a deceased person who
participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during
the Class Period, and/or Alternate Payee, in the case of a
person subject to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who
participated in one or both of the Plans at any time during
the Class period. Excluded from this Class are all current
and/or former employees of Defendants who were members of
the Administration Committee, Investment Committee, and IMOC
during the Class Period.
The Court also finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, it rules that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement
is granted. The Settlement of the Class Action is approved. The
Plaintiffs and Defendants are directed to take the necessary steps
to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Action and all Released Claims, whether asserted by the Class
Representatives on their own behalf or on behalf of the Class
Members, or derivatively to secure relief for the Plans, are
dismissed with prejudice and without costs to any of the Plaintiffs
and Defendants, except as otherwise provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over the Action solely to
enforce the Settlement Agreement, but such retention of
jurisdiction will not affect the finality of the Final Approval
order and Judgment.
The Settlement Administrator will have final authority to determine
the share of the Net Settlement Amount to be allocated to each
Current and Former Participant pursuant to the Plan of Allocation
specified in Article 6 of the Settlement Agreement, which has been
approved by the Court.
With respect to payments or distributions to Former Participants,
all questions not resolved by the Settlement Agreement will be
resolved by the Settlement Administrator in its sole and exclusive
discretion.
Within 21 calendar days following the issuance of all settlement
payments to Class Members as provided by the Plans of Allocation
approved by the Court, the Settlement Administrator will prepare
and provide to the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel a list of
each person who received a settlement payment or contribution from
the Qualified Settlement Fund and the amount of such payment or
contribution as required by Section 6.8 of the Settlement
Agreement.
The Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney fees, and approval
of incentive awards, and litigation expenses in the total amount of
$2,233,333 is granted.
The Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses and the
Plaintiffs' incentive or case contribution award will be paid
pursuant to the timing requirements described in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Plan of Allocation for the Settlement Fund is approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Any modification or change in the Plan of
Allocation that may thereafter be approved will in no way disturb
or affect the Final Order and will be considered separate from this
Final Order.
Upon the effective date of the Final Order, the Settling Parties,
the Class Members, and the Plans will be bound by the Settlement
Agreement as amended and by the Final Approval Order.
A judgment for attorney fees, expenses, and incentive awards in the
amount of $2,233,333. will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2v9nqcvu from Leagle.com.
MXD GROUP: $5M Settlement in Kimbo Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH KIMBO, an individual; on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MXD GROUP, INC., a
California corporation; RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida Corporation;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00166 WBS
KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of the parties' $5 million
class action settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a class
representative service payment.
Plaintiff Kimbo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees, brought the putative class action against
Defendants MXD and Ryder, alleging various violations of the
California Labor Code. On Aug. 6, 2020, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.
The Plaintiff's counsel estimates that motor carrier class members
will receive an average of approximately $8,871, while non-carrier
class members will receive an average of approximately $1,074.
Each class member's individual share of the settlement is
proportional to the number of weeks the class member worked for
defendants during the time period covered by the Settlement
Agreement. Additionally, the workweeks for Motor Carrier Class
Members will be calculated at 4 times the workweek payment rate for
class members whereas the workweeks for Non-Carrier Class Members
will be calculated at the single workweek payment rate for class
members.
The Settlement Agreement also sets aside $150,000 of the common
fund for civil penalties under PAGA, $37,500 of which will be
distributed evenly to the PAGA Group, the subset of class members
who worked for the Defendants during the PAGA period.
The Settlement Agreement further provides for an award of
attorney's fees totaling 25% of the $5 million Gross Settlement
Amount. The Plaintiff's counsel has filed a separate motion for
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Federal Rule 23(h). As part
of the settlement, the parties agreed to an award of attorneys'
fees of $1.25 million, which constitutes 25% of the gross
settlement fund. Once attorneys' fees and costs, the Plaintiff's
service award, the PAGA allocation, the estimated costs of
settlement administration, and the money set aside for the Reserve
Fund (to pay any late or anticipated claims) have been distributed,
an estimated Net Settlement Amount of approximately $3,437,669 will
be distributed to the members of the settlement classes.
The parties agreed that the Plaintiff's counsel will be entitled to
recover reasonable litigation costs, not to exceed $20,000. The
counsel's litigation expenses and costs are $15,525.10. These
expenses include filing fees, court fees, service of process,
mediation fees, legal research, overnight and bulk mail, and copies
and postage. The legal research charges correspond to the actual
costs incurred in conducting legal research specific to the case,
rather than a pro-rata or other share of the Plaintiff's counsel's
firm's generalized legal research costs.
The single named Plaintiff, Kimbo, seeks an incentive payment of
$15,000, an amount that is significantly higher. Kimbo represents
that he has devoted significant time and resources to the case over
a period of three years, risking both his finances and his
reputation.
The parties selected Heffler Claims Group LLC to serve as the
Settlement Administrator.
The Plaintiff now moves unopposed for final approval of the
parties' class action settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a
class representative service payment.
Judge Shubb finds that the settlement set forth in the settlement
agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motions for final approval of the
parties' class action settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and a
class representative service payment.
Solely for the purpose of the settlement, and pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Judge certified the following
class:
(a) all motor carrier owners who directly contracted with
defendants in his or her individual capacity or through a business
entity and provided transportation services to the Defendants in
California at any time from Dec. 12, 2014 through the earlier of
July 26, 2020 or the date of the Order ("motor carrier class");
and
(b) all individuals who did not contract with the Defendants
and are non-owner drivers and helpers authorized to provide
transportation services for the Defendants in California at any
time from Dec. 12, 2014 through the earlier of July 26, 2020 or the
date of the Order ("non-carrier class").
Judge Shubb appointed (i) named Plaintiff Kimbo as the class
representative, and (ii) the law firm of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky LLP as the class counsel.
Because the notice to the class complies with Rule 23(c)(2) and
Rule 23(e), the Judge approved and adopted it.
The Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to fees in the amount of $1.25
million, and litigation costs in the amount of $15,525.10. Heffler
Claims Group LLC is entitled to administration costs in the amount
of $49,701.50. Plaintiff Kimbo is entitled to an inventive award
in the amount of $5,000. An amount equal to
From the gross settlement amount: (i) $112,500 will be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency in satisfaction
of the Defendants' alleged penalties under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act, and (ii) $125,000 will be set aside in a
reserve fund in the event there are settlement class members who
are not identified until after the initial mailing of settlement
checks, but who are eligible to participate in the settlement.
The reserve fund will also include the amount of any checks that
are sent but remain uncashed after 60 days. After expiration of
the 60-day period, the reserve fund will be used to pay
unanticipated or late claims. Any residual still remaining will
then be donated to the parties' designated cy pres beneficiary, St.
Christopher's Fund. The remaining settlement funds will be paid to
participating class members in accordance with the terms of the
settlement agreement.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Shubb dismissed the action with
prejudice. However, without affecting the finality of the Order,
the Court will retain continuing jurisdiction over the
interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement with respect to all parties to the action and their
counsel of record.
The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1dexamek from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL SECURITIES: New York Court Dismissed Johnson Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed the lawsuit entitled KAY JOHNSON, individually and
derivatively and on behalf of National Holdings Corporation,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 19 CV 6197-LTS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), with prejudice.
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. Accordingly, it
is ordered that the action is dismissed with prejudice as to the
Named Plaintiff and without prejudice as to all the other
Plaintiffs and without costs to either party, but without prejudice
to restoration of the action to the calendar of District Judge
Laura Taylor Swain if settlement is not achieved within 30 days of
the date of the Order.
If a party wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within
which it may be settled, the party must make a letter application
before the 30-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1wxhg74e from Leagle.com.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Naqi Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, NAIM NAQI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a MR.
COOPER, Defendant, Case No. CACE-21-002355 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud.
Ct., February 3, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant was attempting to collect
from the Plaintiff an alleged debt arising from a transaction
between the creditor and the Plaintiff involving the provision of a
loan to purchase a home. However, although the Defendant received a
notice on December 11, 2020 that the Plaintiff was represented by
an attorney with respect to the alleged debt and that the Defendant
was not permitted to contact the Plaintiff directly, yet the
Defendant called the Plaintiff on or about December 17, 2020 in an
attempt to collect the alleged debt. Accordingly, the Defendant
allegedly violated Fl. Stat. Section 559.72(18) by communicating
directly with the Plaintiff in connection with the collection of
the Consumer Debt via the Direct Communication.
The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, costs and attorneys' fees,
and an injunction prohibiting the Defendant from engaging in
further collection activities directed at the Plaintiff and members
of the FCCPA Class.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper is a debt collector.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 907-1136
Fax: (855) 529-9540
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
tom@jibraellaw.com
NEXTCURE INC: Schall Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against NextCure,
Inc. ("NextCure" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NXTC) 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 in 2019, are
encouraged to contact the firm immediately.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3udg5Wf 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. NextCure made numerous misleading
statements about its treatment candidate, NC318. The Company misled
the market on NC318's effectiveness and patient responses to the
candidate, among other things. 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 NextCure,
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]
NISSAN MOTOR: Suit Alleges Transmission Technology Contain Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Nissan Rogue CVT class action
lawsuit alleges the transmissions contain defects that cause the
SUVs to jerk, shudder, lurch, shake and suffer from acceleration
problems.
The Nissan Rogue CVT lawsuit includes all consumers who purchased
or leased 2014-2016 Nissan Rogue SUVs in the U.S.
According to the Rogue class action lawsuit, the CVT (continuously
variable transmission) doesn't use conventional gears but instead
uses a segmented steel belt between pulleys that can be adjusted to
change the reduction ratio in the transmission.
However, the class action alleges Nissan has known since 2013 the
Rogue CVTs are defective and dangerous.
The Nissan Rogue CVT class action lawsuit was filed by three
owners. One of those owners purchased a new 2015 Nissan Rogue in
Alabama, but she says she wouldn't have purchased the SUV if Nissan
would have told her about the CVT.
Plaintiff Teresa Stringer says the Rogue first had transmission
problems in 2017 when it hesitated when trying to accelerate. The
Rogue allegedly suffered from excessive revving with high RPM but
without the vehicle accelerating normally. The Rogue also jerked or
juddered and the transmission slipped when driving at highway
speeds.
According to the class action lawsuit, the plaintiff took the Rogue
to Nissan dealers multiple times and over the course of several
visits paid about $400 for repairs that didn't help the CVT.
The transmission lawsuit references technical service bulletins
(TSBs) issued to dealerships from Nissan regarding Rogue
transmissions, starting with a bulletin issued in October 2015.
* TSB NTB15-083: Concerns 2014-2016 Nissan Rogues and reprogramming
the transmission control modules due to "a transmission judder
(shake, shudder, single or multiple bumps or vibration)."
* TSB NTB15-084a: Outlines a procedure for replacement of the
Nissan Rogue CVT assembly.
* TSB NTB15-086a: Concerns 2014-2016 Nissan Rogues that may
"hesitate and/or have a lack of power" and prescribes various
service procedures including replacement of the CVT assembly.
* TSB NTB15-084b: Concerns 2014-2016 Nissan Rogues and a
"transmission judder (shake, shudder, single or multiple bumps or
vibration)," with dealers told to replace CVT assembly or the valve
body.
* TSB NTB15-086f: Concerns 2014-2016 Nissan Rogues and replacing
the CVT assembly, valve body and reprogramming the transmission
control module.
The Rogue CVT class action lawsuit says transmission failure can
cost an owner a small fortune to repair, yet the automaker hasn't
recalled the SUVs and hasn't offered to reimburse owners for the
expenses.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege Nissan dealers often refuse to
make repairs even when the Rogues are still under their
warranties.
The Nissan Rogue CVT class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee: Stringer, et
al., v. Nissan of North America, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Branstetter Stranch & Jennings
PLLC, Greenstone Law APC, and Glancy Pronga. [GN]
NORTHERN MANUFACTURING: Sarnes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SARNES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN MANUFACTURING, c/o Statutory Agent
William Petrykowski, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00287-JRK (N.D.
Ohio, February 3, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices
and policies that violated the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing
employee between October 2018 and June 2020 at the Defendant's Oak
Harbor, Ohio manufacturing facility.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant classified him and other
similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees.
However, despite frequently working over 40 hours per week, the
Defendant paid them only for the work they performed between their
scheduled start and stop times. The Defendant allegedly refused to
pay them for the time they spent performing pre- and post-shift
duties which are integral and indispensable part of their principal
activities. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
manufacturing employees were not compensated for all of the time
they worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked over
40 each workweek, the suit says.
Northern Manufacturing is a sheet metal fabrication company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert B. Kapitan, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Bouevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
robert@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
NVIROTECT PEST: Osbourne Seeks Pest Control Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER OSBOURNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NVIROTECT PEST CONTROL SERVICES, INC., and
CRAIG KURRACK, individually, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-00300-KKM-SPF (M.D. Fla. February 8, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants
for their alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Pest Control
technician from approximately February 14, 017 until December 10,
2020.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not pay him his
lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 per
work week. The Plaintiff asserts that he worked numerous hours off
the clock, including unpaid drive time hours, working through
lunch, and arbitrary time card deductions. Also, the Defendant
failed to keep accurate time records, the suit says.
Nvirotect Pest Control Services, Inc. provides pest control
services. Craig Kurrack is a corporate officer/director of the
Corporate Defendant with operational control and direct control
over the day-to-day operations, including compensation of
employees. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWEN, LLC
16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
Lutz, FL 33558
Tel: (727) 254-5255
Fax: (727) 483-7942
E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
chris@fgbolaw.com
ONTARIO: Proposed Settlement Reached in Assault Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
indiantime.net reports that to all persons who were Crown Wards in
Ontario at any time from the period on or after January 1, 1966
until March 30, 2017 and suffered physical or sexual assault before
or while a Crown Ward ("Class Members")
A proposed settlement has been reached with Ontario in this class
action to provide compensation of up to $3,600 to Class Members who
are former Crown Wards who suffered physical or sexual assault
before or while a Crown Ward.
This lawsuit is not about seeking money from your abusers for the
abuse you suffered. The lawsuit is about the government's alleged
duty to consider and, where appropriate, apply for specific
benefits on behalf of Crown Wards who were victims of crime, or to
seek damages in civil actions on behalf of Crown Wards. The
lawsuit, and this settlement, do not impact your ability to sue
someone who abused you.
If you opted out of the class action, the settlement will not
impact you.
There will be a court hearing on May 12, 2021 to decide whether the
proposed settlement of the lawsuit should be approved. The hearing
will take place virtually.
There is no money available now. If the court approves the
settlement and you are part of the lawsuit, you can then make a
claim.
To obtain further information, please visit
https://OntarioCrownWardClassAction.ca or contact Epiq Global at
1-877-739-8936, or by email at
info@ontariocrownwardclassaction.ca.
The lawyers acting for the class are Koskie Minsky LLP. You may
also contact Koskie Minsky LLP at 1-866-778-7985, or by email at
OCWclassaction@kmlaw.ca.
If you approve of the settlement and want it to proceed so you can
claim money, you do not need to take any steps. If you want to
object to the settlement, you must send an objection to Epiq Global
by April 1, 2021.[GN]
OOMA INC: Faces Class Action Over FREE Home Phone Service
---------------------------------------------------------
Champlain Avocats (Montreal, Quebec) and Evolink Law Group
(Burnaby, British Columbia) are counsel in a proposed national
class action against Ooma, Inc. and Ooma Canada Inc. (collectively
"Ooma") before the Federal Court of Canada.
This proposed class action is on behalf of all individuals resident
in Canada who have subscribed to Ooma's FREE home phone service at
any time after August 3, 2014. The class action seeks damages
against Ooma, including punitive damages, an accounting of profits,
and/or a court order restraining Ooma from using the word FREE to
describe its basic home phone services.
For more information or to subscribe to our notification list,
please visit http://evolinklaw.com/ooma-class-action/
Counsel for the proposed class action are:
* Me Jeremie John Martin of Champlain Avocats
(info@champlainavocats.com)
* Me Sebastien A. Paquette of Champlain Avocats
(info@champlainavocats.com)
* Mr. Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group (info@evolinklaw.com) [GN]
P&E EXPRESS: Fassa Sues Over Failure to Pay Delivery Drivers' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHEIKI FASSA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P&E EXPRESS INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00542-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, February 5, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful policies and practices
that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Wage and
Hour Law.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as delivery
driver, asserts that although he and other similarly situated
delivery drivers worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek,
the Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve records of all
required and unpaid work performed by its delivery drivers, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of unpaid
wages, as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount, attorney's
fees and costs of litigation, and other relief as the Court deems
equitable and just.
P&E Express Inc. is a logistics company that delivers packages.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 East Ninth St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: 216-230-2955
E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W. Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: 330-470-4428
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
PAN PACIFIC: Hotel Workers Vote to Unionize in Wake of Mass Firings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
vancouversun.com reports that in the middle of a pandemic, the Pan
Pacific hotel fired many of its long-term workers.
Those workers have now voted 75 per cent in favour of unionizing
and joining Unite Here! Local 40, which filed a class-action
lawsuit on their behalf last month.
The union says more than 60 per cent of workers in the hotel
industry are women, and many of them are immigrants, visible
minorities and Indigenous.
"I'm so proud of Pan Pacific workers who voted for the union and
joined Local 40. We are excited to join a union of hotel workers
who are determined to get through this pandemic together," said
Jerty Gaa, a public area attendant fighting to be recalled to her
job of 11 years.
"This vote shows that women in the hotel industry are standing up
and fighting for better protection, wages, and benefits, and most
importantly -- fighting to save our careers," she said.
The move to unionize came after management fired groups of
long-term workers without cause or notice in March 2020. The
terminations totalled 100 but came in batches of under 50. That,
the lawsuit alleges, was to circumvent group termination payout
regulations in the Employment Standards Act.
