/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210302.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 2, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 38
Headlines
ACCELERATED INVENTORY: Can Compel Arbitration in Liptak FDCPA Suit
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
AMAZON.COM INC: 9th Cir. Flips Arbitration Denial in Tice CIPA Suit
APACHE CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 26 Deadline
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
AT&T MOBILITY: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class without Prejudice
BALTIMORE, MD: Chesapeake Detention Facility Faces Covid-19 Lawsuit
BARCLAYS PLC: July 12-16 Competition Appeal Tribunal Hearing Set
BECKET COLLECTIBLES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
BELL GARDENS: Garcia Sues Over Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
BFTV LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BIT DIGITAL: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Quiazon Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
C.R. BARD: Faces Gilmore Product Liability Suit in D. Arizona
C.R. BARD: Haffa Sues Over Injuries From Defective IVC Filters
C.R. BARD: Kirkland Class Suit Alleges Defective Bard IVC Filters
C.R. BARD: Mathis Suit Seeks Damages for Defective IVC Filters
C.R. ENGLAND: Carter FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. La. to D. Utah
CANADA: Young Quebecers Seek to Revive Climate Change Class Suit
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo FLSA Suit Moved From W.D.N.C. to E.D.N.C.
CLEANSPARK INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
CLEARVIEW AI: Promises SCOTUS Petition in Biometric Privacy Case
CLOVER HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 6 Deadline
COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers Sent Notice to Join Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Suit Wins Initial Approval of Settlement
DCP OPERATING: Donald Miller Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DEVA SAI: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
DHANU MALI: Garcia ADA Suit Seeks Online Booking's Access Features
DISCOUNT TWO: Bid to Certify Class in Campbell Denied as Premature
DNF ASSOCIATES: Ronald Viernes Seeks Approval of Class Notice
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
ELANCO ANIMAL: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Lovett Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. California
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Discover Wins Arbitration Bid in Jacobowitz
EXXON MOBIL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline
EXXON MOBIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: Hearing on Class Certification Set for April 29
FACEBOOK INC: May Face Class Action Over Australia News Ban
FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved From N.D.N.C. to N.D. Ohio
FRONTIER INC: Class Claims Struck from Ramsay Suit Over Assault
FUBOTV INC: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
GEICO CASUALTY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 23
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed
GLOBAL CREDIT: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Stadia's 4K Gaming Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Ratliff Class Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to N.D. Cal.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: $22K Appraisal Award in Lewis Suit Confirmed
GRIDDY ENERGY: Texas Woman Who Received $9,300 Bill Files Suit
HUSKY OIL: Court Certifies Rule 23(b)(3) Class in Bruzek Suit
IC SYSTEM: Crawford Files FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
IMMUNOVANT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 20 Deadline
INFINITY Q CAPITAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
INFLECTION RISK: Bid to Dismiss Taylor Class Action Tossed
JAGUAR ANIMAL: Monteverde & Associates Announces Settlement
JAMES FRANCO: Settles Class Action Over Sexual Misconduct
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Elmiron Drug Risks
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 19 Deadline
JOHN HANCOCK: Court OKs Class Certification Bid in Baker ERISA Suit
LENDING CLUB: Bradford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
LOMPOC, CA: Federal Prison Inmates Get Support Amid Class Action
LOWRY FARMS: Benito Suit Seeks Class Action Certification
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Bruns Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Settlement in Martin Suit Has Prelim. Okay
MARUTI INVESTMENTS: Fails to Serve Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Set to Return to Court Next Month
MDL 1869: Bid to Exclude Interline-Related Communications Denied
MDL 2323: Locks Gets 15% of E.W.'s Fee Award in NFL Concussion Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Rosen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Miethe-McKay Claims
MONEYLION INC: Dismissal & Arbitration Ruling in DiCarlo Affirmed
MORPHE LLC: Brooks Bid for Default Judgment Tossed w/o Prejudice
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: RM LAW Reminds of April 25 Deadline
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Bid to Dismiss Dent's 3rd Amended Suit Denied
NEW YORK, NY: Suit Over Accessibility Attains Class-Action Status
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Flores' Amended Class Complaint
NISSAN NORTH: Class Certification Sought in Johnson Sunroofs Suit
PALADINO CONSTRUCTION: Halliburton Sues Over Underpaid Overtime
PENUMBRA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
PENUMBRA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Mar. 16 Deadline
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Shattuck Pharmacy Files Class Action
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Febreze Car Air Fresher Class Action Dismissed
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Hofstader Has Final Approval
PUMP RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuits Over Unlawful Trade Practices
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
QUEBEC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Veterans' Class-Action
QUEENSLAND: 2011 Flood Victims Win Partial $440M Payout in Suit
SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Hawkins Bid for Class Certification Tossed
SEEKING ALPHA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SHUTTLE FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOUTHBRIDGE ROSEVIEW: Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Negligence
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Decertify Class in Dixon Suit Nixed
STERICYCLE INC: Daniel FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
STERLING JEWELERS: Can Compel Arbitration in Lodge Class Suit
TEICHERT PIPELINES: Olea Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
TEMPLE PLAZA: Class of Dancers Certified in Merriwether FLSA Suit
TIKTOK: To Pay $92MM to Settle Suit Over Personal Data Collection
TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
TRICIDA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
ULTRA ENTERPRISES: 2021 Music Festival Canceled Amid Class Action
UPPER DECK: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed in Timber Securities Suit
VISALUS INC: Renewed Bid for Judgment Tossed in TCPA Suit
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss McKnight-Nero Class Suit
WAWA INC: Shoppers May be Eligible for a Payout Under Settlement
WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
WELD COUNTY, CO: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
WHITE COUNTY, IN: Class of County Jail Inmates in Hines Certified
ZURICH AMERICAN: Court Dismisses Brunswick's Amended Complaint
[*] Data Processing Companies Face Class Action Risk in EU
*********
ACCELERATED INVENTORY: Can Compel Arbitration in Liptak FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT LIPTAK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELERATED INVENTORY
MANAGEMENT, LLC; OLIPHANT FINANCIAL, LLC; and JOHN DOES Defendants,
Case No. 2:20-cv-967 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Marilyn J. Horan of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration.
On May 2016, Plaintiff Liptak borrowed money from WebBank. Mr.
Liptak applied for his loan through the LendingClub Corp.'s online
lending platform. To obtain the loan funds, borrowers are required
to navigated past a webpage containing two "I Agree" buttons. By
clicking the first "I Agree" button on the webpage, the borrower
electronically acknowledges the terms of the Borrower Agreement.
The Borrower Agreement was not visible on the webpage but was
allegedly available by a green hyperlink. The Borrower Agreement
contained an Arbitration Provision that states that "Either party
to this Agreement, or any subsequent holder, may at its sole
discretion, require that the sole and exclusive forum and remedy
for resolution of a claim be final and binding Arbitration."
On May 11, 2016, WebBank approved Mr. Liptak's loan application and
disbursed the loan funds to Mr. Liptak. Mr. Liptak made the
initial payments on the loan but eventually ceased making payments.
He now brings a class action lawsuit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated Plaintiffs.
The Defendants argue that the Arbitration Provision in the Borrower
Agreement compels Mr. Liptak to seek redress through arbitration.
Mr. Liptak argues on the other hand that the two "I Agree" buttons
on the webpage created an ambiguity and that he does not remember
consenting to the Arbitration Provision in the Borrower's
Agreement. Thus, he seeks to avoid arbitration or to at least
pursue limited discovery on the validity of the arbitration
agreement.
Judge Horan opines that the case involves an arbitration clause
contained within a clickwrap agreement. Although Mr. Liptak has
alleged in response to the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration
that he does not remember reading the clickwrap agreement or
assenting to arbitration, courts have generally held that parties
are presumed to have read the agreements that they have sign. Mr.
Liptak would not have been able to obtain the loan from WebBank if
he did not select the "I Agree" button on the webpage. Mr. Liptak
has not placed sufficient information in the record to question the
validity of the arbitration clause. Thus, because clickwrap
agreements are generally enforced by the courts and because of the
strong federal policy favoring arbitration, the arbitration
provision in the clickwrap agreement will be enforced.
The Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is granted. The
matter is referred for individual arbitration, and is stayed
pending the outcome of such proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zw3xdsrr from Leagle.com.
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. (NYSE: UAVS) resulting
from allegations that AgEagle may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased AgEagle securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2037.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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research
published a report revealing, among other things, that AgEagle "was
a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by Alpha Capital Anstalt ('Alpha
Capital'), AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and
other UAVS insiders to defraud US investors." The report also
alleged that "in April 2020 rumor of a partnership between Amazon .
. . & AgEagle was started by a promotional video uploaded to
AgEagle's founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott's daughter's
personal website and youtube account" but that "we have found no
evidence of any 'major e-commerce customer.'" In mid-2020, AgEagle
received over $23 million in proceeds from registered direct
offerings. Then, in fourth quarter 2020, an Amazon spokesperson
stated that the company does not have any dealings with AgEagle
whatsoever. On this news, AgEagle's stock price fell $5.13, or
36.4%, on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.
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.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: 9th Cir. Flips Arbitration Denial in Tice CIPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAYLEY CHARMAINE TICE, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
AMAZON.COM, INC.; A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 20-55432 (9th Cir.) the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
denial in part of the motion to compel arbitration filed by
Appellants Amazon.com, Inc. and A2Z Development Center, Inc.
Appellee Tice filed a class action complaint alleging that she and
the other class members were injured because Amazon's
voice-activated device, Alexa, recorded Tice's communications
without her consent. Tice alleged that Amazon violated the
California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") because it "created
permanent recordings of Tice's and the Class Members' voices and
Alexa communications," and "intentionally and without the consent
of all parties to a confidential communication used an electronic
amplifying or recording device to record the confidential
communication." Tice further alleged that Amazon invaded her
privacy in violation of California law "by using its Alexa devices
to record, store, analyze, and use the voices and communications of
Tice and the Members of the Class without their knowledge or
consent."
Although not alleged as separate claims in Tice's complaint, the
district court divided Tice's factual allegations into "three
scenarios": (1) Tice's intentional use of Alexa devices, (2)
background recordings that occurred when another user activated
Alexa, and (3) "surreptitious recordings" when "Alexa sporadically
recorded conversations without prompting and permission from anyone
in the household." The district court concluded that Tice was
required to submit her intentional use and background recording
claims to arbitration, but her claim premised on "surreptitious
recordings" was not subject to arbitration.
The district court determined that Amazon's terms of use and
conditions of use "contained facially valid arbitration clauses,"
and recognized that incorporation of the American Arbitration
Association rules delegated to the arbitrator the determination of
whether Tice's intentional use and background recording claims were
covered by the agreement. The district court held that, because
her husband agreed to the terms of use and conditions of use for
Alexa, Tice was equitably estopped under California law from
avoiding arbitration. After determining that Tice was compelled to
arbitrate her other claims, the district court did not analyze
whether the arbitration clauses similarly delegated the threshold
question of the arbitrability of Tice's "surreptitious recording"
claim.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred in holding
that Tice's "surreptitious recording" claim was not subject to
arbitration. To the extent that the district court held that
Tice's CIPA claim was not subject to arbitration because Amazon's
conduct was purportedly "criminal in nature," this reasoning was
erroneous. Tice alleged civil claims and sought civil remedies
under the CIPA, and arbitrators are not precluded from considering
whether such claims are subject to arbitration.
Finally, Ninth Circuit finds that the district court narrowly
construed the arbitration clauses as limited to Tice's "use" of the
Alexa devices. However, the arbitration clauses apply to "any
dispute or claim relating in any way to use of any Amazon Service,
or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or
through Amazon.com" and to "any dispute or claim arising from or
relating to this Agreement or Alexa. As a result, the Ninth
Circuit holds that it is for the arbitrator to decide whether
Tice's "surreptitious recording" claim is beyond the scope of any
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/x2mfe4w from Leagle.com.
APACHE CORPORATION: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 26 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Apache Corporation ("Apache Corp") (NASDAQ: APA)
between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13123&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Apache intentionally used unrealistic
assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil
and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the proper
infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or
transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts
purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you suffered a loss in Apache Corp you have until April 26, 2021
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. [GN]
ASTEC INDUSTRIES: City of Taylor Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF TAYLOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Plaintiff v. ASTEC INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-24 (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr., of the U.S.
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Chattanooga, granted
the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System filed
the class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased Astec
stock during the class period of July 26, 2016, to Oct. 22, 2018.
Plaintiff Lynn Johnson intervened and was appointed as the Lead
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Astec Industries, Benjamin
Brock, David Silvious, and Malcom Swanson made false or otherwise
misleading statements that artificially inflated the price of
Astec's stock. In doing so, the Plaintiffs argue that (1) all the
Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b) and 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 respectively, and (2) the individual
Defendants, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t.
Astec is an industrial conglomerate that manufactures a variety of
products and machinery; at issue in the case is its attempt to
enter the wood pellet industry. Brock was the CEO and President of
Astec; he was also a member of the Board of Directors and a member
of the Board Executive Committee for all times relevant to the
litigation. Since 2011, Silvious has served as the VP, CFO, and
Treasurer of Astec. Swanson served as the President of Astec from
January 2014 to January 2018.
Astec's first purchase for a plant was from Hazlehurst Wood
Pellets, LLC located in Hazlehurst, Georgia. It financed the plant
with Hazlehurst Wood Pellets, so Hazlehurst Wood Pellets owed Astec
the $60 million purchase price plus interest when Hazlehurst Wood
Pellets received financing from other financial institutions for
the plant. The loan became due in July of 2017.
The Hazlehurst Plant suffered from some defects. Most notably,
Astec's burners which powered the plant did not burn wood pellets;
they burned natural gas. Astec could not find a financial
institution willing to invest in the Hazlehurst Plant for the
purchase price. It wrote off the Hazlehurst Plant as a loss
claiming, "the timing of a transaction and the ultimate sale price
are uncertain." Finally, in July of 2019, the Hazlehurst Plant was
sold for $20 million.
In 2015, Astec entered an agreement with Highland Pellets, LLC to
build a second plant. In the contract, Astec promised its plant
could pass a "reliability test." In late 2018, two independent
auditors examined the Highland Plant and prepared two memoranda
that identified problems which prevented the plant from reaching
full productivity. On July 24th, Astec issued a news release that
revealed that their pellet plant business was struggling
financially. It revealed that it had entered a deal with Highland
Pellets where Astec would pay Highland Pellets $68 Million and
forgive an additional $7 Million in receivables to exit the
contract.
While Astec ended up selling only two pellet plants, the Hazlehurst
Plant and the Highland Plant, the executives of Astec were
confident that they could sell more plants. In July of 2016, Brock
stated that he expected to sell another pellet plant for $80
million. While it did not sell a plant in 2017, the Company
remained confident that it could receive an offer for another
pellet plant. On April 24, 2018 Brock stated that they could
deliver a complete pellet plant to another customer in 2019.
However, on July 24, 2018, Astec stated that it was no longer
attempting to build additional plants. Instead the Company would
only sell components of the plants to other companies.
Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint. The Defendants have three primary objections. First,
they argue that the Plaintiffs' long complaint is a "puzzle
pleading" that just compiles a long list of statements with a
general list of reasons. Second, they claim that the Amended
Complaint does not adequately allege facts that gives rise to a
strong inference of scienter. Third, they claim that the
statements cited are not misleading or otherwise protected. For
example, they claim that certain statements are not actionable
because they are mere puffery.
Judge Atchley notes that a claim made under the Securities Exchange
Act is subject to the heightened pleading standards of both Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9 and the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. He does not
reach any conclusions as to the third objection because the
Plaintiffs complaint--taken as a whole--fails to meet the stringent
standards set forth in the PSLRA as applied to Section 10(b).
He finds that the Plaintiffs do not state that everything quoted is
misleading. Instead, they claim (in their response) that when they
bolded or italicized a section within that block quote, that part
of the block quote was the misleading part. The Amended Complaint
also makes generalized statements about scienter. Specifically, in
its section entitled "Additional Allegations of Scienter," the
Plaintiffs state that the Defendants had access to financial
records, and they were aware of the flaws at the Highland and
Hazlehurst plants.
The PSLRA was intended "as a check against abusive litigation by
private parties." The Act is applied vigorously; it was described
by the Sixth Circuit as a "elephant-sized boulder blocking"
plaintiffs' suits. Because it is a check on unmeritorious
litigation, the pleading requirements it describes are "exacting,"
and "not easily satisfied." The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the heightened requirements of
Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA as applied to Section 10(b) for two
reasons: (1) it fails to adequately explain why the excerpted
statements are misleading; and (2) it fails to allege facts which
demonstrate a strong inference of scienter.
In a footnote at the end of the Plaintiffs' response, they ask for
leave to amend the complaint. The Plaintiffs cite Morse v.
McWhorter, 290 F.3d 795, 800 (6th Cir. 2002), where the Sixth
Circuit remarked "leave to amend is particularly appropriate where
the complaint does not allege fraud with particularity." But since
then, the Sixth Circuit has clarified "the PSLRA restricts the
scope of Rule 15(a) in the context of securities litigation such
that plaintiffs have more limited ability to amend their
complaints." Furthermore, the Sixth Circuit has explained "a bare
request in an opposition to a motion to dismiss--without any
indication on the particular grounds on which the amendment is
sought does not constitute a motion within the contemplation of
Rule 15(a)."
The Plaintiffs do not cite any grounds for their amendment, and
they have not submitted a motion to amend that preceded the motion
to dismiss. Essentially, the Plaintiffs ask for an insurance
policy to prevent dismissal of their case. Granting such
"insurance" is improper, the Judge opines. He says when the
Plaintiffs fail to amend a complaint before the Court considers a
motion to dismiss, the Sixth Circuit has been clear; dismissal with
prejudice--not leave to amend--is the proper disposition. Thus, he
holds that the Plaintiffs will not be given leave to amend their
complaint.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Atchley granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. He dismissed all Claims
against all the Defendants with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/j8t4m8zp from
Leagle.com.
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against AstraZeneca PLC
("AstraZeneca" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) and reminds
investors of the March 29, 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 AstraZeneca
stock or options between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310).
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
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (1) that initial clinical
trials for AZD1222 had suffered from a critical manufacturing
error, resulting in a substantial number of trial participants
receiving half the designed dosage; (2) that clinical trials for
AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups,
each with subtly different treatments, undermining the validity and
import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical
data across these disparate patient populations; (3) that certain
clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a second
dose at the designated time points, but rather received the second
dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled to be
delivered according to the original trial design; (4) that
AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients
over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite
this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the
effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the
drug; (5) that AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been
hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a
failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory
authorities and the general public; (6) that, as a result of
(1)-(5) 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 (7) that, as a
result of (1)-(7) 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.
Specifically, on November 23, 2020, AstraZeneca issued a release
announcing the results of an interim analysis of its ongoing trial
for AZD1222. The announcement immediately began to raise questions
among analysts and industry experts. AstraZeneca disclosed that the
interim analysis involved two smaller scale trials in disparate
locales (the United Kingdom and Brazil) that, for unexplained
reasons, employed two different dosing regimens. One clinical trial
provided patients a half dose of AZD1222 followed by a full dose,
while the other trial provided two full doses. Counterintuitively,
AstraZeneca claimed that the half dosing regimen was substantially
more effective at preventing COVID-19 at 90% efficacy than the full
dosing regimen, which had achieved just 62% efficacy.
In the days that followed, additional revelations were made
regarding problems with AstraZeneca's AZD1222 clinical trials. For
example, the differing dosing regimens were revealed to be due to a
manufacturing error rather than trial design. Also, the
half-strength dose had not been tested in people over the age of 55
- despite the fact that this population was the most vulnerable to
COVID-19. Moreover, certain trial participants received their
second dose later than originally planned. U.S. regulators stated
that if AstraZeneca could not clearly explain the discrepancies in
its trial results, the results would most likely not be sufficient
for approval for commercial sale in the United States.
As negative news reports continued to reveal previously undisclosed
problems and flaws in AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222,
the price of AstraZeneca ADSs fell to $52.60 by market close on
November 25, 2020, a 4.88% decline over three trading days in
response to adverse news on abnormally high volume.
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 AstraZeneca's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]
AT&T MOBILITY: Court Junks Bid to Certify Class without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Allen v. AT&T
Mobility Services LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03730 (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge William M. Ray, II entered an order terminating
motion to certify class without prejudice.
The parties may refile when they are ready to proceed, Judge Ray
says.
The nature of suit states civil rights -- employment involving job
discrimination issues.
AT&T Mobility provides wireless voice and data communications
services. The Company offers on-demand video streaming, post-paid,
prepaid, enterprise voice, and data, as well as local,
long-distance, and roaming services.[CC]
BALTIMORE, MD: Chesapeake Detention Facility Faces Covid-19 Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Davis, writing for Baltimore Sun, report that a federal
lawsuit alleges that corrections officials have mishandled an
outbreak of the coronavirus at the Chesapeake Detention Facility in
Baltimore City, leading to one-third of its inmates and staff
members contracting the virus in less than one month.
Filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of a number of inmates at
the facility, the class-action lawsuit names Warden Calvin Wilson
and Robert Green, Maryland secretary of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, as defendants, saying their "actions have
fueled this outbreak, and they also have failed to take appropriate
action in response."
According to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional
Services, 169 inmates at the facility as of Feb. 15 have contracted
COVID-19, the state-run lockup for men and women awaiting federal
trial. In addition, 80 employees have contracted the virus. The
lawsuit says the facility has about 400 inmates and 220 employees.
The lawsuit says inmates do not have the means to properly clean
their cells, facility officials do not clean common areas in
between recreation sessions, and on-site staff do not actively
force residents to wear masks or consistently wear them
themselves.
"CDF [Chesapeake Detention Facility] has exposed resident after
resident to the virus," the lawsuit reads. "CDF has intermixed
different groups of residents -- COVID-positive residents,
residents who should be quarantined because of potential exposure,
newly admitted residents, and COVID-negative residents -- and
thereby dramatically increased the risk of exposure across the
facility."
Mark Vernarelli, spokesman for the Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, declined to comment on the lawsuit's
allegations, writing in an email that officials continue "to follow
the guidance of Maryland's Dept. of Health for mitigating the
spread of COVID in its correctional facilities."
"The Department is constantly testing, utilizing quarantine and
isolation housing, and remaining nimble in modifying inmate
movement to prevent and mitigate potential spread," Vernarelli
wrote.
Earlier this month, the department said that U.S. marshals and
state correctional officers have stopped taking in new prisoners as
a result of the spike in new cases.
State and federal courts in Maryland will reopen to the public next
month and resume some trials after U.S. Chief District Judge James
J. Bredar ordered that some in-person jury trials may resume "on or
after March 15," with "appropriate safety precautions taken in all
instances."
John Fowler, counsel with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, which filed the lawsuit with the Bryan Cave Leighton
Paisner law firm, said facility officials didn't properly plan to
separate COVID-positive inmates from the rest of the population,
creating "this nightmare situation [where] people are getting
exposed left and right."
According to the lawsuit, some inmates have been moved to the Jail
Industries Building on East Madison Street, which was closed in
2017. The lawsuit describes the facility as one that has a number
of broken or drafty windows, alleging that temperatures inside drop
to 55 degrees.
The building has a dormitory-style layout, according to the
lawsuit, with beds separated by about 2 feet.
"This facility, which is best described as a broken-down,
pest-plagued warehouse, would be an inhumane detention space for
healthy inmates," the lawsuit alleges. "For individuals who have
already tested positive for a potentially deadly virus, it is
nothing short of horrifying."
In addition, the lawsuit claims, officials have ignored inmates'
requests for medical attention and have not always promptly
responded to residents who are exhibiting symptoms related to
COVID-19.
Quantae Butler, a 43-year-old inmate at Chesapeake Detention
Facility, said he was moved over to the Jail Industries Building
after testing positive for COVID-19 about two weeks ago.
Butler, who spoke with The Baltimore Sun, said officials have not
been separating COVID-positive inmates from the general population,
leading to the disease's spread among inmates and staff.
Suffering from nerve damage after being shot in the chest two years
ago, Butler said he has received little medical attention outside
of receiving doses of Tylenol and pregabalin, a medication that
treats nerve and muscle pain also known by its brand name, Lyrica.
"They don't know what they're doing over here," Butler said. "They
treat it like nothing is going on."
He added that officials rarely do proper cleaning of cells after
someone has tested positive for COVID-19. The lawsuit alleges that
inmates "who have tested negative for COVID are forced into the
cells formerly occupied by residents who have tested positive,
without any cleaning of these cells."
In addition, the lawsuit claims that there have been times when
newly admitted inmates have been placed into cells next to others
exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms.
"A woman who was a new admission to CDF, for example, was placed in
a unit with positive male residents who were symptomatic. Two
symptomatic male residents were on each side of her cell," the
lawsuit continues. "When she objected to her being placed in the
unit and questioned why it made sense for an apparently negative
woman to be placed with positive, symptomatic men, CDF told her
'not to worry.'"
The group is seeking a court order for an independent expert to
inspect the facility and force officials to bring it into
compliance with CDC guidelines. It asks for inmates to be given
hand soap and paper towels and for staffers to clean and disinfect
common areas several times a day, among other requests.
The group is also seeking for some inmates with underlying health
conditions considered to be vulnerable to the coronavirus to either
be released or transferred to another facility, Fowler said. [GN]
BARCLAYS PLC: July 12-16 Competition Appeal Tribunal Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
From 12 to 16 July 2021, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) will
consider whether to approve an application to bring collective
proceedings (FX Claim UK) brought by Phillip Evans, the proposed
class representative, and a former Inquiry Chair at the UK's
Competition and Markets Authority. The claim is brought against
entities forming part of the following banking groups: Barclays,
Citibank, The Royal Bank of Scotland/NatWest, JPMorgan, UBS and
MUFG Bank.
Each of the banks has admitted infringements of EU competition law
in relation to foreign exchange spot trading. Mr Evans' proposed
claim seeks compensation from the banks on behalf of proposed
classes of persons who it is alleged have suffered losses due to
the banks' participation in those infringements.
The CAT has issued a legal notice concerning this hearing, which
can be found here --
https://media.fxclaimuk.com/www.fxclaimuk.com/Formal-Notice-of-Certification-Hearing.pdf
Mr Evans has instructed Hausfeld & Co LLP, a leading disputes-only
specialist law firm, to conduct the claim. Hausfeld & Co LLP's US
affiliate, Hausfeld LLP, is co-lead counsel in the US FX class
action, which recovered over $2.3 billion for those affected by FX
misconduct in the US.
Mr Evans' application asks the CAT to approve the claim as eligible
to proceed as a collective proceeding on behalf of eligible
entities and individuals and approve Mr Evans to act as the class
representative.
The CAT will hear Mr Evans' application at the same time as another
application for permission to bring collective proceedings relating
to the foreign exchange spot trading cartels, filed by Michael
O'Higgins FX Class Representative Limited. As a result, the CAT may
have to decide which of the proposed class representatives is the
most suitable to act as the class representative. This would be the
first time that the CAT has been asked to resolve a so-called
'carriage dispute' in relation to collective proceedings.
Any person with an interest in the two applications (including the
proposed class members) may object to either or both of the
applications or the authorisation of either or both of the proposed
class representatives by writing to the CAT stating their reasons
for objecting by 4pm on 4 May 2021. Those persons may also apply
for permission to make written and/or oral submissions at the
hearing in July by making such an application to the Tribunal,
supported by reasons, by 4pm on 4 May 2021.
Phillip Evans commented: "It is in the interests of class members
that questions of certification and carriage are resolved as soon
as possible. I welcome the Tribunal's decision to list the
certification hearing for July 2021."
Subject to any arrangements arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, the
hearing will take place at the Competition Appeal Tribunal,
Salisbury Square House, 8 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8AP. For
information on how to take part in the Tribunal's consideration of
the two certification applications by submitting written
observations or applying to be heard at the hearing in July, please
visit www.fxclaimuk.com and view the CAT's legal notice --
https://media.fxclaimuk.com/www.fxclaimuk.com/Formal-Notice-of-Certification-Hearing.pdf
[GN]
BECKET COLLECTIBLES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Becket Collectibles,
LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Becket Collectibles, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01645 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beckett Collectibles -- https://www.beckett.com/ -- operates as a
auction house. The Company offers sports, non-sports, and gaming
cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Heavy Metals in Baby Food
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Bowden at thehill.com reports that a baby food company is
facing a class-action lawsuit in New York after a congressional
report uncovered internal documents from several companies
revealing potentially dangerous levels of heavy metals in their
products.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., which sells baby food products marketed as
"organic" and "natural" and whose slogan is "real food for babies,"
is accused in the suit of "fail[ing] to warn consumers about the
presence of heavy metals in its baby foods" including arsenic,
lead, mercury and cadmium.