The hotel temporarily laid off most of its salaried workforce
because the employment contracts allowed them to do that, but
contracts for hourly employees -- including the 100 terminated
workers -- did not have any provisions allowing for temporary
layoffs. Instead of issuing layoff notices, the hotel reduced their
hours or stopped providing work altogether, according to the civil
claim filed in B.C. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit also alleges the hotel misled and wrongfully fired
workers, cheating them out of full severance pay. Remaining workers
were asked to sign an agreement to waive their severance rights and
give up their regular full-time status in exchange for a $250 bonus
and health benefits. Some of them were fired anyway.
The hotel acknowledged in each of the 100 class members'
termination letters that the termination was without cause and
provided them with no notice of termination and then paid the
minimum compensation in lieu of notice required by law, the union
says. [GN]
PENNYMAC LOAN: Faces Lepsch FDCPA Suit in D. Massachussetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PennyMac Loan
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Lepsch v. PennyMac Loan
Services, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-30010-MGM (D. Mass., Feb. 1,
2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving fraud. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mark G.
Mastroianni.
PennyMac Loan Services is an American residential mortgage company
headquartered in Westlake Village, California and is the principal
mortgage banking subsidiary of PennyMac Financial Services, Inc.
PennyMac originated $22.0 billion in mortgage loans in 2012.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street, 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
Facsimile: (413) 455-1594
E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph A. Farside, Jr., Esq.
Jeffrey C. Ankrom, Esq.
Krystle S. Guillory, Esq.
LOCKE LORD LLP
2800 Financial Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 274-9200
Facsimile: (401) 276-6611
E-mail: joseph.farside@lockelord.com
jeffrey.ankrom@lockelord.com
krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com
PENUMBRA INC: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of March 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Feb. 10 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that 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"). Penumbra
investors have until March 16, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
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 $188.82 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.
If you purchased Penumbra securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than March 16, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Penumbra securities, have information or 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
PERATON INC: Faces Shaw Suit Over Aerostat Operators' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAKE SHAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERATON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-00045 (S.D. Tex., February 3, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in August 2019 as a Field
Service Engineer II to assist in the operation of aerostats.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated aerostat operators consistently worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant paid them straight time
only for all hours they worked. The Defendant failed to compensate
them for the overtime hours they worked at one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay, the suit says.
Peraton, Inc. is a defense contractor that provides surveillance
services to the U.S. government. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberley, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Letourneau Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Cecilia
Letourneau v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
and JTI-Macdonald Corp.
In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v. Imperial
Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald
Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September 1998, RBH
and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and
JTI-Macdonald Corp.) are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought compensatory and
punitive damages for each member of the class who is deemed
addicted to smoking.
The class was certified in 2005. The trial court issued its
judgment on May 27, 2015. The trial court found RBH and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131
million (approximately $102.3 million) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $36 million) to RBH.
The trial court estimated the size of the addiction class at
918,000 members but declined to award compensatory damages to the
addiction class because the evidence did not establish the claims
with sufficient accuracy.
The trial court found that a claims process to allocate the awarded
punitive damages to individual class members would be too expensive
and difficult to administer. On March 1, 2019, the Court of Appeal
issued a decision largely affirming the trial court's findings of
liability and the total amount of punitive damages awarded
allocating CAD 57 million including interest (approximately $44.5
million) to RBH.
RBH and PMI believe the findings of liability and damages in both
Letourneau and the Blais cases were incorrect and in contravention
of applicable law on several grounds including the following: (i)
defendants had no obligation to warn class members who knew, or
should have known, of the risks of smoking; (ii) defendants cannot
be liable to class members who would have smoked regardless of what
warnings were given; and (iii) defendants cannot be liable to all
class members given the individual differences between class
members.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Dorion Class Complaint Still Not Served
------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company
has yet to be served with the complaint in the class action suit
entitled, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et
al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta, Canada,
filed June 15, 2009, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus infections
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government
health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
Philip Morris said, "To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Jacklin Class Suit Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Suzanne Jacklin
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc., and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD")
resulting from the use of tobacco products.
She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who have smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered, or suffer, from
COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: McDermid Class Action Underway in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al.
In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the company, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.,
and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.
He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly caused by
smoking, their estates, dependents and family members, plus
disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1,
1954, to the date the claim was filed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PHILIP MORRIS: Unit in Colombia Faces Rebolledo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Philip
Morris Colombia S.A. continues to defend a purported class action
suit in Colombia entitled, Ana Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris
Colombia S.A., et al.
In Colombia, an individual filed a purported class action, Ana
Ferrero Rebolledo v. Philip Morris Colombia S.A., et al., in April
2019 against the company's subsidiaries with the Civil Court of
Bogota related to the marketing of the company's Platform 1
product.
Plaintiff alleged that the company's subsidiaries advertise the
product in contravention of law and in a manner that misleads
consumers by portraying the product in a positive light, and
further asserts that the Platform 1 vapor contains many toxic
compounds, creates a high level of dependence, and has damaging
second-hand effects.
Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and damages on her behalf and on
a behalf of two classes (class 1 - all Platform 1 consumers in
Colombia who seek damages for the purchase price of the product and
personal injuries related to the alleged addiction, and class 2 -
all residents of the neighborhood where the advertising allegedly
took place who seek damages for exposure to the alleged illegal
advertising).
The company's subsidiaries answered the complaint in January 2020,
and in February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint modifies the relief sought on behalf of the
named plaintiff and on behalf of a single class (all consumers of
Platform 1 products in Colombia who seek damages for the product
purchase price and personal injuries related to the use of an
allegedly harmful product).
Philip Morris International Inc., through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells cigarettes, other nicotine-containing
products, and smoke-free products and related electronic devices
and accessories. The company was incorporated in 1987 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
PORNHUB: Alleged Alabama Child Porn Victim Sues in Federal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Koplowitz at al.com reports that a 16-year-old Alabama girl
who claimed she was drugged and raped and that the sexual abuse was
filmed and uploaded to PornHub was one of two girls who filed a
federal class action lawsuit against the adult video site's parent
company.
The lawsuit alleges PornHub profited from sex trafficking and did
not take steps to ensure its videos did not contain victims of
child pornography or rape.
The suit, filed in federal court in Birmingham against MindGeek --
PornHub's parent company -- alleges that the site violated a number
of laws, including the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act, which allows victims to sue entities in civil
court who benefit from "a venture that it should have known was
engaged in a violation, including that an act involving a child 18
years of age or under constitutes a violation," according to the
complaint.
The girl, who is not named in the lawsuit, was drugged and raped in
2018 by a Tuscaloosa man who uploaded video of the sexual assault
to PornHub, the suit claims. The alleged rapist is also not named
in the suit, and he is not named as a defendant.
Lawyers for the teen, who along with an underage California girl
brought the federal lawsuit in Alabama, said PornHub did not make
an effort to check whether she was a minor or victim of rape or sex
trafficking.
"At no time did MindGeek or PornHub attempt to verify [her]
identity, age, inquire about her status as a victim of trafficking,
or otherwise protect or warn against her traffickers before or
while the video of her being drugged and raped was sold,
downloaded, viewed and otherwise advertised on PornHub," the suit
goes on to say.
In addition to unspecified money damages, the lawsuit also asks
MindGeek to develop measures to identify and remove child
pornography from its adult sites.
"MindGeek's business model facilitated a massive surge in child
pornography by making it easy to access and distribute these
horrific crime scenes throughout the world," said Gregory Zarzour
of the Zarzour Law Firm in Birmingham, one of six firms
representing the girls and the affected class. "The courageous
survivors, identified as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe 2#, are proud to
stand up for themselves and the multitude of other victims. This
lawsuit is a defining moment for survivors and a warning to those
who dare to profit from the rape of children."
"The monetization of child sexual abuse is a pernicious stain on
America," said Josh Hayes, partner at Prince Glover Hayes in
Tuscaloosa. "Today's filing marks the beginning of the end of these
unholy profits."
PornHub could not immediately be reached for comment. [GN]
PRESSED JUICERY: Tunkett Dates Cont'd Pending Mediation in Alvarado
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California continued pending deadlines in the
case styled JASON TUNKETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. PRESSED JUICERY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:20-CV-09287-HSG (N.D. Cal.), pending outcome of
mediation in related lawsuit titled Krystal Alvarado v. Pressed
Juicery, Inc., et al., Case No. 20STCV43455.
The case is a Fair Labor Standards Acts ("FLSA") collective action
and state law wage and hour class action asserted against the
Defendant. The action was filed on Dec. 22, 2020, and served on
Defendant Pressed on Dec. 29, 2020. The parties filed a stipulation
on Jan. 15, 2021, extending Pressed's deadline to respond until
Feb. 17, 2021. The Court has set a March 30, 2021 Case Management
Conference.
There is a pending case in Los Angeles Superior Court; a related
action captioned Krystal Alvarado v. Pressed Juicery, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 20STCV43455, filed on Nov. 13, 2020. Pressed filed an
answer in the Alvarado Action on Jan. 13, 2021.
The Alvarado Action is a representative proceeding under
California's Private Attorney's General Act, California Labor Code
section 2699, et seq. ("PAGA"). The instant Action and Alvarado
have substantially overlapping allegations.
In particular, the Alvarado Action and the Action both purport to
assert wage and hour violations on behalf of the same
California-based non-exempt employees of Pressed. Both the
Alvarado Action and the Action allege the same purported state law
wage and hour violations on behalf of those employees. Also, the
FLSA claims alleged in the Action are based on the same conduct
alleged in both Actions to also violate state law.
The parties to the Alvarado Action have agreed to an early
mediation of the claims asserted in that case. The claims in the
Action and the Alvarado Action do have some distinctions. The
Alvarado Action does not expressly allege FLSA claims and also
asserts the state law violations only through PAGA, which covers a
shorter time period than direct wage and hour claims. However, the
parties to the Alvarado Action have already discussed that any
settlement of that Action will be on a classwide basis and include
all claims over all time periods that could be asserted under the
FLSA or over the longer time periods covered by direct state wage
and hour claims. Accordingly, any settlement of the Alvarado
Action will cover all claims and parties at issue in this actions
and effectively resolve all claims at issue here, except as to any
potential opt outs.
The mediation of the Alvarado Action has been scheduled for March
24, 2021, before former Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lisa Hart
Cole.
Local Rule 3-13 provides that where there are related pending
cases, the parties should "consider whether proceedings should be
coordinated to avoid conflicts, conserve resources and promote an
efficient determination of the action." Consistent with that
injunction, the parties believe that the applicable dates and
activity in the case should be continued until after the mediation
of the Alvarado Action, at which time the parties will know whether
this suit has been effectively resolved by settlement in the
Alvarado Action. And even if the mediation of the Alvarado Action
does not result in such a settlement, the parties would consider an
early mediation in the case that would then effectively resolve
claims in the related Alvarado Action.
In light of these facts, the parties stipulate as follows:
1. Defendant Pressed will be given an extension of time
through and including April 15, 2021, to respond to the complaint.
2. The Case Management Conference will be continued and reset
after the parties provide the notice specified in paragraph 3
below.
3. The parties will file with the Court, by not later than
April 7, 2021, a statement informing the Court whether a settlement
has occurred in the Alvarado Action that effectively resolves the
case, or alternatively if it has not, whether the parties propose
an early mediation in the action or other proposals for early case
resolution, along with a proposal for timing of the initial Case
Management Conference, for the rule Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
("FRCP") Rule 26 exchange, and for other deadlines under the FRCP
or Local Rules.
4. All pending deadlines for the FRCP Rule 26 conference and
exchange and all deadlines under the Local Rules, including the ADR
Local Rules, will be continued and reset based on the Case
Management Conference to be scheduled after the parties submit the
April 7, 2021 report.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Judge Gilliam so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pah5ixps from Leagle.com.
KEVIN E. GAUT -- keg@msk.com -- MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP, in
Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant Pressed Juicery,
Inc.
JAVITCH LAW OFFICE, Mark L. Javitch -- mark@javitchlawoffice.com --
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jason Tunkett individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.
PRO BASEMENT INC: Misclassifies Laborers, Makie Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
CODY MAKIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRO BASEMENT, INC. and LAWRENCE OTTE,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00160 (E.D. Mo., February 8, 2021)
brings this complaint alleging the Defendants of violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was a full-time employee of the Defendants working as
an Hourly Laborer from January 2020 through October 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, he was misclassified as an independent contractor.
Although he performed non-exempt duties for the Defendants, yet he
was not paid any overtime compensation at one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a given
workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
any wages for the final week that he worked approximately 68 hours
per week, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
interest.
Pro Basement, Inc. is a basement remodeling and repair company
owned and operated by Lawrence Otte. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza – Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Tel: (216) 525-8890
Fax: (216) 642-5814
E-mail: james@bswages.com
PRO-SEAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barazal Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
OSIEL BARAZAL; and LIVAN BARAZAL, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRO-SEAL USA, INC.; SPRAY
FOAM AMERICA LLC; LONNIE BECUDE; and JENNIFER L. LAWRENCE,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00100-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Feb. 8,
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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers.
Pro-Seal USA is an insulation contractor that specializes in spray
foam insulation, fiberglass insulation, an blow-in insulation.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Remand Laures Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand in the lawsuit captioned
SAGE LAURES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 20-cv-1047-SMY (S.D. Ill.).
The Plaintiff originally filed the purported class action against
Progressive in St. Clair County, Illinois Circuit Court alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and seeking contractual damages. According to the
Complaint, Laures was involved in an automobile accident with an
underinsured motorist on March 3, 2019. At the time, Laures was
insured under a policy issued by Progressive that contained
under/uninsured motorist coverage. He sought payment pursuant to
that coverage. On December 18, 2019, Progressive offered $5,000 for
his damages but did not tender payment.
Mr. Laures alleges that the failure to tender timely payment
(within 30 days of a claim) constitutes breach of contract (Count
I), violates the Act (Count II), and was "vexatious and
unreasonable" and subject to statutory penalties pursuant to 215
Ill. Comp. Stat. Section 5/155 (Count III). The Plaintiff further
claims that a class, "in the hundreds and most likely in
thousands," has been similarly denied timely payment of damages
related to accidents with under/uninsured motorists pursuant to
insurance policies underwritten by Progressive over a 10 year
period in Illinois.
Progressive removed the case to the Court, asserting jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332. The Plaintiff argues that the amount in controversy cannot
be calculated based on the allegations in the Complaint. He alleges
that he was offered $5,000 from Progressive, which was never paid,
his policy limits are $50,000, and he seeks $60,000 for each class
member in civil penalties for vexatious conduct. He further alleges
that the class includes hundreds if not thousands of individuals
and that his claims are typical of that class.
District Judge Staci M. Yandle holds that the Plaintiff's
allegation that damages do not exceed $5 million has no legal
effect, citing Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir.
2006).
Progressive has submitted sworn declarations to support its
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional requirement. While Progressive does not track the
number of claimants to whom it has made a settlement offer that was
not paid within 30 days, during the relevant time period,
approximately 1,794 under/uninsured motorists claims were made
pursuant to Illinois policies where payment was not tendered within
30 days of the claim being opened. The average amount paid on such
claims over the past 10 years is $19,073.10. From these figures, it
extrapolates that there are at least 1000 potential class members,
who would have at least $5,000 in damages, which, when added to the
civil penalties demand of $60,000 per class member, exceeds the $5
million jurisdictional threshold.
Judge Yandle opines that the Plaintiff has presented no
countervailing evidence of the amount in controversy. Thus,
Progressive has met its burden to show that is more likely than not
that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 8,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2u9fwlfa from
Leagle.com.
PROJECT VISUAL: Faces Nieto Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JORGE NIETO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT VISUAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a
PROJECT VISUAL, HUSEIN KERMALI, jointly and severally, Defendants,
Case No. 9:21-cv-00680 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful withholding of its employees' overtime
compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter from on
or about October 2019 until March 2020.
Despite routinely working in excess of 70 hours per week a required
by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was repeatedly deprived by the
Defendants of his lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and
one-half times his regular rates of pay for all hours he worked
over 40 in workweek. Instead, he was only paid a flat rate of $26
per hour per week with an occasional "bonus" paid. Moreover, the
Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate wage
statements detailing exact hours he worked, and with a notice
containing the rate and basis of his pay and other information, the
suit says.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees of
the Defendants, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking all
unpaid overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages
for failure to provide wage statements and notice, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
Project Visual International, Inc. d/b/a Project Visual
manufactures office furniture, fixtures & equipment. Husein Kermali
was a co-owner, principal, authorized operator, manager,
shareholder and/or agent of the Corporate Defendant, who had the
discretionary power to create and enforce personnel decisions on
behalf of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 203-2417
Fax: (212) 203-9115
www.FightForUrRights.com
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape" or the "Company") (NYSE:
QS) from November 27, 2020 through December 31, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit QuantumScape
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Company's
purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery
life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (ii) the
Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the
multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha. That
article pointed to a number of risks associated with QuantumScape's
solid state batteries. These risks make QuantumScape's batteries
"completely unacceptable for real world field electric vehicles."
The article specifically stated that QuantumScape's battery's power
meant it would "only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving."
On this news, the price of QuantumScape's shares fell $34.49 or
approximately 40.84% to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased QuantumScape securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/quantumscapecorporation-qs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-352/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 10
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against QuantumScape Corporation ("QuantumScape") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired QuantumScape securities between
November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/quantumscape-corporation-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=qunatumscape
Contact:
James Maro, Esq.: (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq.: (484) 270-1435
Toll free: (844) 887-9500
QuantumScape develops and commercializes solid-state lithium-metal
batteries for electric vehicles. The complaint alleges that on
January 4, 2021, prior to the open of trading, Seeking Alpha
published a research report entitled "QuantumScape's Solid State
Batteries Have Significant Technical Hurdles To Overcome." The
introduction of the Seeking Alpha report emphasized that
"QuantumScape's science is very good . . . [b]ut their batteries
are small and unproven – not yet as big as an iWatch battery, and
never tested outside a lab," adding that "[t]here are significant
risks associated with solid state batteries that have not been
overcome," and emphasizing that "[t]hey will likely never achieve
the performance they claim." Following this news, the market prices
of QuantumScape publicly traded securities fell precipitously, with
the price of QuantumScape's Class A common stock declining more
than 63% from its Class Period high of more than $131 per share on
December 22, 2020 to close down at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021, including a one-day decline of more than $34 per share, or
41%, on January 4, 2021.