The suit goes on to allege that Beech-Nut "misrepresented the true
nature of the ingredients in its Baby Food when it failed to
disclose the presence or risk of dangerous levels of heavy metals"
in the ingredients.
"These products are being marketed to young millennials with young
children and I don't think anyone would expect dangerous
neurotoxins in baby food marketed for the first year of life," the
lead attorney for the plaintiffs on the case, Annick Persinger,
told The Hill.
"The findings in the recent Congressional report really document
the dangers to neurological development for this very vulnerable
group of infants in their first year of life. Having words like
'naturals' in the name just adds insult to injury," Persinger
continued.
A Beech-Nut spokesperson contended to The Hill in an email that the
company's products are safe for consumption.
"While we do not comment on specific, pending litigation, we want
to assure parents that Beech-Nut products are and have always been
safe and nutritious," a spokesperson said.
"We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA, in partnership
with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food
suppliers can implement across our industry. Beech-Nut is committed
to continually refining its internal standards and testing
processes as technology and knowledge develops," they added.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report from the House Oversight
and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy earlier
this month that found that Beech-Nut, among other companies,
"routinely used high-arsenic additives" as well as "many
ingredients with high lead content" in various baby food products.
"These results are multiples higher than allowed under existing
regulations for other products," read the committee's report.
At the time, Beech-Nut told The Hill that it was reviewing the
committee's findings.
"We look forward to continuing to work with the FDA, in partnership
with the Baby Food Council, on science-based standards that food
suppliers can implement across our industry," a company
spokesperson said earlier this month. [GN]
BELL GARDENS: Garcia Sues Over Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bell Gardens Hospitality, LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21NWCV00107 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Quality Inn &
Suites Bell Gardens on its reservation Website at
https://www.choicehotels.com/en-mx/california/bell-gardens/quality-innhotels/ca139
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.
Bell Gardens Hospitality, LLC is an owner and operator of the
Quality Inn & Suites Bell Gardens located at 7330 Eastern Ave.,
Bell Gardens, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
BFTV LLC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BFTV, LLC. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. BFTV, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01646 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
BFTV, LLC doing business as Baby First TV --
https://www.babyfirsttv.com/ -- is located in Los Angeles,
California and is part of the Television Broadcasting
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
BIT DIGITAL: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Feb. 21 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
CD Projekt S.A. (OTC PINK:OTGLY)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT OTGLY:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/cd-projekt-s-a-loss-submission-form/?id=13035&from=1
Class Period: January 16, 2020 - December 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 22, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Throughout the class period, defendants were materially false
and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(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 the Company
would be forced to offer full refunds for the game; (3)
consequently, the Company would suffer reputational and pecuniary
harm; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:BTBT)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BTBT:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13035&from=1
Class Period: December 21, 2020 - January 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
that Bit Digital overstated the extent of its a bitcoin mining
operation; and (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
9F Inc. (NASDAQ:JFU)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT JFU:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/9f-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13035&from=1
Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased JFU securities: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's August 14, 2019
initial public offering; and/or (2) between August 14, 2019 and
September 29, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the purported value and benefits of the Company's financial
institution partners and its tri-party cooperation business model
did not in fact exist and/or were materially overstated, given that
9F and Property and Casualty Company Limited ("PICC") had been
engaged in an ongoing contractual dispute regarding payment of
service fees under their cooperation agreement; (2) the
collectability of service fees owed to 9F by PICC under the
cooperation agreement was in doubt and at serious risk of
non-payment; (3) there was a significant risk that PICC would no
longer provide credit insurance and guarantee protection to
investors and institutional funding partners; (4) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's platform, business model, reputation
and financial results had been materially impaired; and (5) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
BLUEBIRD BIO: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 21 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13033&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021
Class Period: May 11, 2020 - November 4, 2020
Allegations against BLUE include 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.
Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/penumbra-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13033&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
Class Period: August 3, 2020 - December 15, 2020
Allegations against PEN include that: (1) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex
had known design defects that made it unsafe for its normal use;
(2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the risk of the Jet 7
Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which had in fact
already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was likely to be
recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a result, Penumbra's
public statements as set forth above were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Cleanspark, Inc. (NASDAQ:CLSK)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/cleanspark-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13033&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
Class Period: December 31, 2020 - January 14, 2021
Allegations against CLSK include that: (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.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Johansen TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOHANSEN,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED, INC., a
Florida corporation, Case No. 9:20-cv-81076-RS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the proposed class;
"All persons within the United States who, (a) from
October 1, 2018 through July 8, 2020; (b) received more
than one outbound call from Schumer for Bluegreen within a
12 month period prior to making any inbound calls; (c) to
their residential telephone numbers registered with the
National Do Not Call Registry; and (d) whose phone numbers
were obtained by Bluegreen either (1) prior to 2013, at
the time of a purported vacation, vacation purchase, or
contemplated vacation purchase, or (2) as a referral from
someone else;"
Excluded from the class are all persons who made one or
more inbound calls to Schumer for Bluegreen before
receiving at least two outbound calls from Schumer for
Bluegreen. Also excluded from the class are: (1) any Judge
or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of
their families; (2) Bluegreen, its subsidiaries, parents,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
Bluegreen or its parents have a controlling interest and
their current or former employees, officers and directors;
(3) the Plaintiff's attorneys; (4) persons who properly
execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the
class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or
assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons
whose claims against Bluegreen have been fully and finally
adjudicated and/or released;
2. appoint himself to serve as the class representative;
3. appointing Kaufman P.A. and Paronich Law, P.C. to serve as
class counsel; and
4. directing him to submit a proposed notice plan and form of
notice within a reasonable time.
According to the complaint, this one count Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case is well-suited for class certification because
it involves a single telemarketing campaign that Bluegreen hired a
single telemarketer to perform. Bluegreen and its telemarketer have
produced lead lists, call records, contracts, and other documents
showing that, at Bluegreen's direction, the telemarketer made
millions of telemarketing calls to numbers supplied by Bluegreen to
promote Bluegreen's products and services. The Plaintiff's expert
has determined that than 250,000 of these calls were made to more
than 19,000 telephone numbers registered with the National Do Not
Call Registry. Bluegreen obtained each of these consumer's
telephone numbers either (1) prior to 2013, in connection with
purported vacations or vacation transactions, or (2) from someone
else as a referral, and Bluegreen has no evidence of consent or an
established business relationship to call any of them, including
the Plaintiff.
In November 2016, Bluegreen hired Schumer Management & Consulting,
LLC to make telemarketing calls promoting Bluegreen's vacation
products to consumers whose contact information Bluegreen supplied
to Schumer.
Bluegreen is a leisure, travel and tourism company based out of
4960 Conference Way North Suite 100, Boca Raton, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NMikj9
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the putative class, are:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail; kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
Paronich Law, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221.1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Quiazon Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ENRIQUE QUIAZON and MARITA QUIAZON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRINK'S,
INCORPORATED; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
RG20083408, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on February 22,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-01265-KAW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and
unfair business practices.
Brink's, Incorporated is an American private security and
protection company headquartered outside Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
Jennifer P. Suberlak, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
San Diego, CA 92122
Telephone: (858) 652-3100
Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
tim.johnson@ogletree.com
jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
jennifer.suberlak@ogletree.com
C.R. BARD: Faces Gilmore Product Liability Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.,
February 23, 2021), the Plaintiffs assert strict products
liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per
se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, loss
consortium, wrongful death, survival, and violations of applicable
state law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade
practices.
The case arises from the Plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries
and/or wrongful death damages as a result of being implanted with a
defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava (IVC)
filters manufactured by the Defendants.
C.R. Bard, Inc. is a medical technology manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
corporation of C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at
1625 West Third Street, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 812-5771
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and –
Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: rwb@gknet.com
C.R. BARD: Haffa Sues Over Injuries From Defective IVC Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.,
February 23, 2021), the Plaintiffs assert strict products
liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per
se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, loss
consortium, wrongful death, survival, and violations of applicable
state law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade
practices.
The case arises from the Plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries
and/or wrongful death damages as a result of being implanted with a
defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava (IVC)
filters manufactured by the Defendants.
C.R. Bard, Inc. is a medical technology manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
corporation of C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at
1625 West Third Street, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 812-5771
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and –
Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: rwb@gknet.com
C.R. BARD: Kirkland Class Suit Alleges Defective Bard IVC Filters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.,
February 23, 2021), the Plaintiffs assert strict products
liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per
se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, loss
consortium, wrongful death, survival, and violations of applicable
state law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade
practices.
The case arises from the Plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries
and/or wrongful death damages as a result of being implanted with a
defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava (IVC)
filters manufactured by the Defendants.
C.R. Bard, Inc. is a medical technology manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
corporation of C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at
1625 West Third Street, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 812-5771
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and –
Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: rwb@gknet.com
C.R. BARD: Mathis Suit Seeks Damages for Defective IVC Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.,
February 23, 2021), the Plaintiffs assert strict products
liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per
se, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, loss
consortium, wrongful death, survival, and violations of applicable
state law prohibiting consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade
practices.
The case arises from the Plaintiffs' claims for personal injuries
and/or wrongful death damages as a result of being implanted with a
defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava (IVC)
filters manufactured by the Defendants.
C.R. Bard, Inc. is a medical technology manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
corporation of C.R. Bard, with its principal place of business at
1625 West Third Street, Tempe, Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Esq.
LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 5600
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 812-5771
E-mail: rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
- and –
Robert W. Boatman, Esq.
GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
2575 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
Telephone: (602) 530-8000
E-mail: rwb@gknet.com
C.R. ENGLAND: Carter FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. La. to D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JAMES B. CARTER, JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., Case No.
6:20-cv-01108, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah on February 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Utah assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00102-DAO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum
wages to the Plaintiff and similarly situated long-haul
over-the-road truck driver employees in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
C.R. England, Inc. is a trucking company with its principal place
of business located at 4701 W. 2100 S., Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
417 W. University Ave. (70506)
P.O. Box 4325
Lafayette, LA 70502
Telephone: (337) 235-5294
Facsimile: (337) 235–1095
E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
adam@kwdejean.com
- and –
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: marbuckle@eeoc.net
rprieto@eeoc.net
CANADA: Young Quebecers Seek to Revive Climate Change Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a group of young Quebecers was set
be back in court, trying to revive a class action lawsuit against
the federal government for what they call an insufficient response
to the threat of climate change.
Represented by the organization ENvironnement JEUnesse and the firm
Trudel Johnston & Lesperance, the group is asking the Quebec Court
of Appeal to allow them to move forward with their case against
Ottawa.
They want Canadian authorities to set a more ambitious target to
reduce greenhouse gasses, saying their right to life, security and
equality, and their right to a healthy environment is being
threatened.
In July 2019, Superior Court Judge Gary Morrison ruled that, while
the environmental cause is important, the age range targeted in the
application was too subjective.
The class action would be brought on behalf of the millions of
Quebecers who were aged 35 and under at the start of the
proceedings in November 2018.
The organization's executive director, Catherine Gauthier, said the
same arguments would be defended before the Court of Appeal on Feb.
23.
To the judge's point on the action's age spectrum, Gauthier said
the provincial and federal governments themselves use the 35-year
cap in their policies for young people.
"For us, it's not at all an arbitrary limit, and we have a solid
case," she said.
While the judicial process is slow, Gauthier maintains that the
fight against climate change must be carried out on several fronts,
including in the courts.
"Even if the deadlines are sometimes very long, longer than what
the climate crisis requires in terms of short-term actions, these
are tools that are very strong, which are powerful, and which we
cannot afforded to miss." [GN]
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Cirillo FLSA Suit Moved From W.D.N.C. to E.D.N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIELLE CIRILLO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-00540, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina on February 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00088-BO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the
Family Medical Leave Act including unpaid overtime wages, failure
to provide instruction on the process to apply for FMLA leave, and
wrongful discharge.
Citrix Systems, Inc. is an American multinational software company
based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
CLEANSPARK INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announced that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CLSK) on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between December 31, 2020 and
January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period").
According to the complaint, during the Class Period CleanSpark
failed to disclose to investors: (i) that the Company had
overstated its customer and contract figures; (ii) that several of
the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related
party transactions; and (iii) 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.
On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled
"Cleanspark (CLSK): Back to the Trash Can," alleging, among other
things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its
business, including purported customers and contracts" and is also
"rife with undisclosed related party transactions." Following this
report, shares of the Company's stock fell $8.19 per share, or over
20% in value, to close on January 15, 2021 at $31.15 per share.
Current CleanSpark stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of
the Company's stock prior to January 14, 2020 are encouraged to
contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 -
1585, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/cleanspark/, to discuss this action and
their legal rights and options.
Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain
jurisdictions.
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
CLEARVIEW AI: Promises SCOTUS Petition in Biometric Privacy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that the facial recognition
software company Clearview AI is willing to go all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court to prove that its alleged violation of Illinois'
biometric data privacy law inflicted a concrete injury on Illinois
residents who brought a class action against the company.
Wait, what? A class action defendant is vowing to fight at the
Supreme Court to prove that plaintiffs who aren't even alleging an
actual injury meet constitutional standing requirements?
That's right: Clearview AI's lawyers at Jenner & Block and Cahill
Gordon & Reindel asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this
week to stay the issuance of its mandate in Thornley v. Clearview
AI. Clearview said the appeals court should hold off because the
company plans to file a petition asking the Supreme Court to
clarify when an alleged statutory violation suffices to establish a
plaintiff's right to sue under Article III of the constitution.
You're probably thinking that plenty of other class action
defendants have asked the Supreme Court to revisit this question
after the justices' enigmatic 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins. But
Clearview AI, to the best of my knowledge, is the first defendant
to argue that the circuit court erred in its interpretation of
Spokeo by holding that plaintiffs do not have standing to sue in
federal court!
The plaintiffs in the Thornley case filed their class action in
state court, alleging that Clearview AI violated a provision of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act that prohibits private
parties from profiting from the sale of biometric data. Clearview
AI removed the case to federal court. But the 7th Circuit affirmed
the trial court's decision remanding the class action to state
court, holding that the plaintiffs' complaint was carefully crafted
to allege only a general, regulatory violation - not a concrete
injury that would give rise to a right to sue in federal court.
Clearview AI's lawyers declined to comment. But based on its brief
requesting a stay from the 7th Circuit, it appears that that
company will argue at the Supreme Court that the alleged state
court violation did, in fact, represent a concrete and individual
injury. The stay motion suggested that the 7th Circuit's holding to
the contrary is in tension with 9th Circuit precedent upholding
Article III standing for plaintiffs who have alleged a violation of
a statute that "identifies a substantive right to privacy."
"It's bizarre," said plaintiffs' lawyer David Golub of Silver Golub
& Teitell, who represents the class that filed the state-court case
against Clearview AI. "Every class action defendant is on my side
in this case." In a phone interview, Golub laughed as he envisioned
amicus briefs at the Supreme Court from the likes of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce and the American Enterprise Institute, backing
his argument that the mere violation of procedural statute is not a
concrete injury under the test for Article III standing.
"Given how strange an argument this is for a defendant to make, you
have to wonder if they're just trying to delay or buy time," Golub
said.
The 7th Circuit ordered Golub to file a response to Clearview AI's
stay motion (and temporarily put off issuance of the mandate until
it resolves the motion). Golub said he will make a two-pronged case
for issuing the mandate even if Clearview AI does seek Supreme
Court review. For one thing, he said, the Supreme Court isn't going
to grant review of the 7th Circuit's decision. The appeals court
was simply interpreting a state law, Golub said, and moreover held
specifically that the provision at issue does not involve a
substantive right. So, in his view, there's no issue meriting the
Supreme Court's attention.
Golub told me he will also tell the 7th Circuit that Clearview AI
will suffer no irreparable harm if the state-court litigation
proceeds as the company seeks Supreme Court review.
As Clearview AI said in its stay motion, the Supreme Court has
already granted review this term to a case that implicates Article
III standing and statutory violations, Transunion v. Ramirez. I
reported earlier this month that the business lobby has turned out
in force in Transunion to argue that plaintiffs don't meet Article
III standing requirements when their only injury is a statutory
violation of a privacy law. I can't wait to see the amicus response
to Clearview AI's promised petition.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News,
under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence
and freedom from bias. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
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).
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. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
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.
Investor 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
atinfo@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.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers Sent Notice to Join Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 750,000 Australians will receive notice from the Federal
Court that they may be eligible to join Slater and Gordon's (ASX:
SGH) consumer credit class action against Commonwealth Bank (ASX:
CBA).
The law firm is representing customers of Australia's largest bank
who were allegedly sold "junk" credit card and personal loan
insurance that was of little or no value, and that many customers
would never have been eligible to claim against.
The class action alleges that many people were led to believe that
the insurance was compulsory or free, while others didn't even know
they had been sold it.
The insurance was often sold to people with disabilities, people
who were unemployed or people who were chronically ill and
therefore likely ineligible to claim, according to SGH.
Slater & Gordon says CBA has admitted these products were of little
value, even though they were sold to hundreds of thousands of their
customers.
"While the Big Four bank said they would provide refunds as part of
a remediation program, only a small portion of customers were
compensated, despite ending the sale of these products in March
2018," claims Slater & Gordon.
Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Andrew Paull says the class
action will give a voice to those who were vulnerable and were
allegedly duped into buying worthless insurance.
"The reprehensible behaviour of the Big Banks which preyed on
vulnerable people in the community needs to be called out, and the
customers need to be compensated," said Paull.
"This move to return only a small portion of its customers premiums
seems to have been a tokenistic effort to protect the bank's brand,
rather than a genuine attempt to make good its past wrongdoing."
It follows a similar Slater and Gordon class action settled by the
firm in late 2019 that alleged NAB customers had been mis-sold
personal loan and credit card insurance, which saw 50,000 customers
compensated $49.5 million.
Shares in CBA are down 1.73 per cent to $82.25 per share at 1.34pm
AEDT. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Corker Suit Wins Initial Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE CORKER, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreements;
2. certifying the proposed Settlement Class, consisting of:
"all persons and entities who farmed Kona coffee in the
Kona District and then sold their coffee from February 27,
2015 to the present";
3. appointing Paul Richard Brown and Nathan Paine, of Karr
Tuttle Campbell, and Jason Lichtman, Daniel Seltz, and
Andrew Kaufman, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
as Settlement Class Counsel;
4. appointing JND Legal Administration as Settlement
Administrator;
5. finding that the Notice meets the requirements of due
process under the U.S. Constitution and Fed. R. Civ. P.
23; and
6. directing the mailing and emailing of Settlement Class
notice and publication in the West Hawaii Today shall
begin within 21 days of the entry of this Order.
Costco Wholesale is an American multinational corporation that
operates a chain of membership-only warehouse clubs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/2ZYwbVOat no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com
- and -
Paul Richard Brown, Esq.
Nathan T. Paine, Esq.
Daniel T. Hagen, Esq.
Andrew W. Durland, Esq.
Joshua M. Howard, Esq.
KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98104
Telephone: (206) 223-1313
E-mail: npaine@karrtuttle.com
DCP OPERATING: Donald Miller Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONALD D. MILLER REVOCABLE
FAMILY TRUST, trustee Donald D. Miller, on behalf of itself, and
all others similarly situated, v. DCP OPERATING COMPANY, LP; and
DCP MIDSTREAM, LP, Case No. 6:18-cv-00199-JH (E.D. Okla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. Certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes,
consisting of:
"All non-excluded persons or entities to whom Defendants
(or Defendants' designee): (1) made Untimely Payments for
oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells between June 10,
2008 and December 31, 2020, and (2) the payments did not
include the statutory interest under Oklahoma's Production
Revenue Standards Act (PRSA), 52 O.S. section 570.1 et
seq. An "Untimely Payment" for purposes of this class
definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of
production from an oil and/or gas well after the statutory
periods identified in 52 O.S. section 570.10 (B)(l) and
(B)(3)(a). Untimely Payments do not include: (a) payments
of proceeds to an owner under 52 O.S. §570.10(B)(3)
(minimum pay) if paid annually for the twelve months
accumulation of proceeds totaling at least $10; (b) pass-
through payments; or (c) prior period adjustments;"
Excluded from this class are: (1) agencies, departments,
or instrumentalities of the United States of America; (2)
Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma
(CLO); (3) publicly traded oil and gas companies and their
affiliates; (4) persons or entities that Plaintiff's
counsel may be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7
of the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct including,
but not limited to, Charles David Nutley, Danny George,
and their relatives; (5) officers of the court; and (6)
persons or entities (and their affiliates) who are the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) designated operator
of more than fifty (50) active Oklahoma wells in the month
of December 2020;
2. Preliminarily approving the Settlement of the above-
captioned action;
3. Appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
Settlement Class;
4. Appointing Nix Patterson, LLP as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class, and Whitten Burrage as liaison local
counsel for the Settlement Class;
5. Approving the form and manner of providing notice of the
Settlement to the Settlement Class;
6. Appointing a Settlement Administrator; and
7. Setting a hearing date for final approval of the
Settlement and application for an award of Attorneys'
Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Case Contribution Award to
the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel have achieved an outstanding
recovery for the Settlement Class as a result of their vigorous
prosecution of this Litigation. Specifically, Plaintiff has reached
a settlement with Defendants providing for a cash payment of
$9,900,000 (the Gross Settlement Fund) to compensate the Settlement
Class for past damages.
DCP is located in Douglas, Wyoming and is part of the Natural Gas
Distribution and Marketing Industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3swzEHt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
Trey Duck, Esq.
Winn Cutler, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
Bldg. B, Suite 350
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5333
Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com
jangelovich@nixlaw.com
lbaldwin@nixlaw.com
dpate@nixlaw.com
tduck@nixlaw.com
winncutler@nixlaw.com
- and -
Michael Burrage, Esq.
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512 N. Broadway Ave, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
DECISION DIAGNOSTICS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Decision Diagnostics Corp.
("Decision Diagnostics" or the "Company") (OTC: DECN) and reminds
investors of the March 16, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $300,000 investing in Decision
Diagnostics stock or options between March 3, 2020 and December 17,
2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi &
Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or
212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional
information: www.faruqilaw.com/DECN.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Decision Diagnostics had not developed any viable COVID-19 test,
much less a test that could detect COVID-19 in less than one
minute; (2) the Company could not meet the FDA's emergency use
authorization ("EUA") testing requirements for its purported
COVID-19 test; (3) accordingly, Defendants had misrepresented the
timeline within which it could realistically bring its COVID-19
test to market; (4) all the foregoing subjected Defendants to an
increased risk of regulatory oversight and enforcement; and (5) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Specifically, on December 17, 2020, the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") filed a complaint in federal court against
Defendants, alleging that they had issued a series of press
releases that falsely claimed that Decision Diagnostics had
developed a finger-prick blood test that could detect COVID-19 in
less than one minute (the "SEC Complaint"). According to the SEC
Complaint, from March 2020 to at least June 2020, Defendants made
false and misleading statements about the existence of Decision
Diagnostics' COVID-19 device and progress towards achieving FDA EUA
for that device. As alleged, at the time of these claims, Decision
Diagnostics lacked a proven method for detecting the virus and had
no physical testing device. The SEC Complaint further alleged that
the statements created the misleading impression that Decision
Diagnostics would soon introduce the COVID-19 test to the market,
which led to surges in the price and trading volume of the
Company's stock.
Following the filing of the SEC Complaint, Decision Diagnostics'
common share price fell $0.06 per share, or 60%, to close at $0.04
per share on December 18, 2020.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Decision Diagnostics' conduct to contact the firm,
including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others. [GN]
DEVA SAI: Garcia Suit Seeks Hotel Room Booking's Access Features
----------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Deva Sai, LLC and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case
No. 21NWCV00106 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 22, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Diamond Bell Inn
& Suites on its reservation Website at
http://www.diamondbellinn.com/for people with disabilities,
including the Plaintiff. The Website reservation system lacks
sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to assess
independently whether a given hotel room would work for them. As a
result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online booking of
the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about whether the
room will actually work for him due to his disability, the suit
says.
Deva Sai, LLC is an owner and operator of the Diamond Bell Inn &
Suites located at 4810 Florence Ave., Bell, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
DHANU MALI: Garcia ADA Suit Seeks Online Booking's Access Features
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARBHUBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL and MALIBEN
PARBHUBHAI PATEL, Trustees of the Parbhubhai Lallubhai Patel and
Maliben Parbhubhai Patel Family Trust Dated November 13, 2002;
DHANU MALI, CORP. and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV06991
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 22, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Erth Inn by AGA
Los Angeles on its reservation Website at
https://www.agahotels.com/brand/erth-inn for people with
disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website reservation
system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled travelers to
assess independently whether a given hotel room would work for
them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an online
booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge about
whether the room will actually work for him due to his disability,
the suit says.
Dhanu Mali, Corp. is the operator of the Erth Inn by AGA Los
Angeles located at 2050 Marengo St., Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
DISCOUNT TWO: Bid to Certify Class in Campbell Denied as Premature
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAMPBELL STREET COMPLEX L.L.C., an Indiana limited
liability company, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT TWO WAY
RADIO, CORPORATION, Defendant, Cause No. 2:21-CV-57-PPS-JEM (N.D.
Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denied the
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class as premature, but without
prejudice to refiling at the appropriate juncture of the case.
Plaintiff Campbell brings the action on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated against the Defendant. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention
Action of 2005 in sending out unsolicited faxes.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's pending Motion to
Certify Class, filed on Feb. 16, 2021. To date, there has been no
response by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's Motion.
Citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir.
2011), overruled in part by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d
783 (7th Cir. 2015), Judge Simon opines that the law in the Circuit
used to be that when a plaintiff received an offer of judgment for
full relief requested, the claim became moot. In the class action
context, mooting the claim of a would-be class representative could
head off the specter of a larger case. Plaintiffs typically
avoided this result by filing a "placeholder" motion for class
certification. The pending motion would serve to protect a
putative class from attempts to buy off the named Plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, if the parties have yet to fully develop the facts
needed for certification, then they can also ask the district court
to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation.
It appears that the Plaintiff filed such a placeholder in the case,
the Judge opines. After Chapman, the premature filing of a motion
for class certification is no longer necessary to prevent buy-off
because a defendant's offer of compensation does not moot the
litigation or otherwise end the Article III case or controversy.
The Judge further finds that filing a motion that the parties are
not yet ready to support or defend, and upon which the Court is not
yet able to rule, does not promote the efficient administration of
justice. In the case, the Plaintiff may still amend its pleadings,
which will require another response from the Defendant.
Additionally, the Defendants have not yet appeared in the case and
there is no indication that the certification issue is ripe for
adjudication.
Judge Simon, finding no reason to consider the certification issue
at this time, denied the Motion to Certify Class as premature, but
without prejudice to refiling at the appropriate juncture of the
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/35f5uv62 from Leagle.com.
DNF ASSOCIATES: Ronald Viernes Seeks Approval of Class Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD VIERNES, and all
others similarly situated, v. DNF ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-00316-JMS-KJM (Haw.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order:
A. Approving the form and content of the notice;
B. Directing the Defendant DNF Associates, LLC, to furnish,
in the form of an Excel Spreadsheet, the names, last known
addresses, and account numbers of the class members to
Class Counsel by a date certain;
C. Directing the service by mail of the notice to the class
members on or before 30 days following the deadline to
furnish the class list; and
D. Setting a deadline for class members to exclude themselves
on or before 60 days following the deadline to serve the
class notice.