QuantumScape investors may, no later than March 8, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com
http://www.ktmc.com[GN]
RCI HOSPITALITY: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841, is pending.
In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.
These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall); and Grossman v. RCI
Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the
Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall).
The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the
purported class actions. On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating
the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court. The
consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.,
No. 4:19-cv-01841.
On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall,
the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former
director Steven Jenkins as defendants. On April 24, 2020, the
Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
RCI said, "As of February 5, 2021, briefing on the motion to
dismiss is complete, and we are currently waiting for the court to
rule on the motion. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend against this action. This action is in its preliminary
phase, and a potential loss cannot yet be estimated."
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT: Dumas Says Collection Letter "Deceptive"
----------------------------------------------------------------
MENARDSON DUMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-10229-FDS (D. Mass.,
February 10, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act in 1977.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has a debt that was
allegedly incurred involving transactions for telecommunication
services to Dr. Poojah Saroh, who contracted with the Defendant to
collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or around February 12,
2020, the Defendant allegedly sent a collection letter to the
Plaintiff threatening him that the Defendant's negative credit
reporting will affect the Plaintiff's credit for the next seven
years, which is deceptive since the debt can only be reported on a
Plaintiff's credit report for seven years from the date of default.
The Plaintiff's account was in default well before February 12,
2020.
Further, the complaint asserts that the Defendant's letter is
deceptive tactic to coerce a payment from the Plaintiff by
threatening him with harm to his credit report for significantly
longer than allowable by law. The Defendant also failed to provide
the Plaintiff with a proper initial communication letter, which
overshadowed the Plaintiff's rights under the FDCPA, by soliciting
payment from the Plaintiff that must be within 5 days of an initial
communication, and threatening the Plaintiff of pending additional
fees if the balance is not paid within 5 days, the suit added.
Receivable Management Associates, Inc. is a det collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Brady, Esq.
ALTMAN & ALTMAN, LLP
689 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139
Tel: (857) 242-4856
Fax: (617) 649-8445
- and –
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
RESORT RENTAL: Website Lacks Accessibility Info, Garibay Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Garibay v. Resort Rental LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 3:21-cv-00767-AGT (N.D. Calif., Feb. 1, 2021) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
challenging the reservation policies and practices of a place of
lodging.
The Plaintiff does not know if any physical or architectural
barriers exist at the hotel and, therefore, is not claiming that
that the hotel has violated any construction-related accessibility
standard. Instead, this is about the lack of information provided
on the hotel's reservation Website that would permit the plaintiff
to determine if there are rooms that would work for him.
On January 5, 2020, while sitting bodily in California, the
Plaintiff went to Club Wyndham Canterbury reservation Website at
https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/resorts/wyndham-hotels-resorts/united-states-of-america/california/san-francisco/club-wyndham-canterbury
seeking to book an accessible room at the location.
The Plaintiff contends that the Website reservation system is owned
and operated by the Defendants and permits guests to book rooms at
Club Wyndham Canterbury. The Plaintiff found that there was
insufficient information about the accessible features in the
"accessible rooms" at the Hotel to permit him to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for him. For
example, he requires a raised toilet so he can safely transfer from
his wheelchair to the toilet. Without this feature, he risks
falling. The Website does not mention if the toilet has this
feature, he adds.
The complaint seeks for damages and injunctive relief in violation
of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights
Act.
Plaintiff is a California resident with physical disabilities. He
suffers from a T-12 spinal cord injury. He cannot walk. He uses a
wheelchair for mobility.
Resort Rental LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, owns and
operates the Club Wyndham Canterbury located at 750 Sutter St.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
Mail: 8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
RHINO BUSINESS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barboza Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTHOPHER J. BARBOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHINO BUSINESS GROUP LLC a/k/a
WESTAR AND CAR WASH; ANGEL D. CARELA; and BAZAM ALGHAZAWI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20541 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 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 Barboza as employed by the Defendants as cashier.
Rhino Business Group LLC a/k/a Westar And Car Wash provides car
washing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Daniluk Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DANILUK, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC;
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; CITADEL, LLC,
d/b/a CITADEL SECURITIES; POINT72 ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00980 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 8, 2021) is an
action seeking redress against the Defendants' successful attempts
to manipulate the prices of publicly-traded securities for the
benefit of themselves and their co-conspirators, to the detriment
of the class of retail investors, through deceptive and unfair
conduct, numerous breaches of contractual, fiduciary, and other
duties, and aiding and abetting the same.
According to the complaint, during the week of January 25, 2021,
the stock price of Gamestop Corp. ("GME") exploded, doubling in
value multiple times over, as mainstream news agencies began to
report on and thereby continue to spread the viral exhortation to
buy and hold.
On January 28, 2021, however, the mood of retail investors soured
when they discovered those investors making use of Robinhood's
services - a substantial portion - found themselves inexplicably
prohibited from buying additional GME shares, as well as certain
other stocks targeted for Main Street short squeezes, as Robinhood
encouraged them to sell those stocks. This, of course, would have
the ultimate effect of tanking the stock price, and saving Melvin
Capital Management ("Melvin") by kneecapping demand, but not before
depriving Robinhood clients of the opportunity to earn more profits
up until the stock price peaked. Wall Street's apparent response to
the successful GME short squeeze was not a soul-searching
self-examination of bad bets and excessive risk, but rather a
malicious attempt to disrupt retail investors' successful
investment strategies while preventing Melvin from going bankrupt.
When Wall Street lost, they simply changed the rules, the suit
says.
In beating back this populist rebellion against Wall Street's
dominance of American capital markets, Robinhood did more than
abandon its numerous marketing commitments to fight for and protect
Main Street - it left its own clients in a position to suffer
unnecessary losses, and breach numerous duties to its clients in
the process, added the suit.
Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company. The Company provides online and mobile application-based
discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles D. Marshall, Esq.
MARSHALL LAW FIRM
2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 575-7105
Facsimile: (855) 575-7105
E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Stock Trading Restrictions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Chiarello and David Aaro, writing for FOXBusiness, report
that Robinhood is facing a class-action lawsuit after restricting
trades on several stocks, including GameStop and AMC, two weeks
ago.
"Robinhood knew its actions would result in the restricted stock
prices to plummet," the lawsuit, filed by The Ferraro Law Firm,
reads in part. "By doing so, they were looking out for Wall Street
hedge funds at the expense of the individuals who were customers of
Robinhood."
"Robinhood is restricting securities such as GME [GameStop] from
its platform in order to slow growth and help benefit individuals
and institutions who are not Robinhood customers but are Robinhood
large institutional investors or potential investors," the lawsuit
says.
Robinhood did not return FOX Business' request for comment.
This lawsuit is unrelated to a lawsuit filed by the family of Alex
Kearns, a 20-year-old who committed suicide last year who
mistakenly thought he lost more than $700,000 in a risky bet on
Robinhood.
Jeff Kwatinetz and Sean Burstyn, attorneys from The Ferraro Law
Firm, are representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Burstyn claimed
that Robinhood "turned its back on its customers" by placing
restrictions on trades.
"This case is about Robinhood having exposure to GameStop shares,
and when that came up, it basically had a meltdown," Burstyn said
on Feb. 8 on "Mornings with Maria," adding that he believes a
provision the company is using to defend its actions would not hold
up in court.
"Once everybody had suffered, they said, well, there's a provision
that says 'We can make some adjustments here and there.' This was
absolutely not contemplated by that provision," Burstyn said.
"And if that provision were used in a court to exculpate Robin Hood
from liability for its gross negligence, I don't believe any court
would go for that," he added. "And I can say, as an attorney, that
would be inconsistent with the applicable law."
Kwatinetz went on to say that he believes the company "built a
platform that's designed to go down" and did not take
responsibility for its role in the market.
"[Robinhood] came on with this whole 'Let's democratize and give
access to millennials and younger people,'" Kwatinetz told Maria
Bartiromo. "They didn't take the responsibilities when it comes to
something like that."
Kwatinetz added that damages sought in the lawsuit could be "in the
billions." "We still have a long way to go to figure out exactly,
you know, how many people were affected," he said. [GN]
ROBINHOOD: Bonnett Fairbourn Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. filed a class action
lawsuit on January 20, 2021, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:21-cv-00415-SI,
against Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, and
Robinhood Markets, Inc. (collectively, "Robinhood") on behalf of a
proposed class of investors who used Robinhood's brokerage services
between September 1, 2016 and June 16, 2020 (the "Class Period") to
place investment orders in connection with which Robinhood received
payment for order flow (the "Class").
If you are a member of the putative Class described above, you may,
no later than March 8, 2021, move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the putative Class. You may contact counsel listed
below to discuss your rights with regard to the appointment of a
lead plaintiff or your interests in joining the class action, or
you may visit https://www.bffb.com/robinhood for more information.
You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any
action at this time to be a member of the Class.
The complaint generally alleges that Robinhood breached its
fiduciary duties and violated section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; California's Corporations Code §§ 25401
and 255504.1; California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1750 et seq.; and California's Business & Professions
Code Sections 17200 et seq. by breaching its duty of best
execution, accepting less price improvement for its customers'
trades than what principal trading firms were offering in exchange
for a higher rate of payment for order flow for itself,
misrepresenting its receipt of such payments and the execution
quality of its trades, omitting material revenue information from
its website and other communications with customers, and covering
up its order flow payments and poor execution quality.
The named plaintiff who purchased securities offered by Robinhood
is represented by Patricia N. Syverson, and Carrie A. Laliberte of
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., along with Laurence D.
Paskowitz of The Paskowitz Law Firm P.C. and Adam Frankel of
Greenwich Legal Associates LLC.
CONTACT:
Patricia N. Syverson
Carrie A. Laliberte
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC
602-274-1100Laurence D. Paskowitz
The Paskowitz Law Firm P.C.
212-685-0969Adam Frankel
Greenwich Legal Associates, LLC
(203) 622-6001 [GN]
S-L SNACKS NAT'L: 9th Circuit Affirms Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
December 4, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed a district court order dismissing, for lack of Article III
standing, a putative class action involving allegations that the
plaintiff was harmed by purchasing popcorn that contained partially
hydrogenated oils ("PHOs").
Plaintiff Jacquelyn McGee filed a putative class action against S-L
Snacks National alleging that S-L sold popcorn products that
contained PHOs, which she claimed were toxic and unsafe for human
consumption. She asserted claims for alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), nuisance, and breach
of the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiff McGee alleged that she suffered both economic and
physical injuries. As to the economic injuries, she claimed that:
(1) she did not get the benefit of her bargain because she thought
she was purchasing products that contained ingredients that were
safe for human consumption (the "price premium theory"); and (2)
she overpaid for the products because they were not actually fit
for human consumption and therefore had a value of $0 (the
"overpayment theory"). As to physical injuries, Plaintiff claimed
that the ingestion of PHOs immediately "inflame[d] and damage[d]
[her] vital organs" and "substantially increase[d]" the risk that
she would develop "heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and death" in
the future.
S-L moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, and the
district court granted that motion. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed in a published opinion.
As to Plaintiff's "price premium theory," the Ninth Circuit agreed
that allegations that a plaintiff bargained for a product that was
worth a given value but received a product worth less than that
value could, in some cases, support Article III standing to sue.
This was not such a case, however, because to demonstrate Article
III standing based on a "price premium theory," a plaintiff "must
do more than allege that she 'did not receive the benefit she
thought she was obtaining.'" Rather, she "must show that she did
not receive a benefit for which she actually bargained." Here,
Plaintiff had not shown that she did not receive a benefit for
which she actually bargained, because the labeling of the popcorn
products at issue disclosed that the products contained PHOs.
Plaintiff's "overpayment theory" fell short for similar reasons.
Although the Ninth Circuit agreed that overpayment could -- in some
instances -- be a viable theory of economic injury, to prevail on
such a theory, a plaintiff typically must show "that she paid more
for a product than she otherwise would have due to a defendant's
false representations about the product." Here, however, Plaintiff
did not allege that the S-L made any false representations or
fraudulent omissions about the popcorn products at issue. To the
contrary, the products' labeling disclosed the presence of PHOs.
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit stopped short of ruling that a
plaintiff must allege misrepresentations or fraudulent omissions to
state a claim based on an "overpayment theory." The court explained
that while some courts have suggested that such a theory might be
viable based on a hidden defect or if the product was worth
objectively less than what the plaintiff paid for it, Plaintiff had
not alleged either of those things here.
As to Plaintiff's allegations of physical injury, they were too
speculative to support Article III standing as a matter of law,
especially because Plaintiff did not allege that she had "undergone
medical testing or examination to confirm that she suffers from
[any] conditions or that they were caused by her consumption of
[the product at issue]." Nor had Plaintiff plausibly alleged that
her consumption of the product substantially increased her risk of
disease in the future.
The Ninth Circuit's opinion provides helpful authority for
class-action defendants to argue that a consumer's unilateral
expectations concerning a product's efficacy or safety are
insufficient to state a consumer protection claim -- particularly
when those expectations are either belied, or at least qualified,
by the full context of the product's labeling.
The case is McGee v. S-L Snacks National. [GN]
SAGE ECOENTERPRISES: Kuehn Sues Over Unlawful Tip Pooling
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIANA KARPELLS KUEHN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAGE ECOENTERPRISES, LLC and JAMES
R. TALLEY d/b/a GREEN SAGE CAFE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00031
(W.D.N.C., February 8, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher from
October 2019 to December 2019 and as a barista from December 2019
to January 2021.
According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully deducted 20%
of the tips earned by their baristas to pay non-tipped employees,
such as dishwashers, cooks, and pre cooks. Allegedly, the
Defendants impermissibly and improperly used the "tip credit" to
meet its minimum wage and overtime wage obligations under the FLSA.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated baristas
were paid below the legally mandated minimum wage and overtime
wage, the suit says.
By requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly situated baristas to
share tips with non-tipped employees, the Defendants have allegedly
forfeited their right to utilize the "tip credit" in satisfying its
minimum and overtime wage obligations to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated baristas.
SAGE Enterprises, LLC operates restaurants owned by James R.
Talley. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Narenda K. Ghosh, Esq.
Paul E. Smith, Esq.
PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
Tel: (919) 942-5200
Fax: (866) 397-8671
E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com
psmith@pathlaw.com
- and –
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza, 414 Union St., Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: (615) 244-2202
Fax: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barretjohnston.com
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sullivan's Site/Video Won't Be Taken Down
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont denies the
Defendant's request that it order the Plaintiffs' counsel to take
down their website and Youtube video in the lawsuit titled JAMES D.
SULLIVAN, LESLIE ADDISON, WILLIAM S. SUMNER, JR., RONALD S.
HAUSTHOR, GORDON GARRISON, LINDA CRAWFORD, TED CRAWFORD, and BILLY
J. KNIGHT, individually, and on behalf of a Class of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-125 (D. Vt.).
Chief District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford notes that the question
of class notice in the class action groundwater-contamination case
has been at issue for more than a year. In the weeks preceding the
release of formal notice to the property class members under Rule
23(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs
scooped the Court with a website and a YouTube video of their own.
The website uses the same URL that both parties had suggested in
their proposed class notices.
The Court has reviewed both the website and the YouTube video. The
video features the two Vermont lawyers on the Plaintiffs' team,
delivering an abbreviated version of an opening statement. The
website contains selected information about the case and laudatory
information about the attorneys. It also contains a "contact"
feature that permits residents to provide their names and addresses
to the Plaintiffs' counsel.
Judge Crawford holds that the website has effectively disqualified
itself as a neutral site, endorsed by the Court. Instead, it
belongs to one side and serves that side's purposes. It is not a
"class notice" subject to the requirement of objectivity and
neutrality. With the originally-proposed URL now in use by the
Plaintiffs, the Court and the parties will have to develop a
different mechanism for communicating the notice online to the
class members.
The Court considered ordering a disclaimer to be posted on the
website indicating that it is not court-sanctioned. But having
reviewed the site, no one is likely to come to that conclusion.
Like the video, it is an effort to change minds and influence
people in advance of the court process, Judge Crawford opines.
Although the website does not identify its author, anyone who reads
it through will understand that it must come from the Plaintiff's
counsel. Visitors to these sites are not likely to confuse the site
with a statement from the Court.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's request that it
order the Plaintiffs' counsel to take down the website and the
video.
A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2xo7nflm from Leagle.com.
SALPINO FOOD: Faces Baca Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BACA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SALPINO FOOD CORP., and PAUL BARBIERI,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00705 (E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants seeking equitable and
legal relief for the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt produce
worker at the Defendants' Wantagh Location from in or around
September 2001 until on or around June 29, 2020. Throughout his
employment with the Defendant, he regularly worked over 40 in
workweek. However, he was only compensated by the Defendant at a
fixed hourly rate for all hours he worked, including those he
worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff asserts that the
Defendant failed to pay him overtime compensation at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours he worked over 40
in a week, as well as spread of hours wages for every day in which
his shift exceeded 10 hours.
Moreover, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiff
with wage statement listing his regular and overtime rates of pay,
and with a notice at the time he was hired containing his rate of
pay and other information as required by the FLSA and NYLL.