By Order dated January 22, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff
Ronald Viernes' motion for class certification. The Court certified
two classes:
-- Class 1
"(a) all Hawaii residents; (b) who were subjected to debt
collection lawsuits by DNF; (c) while DNF was unlicensed
as a debt collector in Hawaii; (d) to collect a "debt" as
defined by the FDCPA; (e) that DNF bought while the debt
was in default; and (f) where the collection lawsuit,
letters, or calls occurred within the one year period
immediately preceding the filing of this complaint on June
19, 2019;" and
-- Class 2:
"(a) all Hawaii "consumers" as defined by Haw. Rev. Stat.
section 480-1; (b) who were subjected to debt collection
lawsuits by DNF; (c) while DNF was unlicensed as a debt
collector in Hawaii; (d) to collect a "debt" as defined by
Haw. Rev. Stat. section 443B-1; (e) where DNF was assigned
the debt; and (f) where the collection lawsuit commenced
within the four year period immediately preceding the
filing of this complaint on June 19, 2019."
DNF Associates is a debt collection company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 17, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r4G6VW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
BRACKETT LAW
515 Ward Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96814
Telephone: (808) 377-6778
E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com
- and -
Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
Joshua Tarrant-Windt, Esq.
Bromberg Law Office, P.C.
352 Rutland Road No. 1
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Telephone: (212) 248-7906
E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com
EBIX INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 23, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ebix investors have until April 23,
2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Ebix 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/ebix-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 February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result
of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient
appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the
business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card
business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material
weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the
gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to
prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and
RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had
been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside
legal counsel in December 2020.
On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or
approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
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 there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in
the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor
was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix
regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled
trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ebix securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 23, 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]
EBIX INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Remind of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) and certain of its officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Ebix shares
between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to
contact Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980
or rswartz@scott-scott.com.
Ebix supplies infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial,
travel, cash, and healthcare industries.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to
determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual
transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the
fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in
Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue
transaction cycle; and (3) the Company's independent auditor was
reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding
$30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust
account of Ebix's outside legal counsel.
On February 19, 2021, despite Ebix's prior statements touting the
effectiveness of its financial disclosure controls and procedures,
the Company revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP
("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated
inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that
would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant
unusual transactions" related to the Company's gift card business
in India. RSM also stated in its letter that it believed that the
Company's "internal control over financial reporting was not
effective as of December 31, 2020 due to the identification of a
material weakness."
On this news, the Company's share price fell approximately 40% to
close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, down from its previous close
price of $50.74.
What You Can Do
If you purchased Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and
February 16, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana
Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead
plaintiff deadline is April 23, 2021.
About Scott+Scott
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
Rhiana Swartz
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820
(844) 818-6980
rswartz@scott-scott.com [GN]
EBIX INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ebix, Inc.
("Ebix" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 26, 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. Ebix lacked audit evidence to prove
legitimate purposes for large and unusual transactions in its India
gift card business. The Company suffered from material weaknesses
in internal controls over gift cards and prepaid revenue. The
Company's auditor was likely to resign over $30 million put into a
trust account commingled with its outside legal counsel. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about
Ebix, 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]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of April 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of EHang Holdings Limited
(NASDAQ:EH).
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased EH stock or other securities between December 12, 2019,
and February 16, 2021, may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/EHang to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.
The complaint alleges that EHang and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
EHang's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North America
for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying
passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary
customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of
its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in
December 2019; and (iv) EHang's manufacturing facilities were
practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing
equipment or employees.
Interested EHang investors have until April 19, 2021, to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
ELANCO ANIMAL: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul C. Besozzi, Esq. -- paul.besozzi@squirepb.com -- of Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that were seemingly innocuous unsolicited fax invitations
to attend a free continuing education presentation on "Canine and
Feline Disease Prevention Hot Topics" advertisements, or at least a
pretext, to pitch attending veterinarians on the commercial
availability of animal health products and services?
In Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd v. Elanco Animal Health,
Incorporated et al., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30268, Case No.
20-cv-2886, United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, filed February 18, 2021, one irate invitee claimed
that they were just that and thus the faxes violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) junk fax provisions. So the
Ambassador Animal Hospital brought a class action lawsuit under the
statute. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under the TCPA.
There was no question that the plaintiff received two unsolicited
faxes to attend free presentations hosted by the defendant. The
faxes prominently featured the defendant's name and company logo
and noted that the lectures had been approved for continuing
education credit. A RSVP phone number was included. However, nobody
from the plaintiff ever registered or attended the sessions.
Judge Mary Rowland faced two questions: (a) did the faxes on their
face constitute unsolicited advertisements? or (b) did the
plaintiff's complaint sufficiently raise the prospect that faxes
constituted a pretext for a commercial purpose?
As to the first question, Judge Rowland noted that while the text
of the faxes included the defendant's name and logo, there was "no
mention of any of the company's products or services." Nor did they
"contain contact information beyond a phone number to RSVP for the
event." In this District, "the presence of a name and a logo does
not transform a fax into an advertisement." So the faxes did not
"advertise Elanco's products."
The plaintiff then argued that the "commercial availability" of
such products "can be inferred by the recipient veterinarians
because of their familiarity with Elanco's business." But the Court
observed that by reading the fax, one would not know whether the
defendant made any drugs related to the topics of the
presentations. Judge Rowland rejected the "proposition that a
reader's possible knowledge can transform a benign fax into an
advertisement."
So facially the faxes were not unsolicited advertisements.
On to the second issue - whether the plaintiff's allegations that
defendant's "free seminars served as a pretext for a commercial
interest" were sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss. In
deciding that the plaintiff's complaint at this point fell short of
the mark, the key points of the Court's reasoning included the
following:
* Plaintiff conceded that it did now know the content of the
seminars because no one from the hospital signed up and attended.
So allegations about the nature of the presentations were "'mere
labels and conclusions' insufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss."
* Plaintiff did not allege that "registration for the seminars
required consent to receive future marketing or to have one's
information sold," unlike decisions cited by plaintiff.
* The fax suggests "the opposite, as registration could only
take place via telephone, not a corporate web page that might have
contained advertisements or consent forms."
* Since the free seminar "was certified for continuing education
credit and thus has educational value," the Court would not assume
a commercial purpose at the pleading stage whenever "'it is alleged
that a firm sent an unsolicited fax promoting a free seminar
discussing a firm's products or services.'"
* Finally, the mere fact of goodwill from the seminars was not
enough. The "possible goodwill generated by offering a continuing
education seminar is not, on its own, enough to imbue a fax with
commercial purpose." More specifically, "''the fact that a sender
might gain an ancillary, remote and hypothetical economic benefit
later does not convert a non-commercial informational communication
into a commercial solicitation.''"
Motion to dismiss granted, but without prejudice.
A useful roadmap for TCPAWorlders on elements of commercial pretext
in the realm where there are still fax invitations to free events.
[GN]
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Lovett Suit Moved From E.D. to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERRANCE LOVETT, ROBERT PARSONS, and JAVIER CUEVAS
MAGANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ESTENSON LOGISTICS, LLC; HUB GROUP TRUCKING, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-02403, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
February 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01626-SB-JPR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including claims for meal break premiums, rest break premiums,
wage statement penalties, and waiting time penalties.
Estenson Logistics, LLC is a logistics services provider located in
Fremont, California.
Hub Group Trucking, Inc. is a trucking company based in Oak Brook,
Illinois. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Kyle A. Wende, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 840-3150
Facsimile: (916) 840-3159
E-mail: michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com
kyle.wende@ogletree.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Discover Wins Arbitration Bid in Jacobowitz
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NAFTALI JACOBOWITZ, Plaintiff v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-20120
(D.N.J.), Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted Defendant Discover Financial
Services Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.
The Plaintiff filed the complaint in the action on Nov. 13, 2019,
asserting claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") against Defendants Experian, Transunion, American Honda
Finance Corp., Barclays Bank Delaware, Santander Consumer USA, and
Discover. The Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant furnished
inaccurate information to Experian and Transunion and that Experian
and Transunion used this inaccurate information to compile false
credit reports concerning the Plaintiff. He further alleges that
he notified Experian of the inaccuracies in his credit report on
May 10, 2019, and that neither Experian nor any of the other
defendants conducted a reasonable investigation or attempted to
resolve the discrepancies he identified in his credit report.
The Plaintiff claims that as a result of the inaccurate information
listed on his credit report, he suffered damage by loss of credit,
loss of ability to purchase and benefit from credit, and the mental
and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation and embarrassment of
credit denial. The Complaint asserts two causes of action against
Discover: willful violation of FCRA (count 5) and negligent
violation of FCRA (count 6).
In its Motion, Discover argues that Court should not reach the
merits of the Plaintiff's FCRA claims because their claims against
Discover are "covered by an enforceable arbitration agreement." It
states that it is uncontested that the Plaintiff opened a credit
card account with Discover in 2014 that is governed by a cardmember
agreement, and that the Cardmember Agreement, which is governed by
applicable Federal law and Delaware law, contains the arbitration
clause that applies to the instant claims.
In response, the Plaintiff argues that the Arbitration Clause is so
broad that it must be rejected because "no reasonable person would
have understood themselves to be signing away their right to
litigate virtually any claim regardless of its relation to the
underlying agreement, and unlimited in time, simply by virtue of
using a credit card." He next argues that even if the Court were
to find that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, his FCRA
claims are not within the scope of the Arbitration Clause because
FCRA is not mentioned in the Cardmember Agreement. Finally, the
Plaintiff argues that even if there is a valid agreement to
arbitrate and his FCRA claims fall within its scope, it would be
unconscionable for the Court to enforce the Arbitration Clause as
written because doing so would lead to absurd results.
Judge Cecchi opines that there is no dispute that the Cardmember
Agreement contains the Arbitration Clause and that the Plaintiff
accepted the Cardmember Agreement. Instead, the Plaintiff asserts
a purely legal argument that the Arbitration Clause is not an
agreement to arbitrate because no reasonable person would agree to
such a broad waiver of rights. Under this scenario, where no
discovery is needed (as the Plaintiff himself states), the Judge
finds that the motion to compel arbitration should be reviewed
under the 12(b)(6) standard.
Having determined that the Motion should be reviewed under Rule
12(b)(6), the Judge must conduct the two-step analysis outlined by
the Third Circuit and determine whether there is a valid agreement
to arbitrate, and if there is, whether the Plaintiff's claim falls
within the scope of that agreement.
The Plaintiff maintains there is no agreement to arbitrate because
no reasonable person would agree to arbitrate any claim against
Discover, rendering the agreement invalid under Delaware law. The
Defendant responds that the Plaintiff fails to cite any Third
Circuit decisions which find an arbitration agreement invalid
because it is impermissibly broad, and attempts to distinguish
Plaintiff's cited authority from the Seventh Circuit, the Southern
District of California, the Eastern District of New York, and the
Northern District of Georgia. It further notes that the exact same
Arbitration Clause at issue in the case was challenged by a
Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the District
Court there found an agreement to arbitrate and compelled the FCRA
claim to arbitration.
The Judge finds no support for the Plaintiff's position that the
Arbitration Clause could not be accepted by any reasonable person
because of its breadth and agrees with the Defendant that the
Plaintiff's out-of-circuit authority is distinguishable. Notably,
the Arbitration Clause in the matter is not without limits, as it
expressly excludes claims "challenging the validity or
enforceability of this arbitration agreement" and further clarifies
that included claims are "claims and disputes relating to any other
Account or agreement you have or had with us." The Judge cannot
conclude that this language is so broad and unacceptable that no
reasonable consumer would agree to it, especially given its
similarity to language in arbitration agreements that have been
upheld as valid in the District recently.
As she finds no support in the Third Circuit for the Plaintiff's
argument that no reasonable consumer would agree to the language of
the Arbitration Clause and finds the Plaintiff's out-of-circuit
decisions distinguishable, the Judge finds there was an agreement
to arbitrate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Having found that an agreement to arbitrate exists between the
parties, the Judge must next determine if the Plaintiff's claims
fall within the scope of that agreement. The Plaintiff nonetheless
argues that his FCRA claims do not fall within the scope of the
Arbitration Clause because "nowhere in the underlying credit
agreement can there be found any reference to credit reporting."
While it is true that the Arbitration Clause and Cardmember
Agreement do not refer to credit reporting or FCRA, the Judge holds
that the Plaintiff has not cited any authority (and the Court is
aware of none) that requires an arbitration agreement to
specifically refer to the causes of action which are subject to
arbitration. She thus finds that the Plaintiff's FCRA claims
against Discover are within the scope of the Arbitration Clause.
As the Judge has found the parties entered into an arbitration
agreement that encompasses the Plaintiff's FCRA claims, the final
inquiry necessary is to determine whether compelling arbitration
would be unconscionable. The Plaintiff's arguments mirror his
arguments regarding whether a reasonable consumer would agree to
the language of the Arbitration Clause and he maintains that
"absurd results" will ensue if the Motion to compel arbitration is
granted. As she discussed, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's
arguments with respect to the reasonable consumer are unsupported
by the law of the Circuit and the Court fails to see how compelling
arbitration of claims of improper credit reporting is absurd when
the credit card was issued pursuant to an agreement that contains a
broad Arbitration Clause. The Plaintiff's unconscionability
arguments are therefore denied.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Cecchi granted the Defendant's
Motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. An appropriate
Order accompanies her Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mdakdnvh from Leagle.com.
EXXON MOBIL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation
("Exxon" or "the Company") (NYSE: XOM) and certain of its officers,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Exxon
securities between February 28, 2018 and January 14, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/xom.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially 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; (2) the foregoing assumptions served to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's well operations in
the Permian Basin; (3) the foregoing conduct, when revealed,
subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation
and oversight; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/xom or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Exxon you
have until March 29, 2021 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
EXXON MOBIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of March 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 21 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.
XOM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/exxon-mobil-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
EH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
FUBO Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM)
XOM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 28, 2018
- January 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/exxon-mobil-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Exxon
Mobil Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exxon forced its
employees to use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines
for well drilling in the Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing
assumptions served to artificially inflate the value of the
Company's well operations in the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing
conduct, when revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)
EH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2019
- February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ehang
Holdings Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported
regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216
were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its
relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii)
EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since
its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the
Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and
lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO)
FUBO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 23, 2020 -
January 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, fuboTV
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (ii) Fubo offering of products was subject
to undisclosed cost escalations; (iii) Fubo could not successfully
compete and perform as sports book operator and could not
capitalize on its only sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's
data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve
long-term advertising growth goals and forecasts; (v) Fubo's
valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and
subscription levels; (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not
provide the stated synergies, internal expertise, and did not
expand the Company's addressable market into online sports
wagering; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or 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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
FACEBOOK INC: Hearing on Class Certification Set for April 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INTEGRITYMESSAGEBOARDS.COM
v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-05286-PJH (N.D. Calif.), the
Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order:
1. granting the parties' stipulated briefing schedule as it
pertains to defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment; and
2. granting in part and denying in part the parties'
stipulated briefing schedule as it pertains to any motion
to seal filed by the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff may not, however, file a reply in support of such
motion. Going forward, the court will not permit a party to file a
reply in support of a motion to seal. Thus, in the event defendant
proceeds with its motion for partial summary judgment, the
following briefing schedule applies:
-- Deadline for plaintiff to file March 19, 2021
opposition to partial MSJ:
Deadline for defendant to April 2, 2021.
file reply in support of
partial MSJ:
Deadline for plaintiff to February 22, 2021.
file any motion to seal
re the motion for partial MSJ:
Deadline for defendant to March 10, 2021.
file any opposition to
plaintiff's motion to seal:
Consolidated hearing on May 13, 2021
motions for partial MSJ
class certification, and any
motions to seal:
The Defendant may withdraw its motion for partial summary judgment
within seven days of this order. In the event it does, then the
pending motion for class certification is set for hearing via Zoom
on April 29, 2021 at 1:30 pm.
Facebook is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California. It was founded by Mark Zuckerberg, along with his
fellow roommates and students at Harvard College.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pQzR6M at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: May Face Class Action Over Australia News Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Palmer-Derrien, writing for SmartCompany, reports that
former ACCC chair Allan Fels has suggested Facebook could face a
class-action lawsuit from SMEs and other organisations caught up in
its news ban last week. But, lawyers say small and medium
businesses shouldn't get their hopes up.
In a statement, Fels, who is also chair of the Public Interest
Journalism Initiative, noted the government has been well aware of
the possibility that Facebook could restrict sharing of news
content.
However, limiting access to government information such as weather,
health or bushfire information is "unconscionable", he said.
"This is not 'news', nor content envisaged under the Mandatory News
Media Bargaining Code."
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, Fels reportedly suggested Facebook
could now be open to legal action from the small business owners
unwittingly caught up in the ban.
Specifically, the tech giant could be liable for breaching
unconscionable conduct laws, "due to the overnight cessation of
services to businesses, especially small businesses, that largely
require Facebook to disseminate their product", he reportedly
said.
This could possibly lead to a class-action lawsuit, he added.
However, John Gray, a senior commercial and corporate lawyer at
Hall & Wilcox who specialises in technology, tells SmartCompany
that when it comes to unconscionability cases, "the bar is set
fairly high".
Businesses would have to argue that Facebook was "so overbearing
that they used duress", he explains, and that businesses were not
using the service voluntarily.
"That's just not an argument I think can fly."
Alternatively, they would have to show they didn't know what they
were doing when signing up to Facebook, he adds. Again, that seems
unlikely.
However, he concedes that it's possible SMEs may have lost profits
because they could't promote their products.
Under its terms of service, Facebook doesn't accept liability for
lost profits over US$100, he says.
That could, arguably, be challenged under unfair contracts
provisions in Australian consumer law.
"You could attack Facebook's limitations of liability on the basis
that they're unfair and shouldn't be enforced."
That said, Gray doesn't advise "marching off to court".
While he would like to see Facebook's terms scrutinised, any legal
proceedings are expensive, and businesses would have to prove the
loss they've suffered.
For most small businesses the outage was temporary anyway. And,
unless a business suffered significant losses as a result, it's
unlikely taking legal action would be financially beneficial.
Demetrio Zema, founder and director of law firm Law Squared,
doesn't believe small businesses -- or any businesses for that
matter -- would have a leg to stand on in bringing legal action
against Facebook.
While businesses and other organisations place "enormous efforts,
trust and faith" in the Facebook platform, it's a private
enterprise, with clear terms and conditions governing the use of
the platform that will likely stand in the way of a lawsuit.
"It is an optional platform for businesses to leverage," Zema tells
SmartCompany.
If anything, he sees this as a lesson for small business owners and
other organisations "not to have all their eggs in one basket"
whether that's in terms of community engagement, lead acquisition
or sales.
"We've seen many businesses invest heavily in Facebook as their
sole sales pipeline, which over the years has become both more
expensive and less effective," he adds.
"Despite its size, power and influence, Facebook is, after all, a
private company and whilst it owes duties under Australian law, it
can largely write its own rules of engagement as governed by its
terms and conditions, which businesses, charities and even
governments, opt into."
Fels' comments followed Facebook's move to block new content shared
by either publishers or the public, in protest of the proposed news
media bargaining code.
Businesses of all sizes found themselves caught in the crossfire,
either having content withdrawn, or being restricted in what they
could post.
Mia Fileman, brand director at Idiello, for example, was unable to
post her website URL on Facebook, she told SmartCompany at the
time.
Under the proposed new laws, digital platforms including Facebook
and Google would have to enter into licensing deals with news
organisations for the right to display links to news content.
The code passed the House of Representatives on Feb. 17 and is
expected to pass the Senate.
In a blog post, Will Easton, Facebook's managing director for
Australian and New Zealand, said the "proposed law fundamentally
misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers
who use it to share news content".
"It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law
that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing
news content on our services in Australia," Easton said.
"With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter." [GN]
FAMOUS TRANSPORTS: Walters Suit Moved From N.D.N.C. to N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GREGORY WALTERS and CHRISTI WALTERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAMOUS
TRANSPORTS, INC.; PANTHER II TRANSPORTATION, INC.; ARCBEST
LOGISTICS INC.; ARCBEST CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-08016, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of North Carolina to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on February
23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00420-DAP 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 provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to pay all wages due to discharged or quitting employees, failure
to maintain required records, failure to provide accurate itemized
statements, failure to indemnify employees for necessary
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, unlawful deductions
from wages, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and unfair business practices.
Famous Transports, Inc. is a transportation company located in
White Lake, Missouri.
Panther II Transportation, Inc. is a logistics services provider
based in Medina, Ohio.
ArcBest Logistics Inc. is a logistics solutions provider based in
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
ArcBest Corporation is a freight and logistics solutions provider,
with its principal place of business in Fort Smith, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Taras Kick, Esq.
Roy K. Suh, Esq.
Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (310) 395-2988
Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
E-mail: Roy@kicklawfirm.com
Daniel@kicklawfirm.com
Taras@kicklawfirm.com
FRONTIER INC: Class Claims Struck from Ramsay Suit Over Assault
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LENA RAMSAY, and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FRONTIER, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-cv-03544-CMA-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge
Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado:
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss;
(ii) granted the Defendant's Motion to Strike Class
Allegations; and
(iii) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint.
The case is a putative class action against Frontier. The named
Plaintiffs are two former Frontier passengers who allege that they
were sexually assaulted by other passengers on Frontier flights.
The Plaintiffs now claim that Frontier is liable for negligently
failing to prevent the assaults. They also assert claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct, and injunctive
relief.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide
class comprised of all passengers who flew on Frontier flights
between Dec. 16, 2017, and the present.
The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint and to strike the
Plaintiffs' class action allegations. It argued that the
Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted, and that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish the
prerequisites for class-action certification under F.R.C.P. 23.
The Court referred both Motions to Magistrate Judge Norman Reid
Neureiter.
Judge Neureiter addressed the Motions in a written Report. The
Report recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss in part and
dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' claims except the claim for
negligent infliction of emotional distress. Judge Neureiter also
recommends granting the Motion to Strike on the basis that the
Plaintiffs failed to meet the class-certification requirements of
Rule 23.
After the Report was issued, the Plaintiffs sought to amend their
Complaint. The Court referred the Motion to Amend to Judge
Neureiter, who again prepared a written Report. The Report
recommends that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend be denied on the
basis of futility.
The Plaintiffs now object to Judge Neureiter's recommendations.
The Plaintiffs first contend that Judge Neureiter erred in
recommending dismissal of the claims for negligence and injunctive
relief. The parties apparently agree that Frontier is a common
carrier. Thus, Frontier has a "special relationship" with its
passengers such that it owes a duty to protect them from certain
types of harm by third parties. The question is whether these
sexual assaults fall within one of the categories of harm that
Frontier had a duty to prevent.
Judge Arguello concludes that they do not. The existence of a
special relationship does not create a duty to protect in all
circumstances. She agrees with Judge Neureiter that the Plaintiff
has failed to establish the existence of a duty in the case.
Although the Plaintiffs allege that in-flight sexual assault is a
"growing problem," there is nothing in the Complaint to suggest
that Frontier should have foreseen sexual assault being a problem
under the circumstances of the case.
Even construing the Plaintiff's claim as a request for a
preliminary injunction--which is what the Plaintiffs appear to be
asking for--the Judge still concludes that the Plaintiff's claims
for injunctive relief must fail. First, she agrees with Judge
Neureiter's analysis that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish
that they are entitled to injunctive relief. Further, the
injunction the Plaintiffs seek is a disfavored "mandatory"
injunction. Moreover, even if the Plaintiffs could demonstrate a
substantial likelihood of success on the merits, their request
would nevertheless fail because they have failed to demonstrate an
imminent irreparable injury. The Judge is therefore obliged to
deny the Plaintiffs' request for an injunction.
The Plaintiffs next challenge Judge Neureiter's recommendation that
their class-action allegations be stricken. They argue that Judge
Neureiter's analysis was flawed. Though the Plaintiffs concede
that not all of these passengers experienced in-flight sexual
assault--indeed, the parties seem to agree that the vast majority
of passengers did not experience such an assault--they claim that
class treatment is nevertheless appropriate because all passengers
faced a risk of sexual assault "as a result of Frontier's lack of
protective policies."
Judge Arguello agrees with Judge Neureiter's conclusion that the
class definition is overbroad. By their own admission, she finds
that the Plaintiffs' proposed class would include thousands of
individuals who never have been, and will never be, sexually
assaulted on a Frontier flight. Though the Plaintiffs claim that
one of their primary goals is to prevent future assaults, many
members of the proposed class--including the named Plaintiffs--may
never fly Frontier again, and thus will obtain no benefit from the
relief sought in the lawsuit. Indeed, the proposed class of the
Plaintiffs includes not only sexual assault victims and potential
victims, but also sexual assault perpetrators and potential
assailants. Therefore, the Judge agrees that the proposed class is
overbroad and that class treatment is not appropriate.
Finally, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend to address the
concerns identified in Judge Neureiter's first Report. Judge
Neureiter concluded that the Plaintiffs' proposed amendments would
not meaningfully address those concerns, and that amendment would
therefore be futile. Therefore, he recommended denying the Motion
for Leave to Amend. The Plaintiffs now object to this
recommendation.
Significantly, however, Judge Arguello finds that the Plaintiffs
largely fail to address the issue of futility. Instead, they
merely rehash their arguments against dismissal and in favor of
class treatment. These arguments, she says, are not relevant to
the futility issue, and they need not be considered. She, however,
agrees with Judge Neureiter's reasoning that the proposed
amendments are not sufficient to make the assaults foreseeable such
that the Court could hold Frontier liable for the criminal conduct
of third parties.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Arguello affirmed and adopted
Judge Neureiter's recommendations. She granted in part and denied
in part the Motion to Dismiss. She granted the Motion with respect
to the Plaintiffs' claims for negligence, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, injunctive relief, and willful and wanton
conduct, and she dismissed those claims. She denied the Motion
with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of
emotional distress.
The Judge also granted the Motion to Strike Class Allegations, and
struck the Plaintiff's class-action allegations from the
Complaint.
Finally, she denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/sw6j4dc from Leagle.com.
FUBOTV INC: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of FuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO) common stock
between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The case is captioned Said-Ibrahim v. FuboTV Inc., No. 21-cv-01412,
and is assigned to Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. The FuboTV class
action lawsuit charges FuboTV and certain of its executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased FuboTV common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the FuboTV 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 FuboTV class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the FuboTV class action lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the FuboTV class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the
FuboTV class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the FuboTV class action lawsuit, please provide
your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the FuboTV class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 19,
2021.
FuboTV is a multichannel video programming distributor, offering
subscribers access to thousands of live sporting events as well as
news and entertainment content. FuboTV's platform allows customers
to access content through streaming devices and on Smart TVs,
mobile phones, tablets, and computers.
The FuboTV class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants disseminated false and misleading statements
that misrepresented FuboTV's financial health and its operating
condition. These misleading statements allegedly included
representations relating to a variety of FuboTV's business
operations and performance metrics, including, among others,
FuboTV's ability to grow subscription levels and future
profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations and
potentially shrinking addressable market, ability to attract and
generate advertising revenue, FuboTV's valuation, and its prospects
of entering the arena of online sports wagering. For example, one
of FuboTV's allegedly unrealistic promises included claims of
FuboTV's plans to scale its sports wagering business by, among
other things, acquiring Balto Sports, which significantly inflated
the price of FuboTV securities, and also created a false basis for
its valuation and revenue projections.
Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research
reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed,
among others things, that: (i) FuboTV's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) FuboTV's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) FuboTV could not successfully compete and perform
as a sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) FuboTV's data and inventory was
not differentiated to allow FuboTV to achieve its long-term
advertising growth goals; (v) FuboTV's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies
and internal expertise, and did not expand FuboTV's addressable
market into sports wagering. Upon the publication of the research
reports, the price of FuboTV securities declined 54% from December
23, 2020 to January 4, 2021.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information. [GN]
GEICO CASUALTY: Class Certification Bid Filing Due July 23
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANET DAVIS, et al., v
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Case No. : 2:19-cv-02477-EAS-EPD
(S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers entered an
order granting parties' joint motion to amend the scheduling order
and continue mediation as follows:
-- Motion for class certification July 23, 2021
and certification expert
disclosures:
-- The Plaintiffs' class August 20, 2021
certification expert depositions:
-- Opposition to class certification September 6, 2021
and rebuttal expert disclosures:
-- The Defendants' class certification September 28, 2021
expert depositions:
-- The Plaintiffs' class certification October 8, 2021
reply:
-- All discovery completed: December 7, 2021
-- Dispositive motions: November 5, 2021
-- Responses to dispositive motions: December 10, 2021
-- Replies to dispositive motions: January 7, 2022
-- Primary expert reports produced: October 12, 2021
-- Rebuttal expert reports produced: November 11, 2021
-- Referral to an attorney mediator December 2021.
or the Magistrate judge
for a settlement conference:
GEICO operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's amended order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3syIHYnat no
extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Houston Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the "Houston"
putative class action suit is still stayed.