Salpino Food Corp. operates two grocery stores in the Long Island
area. Paul Barbieri is a person in control of Salpino who exercises
significant control over its operations and has the authority to
hire, fire, and discipline its employees, determine the rate and
method of payment for employees, and maintain employment records.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 460-0047
Fax: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: nciliotta@katzmilinger.com
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Remand of Kelly Suit to State Court Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HUGH KELLY and CHRISTINE KELLY, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC,
Civil Action No. 20-3698 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
In May 2020, the Kellys filed a class action complaint in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas against Santander. The
complaint alleged that the Defendant violated the Uniform
Commercial Code ("UCC") and the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Sales
Finance Act ("MVSFA") by failing to comply with requirements for
repossession notices.
The Plaintiffs are Pennsylvania residents. Santander is a
nationwide bank that purchases retail installment sales contracts
through vehicle dealerships. In June 2017, Santander caused the
Plaintiffs' car to be repossessed for the failure to make loan
payments. The Kellys filed their complaint on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated people who have had their vehicles
repossessed by Santander in Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiffs' Complaint contains three main claims, each of which
centers around Santander's alleged failure to follow statutory
requirements under the UCC/MVSFA. Pennsylvania courts apply the
notice provisions of both statutes in cases of repossession.
The Plaintiffs first claim that the Notices of Repossession issued
by the Defendant listed an un-incurred storage expense as part of
the total amount required to redeem the vehicles in question. They
note that the Post-Sale Notices they received after Santander sold
their repossessed vehicle listed these fees as "$0," evidencing
that Santander either listed an inaccurate amount or never incurred
the storage expense. Second, the Plaintiffs claim that the Notices
of Repossession failed to disclose a Redemption Fee that a borrower
must pay in order to redeem the vehicle. And finally, the
Plaintiffs assert that the Notices of Repossession failed to
disclose a Personal Property Fee also required to redeem the
vehicle and/or recover any belongings left inside.
In the "Class Allegations" section of the Complaint, the Plaintiffs
note that due to the Defendant's affirmative concealment and/or
self-concealing nature of this wrongdoing(s) in the Notices of
Repossession, the Class Period extends back to the date when the
Defendant first instituted the deceptive business practices,
The Plaintiffs exclusively brought these claims under state law.
They request minimum statutory damages only, and their Complaint
notes they do not make allegations of actual or concrete injury and
they deliberately failed to plead facts sufficient to meet the
requirements of Article III standing.
The Defendant removed that case to the district under the Class
Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiffs now move to remand the case to
state court. The Plaintiffs' primary argument is that they have no
standing in federal court. Accordingly, they argue that this Court
must remand the case to the Court of Common Pleas for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiffs' Complaint makes an improper attempt to avoid federal
jurisdiction by disclaiming potential remedies and injury on behalf
of absent putative class members.
As far as Judge Baylson can tell, Langer v. Cap. One Auto Fin., No.
16-6130, 2019 WL 296620 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2019), is the only case
in our circuit that addresses removal in the context of the UCC and
MVSFA. There, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the
Court of Common Pleas against Capital One for violating notice
provisions in the Pennsylvania Commercial Code (PCC) and MVSFA in
relation to the repossession of their vehicle.
Capital One removed the case to federal court and the plaintiffs
moved to remand to the Court of Common Pleas. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion. It held emphasized that the plaintiffs'
allegations described actual damage in the loss of their vehicle
and the existence of monetary loss. The complaint also alleged
that the Department of Transportation would not have transferred
title from plaintiffs to Capital One had the DOT been aware of the
purported violations. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought to
restrain and enjoin any collection of loan balances, and requested
the greater of actual or statutory damages. The court determined
that these allegations yielded a particularized and concrete injury
that satisfied the requirements of standing and denied the motion
to remand.
Applying these legal principles, Judge Baylson will deny the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand the case to the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas. He notes, the Plaintiffs have conceded that the
total damages for the putative class may exceed $5 million, but
rely on their argument that they have not alleged any
injury-in-fact to have standing in federal court. The Judge does
not find the Plaintiffs' argument persuasive.
The Plaintiffs also contend they do not allege that "they or any of
the putative class members suffered any actual, particularized,
concrete injury-in-fact or material risk of harm to confer Federal
Jurisdiction." But Judge Baylson cannot simply take the Plaintiffs
at their word just because they prefer to proceed in state court.
He must examine the allegations in the complaint from a number of
different angles to see if an injury can be gleaned that satisfies
Article III. The Defendants have equal access to federal court if
the Court has jurisdiction.
Judge Baylson holds that although, as the Plaintiffs point out, the
case is different than the other MVSFA removal case in the
District, Langer, the difference is not material. The fact that
the Kellys' allegations are not as clear-cut as in Langer does not
mean that the case must be remanded for lack of standing.
Likewise, the Kellys' allegations go beyond those in Littlejohn.
The Kellys did not "just allege an inaccurate disclosure
statement." The Kellys allege inaccurate amounts required to
redeem possession of their vehicles and Defendant sending a
"fictitious storage expense" statement. The Plaintiffs also allege
the Defendant allowed brokers to assess a personal property fee
and/or a redemption fee to the class members -- each of which are
not reasonable expenses incurred by Santander.
The Plaintiffs' counsel refuses to recognize that threats,
uncertainty, risk, or other potential consequences that the
Plaintiffs themselves, or members of the alleged class, may
reasonably fear from receiving allegedly deficient "legal"
communications from the Defendant, attempting to pursue its rights
under their consumer agreements, as alleged in the case. These
reasonable reactions are actionable.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand, concluding that the Plaintiffs have alleged an
injury sufficient to confer Article III standing. An appropriate
Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3oygr9f3 from Leagle.com.
SENIOR CARE: Zamora Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO ZAMORA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. SENIOR CARE RESIDENCES SAPPHIRE LAKES at NAPLES, L.L.C. d/b/a
THE PINEAPPLE HOUSE AT SAPPHIRE LAKES, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00102 (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2021) alleges the Defendant
of violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant approximately from June
30, 2020 to December 28, 2020 as a non-exempted full-time,
hourly-paid, kitchen employee to perform duties as a dishwasher and
cleaning person.
The Plaintiff contends that during his employment with the
Defendant, he worked off-the-clock hours that were not compensated
at any rate by the Defendant. Specifically, the Defendant allegedly
deducted 30 minutes from his working hours for a lunch break that
he was not able to take, and required him to clock out at least 3
times a week and stayed working unpaid for at least 30 minutes to
complete his assigned duties. Also, the Defendant failed to keep
track of the number of hours that the Plaintiff worked. Allegedly,
the Defendant willfully failed to pay him overtime at the rate of
one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for every hour that
he worked over 40 in a work week.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and all other current and former employees
similarly situated to him seeking to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages.
Senior Care Residences Sapphire Lakes at Naples
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SERVICEMAC LLC: Faces Donohue FDCPA Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ServiceMac, LLC. The
case is captioned as Donohue v. ServiceMac, LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-30011-KAR (D. Mass., Feb. 1, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Truth in Lending Act. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson.
ServiceMac is doing business in mortgage servicing industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
273 State Street, 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 455-1730
Facsimile: (413) 455-1594
E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.co
SHREVEPORT, LA: Refunds on Water Bill Overcharges Now Arriving
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vickie Welborn at ktbs.com reports that Shreveport water customers
started receiving refunds in connection with the settlement of a
lawsuit on overcharges of water bills.
A judge in November ruled against the city for overbilling. He
ordered almost $6 million in refunds.
The payments are part of a class-action lawsuit that disclosed the
city's practice of rounding up water usage when determining the
amount of monthly bills during winter months. The lawsuit involves
a 10-year period of overcharges.
The amount of the refunds depends on how long a customer had water
service. Some people might get more than one check. For example, if
you moved during the past 10 years.
The checks are being mailed by Epiq, a third-party company selected
by the court to handle disbursement of the refunds.
The city of Shreveport is making credits to other customers' bills,
primarily businesses. Those credits are limited to $25. However,
some customers will get multiple checks because of overpayment over
several months.
Still to be determined are the amount of refunds in the second part
of the class-action lawsuit. A Caddo District Court judge's ruling
on the amount is pending.
That has to do with the part of the suit alleging there were too
many days of overcharges. An accountant hired by the plaintiffs
says $11 million in refunds should be made. The city disputes that
part of the suit, too. [GN]
SMITH & WESSON: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Primus Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled PRIMUS GROUP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
SMITH & WESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
19-3992 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the case.
The Appellate Court considers in the case whether an entertainment
venue has Article III standing to pursue a class action on behalf
of all persons in the United States based on the threat that gun
violence poses to all American society.
Primus is an entertainment venue in Columbus, Ohio. In August 2019,
Primus filed a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure against eight firearms manufacturers. The
complaint defined the putative class as: "All persons entitled to
freely attend schools, shopping locations, churches, entertainment
venues, and workplaces in the United States without the intrusion
of individuals armed with assault weapons."
Primus alleged that the arms manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
"intentionally misrepresented the purpose of these weapons." The
Venue sought to enjoin gun manufacturers from selling or
distributing assault weapons to civilians.
The Firearms Manufacturers moved to dismiss the suit, asserting
that Primus "failed to allege an actual case or controversy
conferring Article III standing." Primus then amended its
complaint, which now includes public-nuisance, negligent-design,
failure-to-warn, RICO, and intentional-misrepresentation claims.
Primus also filed a short memorandum in opposition to the motion to
dismiss.
In resolving the issues raised by the motion to dismiss, the
district court examined only whether Primus had established Article
III standing. See Primus Grp., LLC v. Smith & Wesson Corp., No.
2:19-CV-3450, 2019 WL 5067211, at *2-3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2019).
Finding that Primus had not demonstrated injury in fact, the
district court dismissed the suit. Primus appealed.
By questioning the sufficiency of Primus's pleadings about
standing, the Firearms Manufacturers launch a "facial attack" on
subject-matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Court reviews de novo
such facial challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction.
Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore, writing for the Panel, notes that
in essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is
entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of
particular issues, citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498
(1975). The irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains
three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in
fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.
The sole issue decided by the district court is whether Primus
pleaded satisfactorily that the entertainment venue suffered an
injury in fact, Judge Moore notes. Put another way: Has Primus
alleged adequately that it has suffered an invasion of a legally
protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b)
actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical?
The Appellate Court agrees with the district court that Primus has
failed to plead an injury in fact and that dismissal pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing is
proper. At bottom, Primus' amended complaint speaks of no
particularized injury.
Primus merely alleges without any factual support that Primus is
typical of any entity that operates where people assemble to
attend, inter alia, entertainment or music venues, restaurants,
bars, stadiums and shopping centers that now lose market share due
to public hysteria over the real threat of mass shootings and have
significantly increased costs due to the resulting increased
security requirements, Judge Moore opines. Thus, the complaint
supplies no facts to demonstrate that Primus is among those injured
by mass shootings; that gun violence affects Primus in a personal
and individual way; or that Primus has a direct stake in the
outcome of this suit.
That Primus brings thie suit on behalf of all citizens, persons and
inhabitants of the United States of America conveys that Primus
does not conceive of gun violence as a personal injury, Judge Moore
finds. The complaint's only references to "standing" are found in a
paragraph that alleges no facts that are relevant to standing's
three constitutional elements.
"Particularization is necessary to establish injury in fact," Judge
Moore opines, citing Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1548. By failing to
allege a particular harm, Primus has failed to meet its burden at
the pleading stage to demonstrate injury in fact.
The Appellate Court affirms.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyspskqn from Leagle.com.
SMITH & WESSON: Danforth Shooting Victims Clear 1st Hurdle in Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Casey at The Canadian Press reports that the victims of a mass
shooting in Toronto's Greektown have cleared their first legal
hurdle in a proposed class-action suit against the manufacturer of
the gun used by the killer.
An Ontario judge dismissed a motion to toss the case by Smith &
Wesson, the maker of the M&P40 handgun that was used in the
shooting rampage on July 22, 2018.
Samantha Price and her friend, Skye McLeod, were out with six other
friends on Danforth Avenue that night when Faisal Hussain opened
fire on them with a handgun.
Two people were killed - Price's friend Reese Fallon, 18, and
10-year-old Julianna Kozis - and 13 others were injured in the
shooting, before Hussain killed himself as police closed in.
Price was shot and McLeod was injured fleeing the gunman. The pair
launched the suit along with their parents on behalf of all the
victims in December 2019.
Police have said the gun Faisal used was stolen from a gun shop in
Saskatchewan. But the force said it did not know how it ended up in
Hussain's hands.
The suit alleges Smith & Wesson was negligent for not including
technology that would have prevented the weapon from being used by
anyone but its authorized owner. Such technology ensures the gun
can only be fired once unlocked with the registered owner's
fingerprint or a chip embedded in a wristband worn by the user.
Justice Paul Perell dismissed a motion by Smith & Wesson, which
sought to have the case tossed.
The U.S. arms manufacturer argued the cause of the incident "was
not due to its alleged negligence, but was due to the criminal acts
of Mr. Hussain," wrote Perell.
"The difficulty, however, for Smith & Wesson in advancing this
argument is that in the immediate case, there was a precaution that
could have been taken to avail itself against the volition of Mr.
Hussain shooting those innocents on the Danforth."
"The precaution that could have been taken is the implementation of
authorized user technology."
Perell said it was not obvious that the victims' claim was doomed
to fail, as asserted by Smith & Wesson.
"There are issues to be tried and the putative class members should
not be instantly denied a day in court," the judge said.
A lawyer for Smith & Wesson did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Samantha Price's father, Ken, said he was pleased with the judge's
decision.
"Nothing will bring back our girls, nor erase the injury and
memories of that horrible night," he said.
"Our goal is to see Smith & Wesson held accountable for the tragedy
that affected our families and to help avoid similar tragedies for
other families in the future."
The class-action certification motion will continue to the second
stage, the judge said. [GN]
SOLARWINDS CORP: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 10, prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit for
violations of the federal securities laws in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas against SolarWinds
Corporation ("SolarWinds" or the "Company") and certain of the
Company's current and former senior executives (collectively,
"Defendants"). The complaint expands the class period that was
asserted in a previously-filed related securities class action
pending against SolarWinds captioned Bremer v. SolarWinds
Corporation, No. 1:21-cv-00002 (W.D. Tex.), and is brought on
behalf of investors in SolarWinds common stock between October 18,
2018 and December 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
BLB&G filed this action on behalf of its client, the New York City
District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, and the case is
captioned New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund
v. SolarWinds Corporation, No. 1:21-cv-00138 (W.D. Tex.). The
complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful
evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is
available on BLB&G's website.
SolarWinds' Alleged Fraud
Based in Austin, Texas, SolarWinds provides infrastructure
management software used to monitor and manage networks, systems,
and applications. The Company's flagship product is its Orion
platform. Orion provides a suite of software products widely used
by government agencies and Fortune 500 companies to monitor the
health and performance of their information technology networks.
The Orion platform accounts for nearly half of the Company's annual
revenue.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
falsely touted the Company's robust security controls and
commitment to prioritizing customers' security and privacy
concerns. The Company also represented that it faced purported
risks with regard to its cybersecurity measures. In reality,
however, the Company failed to employ adequate cybersecurity
safeguards and did not maintain effective monitoring systems to
detect and neutralize security breaches. As a result of
vulnerabilities in the Company's cybersecurity protections,
SolarWinds and its customers were particularly susceptible to
cyber-attacks. As a result of Defendants' misrepresentations,
shares of SolarWinds common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
The truth began to emerge on December 13, 2020, when Reuters
reported that hackers believed to be working for the Russian
government had been spying on internal email communications at the
U.S. Treasury and Commerce departments. The report further revealed
that the hackers were believed to have gained access to the
agencies' networks through software updates released by
SolarWinds.
The next day, SolarWinds disclosed that hackers had breached its
network and inserted malware into its Orion monitoring products,
which existed in software updates released to SolarWinds customers
between March and June 2020. The Company further revealed that the
networks of as many as 18,000 customers may have been compromised
by the Orion updates that contained the malicious code.
On December 15, 2020, Reuters reported that, in 2019, a security
researcher had warned SolarWinds that anyone could access the
Company's update server by simply using the password
"solarwinds123." Thus, according to the researcher, the SolarWinds
breach "could have been done by any attacker, easily."
Additionally, according to another cybersecurity expert, the
malicious Orion updates were still available for download days
after the Company realized that its software had been compromised.
Then, on December 17, 2020, Bloomberg News reported that at least
three state governments had been hacked as part of the SolarWinds
breach. Moreover, it was reported that the hackers used the
SolarWinds intrusion to infiltrate government networks that
implicated national security concerns, including the U.S.
Department of Energy and its National Nuclear Security
Administration, which maintains the country's arsenal of nuclear
weapons. As a result of these disclosures, the price of SolarWinds
common stock declined precipitously.
The filing of this action does not alter the previously established
deadline to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Pursuant to the
January 4, 2021 notice published in connection with the Bremer
action, under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds securities
during the Class Period may, no later than March 5, 2021, seek to
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the Class. Any member of the
proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel
of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of
the proposed Class.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott
Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com.
About BLB&G
BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising
institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance,
shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding
in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence
and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to
achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its
peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most
significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $33
billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about
the firm can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.
Contact
Scott R. Foglietta
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(212) 554-1903
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com [GN]
SONY COMPUTER: PS5 Drift Issue Could be Leading to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
destructoid.com reports that there have been recent reports of a
manufacturing fault in regards to Sony's new PlayStation 5
hardware, specifically its sleek DualSense controller. Multiple
players have been reporting cases of the notorious "drift" issue -
whereby the controller's thumbsticks register movement whilst
remaining sat in a neutral position - with some PS5 owners telling
Kotaku that the problem arose mere days after purchasing the new
console.
U.S. law firm Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith (CSK&D)
has stepped into the situation, announcing that it is beginning an
investigation of the complaints, with an eye to filing a class
action lawsuit against Sony Interactive Entertainment.
"CSK&D is investigating a potential class action based upon reports
that Sony PS5 DualSense controllers for the PlayStation 5 console
can experience drift issues and/or fail prematurely," said the law
firm in a statement. "Specifically, it is reported that the
joystick on certain PS5 DualSense controllers will automatically
register movement when the joystick is not being controlled and
interfere with gameplay."
This is not CSK&D's first rodeo, as it is one of a number of firms
that has previously launched a class action suit against Nintendo
when the troublesome controller fault affected myriad Switch
owners. CSK&D's 2019 suit was ultimately compelled to arbitration,
(essentially asking the plaintiff and the defendant to come to
private resolution), after the presiding judge refused to dismiss
the case.
While "drift" and its related lawsuits were not as prominent an
outcome in the earlier years of analog controls, the courtroom
route has become increasingly popular in recent generations, with
Nintendo, Xbox, and now Sony all feeling the sting of legal action
of wandering thumbsticks. CSK&D has asked PS5 owners with
experience of DualSense drift to contact the firm via an online
form. [GN]
SONY INTERACTIVE: PS5 Controller Drift Sparks Class-Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Brodie Shirey reports that screenrant.com reports that a
drifting issue in the PlayStation 5's DualSense controller has
prompted the US-based law office of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith LLP has decided to take legal action, which has
announced a class-action complaintagainst Sony. The firm previously
set up a site where PS5 owners could report instances of drift, a
hardware defect that causes a controller's joysticks to wear down,
resulting in unwanted "drift" input and causing headaches for
players trying to move around a given game world or operate a
menu.
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith has handled this kind
of case before, as it was recently involved in a similar lawsuit
against Nintendo for the notorious issue of Switch Joy-Con drift in
2020. Multiple other firms filed actions against Nintendo across
the United States, France, and Canada, with noted Nintendo
executives like company president Shuntaro Furukawa and Nintendo of
America president Doug Bowser eventually addressing and apologizing
for a lack of action regarding the defective Joy-Con joysticks.
Now, it seems that history may be repeating itself with the PS5.
In a court filing obtained by Screen Rant on February 12, Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP announced that it's filing a
class-action complaint against Sony Corporation of America, Inc.
and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC in The United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
PS5 owner Lmarc Turner and other affected plaintiffs. The document
cites a defect in the PS5 DualSense controller that "compromises
the DualSense Controller's core functionality" by causing
"characters or gameplay to move on the screen without user command
or manual operation of the joystick," also noting Sony's failure to
"disclose this material information to consumers." The document
details one unlucky customer's experience: they were unable to get
their controller to even work for 10 days after receiving their
PS5, having reportedly tried every many methods to reset it.
The's filing also indirectly refers to Nintendo's similar
controller defect, bringing up Sony's previous marketing of the
DualSense's revolutionary haptic feedback and dynamic adaptive
triggers. The firm argues that Sony has been aware of this drifting
problem through months of fan feedback and pre-release testing, and
customers have had to wait a long time for repairs due to a lengthy
customer service backlog.
So far, the PlayStation 5 has enjoyed a successful launch despite
ongoing console shortages, but legal trouble surrounding its
DualSense controller so soon into the system's lifespan isn't the
best look for Sony. While no official court dates have been set at
publication time, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is
looking to bring Sony into a jury trial, as well as getting the
company to properly address the drifting defect and give the
affected plaintiffs due compensation. [GN]
SOUTHERN CO: Judge Approves $24.25MM in Plaintiffs' Attorneys Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that the judge overseeing
last year's $87.5 million class-action settlement between Southern
Co. and shareholders over a failed "clean coal" power plant in
Mississippi approved $24.25 million in attorney fees for the
plaintiffs lawyers.
Northern District Judge Billy Ray trimmed $2 million from the class
lawyers' fee request, but said it 'still represents a fantastic
result' for their shareholder clients, who sued Southern Co. [GN]
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Distribution of Settlement Funds Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada grants the Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for Distribution of Class Action Settlement
Funds in the lawsuit titled In Re Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation. This Document Relates To: All Actions,
Master File No. 2:16-cv-02279-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.).
The funds that are currently in the Net Settlement Fund (less any
necessary amounts to be withheld for payment of potential tax
liabilities and related fees and expenses) will be distributed on a
pro rata basis to the Authorized Claimants, identified in Exhibits
B-1 and B-2 to the Declaration of Josephine Bravata Concerning the
Results of the Claims Administration Process. The funds will be
distributed pursuant to the Stipulation and the Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund set forth in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action.
Any person asserting claims filed after July 8, 2020, or any
responses to rejected claims after December 15, 2020, the dates
used to finalize the administration by Strategic Claims Services
("SCS"), the Court-appointed Claims Administrator, are finally and
forever barred from asserting such claims.
The checks for distribution to Authorized Claimants will bear the
notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180
DAYS AFTER ISSUE DATE." Lead Counsel and SCS are authorized to
locate and/or contact any Authorized Claimant who has not cashed
his, her, or its check within said time.
Pursuant to Section 67 of the Stipulation, if there is any balance
remaining in the Net Settlement Fund (whether by reason of tax
refunds, uncashed checks or otherwise) after at least six months
from the date of initial distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
the Lead Counsel will, if feasible and economical, redistribute
such balance among Authorized Claimants who have cashed their
checks in an equitable and economic fashion.
Any balance that still remains in the Net Settlement Fund after
re-distribution(s), which is not feasible or economical to
reallocate, after payment of Notice and Administration Expenses,
Taxes, and attorneys' fees and expenses, will be contributed to
non- sectarian, not-for profit charitable organization(s) serving
the public interest, designated by the Lead Plaintiffs and approved
by the Court.
The Lead Plaintiffs' designation of the Southern Nevada Senior Law
Program and the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada each to receive
half of the balance, if any, is approved.
SCS is ordered to discard paper or hard copies of Proofs of Claims
and supporting documents not less than one year after all
distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible claimants,
and electronic copies of the same not less than three years after
all distributions of the Net Settlement Fund to the eligible
claimants.
The Court retains jurisdiction over any further application or
matter which may arise in connection with the action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Feb. 8, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/1jaqyygf from Leagle.com.
STANFORD CREDIT: Trigueros Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOCELYN TRIGUEROS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STANFORD CREDIT UNION; CARDTRONICS
USA, INC.; ATM NATIONAL, LLC d/b/a ALLPOINT NETWORK; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV375168, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on February 11, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01079 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay applicable
minimum wage, failure to pay all wages due upon discharge, failure
to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses and costs, and unfair business
practices.
Stanford Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union located
in Palo Alto, California.
Cardtronics USA, Inc. is a company that installs and operates
automated teller machines based in Houston, Texas.
ATM National, LLC, doing business as Allpoint Network, is an
interbank network connecting automated teller machines,
headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick C. Stokes, Esq.
Emily J. Tewes, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
333 West San Carlos St., Ste. 1625
San Jose, CA 95110
Telephone: (408) 579-0404
Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
E-mail: patrick.stokes@jacksonlewis.com
emily.tewes@jacksonlewis.com
SUPERIOR TOWING: Faces Butler Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERIOR TOWING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00659 (N.D. Ill., February 4, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid yard
coordinator from February 2020 through the present at its Chicago
location.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid employees were classified by the Defendant as
non-exempt from the requirements of the FLSA. However, although
they regularly worked more than 40 hours each week, the Defendant
deprived them of sufficient overtime compensation for all hours
they worked. Thus, the Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to
recover all unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
Superior Towing, Inc. owns and operates a towing and transport
business with locations throughout Illinois. [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: (800) 615-4946
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
TD BANK: Claims of Sales Pressure Spark Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Johnson at cbc.ca reports that a TD Bank teller who spoke out
about the pressure to sell customers products and services they
didn't need says she feels vindicated a class-action lawsuit is now
underway, shining a light on those allegedly unethical practices.
"It makes me know that I did the right thing, coming forward," she
told Go Public, after learning about the lawsuit.
She says she and her colleagues were pressured to make unnecessary
sales in order to earn revenue for the bank -- and to hold onto
their jobs.
The class action was certified by a Quebec judge in April 2019, but
TD only submitted its statement of defence earlier. The statement
strongly denies the allegations of a widespread, unethical sales
culture and says the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The teller was one of three TD employees who contacted Go Public in
2017, alleging relentless pressure to meet sales targets by doing
things like signing up customers for credit cards, adding overdraft
protection to customers' accounts or moving them into more
expensive chequing accounts.
After the teller and her colleagues spoke out, hundreds of other
current and former TD employees contacted Go Public with similar
stories. They said they too felt pressured to behave unethically in
order to meet sales targets and hold onto their jobs. In some
cases, they even admitted to breaking the law to do it.
TD's statement of defence calls the CBC News stories "vague,
unsubstantiated" and "unverifiable."
The legal action doesn't come from TD customers who may have been
upsold or misled.
Following Go Public's reporting in March 2017, shares in
Toronto-Dominion Bank posted their biggest loss since 2009 --
plunging more than 5.5 per cent.
The lawsuit has been filed under the Quebec Securities Act and
claims investors purchased TD stock based on "false and misleading
statements" from TD Bank. Shareholders say they were not aware of
the alleged internal pressure to sell products and services at any
cost.
"This class action is not a direct hit on the practice of pressure
selling, it's indirect," said Jasminka Kalajdzic, associate
professor at University of Windsor's faculty of law and the author
of two books about class actions. "Investors are saying they
wouldn't have bought the stock if they'd known about the pressure
to sell."
'TD Was Essentially Profiting'
The lead plaintiff works for Turn8 Partners, a Montreal-area
portfolio management company. According to court documents, he
purchased TD securities for an investment fund.
The documents say he was unaware of what is described in the
originating application as TD's "pressure selling program" and
therefore acquired the securities at artificially inflated prices.
"We are arguing that TD said one thing and did another," said Shawn
Faguy, a Quebec lawyer who launched the suit and is representing
the plaintiffs.
The court documents also show that TD spoke about delivering "a
legendary customer experience" while being recognized as "an
extraordinary place to work," guided by ethics policies "that meet
the highest standards of integrity, professionalism, and ethical
behaviour."
But, Faguy says, "at the end of the day, we argue TD was
essentially profiting as much as it could off of its clients. And
ultimately it created a work environment which put an extreme
amount of pressure on its employees."
In its defence, TD argues that those claims are untrue and points
to numerous customer service awards the bank has received over many
years, including ranking "highest in customer satisfaction among
the big five retail banks," in 2015 for the tenth consecutive year,
according to the J.D. Power Canadian Retail Banking Customer
Satisfaction Study.
TD further notes that its been repeatedly recognized for its
workplace culture, noting that, in 2017, for the eighth consecutive
year, it was "recognized as one of Canada's best employers,"
according to Aon Hewitt, a human resources consulting firm.
'Unethical, Illegal and Predatory'
The thrust of Faguy's argument is fuelled by several key TD
documents included in the court file.
Of particular note is one released Dec. 3, 2015, which featured the
financial performance of its Canadian retail business segment.
Faguy says that document should have disclosed that the increase in
retail revenue was driven by what he argues was "an unethical,
illegal and predatory" employee sales target system.
"This clearly contains a misrepresentation," said Faguy. "We say
anyone who would have bought the stock after that period of time
bought it with an artificially inflated price because of that
misrepresentation."
Because of that document -- released to explain how TD recently
performed, its financial condition and future prospects -- the
class action represents anyone who purchased TD securities between
Dec. 3, 2015 and March 9, 2017, the day before TD's stock value
plunged.
It does not, however, cover stock traded on a U.S. exchange, which
was part of a U.S. class action, which settled for over $13 million
US.
Systemic Problem?
Kalajdzic says the challenge in this class action will be to prove
the alleged wrongdoing was widespread.
TD "can't be faulted for whatever individual employees did," she
said. "Plaintiffs are going to have to show this was a bank-wide
policy of making employees sell products that were not appropriate
to customers."
Faguy says that won't be hard.
"It's not like there is one branch in Montreal or one branch in
Vancouver or one branch in Toronto where this was going on," he
said. "The sales revenue practices seem to be a systemic practice
that was set up to try to drive revenue within the company across
the country."
In its statement of defence, TD argues it is "inconceivable" any
unethical practices were systemic, pointing out that TD had over
81,000 employees engaging in Canadian retail activities at almost
1,200 branches in 2015.
After the initial Go Public stories, emails flooded in from
employees of TD, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, CIBC and
Scotiabank, describing pressure to hit sales targets that were
monitored weekly, daily and in some cases hourly.
All five banks said in statements to Go Public that they act in the
best interest of their clients and that employees are expected to
follow codes of conduct.
The reports at the time prompted the banking regulator, the
Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC), to launch a review of
sales practices at Canada's big banks.
It found that a sharp focus on sales may be increasing the risk of
"mis-selling" to consumers -- defined as selling products or
services that may be unsuitable, that don't take consumers' needs
into "reasonable" account or that involve incomplete or misleading
information.
However, the FCAC's review did not find mis-selling to be
widespread, which TD points out in its class-action defence.
As for the first TD teller who spoke out, she says she's grateful
TD's sales culture, and the alleged harm she says it caused, will
be under scrutiny.
"Nothing will ever change," she said, "if acknowledgement of bad
behaviour isn't addressed or punished." [GN]
TENNESSEE: Faces Accord Civil Rights Act in Middle Dist. of Tenn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anderson County,
Tennessee. The case is captioned as Accord v. Anderson County,
Tennessee, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00077 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 1,
2021).
The suit alleges violation the Civil Rights Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. District Judge Eli J. Richardson.
The Defendants inlclude Bedford County, Tennessee; Benton County,
Tennessee; Bledsoe County, Tennessee; Blount County, Tennessee;
Bradley County, Tennessee; Campbell County, Tennessee; Cannon
County, Tennessee; Carroll County, Tennessee; Carter County,
Tennessee; Cheatham County, Tennessee; Chester County, Tennessee;
Claiborne County, Tennessee; Clay County, Tennessee; Cocke County,
Tennessee; Coffee County, Tennessee; Crockett County, Tennessee;
Cumberland County, Tennessee; Davidson County, Tennessee; Decatur
County, Tennessee; Dekalb County, Tennessee; Dickson County,
Tennessee; Dyer County, Tennessee; Fayette County, Tennessee;
Fentress County, Tennessee; Franklin County, Tennessee; Gibson
County, Tennessee; Giles County, Tennessee; Grainger County,
Tennessee; Greene County, Tennessee; Grundy County, Tennessee;
Hamblen County, Tennessee; Hamilton County, Tennessee; Hancock
County, Tennessee; Hardeman County, Tennessee; Hardin County,
Tennessee; Hawkins County, Tennessee; Haywood County, Tennessee;
Henderson County, Tennessee; Henry County, Tennessee; Hickman
County, Tennessee; Houston County, Tennessee; Humphreys County,
Tennessee; Jackson County, Tennessee; Jefferson County, Tennessee;
Johnson County, Tennessee; Knox County, Tennessee; Lake County,
Tennessee; Lauderdale County, Tennessee; Lawrence County,
Tennessee; Lewis County, Tennessee; Lincoln County, Tennessee;
Loudon County, Tennessee; Macon County, Tennessee; Madison County,
Tennessee; Marion County, Tennessee; Marshall County, Tennessee;
Maury County, Tennessee; McMinn County, Tennessee; McNairy County,
Tennessee; Meigs County, Tennessee; Monroe County, Tennessee;
Montgomery County, Tennessee; Moore County, Tennessee; Morgan
County, Tennessee; Obion County, Tennessee; Overton County,
Tennessee; Perry County, Tennessee; Pickett County, Tennessee; Polk
County, Tennessee; Putnam County, Tennessee; Rhea County,
Tennessee; Roane County, Tennessee; Robertson County, Tennessee;
Rutherford County, Tennessee; Scott County, Tennessee; Sequatchie
County, Tennessee; Sevier County, Tennessee; Shelby County,
Tennessee; Smith County, Tennessee; Stewart County, Tennessee;
Sullivan County, Tennessee; Sumner County, Tennessee; Tipton
County, Tennessee; Trousdale County, Tennessee; Unicoi County,
Tennessee; Union County, Tennessee; Van Buren County, Tennessee;
Warren County, Tennessee; Washington County, Tennessee; Wayne
County, Tennessee; Weakley County, Tennessee; White County,
Tennessee; Williamson County, Tennessee; and Wilson County,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon Ball, Esq.
GORDON BALL, LLC
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919
Telephone: (865) 525-7028
E-mail: gball@gordonball.com
THOMSON INTERNATIONAL: Cameron Consumer Suit Goes to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAE CAMERON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THOMSON INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
DV-20-158, was removed from the Montana Sixth Judicial District,
Park County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
on February 11, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Montana assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00017-SPW-TJC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged product liability.
Thomson International, Inc. is an agricultural business located in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher T. Sweeney, Esq.
MOULTON BELLINGHAM PC
27 North 27th Street, Ste. 1900
P.O. Box 2559
Billings, MT 59103
Telephone: (406) 248-7731
E-mail: christopher.sweeney@moultonbellingham.com
TOUCHSTONES STRATEGIES: Misclassifies Nurses, Seifert Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LYNETTE SEIFERT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUCHSTONES STRATEGIES, LLC and
STANLEY S. STUDER, JR., individually, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00115 (W.D. Tex., February 5, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
November 2013 to March 2019 as a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) at
the Defendants' facilities.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants misclassified its
employees as salaried. Although she and other similarly situated
LVNs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff
added.
Touchstones Strategies, LLC provides nursing homes and long-term
care services. Stanley S. Studer, Jr. is an owner and officer, and
held managerial responsibilities and substantial control over terms
and conditions of its employees' work. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meredith Mathews, Esq.