In October 2018, the putative class action was filed in New York
state court naming as defendants GE, certain GE subsidiaries and
current and former GE executive officers and employees.
It alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of senior
notes issued in 2016 and rescission of transactions involving those
notes.
This case has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Hachem case.
General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.
GLOBAL CREDIT: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLOBAL CREDIT &
COLLECTION CORPORATION, et al. The case is styled as Priscilla
Lewis aka Mosley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION CORPORATION, LVNV
FUNDING LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-03399 (D.N.J., Feb.
24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Global Credit & Collection Corporation -- http://www.affglo.com/--
is located in Chicago, Illinois and is part of the Collection
Agencies Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Stadia's 4K Gaming Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Perrigo, writing for Chrome Unboxed, reports that in a new
class-action lawsuit, Google is being sued for advertising that
Stadia was more powerful than Sony's Playstation and Microsoft's
Xbox by streaming in 4K when, in fact, few games took advantage of
this quality when the service first became available. Instead, most
games at launch streamed at 1080p. Despite this, Stadia's
management and marketing teams did nothing to update their campaign
to reflect this. The lawsuit alleges that Google "greatly
exaggerated the streaming quality and display resolution" and
sought to juice up its subscriber numbers this way.
While Google did provide the capability to developers to deliver
their games in 4K quality and 60 frames per second to consumers,
many did not take advantage of it at launch. Basically, it's
possible that many gamers bought into Stadia on the promise of
competitive console-quality 4K game streaming and were instead
given something less than advertised. The marketing essentially
misled consumers into thinking that all of its games were available
in 4K - whoops!
If you want to see Google's original commercial, you can watch it
below. Besides being completely stupid and annoying, these
commercials constantly hammered 4K and 60 FPS, and that Stadia is
basically like… "electric air". Instead, they should have been
driving home the fact that gamers could play anywhere and on the
hardware they already own. After learning the hard way that their
target market was not hard-core gamers, they finally came around
and began using this marketing, but not before the courts got
involved and this lawsuit popped up, I guess.
The lawsuit, should it to to the courts, seeks to cover all people
in the United States who purchased the Stadia Founder's Edition,
Premier Edition, and/or a subscription to Stadia Pro between June
6, 2019, and the date when the lawsuit resolves. There is currently
no amount per user attached to the classaction.org coverage of
this, but litigation like this takes time, so just keep an eye on
the news. So far, you won't need to "join" the lawsuit in order to
receive reparations if you're a part of the affected group.
Stadia's leadership decisions
You know, I love Stadia conceptually and as a service, but Google
seems to be doing everything in its power to end up in the news
every week for something else. It's a shame that the hard-working,
passionate team of Stadia developers are doing everything in their
power to make the service something world-class and revolutionary
while the leadership team consistently makes decisions that
negatively impact everyone around them.
I have no idea what's going on at Google this year, but I'm
starting to see a pattern – they create an awesome team of
talented, creative people who want to bring an idea to life, and
then hire someone into leadership who destroys it all. I know that
may sound a bit harsh, but it's true. These individuals seem to
have bad industry track records, or just be out of touch with the
community they're serving in general. How does that even happen?
I want to make it clear that individuals like Grace
"GracefromGoogle" Yang and others have publicly expressed their
dismay at unwarranted hate and personal attacks when instead that
anger from gamers should be directed towards those at the top who
are oblivious to the rhythm and culture of the gaming community
that she and her team have worked so hard at every single turn to
capture and cultivate. Seriously, the Stadia community team
exhibits the best customer service and most passion that I've ever
seen in my entire life and the product they've built is incredible,
but it's being overshadowed by the company's poor leadership
decisions.
I mean, they hired Phil Harrison, Google's general manager, as the
platform's product manager. Sadly, he previously left both Sony and
Microsoft among several other jobs not three years apart from each
other. He may have been directly responsible for shuttering the
first-party development studios out of fear in response to
Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda. He or his leadership team also
mismanaged resources and individuals before and during the pandemic
- so much so that they told everyone on the Stadia Games and
Entertainment team that they were doing a great job in an email a
week prior to laying them all off, knowing that Google wouldn't
have fitting positions for game developers. I just don't get it.
I just hope that however this lawsuit turns out, Google learns a
lesson. Care more about your public image than your wallet, and
care more about your people than your public image – both users
and developers alike. Improving lives should go beyond providing an
innovative product, it should mean putting your ethics over your
desire for money first and foremost.
Grace and her team as well as those who were displaced with little
to no warning when SG&E shuttered should receive the reparations
they so badly deserve -- perhaps through a second lawsuit. It's
disheartening to see how many people have uprooted their lives and
gave their all to the cause only to be jobless or in a position
that they could probably care less for. It's absurd that the
remaining developers must continue to swim upstream against a
torrent of internal conflict, giving more than 100% and yet they
continue to do so with a smile because they're incredible people.
As all of this unfolds on a weekly basis, they just want to create
something transformative and fun for gamers who can appreciate it,
and even for those who are consumed by misplaced vitriol.
As a Google "fanboy" and Stadia addict, it hurts me so badly to say
this, but perhaps it would be better for all parties if Stadia were
owned by any company other than Google. It deserves its own
identity apart from the damaged reputation that Google has become
known for and I hope more than anything that it gets to continue
serving its fans and providing a disruptive experience. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Ratliff Class Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER BRYAN RATLIFF, II, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00833, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on February
23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01284-JD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged monopolization of the
Android mobile application market by coercing the purchase of
Android mobile apps and in-app products and services at artificial
prices and by their patently exclusionary conduct in violations of
the Sherman Act.
Google LLC is a technology company that provides internet-related
services and products, with its principal place of business in
Mountain View, California.
Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate, with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
John W. Barrett, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
Sterling Starns, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
E-mail: KBRiley@barrettlawgroup.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: $22K Appraisal Award in Lewis Suit Confirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERRY LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil No. 18-05111
(RBK/KMW) (D.N.J.), Judge Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Defendant's Motion
to Confirm Appraisal Award.
The action arises out of an insurance dispute. In January 2018,
the Plaintiffs Sherry and David Lewis were in a car accident that
caused damage to their vehicle. The vehicle was insured under a
policy by Government Employees Insurance Co. ("GEICO"). The
Plaintiffs submitted a claim to GEICO. GEICO adjusted the claim
and paid $17,258 in settlement to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
disputed the amount paid by GEICO, particularly GEICO's calculation
of the valuation of the vehicle.
On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiffs initiated the current action
against GEICO. They allege that GEICO has routinely violated New
Jersey law in negotiating and settling total loss claims.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs assert that GEICO underpays consumers
for the loss of their vehicles, reduces the value of comparable
vehicles by an arbitrary amount, and undervalues losses. They
allege that the aforementioned actions are in violation of New
Jersey law and GEICO's own insurance contracts.
The Plaintiffs assert the following claims: (1) breach of contract;
(2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
(3) declaratory judgment and injunctive relief; and (4) violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. They bring the case as a
class action on behalf of all those insured under automobile
insurances policies issued in the State of New Jersey by GEICO.
The parties agree that the Plaintiffs' insurance policy with GEICO
contains an appraisal provision, which states the following: "If we
and the insured do not agree on the amount of loss, either may,
within 60 days after proof of loss is filed, demand an appraisal of
the loss. In that event, we and the insured will each select a
competent appraiser. The appraisers will select a competent and
disinterested umpire. The appraisers will state separately the
actual cash value and the amount of the loss. If they fail to
agree, they will submit the dispute to the umpire. An award in
writing of any two will determine the amount of loss. We and the
insured will each pay his chosen appraiser and will bear equally
the other expenses of the appraisal and umpire."
GEICO argues that, by filing their Complaint, the Plaintiffs
dispute the amount of loss determined by GEICO. As a result, GEICO
invoked the appraisal clause by sending a letter to the Plaintiffs'
counsel. The Plaintiffs thereafter agreed to appraisal. The
parties' appraisers then reached an agreement and issued an
appraisal award of $22,000. Thereafter, GEICO issued payment for
the difference between the appraisal award and the original
payment, plus interest. The Plaintiffs rejected the appraisal
award payment. GEICO then filed the present motion seeking
enforcement of the appraisal award.
The Plaintiffs assert that (1) the Court does not have subject
matter jurisdiction to confirm the appraisal award, and (2) the
appraisal award has no impact on the Plaintiffs' claims in the
case.
First, the Plaintiffs argue that federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet
the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III. They argue
that the present Motion does not meet that standard.
Judge Kugler disagrees; the Plaintiffs filed the present matter in
federal court, invoking the Court's jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). He
explains that the invocation of a Court's jurisdiction over a
lawsuit confers jurisdiction to a district court for an entire
"civil action." When matters incident to the disposition of the
primary matter arise before a court, the doctrine of ancillary
jurisdiction permits district courts to decide them.
The Judge finds that the present motion is incident to the
disposition of the Plaintiffs' case. The Plaintiffs initially
invoked the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Judge will
exercise the Court's ancillary jurisdiction over the present
motion, and he rejects the Plaintiffs' subject matter challenge.
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that the appraisal award should have
no effect on the Plaintiffs' claims in the case. The Judge notes
that an appraisal establishes only the amount of loss and not
liability. It is because an appraiser may not make legal or
coverage determinations. Accordingly, an appraisal award resolves
only issues of valuation, not the entire controversy.
In line with this guidance, Judge Kugler finds that the Defendant
is entitled to an Order confirming the appraisal determination. He
clarifies, however, that his Order does not address any continuing
controversies in the case, including those related to policy
interpretation, liability, or the validity of GEICO's actions under
the insurance policy. Instead, the Order serves only to provide
confirmation of the appraisal determination as to amount of loss.
For the reasons, he granted the Defendant's Motion to Confirm
Appraisal Award. An accompanying Order will be issued.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3ucy2wb4 from Leagle.com.
GRIDDY ENERGY: Texas Woman Who Received $9,300 Bill Files Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reese Oxner at kwtx.com reports that a Chambers County resident
filed a class-action lawsuit against electricity retailer Griddy,
accusing the provider of price gouging customers during last week's
freeze. She is seeking $1 billion in relief for affected
customers.
Attorneys for Lisa Khoury said in the lawsuit that her bill spiked
to $9,340 the week of the storm, compared to her average monthly
bills that range from $200 to $250.
Griddy drafted payments from Khoury's bank account several times,
according to the lawsuit, pulling $1,200 before she blocked further
charges from her bank. She still owes thousands.
Griddy passes wholesale electricity rates directly to customers,
who in turn pay the company $10 a month. This differs from
fixed-rate electricity plans which offer a consistent rate
regardless of market conditions.
But because of a price hike fueled by a shortage of supply and
skyrocketing demand, some customers were faced with bills charging
tens of thousands of dollars. While electricity bills are likely to
rise across the board, Texans on variable rate plans faced
immediate and alarmingly high prices.
Texas' Public Utility Commission, appointed by Abbott, raised the
wholesale market price of electricity to $9 per kilo-watt hour -- a
7,400% increase over the average 12 cents per kilo-watt hour -- in
response to rising demand. The hope was power generators would be
enticed to produce more electricity.
"Energy prices should reflect scarcity of the supply," the order
stated.
Representatives for Griddy could not immediately be reached for
comment. The electricity retailer addressed concerns of price
gouging on its website and firmly placed the blame on the Public
Utility Commission. The company states that it did not profit from
raised prices.
"You effectively pay the same price as a retail energy provider or
utility. No markups. No hidden fees. No contracts. That's it," the
company stated.
Griddy warned its 29,000 customers of impending price hikes and
encouraged them to seek out other electric providers. The company
is offering customers a deferred payment plan to pay off balances
over five months.
"At Griddy, transparency has always been our goal," the company
began a blog post explaining the price hike. "We know you are angry
and so are we. Pissed, in fact."
Griddy has vowed to fight the raised prices, saying, "The market is
supposed to set the prices, not political appointee
Gov. Greg Abbott has said scaling back the bills will be a top
priority, and the state's utility commission took action to
temporarily prevent electric companies from cutting power to
customers who don't pay and from sending out bills and cost
estimates.
This suit is part of the latest in a flurry of suits filed related
to damages from the winter storm. Morgan & Morgan -- a national
plaintiffs' firm with more than 700 lawyers -- announced a class
action lawsuit against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas,
alleging that the operator "failed to plan for the cold weather,
despite multiple clear warnings."
Attorneys write that ERCOT refused to winterize equipment despite
recommendations of both the Public Utilities Commission of Texas
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission after other storms in
1989 and 2011.
The lawsuit was filed in the 133rd District Court of Harris County
on behalf of "all retail customers within the ERCOT Region who lost
electric services or potable water services during the week of
February 14, 2021 as a result of ERCOT's failure to ensure adequate
generating capacity."
"This was not the first time ERCOT has failed to plan and prepare
for cold weather. But instead of learning the lessons of its past
failures, ERCOT yet again disregarded its duties to its customers,"
attorneys Mike Morgan and Rene Rocha said in a statement.
It appears to be the first class-action lawsuit filed against the
operator.
Over the weekend, Houston attorney Tony Buzbee filed a lawsuit
suing the ERCOT and energy provider Entergy for a total of $100
million on behalf of a family whose son died during forced outages.
Buzbee said he plans on filing several more lawsuits against ERCOT
and electric providers.
Litigation against ERCOT might face hurdles as the Texas Supreme
Court is expected to weigh in this year on whether ERCOT has
sovereign immunity which would shield it from some lawsuits. [GN]
HUSKY OIL: Court Certifies Rule 23(b)(3) Class in Bruzek Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASEN BRUZEK, HOPE KOPLIN, and CHRISTOPHER PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HUSKY OIL OPERATIONS LIMITED and SUPERIOR REFINING
COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-697-wmc (W.D. Wis.), Judge
William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin entered an order:
a. granting the Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment;
b. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification;
c. reserving the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert
report of Dr. Charles L. Baum II;
d. denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the
expert report of Dr. John A. Kilpatrick; and the
now-dismissed Defendant Husky Energy Inc.'s motion for
leave to file a reply instanter related to the previous
motion for reconsideration;
e. denying the Defendants' motion for a hearing; and
f. reserving the Plaintiffs' motion to unseal certain
documents and the Defendants' motion for leave to file
certain documents and exhibits under seal.