J. Forester, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St., Paul St., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
jay@foresterhaynie.com
- and –
Trenton C. Nichols, Esq.
Wade A. Johnson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TRENT NICHOLS, PLLC
1309 N. Avenue E
Shiner, TX 77984
Tel: (361) 594-5004
Fax: (361) 594-5024
E-mail: trent@trentnicholslaw.com
wade@trentnicholslaw.com
TRANSUNION: Amici Files Briefs in Support of Credit Agency
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that " I had a feeling
that class action opponents were going to use the U.S. Supreme
Court case TransUnion v. Ramirez to push the justices to adopt new
restrictions on class certification. The business lobby met my
expectations on Feb. 8, even as the Justice Department gave class
plaintiffs a bit of solace."
Amici including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the National
Association of Manufacturers; the Retail Litigation Center; and
Facebook, Google, eBay and internet trade groups -- filed 11 briefs
at the Supreme Court backing TransUnion. The credit agency wants
the justices to undo a $40 million judgment in a class action
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
GDRX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
QSR Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
TCDA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
GoodRx Holdings, Inc (NASDAQ:GDRX)
GDRX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 23,
2020 - November 16, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 16, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/goodrx-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, GoodRx
Holdings, Inc made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst
to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon
introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with
GoodRx. Defendants timed the IPO so that it was priced before
Amazon announced its online pharmaceutical business to facilitate
the IPO and create artificial demand for the common shares sold
therein, as well to maximize the amount of money the Company and
the selling stockholders could raise in the IPO. Given defendants'
knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical
business, and their misleading statements about GoodRx's
competitive position made contemporaneously with that knowledge,
defendants' materially false and/or misleading statements alleged
herein were made willfully and caused GoodRx common stock to trade
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Restaurant Brands International Inc. (NYSE:QSR)
QSR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 29, 2019 -
October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/restaurant-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Restaurant Brands International Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCDA)
TCDA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased September 4,
2019 - October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/tricida-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=12811&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Tricida,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was
materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely
that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of March 8 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 10 announced a class action lawsuit on
behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TCDA) between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=tricida-inc&id=2556
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=tricida-inc&id=2556
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 8, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that- Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient;
accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not
accept the NDA for veverimer; and as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You
may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
TRITERRAS INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Triterras, Inc. (NASDAQ: TRIT)
investors that acquired shares between August 20, 2020 and December
16, 2020. Investors have until February 19, 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 here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Triterras made misleading and
false statements to the market. Investors were misled by Triterras
in regard to the extent to which its revenue growth relied on
Rhodium referring users to the Triterras' Kratos platform. Rhodium
suffered from severe financial problems, in turn jeopardizing the
growth of Triterras' Kratos platform. Triterras' public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period,
based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when the market
learned the truth about Triterras.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
19, 2021.
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]
TRUEACCORD CORP: Faces Jackson FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueaccord Corp. et
al. The case is captioned as Jackson v. Trueaccord Corp. et al.,
Case No. 6:21-cv-00212-GAP-DCI (M.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge Gregory A. Presnell.
The Defendants include Skytrail Servicing Group, LLC and William C.
Pruett.
TrueAccord is a digital debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Martin Bonan, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL PA
2002 E 5th Ave Ste 104
Tampa, FL 33605
Telephone: (813) 567-1230
Facsimile: (855) 500-0705
E-mail: tbonan@seraphlegal.com
TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Set to Launch Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Waters, writing for The Age, reports that the first steps have
been taken in a potential class action against Tyro, with law firm
Bannister Law starting legal correspondence with the troubled
payments technology firm.
Bannister Law sent the legal notification to Tyro, the first step
in launching a potential class action against the listed company,
on behalf of aggrieved customers.
Tyro is the largest provider of eftpos terminals outside the big
four banks and the fintech was valued at $1.4 billion when it
debuted on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2019.
However, the company has been under pressure after its payment
terminals "bricked", leaving some Tyro customers unable to process
payments for up to three weeks.
Shareholders were also impacted after Tyro's share price fell from
$3.34 on January 5, when outages first started being reported, to
as low as $2.32 when the company was hit by a short-seller attack
from Viceroy Research following the outages.
Viceroy's report on Tyro claimed it was "the most unreliable and
technologically inferior fintech in Australia".
The class action is likely to be based on claims of alleged failure
to provide services with due care and skill under the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission Act, breached warranties and
negligence.
Bannister Law is yet to receive a substantive response to the
documents sent to Tyro and proceedings have not yet been filed.
Charles Bannister, principal at Bannister Law, said the law firm
was working to quantifying losses from customers and shareholders
who had registered for a class action and said anyone impacted
should register.
"The losses are not insignificant; they are substantial losses
across a range of industries," he said.
Tyro declined to comment on the potential proceedings.
Tyro emailed customers and offered to waive their terminal fees for
January when many were not operational and to refund the postage of
returning terminals to be fixed.
However, many Tyro customers want compensation for the money they
lost from being unable to process payments.
"I'm still chasing 2k that wandered out the door due to no
machine," one customer posted on Tyro's Facebook page. "How about I
send you a bill for that?"
In its email to customers, Tyro said it was "focusing on addressing
the concerns raised by our impacted customers" and "genuinely open
to listening to and considering these".
Tyro has received support from its largest shareholder, Atlassian
billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes, who holds 63.3 million shares, or
12.5 per cent, of Tyro's stock through his investment vehicle Grok
Ventures.
Mr Cannon-Brookes has increased his shareholding since the
short-seller attack on Tyro, but a spokesperson for him declined to
comment further. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)
between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important April 5, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tyson securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have
known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as
a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus
within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson
would face negative impact to its production, including complete
shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect
its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its
lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN)
between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important April 5, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action first filed by the firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Tyson securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 5, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have
known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading
throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient
safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as
a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus
within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson
would face negative impact to its production, including complete
shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect
its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its
lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Tyson class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2022.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Zhang Investor Law Reminds of April 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Tyson Foods, Inc.
(NYSE: TSN) between March 13, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=tyson-foods-inc&id=2581
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=tyson-foods-inc&id=2581
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the April 5, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly contagious
coronavirus was spreading throughout the globe; Tyson did not in
fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect its employees in
its facilities; as a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread
the coronavirus within the facilities; as a result of the
foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its production,
including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; and due to the
failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm
related to its lowered production. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
UNION PACIFIC: Blankinship Sues Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BLANKINSHIP, Plaintiff v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00072-RM (D.
Ariz., February 10, 2021) brings this complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated persons against the
Defendant for its alleged discriminatory Fitness-for-Duty policies
and practices that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant from June 7, 2007 until
approximately January 2017 as a conductor, whose job entailed
reading and interpreting multicolored railroad traffic signal
lights on signal masts.
As part of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) conductor
certification, the Plaintiff was required to take the Ishihara
color vision test approximately two more times between 2007 and
2017. Unfortunately, on or about January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff
failed the Test which triggered a Fitness-for-Duty evaluation and
his removal from work as a conductor. In addition, when the
Defendant administered the Light Cannon test on or about January
12, 2017 as part of the Fitness-for-Duty process, the Defendant
concluded that he failed the Light Cannon Test and issued him
permanent work restrictions prohibiting him from working in any
position that requires accurate identification of colored railroad
wayside signals, the Plaintiff contends.
Allegedly, the Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. Section 12112(a) of the
ADA for discriminating the Plaintiff on the basis of a real or
perceived disability. As a result, the Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer loss of income, emotional distress, and
other damages.
Union Pacific Railroad Company provides rail transportation
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James H. Kaster, Esq.
David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
Lucas J. Kaster, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South Eight Street
4700 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: kaster@nka.com
schlesinger@nka.com
lkaster@nka.com
- and –
Anthony S. Petru, Esq.
Gavin S. Barney, Esq.
HILDERBRAND, McLEOD & NELSON LLP
350 Frank O. Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 451-6732
Fax: (510) 465-7023
E-mail: petru@hmnlaw.com
barney@hmnlaw.com
UNITED PARCEL: Aalfs Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL AALFS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No.
21CV30008, was removed from the District Court of Arapahoe County,
Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
on February 11, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Colorado assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-00421 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide
paid rest periods and retaliation in violations of the Colorado
Wage and Hour Law.
United Parcel Service, Inc. is an American multinational package
delivery and supply chain management company, headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Naomi G. Beer, Esq.
Kimberley Neilio, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1144 15th Street, Suite 3300
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 572-6500
Facsimile: (303) 572-6540
E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com
neiliok@gtlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Class-action Lawsuit Challenges Navy's Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
radio.com reports that a class-action lawsuit is challenging the
U.S. Navy's Properly Referred Policy.
The legal action was filed on Feb. 2 in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Oscar D. Torres and
former members of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps who were
wrongfully denied military disability retirement by the National
Veterans Legal Services Program and Perkins Cole LLP.
"We aim to represent veterans who were wrongfully denied their
military disability retirement due to procedural issues caused by
the Navy's Properly Referred Policy," said Barak Cohen, partner at
Perkins Coie LLP. "We hope that this lawsuit can provide relief for
Mr. Torres and class members who suffered this procedural harm.:
The lawsuit challenges the Navy's use of the policy to deny
military disability retirement to Torres and other similarly
situated service members, according to a release. A sailor or
Marine who is retired for disability is entitled to monthly
retirement payments and military medical care for the service
member, his or her spouse, and the service member's children while
they remain dependents.
When Torres was referred into the Navy's Disability Evaluation
System, the Navy Council of Review Boards followed the policy,
which has since been revoked by the Navy. The policy explicitly
barred the Navy Physical Evaluation Board from considering the
disabling impact of any condition not properly referred to the PEB
by listing it on the form used to initiate the DES process.
The lawsuit claims that the policy violated the legal obligation of
the Navy, under statutory law and Department of Defense
instructions, to consider "all medical conditions," including their
combined effect, in making fitness determinations, not just those
the Navy deemed "properly referred" on a particular form.
Torres served on active duty and in the reserves of the U. S.
Marine Corps from Aug. 29, 2007 until Jan. 27, 2018, when he was
honorably discharged from the military due to disability According
to the release, Torres' military service left him with disabling
conditions of the back, shoulder, wrist, fingers and knees, ankles
and hips as well as sleep apnea.
The PEB deemed only Torres' back condition and sleep apnea to be
"properly referred." He was denied military disability retirement
and provided only a one-time lump-sum disability severance
payment.
The lawsuit argues that the Navy's failure to consider all of
Tores' medical conditions was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by
substantial evidence, and contrary to law.
The PEB was enforced from Sept. 12, 2016, until June 11, 2018. It
is estimated that 10,000 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps veterans were
wrongfully denied military disability retirement as a result of
this unlawful policy.
The suit explains that "For years, the Program Manager for the Navy
Disability Evaluation System Counsel Program decried the policy as
'wrong' and 'contrary to both law and regulation.'"
The Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard each have military disability
evaluation procedures, but none of these service branches had a
policy restricting the conditions that can be considered when
making a fitness for duty determination like those contained in the
Navy's policy,
"To preclude the Navy from considering all of the medical
conditions of sailors and Marines being discharged for disability
denied Mr. Torres and potentially thousands of other veterans from
their rightful military disability retirement and the benefits
associated with that status," said National Veterans Legal Services
Program Executive Director Bart Stichman. "That is unjust and an
affront to their dedicated service and the injuries they sustained
in service." [GN]
VICTOR MENDEZ: IMT Pavilion Seeks More Time to File Review Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review pursuant
to Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f) has been filed in IMT Pavillion III LP,
Investors Management Trust Real Estate Group, Inc. d/b/a IMT
Residential, Petitioners v. Victor Mendez, for himself and all
others similarly situated, Respondent, on Feb. 12, 2021, in the
Supreme Court of Texas, under Case No. 21-0157.
Previously, Judge Gordon Goodman of the Court of Appeals for the
First District of Texas at Houston issued an order on December 31,
2020, denying a motion for rehearing en banc in this case. That
appellate action was captioned IMT Pavilion III LP and Investors
Management Trust Real Estate Group, Inc. d/b/a IMT Residential v.
Victor Mendez, Case No. 01-18-00980-CV.
IMT Residential -- https://www.imtresidential.com/ -- is a
nationwide apartment operator with a portfolio that extends
throughout Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Tennessee and Texas.[BN]
The Petitioners are represented by:
Mr. Dylan B. Russell
Mr. Thomas R. Phillips
Ms. Madeleine R. Dwertman
The Respondent is represented by:
Mr. Jason W. Snell
Mr. Richard Eugene Norman
Mr. Britton D. Monts
Mr. Joshua S. Smith
Mr. Ronald Martin Weber
Mr. Karson K. Thompson
Mr. Russell S. Post
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Portnoy Law Reminds of March 24 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
VYGR) investors that acquired shares between June 1, 2017 and
November 9, 2020. Investors have until March 24, 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 here to join the case.
It is alleged in the complaint that Voyager made misleading and
false statements to the market. Voyager's IND submission to the FDA
for VY-HTT01 failed to include essential information in regard to
chemistry, manufacturing and controls matters including product
characterization and drug-device compatibility. Based on this
failure, Voyager's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was deficient.
Voyager overstated the likelihood of the IND submission achieving
FDA approval. Voyager's public statements were materially
misleading and false throughout the class period, based on these
facts. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth
about Voyager.
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 24,
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.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Investor Reminds of March 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Voyager
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: VYGR) between June 1, 2017 and November
9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
To join the class action, go to
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=voyager-therapeutics-inc&id=2560
or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.
http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=voyager-therapeutics-inc&id=2560
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
before the March 24, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that - the Company's VY-HTT01 IND submission to the FDA lacked key
information regarding certain chemistry, manufacturing and controls
matters; the Company's IND submission for VY-HTT01 was therefore
deficient; the Company had thus materially overstated the
likelihood of FDA approval for VY-HTT01 based on the IND
submission; and as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may
retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class
member and take no action at this time.
Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Zhang Investor Law P.C.
99 Wall Street, Suite 232
New York, New York 10005
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN]
WHITE PINES: Faces De Sa Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Tip Pooling
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONIQUE DE SA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITE PINES, INC. dba L.A.'S NIGHT CLUB aka
L.A.'S GENTLEMENT'S CLUB, a Virginia Corporation; KENNY EDWARDS, an
individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00086-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va.,
February 11, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dancer/entertainer in
2020 at the Defendants' adult-oriented entertainment facility
multiple shifts per week.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated entertainers were classified by the Defendant as
independent contractors and did not pay them on an hourly basis.
Despite regularly working in excess of 40 in a workweek, they were
no paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per workweek,
and were denied pay at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.
Instead, they were compensated exclusively through tips they
received from the Defendants' customers. Allegedly, the Defendant
unlawfully required them to pay fees and to share their tips with
the Defendants and other non-tipped employees, including disk
jockeys and security personnel. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
maintain records of wages, fines, fees, tips and gratuities and/or
service charges paid or received by entertainers, the suit says.
White Pines, Inc. operates an adult-oriented entertainment
facility. Kenny Edwards is the President of White Pines, Inc. who
acted directly or indirectly on behalf of the L.A.'s and exerted
operational and management control over L.A.'s. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
David A.C. Long, Esq.
MEYER BALDWIN LONG & MOORE LLP
5600 Grove Avenue
Richmond, VA 23226
Tel: (804) 285-3888
Fax: (804) 285-7779
E-mail: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
dlong@meyerbaldwin.com
- and –
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Tel: (310) 507-7924
Fax: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
HUGHES ELLZEY
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX
Tel: (713) 554-2377
Fax: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
[*] Greenberg Traurig Report Summarizes Recent Class-Action Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Gillenwater, Esq., Phillip H. Hutchinson, Esq., Lisa M.
Simonetti, Esq., Sylvia E. Simson, Esq., David G. Thomas, Esq.,
Gregory A. Nylen, Esq., of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, disclosed that the law firm has issued
Class Action Litigation Newsletter | Winter 2020/2021.
This GT Report Summarizes Recent Class-Action Decisions From Across
the United States.
Highlights from this issue include:
Supreme Court grants cert in securities class action to address
whether the Basic presumption of class-wide reliance can be
rebutted based on the generic nature of the alleged representation
and that the statement had no price impact.
Massachusetts appellate court emphasizes that evidence is required
to support class certification, even under state law.
District court in the Second Circuit holds that Daubert analysis
must be conducted at the class certification stage.
Third Circuit holds that the failure to register tires under
federal law is not enough to confer standing.
Seventh Circuit holds that violations of the data retention and
destruction requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act
are sufficient for standing.
Eighth Circuit affirms certification in RICO class action involving
contracts subject to individual negotiation.
Ninth Circuit reiterates that, in class settlements involving
coupons, attorneys' fees that are based on the coupons must be
evaluated under the value-of-redemption method.
Ninth Circuit holds that FINRA rule prohibiting arbitration of
class actions could not be used to bar enforcement of arbitration
provision with a class waiver.
Eleventh Circuit holds violation of FACTA's truncation requirement
insufficient for standing.
Arkansas Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., No. 20-222
(U.S. Supreme Court, certiorari granted Dec. 11, 2020)
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to address class certification ruling
where the defendant presented evidence showing that generic alleged
misstatements had no price impact.
In 2011, shareholders brought a purported securities fraud suit
against Goldman Sachs and three of its former executives
(collectively, "GS"), alleging they had misrepresented the
existence of conflicts of interest surrounding several
collateralized debt obligation transactions involving subprime
mortgages, and that plaintiffs were purportedly injured when GS's
stock price dropped following the disclosure of those conflicts in
a 2010 SEC complaint and elsewhere. After discovery, plaintiffs
moved for class certification, invoking the Basic Inc. v. Levinson,
485 U.S. 224 (1988) presumption of class-wide reliance. The
district court granted the motion and held that GS had failed to
meet its burden to rebut the presumption, despite evidence that
GS's stock price had not decreased on at least 34 occasions when
the media had reported on the alleged conflicts before the filing
of the SEC complaint. The court reasoned that such evidence "speaks
to the statements' materiality and not to price impact," and thus
should not be considered at this stage. In re Goldman Sachs Grp.,
Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 10-CV-3461, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128856, at
*20 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2015).
On appeal, the Second Circuit unanimously vacated that decision,
reasoning that the district court had failed to apply the proper
standard in considering whether the presumption invoked by
plaintiffs had been rebutted (i.e., by a preponderance of the
evidence). Arkansas Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.,
879 F.3d 474, 485 (2d Cir. 2018). The Second Circuit reasoned that
a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption bears the
ultimate burden of persuasion, notwithstanding the language of
Federal Rule of Evidence 301. See id. at 484. The Second Circuit
also held that the district court should have considered evidence
that GS's stock price had not decreased when the media reported on
the company's alleged conflicts of interest before 2010, as such
evidence was relevant to the "fundamental" issue of price impact.
On remand, the district court again granted class certification.
See In re Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc., No. 10-CV-3461, 2018 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 137414 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2018). This time, the court
considered the evidence that GS's stock price had not moved, but
held that "[t]he absence of price movement . . . in and of itself,
is not sufficient to sever the link between the first corrective
disclosure and the subsequent stock price drop." The court held
that GS (not plaintiffs) bore the burden of persuasion to rebut the
Basic presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, and that GS
had failed to do so.
On appeal for a second time, a new Second Circuit panel affirmed in
a 2-1 decision. Among other things, the majority rejected the
argument that "general statements" are legally insufficient for
plaintiffs to invoke the Basic presumption. Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System v. Goldman Sachs Group., Inc., 955 F.3d 254, 266
(2d Cir. 2020). The court reasoned that applying such a rule would
effectively require consideration of whether the alleged
misstatements were "immaterial as a matter of law," and thus
functioned as "a means for smuggling materiality into" the class
certification analysis. The majority ruled that the lower court
"applied the correct legal standard and reasonably concluded by a
preponderance of the evidence that the [SEC complaint and other]
disclosures revealed new and material information to the market."
Judge Richard J. Sullivan, on the other hand, dissented, stating
that the majority was "miss[ing] the forest for the trees" and
"essentially turning the [Basic] presumption on its head." He
reasoned that "it's fair for this court to consider the nature of
the alleged misstatements in assessing whether and why 'the
misrepresentations did not in fact affect the market price of
Goldman stock.'" "Candidly," he stated, "I don't see how a
reviewing court can ignore the alleged misrepresentations when
assessing price impact. Here the obvious reason for why the share
price didn't move after 36 separate news stories on the subject of
Goldman's conflicts is that no reasonable investor would have
attached any significance to the generic statements on which
Plaintiffs' claims are based."
On August 21, 2020, GS petitioned for certiorari, which was granted
on December 11, 2020. The Supreme Court agreed to consider two
questions in connection with this appeal: (1) whether the Basic
presumption can be rebutted by pointing to the generic nature of
the alleged misstatements and showing that the statements had no
impact on the price of the security, and (2) whether a defendant
has both the burden of production in rebutting the presumption as
well as the ultimate burden of persuasion, or whether that ultimate
burden rests with the plaintiff.
First Circuit In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., Civil
Action No. 16-12652-JGD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240574 (D. Mass.
Dec. 22, 2020)
District court holds that allegations of a continuing scheme are
sufficient to confer standing for plaintiff to pursue claims based
on conduct after plaintiff's last purchases.
In this case, a direct purchaser of products used to treat diabetes
brought a putative class action alleging that the manufacturer
engaged in anti-competitive conduct to prevent or delay competitors
from entering the market and charging supra-competitive prices. The
district court denied the manufacturer's motion to dismiss for lack
of standing, noting that the putative class-action nature of the
case did not alter the plaintiff's obligation to establish Article
III standing -- citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540,
1547 (2016). The motion to dismiss focused on traceability, whether
plaintiff adequately alleged that conduct after June 2016 caused a
concrete and particularized injury sufficient for standing. The
plaintiff had stopped purchasing the product in early 2016, and
thus the defendant argued that plaintiff did not have standing to
assert claims based on post-purchase conduct, which could not have
caused plaintiff any injury. The court rejected this argument.
According to the court, the First Circuit has "trained [the]
Article III focus in class actions on 'the incentives of the named
plaintiffs to adequately litigate issues of importance to them.'"
To establish standing in this context, named plaintiffs are not
required to show that their claims are identical to the putative
class members' claims, as such a standard would confuse the
requirements of Rule 23 and Article III "by rendering superfluous
the commonality and predominance requirements necessary to certify
a class under Rule 23." Thus, according to the district court, the
standing question is not whether there are differences between the
plaintiff and putative class members' claims, but rather whether
"the differences that do exist [are] the type that leave the class
representative with an insufficient personal stake in the
adjudication of the class members' claims." Here, the plaintiff
alleged a common, continuing scheme of anti-competitive conduct,
which the court held was sufficient at the pleading stage to assert
claims based on post-purchase conduct.
Henry v. Bozzuto Management Co., 98 Mass. App. Ct. 690 (2020)
Massachusetts Appeals Court reaffirms that evidence is required to
support class certification.
This case involved allegations that a landlord had mishandled
plaintiff's security deposits. Plaintiff sought to assert this
claim on behalf of a putative class but failed to present evidence
showing that the certification requirements were satisfied. The
trial court denied certification, and the Appeals Court affirmed,
explaining that a plaintiff bears the burden of providing
information sufficient for a motion judge to form a "reasonable
judgment" that the class met the requirements. The Appeals Court
concluded that the plaintiff failed to offer "anything more than
argument and speculation about whether and how the defendant's
practices in handling tenants' security deposits affected anyone
else." Thus, the Appeals Court concluded that there was "no
evidentiary showing that any other person was affected as the
plaintiffs were, let alone that there were numerous such persons."
Second Circuit
In re Namenda Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig., No.
1:15-CV-6549, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247078 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12,
2021)
S.D.N.Y. finds that a complete Daubert inquiry is necessary in
evaluating expert reports at the class certification stage.
In this putative antitrust class action, plaintiffs alleged that
they were forced to pay supra-competitive prices for the Namenda
drug after certain purported actions were taken by Forest
Laboratories. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification relied on
two expert reports, one of which defendants moved to exclude,
arguing that the expert's methodology and data was unreliable. The
court ultimately denied the motion to exclude, but in so doing,
assessed whether Daubert applied at the class certification stage.
In assessing this issue, the court noted that "[n]either the
Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit has opined about whether
district courts must evaluate whether a proffered expert's opinions
are admissible under Daubert for the[m] to be considered in support
of class certification." The court then examined the approaches
taken in different circuits, including the Third and Seventh
Circuits (holding that the district court must perform a full
Daubert analysis) and the Eighth Circuit (holding that "evidence
that might otherwise be admissible at trial under Daubert can still
be considered for certification"). The court also noted that the
Ninth Circuit has found "the Eighth Circuit's reasoning
persuasive." On balance, the court ruled that it would follow the
Third and Seventh Circuits' approach and that "a complete Daubert
inquiry is necessary." As such, the court concluded that "only
expert reports that would otherwise be admissible at trial under
Daubert can be considered in support of class certification."
In re Fyre Festival Litig., No. 17-CV-3296, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
233484 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2020)
S.D.N.Y denies class certification based on lack of adequacy given
the proposed class representative's residence in the Netherlands
In this putative class action arising out of the promotion of a
luxury music festival, plaintiff sought to certify a class of
"[a]ll persons who purchased tickets to and/or made travel
arrangements in connection with Fyre Festival." According to
plaintiff, the proposed class consisted of 5,000 individuals who
purchased tickets and/or traveled to the festival.
In evaluating the threshold requirements under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), the court found that the plaintiff could not
establish either the typicality or the adequacy requirements. As to
typicality, the court found that "[t]he proposed class
representative Daniel Jung has not revealed which statements he
heard or saw, when he heard or saw them or when he acted in
detrimental reliance by purchasing tickets to the Festival or
expending money on travel. With ticket purchasers relying on
different statements made over an extended period of time, by
several different actors, Jung has not shown that his claims are
typical of those that would be made by absent class members of the
would-be class."
As for adequacy, the court found that Mr. Jung was inadequate
because of his residence abroad. Specifically, the court noted that
it "is unable to conclude on this record that Jung, who resides in
the Netherlands, can adequately monitor and direct counsel in this
case," and that even if all other requirements for class
certification could be established, that would still not be enough;
indeed, the court would still "require further briefing on whether
a foreign national residing 3,600 miles away can serve as an
adequate class representative on claims arising exclusively under
the law of the various states of the United States."
Third Circuit
Thorne v. Pep Boys‑Manny Moe & Jack Inc., 980 F.3d 879 (3d Cir.
2020)
Third Circuit holds that selling tires not registered in accordance
with federal law is insufficient to confer standing.
In one of many class actions against tire retailers, plaintiffs
alleged that the defendant was selling tires without helping
customers register them under the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act. Arguing that the lack of proper registration
created safety risks and made their tires less valuable than
properly registered tires, plaintiffs asserted state consumer fraud
and warranty claims. The retailer moved to dismiss, arguing that
plaintiffs did not allege any concrete or imminent injury and thus
did not have standing. The district court agreed, and the Third
Circuit affirmed.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the lack of proper registration
meant they had not received the benefit of their bargain because,
if their tires were recalled, the manufacturer would not be able to
contact them. The Third Circuit rejected this argument. "Unalleged,
uncertain future events do not make her Pep Boys tires worth less
at the time of purchase than equivalent registered tires," and the
lack of registration did not render the tires "defective." The
Third Circuit also held that the lack of registration was not, in
and of itself, enough to establish standing, explaining "[i]f Pep
Boys shirked its tire registration obligations, it committed only a
"bare procedural violation" that caused neither actual harm nor a
concrete material risk of harm." And even if plaintiff's "alleged
harm associated with a future recall of her tires were concrete,
her risk of actual injury is too speculative for Article III
standing purposes."
Sixth Circuit
McNamee v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, No. 14-cv-1948, 2020 WL
7202628 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 7, 2020)
Southern District of Ohio rejects motion for decertification based
on inadequacy of class counsel.
In this putative class action, defendant moved for decertification
based on inadequacy of plaintiff's counsel, pointing to: a
5-to-6-month delay in sending notice to the class; the filing of
only two sets of written discovery requests; and the failure to
designate an expert, take a 30(b)(6) deposition, authenticate
certain documents, and develop evidence "aside from plaintiff's own
self-serving testimony."
Although the court found the 5-to-6-month delay in sending class
notice "troubling," it held that the delay "did not rise to the
level of inadequate representation." In so holding, the court noted
several mitigating factors, including the fact that class counsel
promptly sent class notice once briefing on the motion for
decertification had concluded and the fact that the opt-out period
had passed. The court also explained that the error was "not part
of a broader pattern of deficient performance" and there were no
"other factors present to suggest class counsel [was] inadequate."
The court then rejected arguments that class counsel failed to
vigorously pursue discovery. In so doing, the court explained that
"the number of sets of written discovery alone does not necessarily
mean class counsel neglected to obtain necessary information or
documentation," that documents can be authenticated by witness
testimony, and that the "self-serving testimony . . . would appear
to be some relevant evidence."
Seventh Circuit
McFields v. Dart, 982 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2020)
The Seventh Circuit holds commonality, typicality, and predominance
were lacking where a proposed putative class challenged a jail's
dental treatment process.
This appeal arose from the district court's denial of class
certification. Plaintiffs were detainees from the Cook County Jail,
each of whom alleged harm resulting from the jail's dental
treatment policy. Plaintiffs claimed that the jail's policy,
requiring detainees to submit health service request forms in lieu
of face-to-face dental assessments, caused gratuitous pain. The
district court denied class certification and found that the
individualized inquiries related to each plaintiff were
incompatible with the commonality, typicality, and predominance
requirements of Rule 23.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, ruling that the district court had
not abused its discretion in denying class certification. The
court, after reviewing the various dental issues, pains
experienced, and individualized facts and circumstances, found that
the proposed class lacked the necessary commonality and
predominance for certification. Furthermore, the court found the
named plaintiff atypical, determining that it was the delay in
execution of his referral to receive dental care rather than the
denial of a face-to-face assessment that caused his injury.
Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Sys., LLC, 980 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2020)
Seventh Circuit finds that data retention violations under section
15(a) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act can
constitute concrete injuries sufficient to establish Article III
standing.
This appeal challenged a district court's finding that class action
plaintiffs lacked Article III standing after asserting violations
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The named
plaintiff was an employee of a defendant auto supplier that relied
on third-party software to retain employee biometric data for
timekeeping purposes. On behalf of a proposed class, the plaintiff
alleged numerous violations of section 15(a) of BIPA, claiming that
her employer unlawfully disclosed her biometric data to third
parties, failed to publicly disclose or develop retention and
destruction guidelines, and failed to comply with guidelines for
scheduled destruction of biometric data. The district court held
that plaintiffs lacked standing based upon the Seventh Circuit's
decision in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617, 619
(7th Cir. 2020).
The Seventh Circuit reversed, clarifying its prior holdings
concerning claims brought under section 15(a). The court reiterated
the narrow scope of Bryant, where the only alleged violation of
section 15(a) was the duty to publicly disclose data retention and
destruction protocols. The court emphasized that, because the named
plaintiff in this case alleged that her employer failed to comply
with data retention and destruction protocols, this amounted to
more than procedural, unparticularized harms, and rose to the level
of concrete injuries. The court further held that the plaintiffs'
status as union members, and the potential collective bargaining
implications associated, established Article III standing in
accordance with Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 926 F.3d 898,
902-03 (7th Cir. 2019).
Eighth Circuit
Custom Hair Designs by Sandy v. Cent. Payment Co., LLC, 984 F.3d
595 (8th Cir. 2020)
Eighth Circuit affirms certification in a RICO class action
involving payment processing contracts subject to individual
negotiation.
This case involved fraudulent concealment and RICO claims against a
credit card payment processor. Plaintiffs were small retailers that
used defendant's processing services. They alleged that defendant
misrepresented a number of fees, added fees with no value, and
inflated fees without prior approval from issuing banks. The
processing contracts, however, were subject to individual
negotiation and differed on what fees were permitted. The district
court granted class certification, and the Eighth Circuit
affirmed.
On appeal, defendant argued that the commonality and predominance
requirements were not satisfied because the processing contracts
differed, with many allowing the challenged fees. But the Eighth
Circuit rejected this argument for two reasons. First, although the
price terms were subject to negotiation, all plaintiffs alleged
that defendant failed to obtain bank preauthorization for the
challenged fees and the contracts were otherwise the same. Second,
the court concluded that any variability in what fees were
permitted went to damages, not liability.
The Eighth Circuit also rejected defendant's argument that
individual issues relating to the statute of limitations defense
defeated predominance. Defendant asserted that plaintiffs were
relying on fraudulent concealment to toll the limitations period
and argued that each class member must show reasonable diligence,
which was an individualized question. The Eighth Circuit, however,
concluded that this issue could be addressed based on class-wide
proof of defendant's misrepresentations that certain fees were mere
"pass through" costs when in fact they had not been approved by the
issuing banks.
Defendant also argued that class certification was improper because
its agents separately negotiated with each class member, which
meant that those discussions would need to be analyzed individually
to determine whether a misrepresentation occurred. The Eighth
Circuit rejected this argument as well, concluding that plaintiffs
were relying on uniform misrepresentations that banks had
authorized fee increases. According to the court, "[a]gent
communications are relevant as a defense, but only if [defendant]
could prove agents disclosed [the] intention to charge higher fees
without issuing bank authorization."
Ninth Circuit
Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., 980 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2020)
For purposes of awarding attorney's fees on the coupon portion of a
class action settlement, Ninth Circuit holds that the trial court
improperly applied a lodestar-only methodology.
This case involved a putative class action against Whirlpool
alleging overheating dishwashers. As part of a settlement, the
parties agreed to payments in cash for repairs or replacements
where overheating had occurred, and coupons for a discount on
purchases of new dishwashers within certain timeframes. The parties
could not agree on the monetary value of the coupons that would be
redeemed -- Whirlpool estimated as low as $4.2 million and
plaintiffs estimated $116.7 million. With respect to fees,
plaintiffs' counsel requested $15 million (approximately $9 million
in lodestar with a 1.68 multiplier), relying on a supposed
settlement value in the range of $55.7 million to $116.7 million.
The district court used a lodestar-only methodology and awarded
$14.8 million in fees. Defendant appealed the fee award.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the fee award, finding that the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and settled precedent prohibit using the
lodestar method for coupon settlements, even for cases brought in
diversity jurisdiction. Instead, the percentage-of-redemption-value
method must be applied to any "portion" of a fee award
"attributable to the award of . . . coupons." Based on the record,
the Ninth Circuit noted that only 4% of claims submitted by class
members could involve cash reimbursement. The remaining 96% were
for coupons. The Ninth Circuit remanded, ordering the district
court to determine the overall settlement value through expert
testimony, and then use the lodestar approach for the monetary
portion of the settlement, and the percentage-of-redemption-value
method for the coupon portion, to arrive at an attorney's fees
award.
Harris v. KM Industrial, Inc., 980 F.3d 694 (9th Cir. 2020)
District court properly remanded case where defendant made improper
assumptions about the amount in controversy under CAFA.
Plaintiff asserted wage and hour claims in state court on behalf of
a putative class that consisted of 442 "persons in hourly or
non-exempt positions in California," and also persons in a "meal
period subclass" and a "rest period subclass." Defendant removed
under CAFA, arguing that the amount in controversy was
approximately $7 million. For purposes of its calculations,
defendant assumed that all of the members of the hourly employee
class also were members of the meal period and rest period
subclasses. Plaintiff moved to remand to state court, challenging
the assumption as "unfounded" and arguing that the calculation was
inflated. The district court agreed, also finding that defendant
failed to meet its burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence and granted plaintiff's motion to remand.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court first concluded
that plaintiff asserted a factual rather than a facial attack on
CAFA jurisdiction. Although plaintiff did not introduce evidence,
the court explained that a factual attack "need only challenge the
truth of the defendant's jurisdictional allegations by making a
reasoned argument as to why any assumptions on which they are based
are not supported by evidence." Once plaintiff challenged the
removal assumption, defendant had the burden to show that the
assumptions were reasonable. But the defendant presented no
evidence that every member of the meal and rest period subclasses
were members of the hourly employee class or that putative class
members worked shifts long enough to qualify for breaks.
Ultimately, the court agreed that "relying on the factually
unsupported and unreasonable assumption that the 442 Hourly
Employee Class members worked shifts long enough to entitle them to
meal and rest periods would exaggerate the amount in controversy."
Laver v. Credit Suisse Secs., LLC, 976 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2020)
FINRA rule prohibiting arbitration of class actions cannot be used
to bar enforcement of contractual class-action waiver.
Plaintiff, a former financial advisor with Credit Suisse, filed a
proposed class action, alleging that Credit Suisse improperly
attempted to avoid payment of deferred compensation in connection
with a wind down of its advisory business operation. Credit Suisse,
a FINRA member, moved to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
individual claims based on a class-action waiver contained in his
employment agreement. Plaintiff argued that FINRA Rule 13204(a)(4)
barred Credit Suisse from pursuing arbitration. However, as
construed by the district court, the rule prohibits only the
compelled arbitration of certified or putative class action claims.
The district court therefore granted Credit Suisse's motion to
compel, requiring arbitration of the individual claims.
On appeal, plaintiff argued that the FINRA rule prevented Credit
Suisse from enforcing the class waiver in any forum. The Ninth
Circuit rejected this contention, finding that the rule could not
supersede the right to enforce a contractual arbitration provision,
pursuant to its terms, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The
Ninth Circuit noted that the rule did not state a bar to class
action waivers on its face, and even an interpretation to that
effect would impermissibly interfere with the availability of
arbitration and create a scheme inconsistent with the FAA.
Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. CV
14-8390-DMB (PLAx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232728 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9,
2020)
Former class counsel obligated to notify a decertified class of
decertification.
Following decertification, the district court considered whether
notice to class members was required. The court found "persuasive
authority" supporting the duty of a court and counsel to provide
notice, including for the purpose of ensuring that class members
suffered no prejudice. In reaching this conclusion, the district
court rejected defendants' contention that it lacked authority to
order notice because the parties had filed a stipulation to dismiss
under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which took effect without the need for
action from the court.
Clark v. Wesbtrae Natural, Inc., No. 20-cv-03221-JSC, 2020 WL
7043879 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020)
Plaintiff properly served CLRA notice with initial complaint that
sought injunctive relief, and then amended to include damages.
Plaintiff sued Westbrae, alleging that the labelling on its vanilla
soymilk was misleading. According to plaintiff, "organic
unsweetened vanilla soymilk" reasonably could be interpreted "as
conveying that the [p]roduct's vanilla flavor is derived
exclusively from the vanilla bean." Among other claims, plaintiff
brought a claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Upon
filing the action, plaintiff served a notice on defendant, advising
of the alleged mislabeling and demanding a cure. But plaintiff
sought only injunctive relief on the CLRA claim, and disgorgement
and restitution on the other claims. When plaintiff amended the
complaint to include damages under the CLRA, Westbrae objected to
the prayer as untimely, arguing that plaintiff sought "damages in
substance, if not in form, by seeking disgorgement and restitution
under the other California consumer protection statutes in his
initial [c]omplaint."
The court disagreed, stating that the relief sought under the other
statutes was irrelevant. Further, the court found that plaintiff
had provided notice as required - "at least thirty days before"
filing a CLRA damages claim in the amended complaint.
Drake v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:30-cv-01421-SB-PLA, 2020 WL
7040125 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020)
District court dismisses nationwide class allegations where named
plaintiffs were only from two states.
Plaintiffs filed a proposed nationwide class action against Toyota,
alleging a steering defect in certain vehicles. Named plaintiffs
were citizens of California and Illinois, respectively. Plaintiffs
asserted claims under California and Illinois consumer protection
statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
On defendants' motion to dismiss, the district court found that
plaintiffs "do not have standing to assert claims from states in
which they do not reside . . . and it is appropriate to address
standing in advance of class certification." The district court
therefore dismissed the nationwide class allegations, leaving only
the California and Illinois claims pending. The dismissal extended
to the Magnuson-Moss claim because "claims under the [act] stand or
fall with [the plaintiff's] express and implied warranty claims
under state law."
Radcliff v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., No. 3:20-cv-01555-H-MSB,
2020 WL 6395677 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020)
Where arbitration agreement was not "permeated" with unconscionable
terms, the court severed an improper term and compelled arbitration
of individual claims.
Plaintiff filed proposed class action related to defendants'
employment policies. At the beginning of his employment, plaintiff
executed an offer letter and an agreement providing that
arbitration would provide "the exclusive remedy for [any] claim or
dispute." Defendants moved to compel arbitration on an individual
basis, except on a non-arbitrable PAGA (Private Attorneys General
Act) claim, and plaintiff raised numerous challenges to the
enforcement of the provisions, including as to procedural and
substantive unconscionability. The court rejected those challenges,
except with respect to a cost-shifting provision, which required a
party "who brings arbitrable claims to a non-arbitration proceeding
to pay the costs of the other resulting from such action." But
because this was the only improper term -- the agreement was not
"permeated" with such terms -- the court severed it, and enforced
the remainder of the agreement to require arbitration of
plaintiff's individual claims.
Gross v. Vilore Foods Co., Inc., No. 20cv0894 DMS (JLB), 2020 WL
417176 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2020)
To rely on the delayed discovery rule, plaintiffs must allege facts
showing inability to discover alleged deception before limitations
period elapsed.
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Vilore, alleging
claims under the CLRA, Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False
Advertising Law (FAL) as well as other claims, based on the
allegation that the juice-based "Guava Nectar," "Apricot Nectar,"
and "Peach Nectar" products they purchased were deceptively labeled
because they represented on their labels that they were "100%
Natural" and depicted fruits, but contained the artificial
flavoring di-malic acid. Plaintiffs sought to represent classes of
consumers that included individuals who purchased the juices at
issue nearly six years before the action was filed, well outside
the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims in part on the ground that they were
time-barred. Plaintiffs tried to rely on the delayed discovery rule
to toll the statutes of limitation, but the court held that
plaintiffs had not alleged facts to support that theory.
Specifically, the court held that, under plaintiffs' logic, the
statute of limitations would be tolled for every reasonable
consumer from the date he or she was deceived into making a
purchase. The court rejected that argument and held that consumers
must plead facts showing the inability to have discovered the
deception before the statute lapsed, despite exercising reasonable
diligence.
Freedline v. O Organic, No. 19-cv-01945-JD, 2020 WL 6290362 (N.D.
Cal. Oct. 27, 2020)
Plaintiff failed to state claims under California consumer
protection statutes on behalf of non-residents.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against O Organics, based
on the allegation that defendant misled consumers about the alcohol
and sugar content in their kombucha beverage products. Plaintiff
alleged claims under the UCL, FAL and CLRA on behalf of a putative
nationwide class. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims alleged on
behalf of non-California residents. The court granted the motion
for two reasons. First, defendant identified significant
differences in reliance and scienter requirements and remedies
between the California consumer protection statutes in the
complaint and corresponding statutes in other states -- differences
the Ninth Circuit has already held to be material for a
choice-of-law analysis. Second, the court found that every state
has a strong interest in applying its own consumer protection laws
to transactions within its borders that affect its residents. The
court held that these interests outweighed any interest California
may have in applying its laws extraterritorially notwithstanding
that defendant brewed and bottled its kombucha in California, is
headquartered in the state, and does substantial advertising and
marketing there.
Taylor v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:20-cv-00655-KJM-DMC, 2020
WL 389970 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020)
Retailer could not be liable for violation of California's consumer
protection statutes where plaintiff did not allege that retailer
personally participated in and exercised unbridled control over
alleged unfair business practices.
Plaintiff brought a putative class action against Costco for
selling Roundup, a weed killer containing the alleged
cancer-causing chemical glyphosate. The manufacturer, Monsanto, was
not a party to the case. Plaintiff alleged claims under the UCL
based on the allegation that Costco did not provide him with
information when he purchased the Roundup indicating that the
product contained an ingredient that might be carcinogenic. On a
motion to dismiss, the court found that plaintiff did not allege
facts showing that Costco exercised unbridled control of the
content of the Roundup label, which is required to impose liability
on a retail seller of another company's product. The court found
that Costco is not required to police representations made on
products on its shelves, absent more involvement in creating and
participating in the development of such representations in the
first place.
Hildebrandt v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC, 58 Cal. App. 5th
128 (2020)
California court of appeal holds that, when evaluating
American-Pipe tolling, courts must focus on the pleading.
In an employment class action, the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Staples, finding that all of the claims were
time-barred, and the pendency of two related class actions provided
no basis for tolling. The trial court found that tolling did not
apply because: (1) the lead plaintiff in one of the suits held a
different employment position than Hildebrandt; and (2) the trial
court in the other suit denied class certification due to lack of
commonality, which raised a "presumption" against tolling. As the
basis for this presumption, the trial court relied on Batze v.
Safeway, Inc., 10 Cal. App. 5th 440 (2017).
The Second District Court of Appeal stated that the appeal
"presents one issue" -- whether Hildebrandt could invoke the class
action tolling rule established by the United States Supreme Court
in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, and adopted by the
California Supreme Court in Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. In Jolly, the
California Supreme Court described the American Pipe rule as
follows: "[U]nder limited circumstances, if class certification is
denied, the statute of limitations is tolled from the time of
commencement of the suit to the time of denial of certification for
all purported members of the class who either make timely motions
to intervene in the surviving individual action . . . or who timely
file their individual actions."
The Second District rejected the trial court's conclusion based on
Batze -- i.e., that Hildebrandt could not overcome the presumption
against tolling because the "evidence showed tolling would be
'prejudicial' to Staples and the denial of class certification was
not 'unforeseeable.'" The Second District found that Batze was not
founded in Jolly or American Pipe. Batze contemplates a "factual
inquiry in what the defendant could have predicted about what
absent class member might have believed," while Jolly and American
Pipe require focus on the "class action pleading." The Second
District therefore reversed, holding that a trial court must
examine the pleading and determine whether the defendant "had
adequate notice sufficient to effectuate the purpose of the statute
of limitations," and whether "the claims asserted on behalf of the
putative class were sufficiently similar to the absent class
members' individual claims, so that the absent class members can be
found reasonably [to] have relied on the [class action] complaint
as a basis for postponing their own actions."
Eleventh Circuit
Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917 (11th Cir.
2020)
Eleventh Circuit holds that an alleged violation of FACTA's
truncation requirement alone is not enough for standing.
This case involved a putative class action against Godiva alleging
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA). The gravamen of FACTA is that a merchant is prohibited
from printing "more than the last 5 digits of the card number or
the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at
the point of the sale or transaction." The merchant provided
plaintiff with a receipt that contained 10 digits of his credit
card number, and plaintiff asserted that this violation subjected
him and the class members "to an elevated risk of identity theft."
After motion practice and discovery, the parties entered into
mediation and reached a mediated settlement of the claims brought
by Dr. Muransky. The parties subsequently notified the court of an
agreement to resolve the case and sought court approval of the
settlement. Two class members raised several objections to the
settlement, including to plaintiff's standing. On October 28, 2020,
the Eleventh Circuit, sua sponte, withdrew a prior opinion and
issued an en banc decision (7-3 split), holding that, under Spokeo,
plaintiff lacked the requisite Article III standing because he
failed to "allege either a harm or a material risk of harm stemming
from the FACTA violation. . . ."
The court explained that "the plaintiff needs to show that the
defendant harmed him, and that a court decision can either
eliminate the harm or compensate for it. That standard applies
equally in the class action setting . . . " But here, plaintiff
alleged only a violation of his statutory rights under FACTA.
Citing Spokeo, the court concluded that a statutory violation alone
was not enough. The court also held that the time allegedly spent
safeguarding or destroying improper receipts was insufficient
because "where a hypothetical future harm is not certainly
impending, plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing merely by
inflicting harm on themselves." The court also rejected plaintiff's
attempt to analogize FACTA to the common law claim for breach of
confidence because the requirements were too different. Finally,
the court rejected plaintiff's argument that he was at an increased
risk of identity theft because he "did not plead facts that, taken
as true, plausibly allege a material risk, or significant risk, or
substantial risk, or anything approaching a realistic danger."
D.C. Circuit
Salvador v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 19-2754, 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 225937 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2020)
D.C. District Court grants motion to strike class action
allegations at the motion to dismiss stage, highlighting the
prevalence of individualized issues.
In this putative class action, plaintiffs brought suit against
several Allstate entities, contending that the defendants allegedly
failed to (1) compensate one of the named plaintiffs for his
injuries under the uninsured motorist coverage in his Allstate
insurance policy and (2) warn consumers purchasing Allstate
insurance that Allstate would take actions aimed at allegedly
denying or delaying receipt of uninsured motorist benefits.
Defendants moved to dismiss the second count of the complaint and
moved to dismiss certain of the Allstate entities as defendants in
the litigation; both motions were granted. At the same time,
defendants also filed a motion to strike the class allegations,
which the court entertained at the outset and alongside the motion
to dismiss -- and subsequently granted.
In assessing the motion to strike, the court noted that D.C. Code
Section 31-2406(f)(2) requires that "[e]each insurer selling motor
vehicle insurance in the District . . . shall include coverage for
bodily injury or death" of at least $25,000 per person injured in
an accident or $50,000 total for all persons injured in an accident
"for the protection of persons insured . . . who are legally
entitled to recover damages from owners or operators of uninsured
motor vehicles." As such, "each claimant must be 'legally entitled'
to recover damages to be encompassed in this code section," and
thus "[t]o recover benefits pursuant to uninsured motorist
coverage, the insured must prove coverage under the contract." In
light of these requirements, the court determined that
"individualized issues of fact and law would necessarily
predominate over any common questions" both practically and
legally. The individualized determinations that would need to be
determined as to each purported class member included whether the
proposed class member was actually injured, whether the class
member was actually uninsured, Allstate's owing of benefits to that
person, liability for the injuries in question (including any
liability of the class member), causation, and appropriate damages.
The Court found these individualized determinations would require
"mini-trials" as to each claimant, rendering class treatment
inappropriate.
White v. Hilton Hotels Ret. Plan, No. 16-856, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
185791 (D.D.C. Oct. 7, 2020)
D.C. District Court finds a "fail-safe" class cannot satisfy the
definiteness requirement for class certification.
In this ERISA putative class action, plaintiffs sought class
certification, and among other things, defendants argued the
proposed class was impermissibly "fail-safe" in opposition. Put
differently, defendants argued that the proposed class definition
was defined in such a way that class membership is contingent on
whether the person has a valid claim in the first place, making
future merits determinations necessary to determine who is in the
class or not. The court agreed, finding the class definition of
persons who "have vested rights to retirement benefits that have
been denied" requires the question of whose rights have actually
vested to be determined before the scope of the class can be
determined.
In reaching its holding, the court noted "the rule against
[fail-safe] classes is not entirely settled," as several courts in
the District have gone in different directions on this issue.
Moreover, "[t]he D.C. Circuit has not opined directly on the
matter." The court was, however, persuaded by the fact that eight
other Circuits have "either adopted a categorical rule against
fail-safe classes or discussed such a rule with approval." The
court further highlighted that "the gravamen of the rule itself is
rooted in compelling principles of fairness and common sense. As a
practical matter, putative members of a fail-safe class are not
identifiable after class certification, because the definition of a
class member turns on the final result of the litigation itself.
This creates tangible administrative problems for the courts,
including difficulty in providing proper notice to class members."
As the court did permit plaintiffs a "final opportunity to amend
their class definition," the parties have been briefing plaintiffs'
renewed class certification motion since this decision was issued.
As the court did flag additional potential barriers to class
certification in its October 7, 2020 decision, including defects as
to their proposed subclasses, it remains to be seen whether
plaintiffs can overcome this hurdle.
Toxin Free USA v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. 20-CV-1013, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 222520 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2020)
D.C. District Court finds CAFA jurisdiction is improper unless the
complaint itself invokes the class action litigation mechanism
and/or indicates that the plaintiff intends to seek class
certification in the future.
In this case, Toxin Free USA brought an action against the J.M.
Smucker Company and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia, alleging violations of two
subsections of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act's private attorney general provision. Defendants
removed the case to federal court and argued, among other things,
that the case qualified as a class action under CAFA. Toxin Free
filed a motion to remand, which was granted because, among other
things, the case was not removable under CAFA.
In finding there was no CAFA jurisdiction, the court flagged
several points relating to plaintiff's pleading and thus how Toxin
Free "brought" this case. First, Toxin Free "did not label [its
action] as a class action or reference Rule 23 of the D.C. Superior
Court Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure." Second, Toxin Free did not allege that it had met
any of Rule 23's threshold or more specific requirements in its
complaint. While discovery requests served by Toxin Free referenced
class certification, the court found that to be insufficient to
"convert this action into a class action" as "what matters in
assessing jurisdiction under CAFA is 'how the action was actually
filed" by the plaintiff in the first place.
Aaron Van Nostrand, Layal Bishara, Andrea N. Chidyllo, Keith
Hammeran, Kelyn J. Smith and Brian D. Straw contributed to this
article. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
*********
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 ***