On the morning of April 26, 2018, an explosion occurred at a
refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, and the resulting fire advanced
within 150 to 200 feet of a tank of hydrogen fluoride ("HF"). As a
precaution against the potential release of HF into the air, which
can travel and cause injury to those who inhale it, a mandatory
evacuation order was issued to the community surrounding the
refinery.
The named Plaintiffs are residents of Superior who were forced to
evacuate as a result of the explosion and seek to bring the action
on behalf of themselves and two putative classes against Defendants
Husky Oil and Superior Refining Co., LLC ("SRC") as owner of the
subject refinery.
Now before the Court are a number of related motions. First, the
Defendants move for partial summary judgment, arguing that the
Plaintiffs' claims seeking injunctive relief as to the continued
use of HF at the Superior Refinery must be dismissed. Second, the
Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes. Third, the Defendants move
to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Charles L. Baum II. Dr.
Baum opines as to an hourly compensation rate for economic losses
for annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort for the typical
resident subject to the evacuation order. He also testifies that a
per diem rate is appropriate to compensate evacuated residents for
expenses incurred. The Defendants argue that this testimony is
neither reliable nor helpful to a fact-finder, and thus should be
ruled inadmissible. Finally are motions from both parties seeking
to seal and unseal various documents.
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
The parties dispute whether the release of HF was ever actually
"threatened." In particular, the Defendants point out that: (1)
the fire never came within 150 feet of the HF tank; (2) there were
numerous safety system in place to prevent any release of HF; and
(3) the evacuation order was issued only out of an abundance of
caution. They further note that the United States Chemical Safety
and Hazard Investigation Board ("CSB") did not identify the release
of HF as a "near miss," nor did any other governmental agency.
The Plaintiffs point out that their expert John A. Williams opines
as an engineer in his expert report that "the explosion resulted
from abnormally dangerous conditions which propagated into a near
catastrophe with extreme endangerment to the workers and
community." As for alternatives to HF, Dr. Williams opines that
ionic liquid alkylation and solid catalyst alkylation are currently
feasible replacements for the HF alkylate production capacity at
the Refinery. In contrast, the Defendants' expert opines that
"Williams is wrong that either or both ionic liquid and/or solid
catalyst alkylation alternatives were feasible in April 2018 or are
even truly feasible now as proven, safe, reliable process
alternatives for refineries."
Judge Conley opines that Refinery has been operating for over sixty
years without a release of HF into the community, including during
the April 2018 incident. While individuals have previously been
injured by HF-related accidents at the Refinery, they were all
employees or contractors, and thus these injuries are of limited
relevance to plaintiffs' argument that HF poses a threat to the
broader community. Far more persuasive is the evidence presented
by the Plaintiffs that the April 2018 was a "near miss" event,
which could have resulted in severe endangerment to the community.
Indeed, the presence of HF at the Refinery and its threatened
release was the very reason for the evacuation order. However, the
Plaintiffs have produced no specific evidence as to the likelihood
of a reoccurrence of such an incident, or concrete actions taken in
response to that threat, and "past wrongs do not in themselves
amount to that real and immediate threat of injury necessary to
make out a case or controversy" in cases seeking injunctive
relief.
The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have not produced enough
evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the
Defendants' continued use of HF presents more than a speculative
threat of injury. Accordingly, their claims regarding prospective
relief against the Defendants' continued use of HF can proceed no
further. His ruling necessarily includes denial of the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the stated purpose of
which was to request "declaratory and injunctive relief requiring
the Defendants to make specific safety improvements to support the
safer storage of HF."
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
The Plaintiffs' proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class includes: "All persons
over the age of 18 subject to the Evacuation Order declared on
April 26, 2018 as a result of the Superior Refinery explosion and
fire who seek compensation for economic loss or loss of use and
enjoyment of their property, excluding personal injury damages."
They seek to certify the class as to their claims of negligence,
nuisance, and strict liability for extrahazardous activity.
The Judge finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have presented evidence
that thousands of people were affected by the mandatory evacuation
order resulting from the Defendants' allegedly wrongful acts, so
numerosity is readily satisfied; (ii) because the Plaintiffs'
claims depend on a common contention capable of classwide
resolution, commonality is met; (ii) the Defendants have not
persuasively argued that named plaintiffs are not typical of the
putative class as a whole, at least with respect to questions of
liability; (iv) the the class representatives are capable of fairly
and adequately representing the interests of the class; (v) the
questions of the Defendants' liability may be determined by common
proof, and are not overwhelmed by individual damages questions; and
(vi) a class action is a superior method of adjudicating issues of
liability in the case.
Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Report
In his expert report, Dr. Baum opines as to a per diem rate for
expenses and an hourly compensation rate for economic losses for
annoyance, inconvenience, and discomfort for the typical resident
subject to the evacuation order. The Defendants argue that this
testimony is neither reliable nor helpful to a fact-finder, and
thus should be ruled inadmissible.
Given his decision to bifurcate the case--in which common issues of
liability may be tried as a class, with damages left for
individualized hearings--the Judge need not address the parties'
arguments in detail at this stage, although Dr. Baum's testimony
would appear largely irrelevant. To the extent the Defendants
still deem otherwise, the Judge holds that the issue is best
addressed by a motion in limine in specific cases.
Plaintiffs' Motions to Seal and Unseal
The Plaintiffs' motion seeks to unseal the class certification
brief and the exhibits accompanying the brief. In their reply
brief, the Plaintiffs ask in the alternative to unseal only the
specific pages from the exhibits that were cited in their class
certification brief. Should the Court decide to take this
alternative approach, the Defendants ask that they have the
opportunity to offer suggested redactions from those specific
pages.
The Judge agrees that this compromise approach is likely to best
balance the public's interest in "what goes on at all stages of a
judicial proceeding" and the "property and privacy interests of
litigants," particularly because many of the exhibits at issue are
lengthy and appear to contain confidential information on some
pages, but not others, nor necessarily on the pages actually relied
on by the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Defendants may have until March 8,
2021, to respond to the Plaintiffs' request to unseal the specific
portions of the exhibits identified. At that time, the Court will
also take up the Defendants' motion for leave to file certain
documents and exhibits under seal. In drafting their response, the
Defendants are reminded that it is their burden to show good
cause.
Order
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Conley granted the Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment because the Plaintiffs have
failed to proffer adequate facts to show that the Defendants' use
and storage of HF poses an ongoing or imminent threat of injury, as
is required to establish standing for injunctive relief. His
conclusion necessarily requires him to deny certification of the
Plaintiffs' Rule 23(b)(2) class, the stated purpose of which is to
seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring HF-related safety
improvements. However, the Judge certified the remaining proposed
Rule 23(b)(3) class for the purposes of determining the Defendants'
alleged liability, while reserving for individual hearings issues
of causation and damages since the distinct factual issues would
appear to predominate over common ones. As for the Defendants'
motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Baum, the Judge
reserved at this time the Plaintiffs' motion to unseal certain
documents, and the Defendants' motion for leave to file certain
documents and exhibits under seal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/977mbmpa from Leagle.com.
IC SYSTEM: Crawford Files FDCPA Suit in South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IC System Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Lizzie Crawford, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. IC System Inc., John
Does 1-25, Case No. 8:21-cv-00555-DCC (D.S.C., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
IC System -- https://www.icsystem.com/ -- offers services in
accounts receivable management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth Edward Norsworthy, Jr., Esq.
NORSWORTHY LAW LTD CO
218 Trade Street, Suite D
Greer, SC 29651
Phone: (864) 804-0581
Fax: (864) 670-5009
Email: kenorsworthy@me.com
IMMUNOVANT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 20 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
Immunovant, Inc. ("Immunovant" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT)
from October 2, 2019 through February 1, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Immunovant securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Immunovant
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HSAC had
performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Immunovant prior to
the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to disclose safety issues
associated with IMVT-1401; (ii) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the
Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to
treating TED and WAIHA; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably diminished
IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval, commercial
viability, and profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On February 2, 2021, Immunovant issued a press release
"announc[ing] a voluntary pause of dosing in its ongoing clinical
trials for IMVT-1401." Immunovant disclosed that it "has become
aware of a physiological signal consisting of elevated total
cholesterol and LDL [low-density lipoproteins] levels in
IMVT-1401-treated patients" and "[o]ut of an abundance of caution,
the Company has decided to voluntarily pause dosing in ongoing
clinical studies in both TED and in [WAIHA], in order to inform
patients, investigators, and regulators as well as to modify the
monitoring program."
On this news, Immunovant's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or
42.08%, to close at $25.08 per share on February 2, 2021.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 20,
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 Immunovant securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/immunovantinc-imvt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-365/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]
INFINITY Q CAPITAL: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
investors in Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX,
IQDNX) resulting from allegations that Infinity Q may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Infinity Q securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2039.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.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On February 23, 2021, the Wall Street Journal
published an article entitled "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on
$1.8 Billion Fund: Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief
investment officer from trading after discovering issues valuing
the fund's holdings". The article reported that "[i]nvestment firm
Infinity Q Capital Management LLC asked the Securities and Exchange
Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds and
forbid its chief investment officer from trading after discovering
issues valuing the fund's holdings." Citing a filing by the
company, the article further reported that "[t]he fund was unable
to calculate an NAV on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when
the fund will be able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to
satisfy requests for redemptions of fund shares[.]"
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.
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.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
INFLECTION RISK: Bid to Dismiss Taylor Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tony N. Taylor v.
Inflection Risk Solutions, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-02266-PAM-DTS (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order denying
the motion to dismiss or to strike class action suit.
The Court said, "Inflection contends that Taylor's attempt to
represent a class is improper. Essentially, Inflection seeks to
litigate class certification at the motion-to-dismiss stage. All
but one of the cases Inflection cites for the propriety of such an
early ruling on class certification issues are from outside this
Circuit, although as Inflection notes, the Eighth Circuit has
affirmed a district court's dismissal of class claims under Rule
12(b)(6). But no court in this Circuit has cited this case for the
proposition that considering class-certification issues is always
appropriate, or even often appropriate, at this early stage of the
litigation. While the Court has doubts about whether either of the
claims Taylor raises is amenable to class treatment, it is
premature to make that judgment at this early stage of the
litigation."
The Amended Complaint raises two causes of action. Count I alleges
that Inflection violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), by
either willfully or negligently reporting as felonies crimes that
Minnesota law deems to be misdemeanors. Count II asserts the same
statutory violation, alleging that Inflection willfully or
negligently mis-reported non-violent offenses as violent offenses.
Taylor seeks to represent two classes: a so-called "deemed
misdemeanor" class and an "inaccurate offense characterization"
class. The "deemed misdemeanor“ class consists of individuals
with Minnesota felony convictions that were ultimately deemed
misdemeanors under Minn. Stat. section 609.13, and on whom
Infection published an inaccurate background-check report
indicating that the offense was a felony. The "inaccurate offense
characterization" class comprises individuals on whom Inflection
performed a background check that listed a Minnesota criminal
offense described as involving violence, but whose conviction was
not a crime of violence under Minn. Both classes are limited to two
years before this case's commencement.
Inflection Risk operates as a big data company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3r04I21at no
extra charge.[CC]
JAGUAR ANIMAL: Monteverde & Associates Announces Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Monteverde & Associates
PC in regard to a proposed class action settlement.
SUMMARY NOTICE
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND ALL BENEFICIAL HOLDERS OF JAGUAR ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC. ("JAGUAR") COMMON STOCK WHO PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD
SUCH STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2017, THE
RECORD DATE FOR VOTING ON THE MERGER OF JAGUAR AND NAPO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("NAPO"), WHEREBY JAGUAR SHAREHOLDERS AND
OPTION/WARRANT HOLDERS WOULD HOLD APPROXIMATELY 25% OF THE TOTAL
OUTSTANDING STOCK OF THE COMBINED COMPANY (THE "MERGER"), THROUGH
AND INCLUDING JULY 31, 2017, THE DATE THE MERGER CLOSED, INCLUDING
ANY AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PREDECESSORS, SUCCESSORS, TRUSTEES,
EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ESTATES, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS,
ASSIGNS AND TRANSFEREES.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, that a
hearing will be held on May 27, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Richard Seeborg. Settlement Class Members should check
the Settlement Class website in advance of the Final Approval
Hearing to determine whether that hearing will occur in person at
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 or via
a remote link. The hearing will be held for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Litigation
for $2.6 million should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing
the Litigation with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims
against Defendants and Defendants' Released Persons; (3) whether
final certification of the Settlement Class should be granted; (4)
whether the Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (5) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses, and any award to Lead Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Sec78u-4(a)(4) should be approved.
IF YOU PURCHASED, SOLD OR HELD JAGUAR COMMON STOCK DURING THE
PERIOD FROM AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2017, THROUGH AND INCLUDING JULY
31, 2017 (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE
RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO
YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF JAGUAR COMMON STOCK DURING THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and
a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain
copies by writing to Jaguar Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, 1-866-742-4955, or on the Internet at
www.rg2claims.com/jaguar.html. If you are a Settlement Class
Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail
(postmarked no later than June 25, 2021), or online at
www.rg2claims.com/jaguar.html no later than June 25, 2021,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
If you purchased or acquired Jaguar common stock during the
Settlement Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than May 6, 2021, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of
the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement.
Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, Lead
Counsel's request for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses,
and any award to Lead Plaintiff must be received by each of the
following recipients via hard copy and email no later than May 6,
2021:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Lead Counsel:
Monteverde & Associates PC
Juan E. Monteverde
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
New York, New York 10118
Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
M. Duncan Grant
Christopher B. Chuff
1313 Market Street, Suite 5100
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Tel: (302) 777-6544
(302) 777-6547
Email: duncan.grant@troutman.com
chris.chuff@troutman.com [GN]
JAMES FRANCO: Settles Class Action Over Sexual Misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dalton, writing for Associated Press, reports that a
tentative settlement has been reached in a lawsuit that alleged
James Franco intimidated students at an acting and film school he
founded into gratuitous and exploitative sexual situations,
attorneys for the plaintiffs said on Feb. 20.
The two sides filed a joint status report in Los Angeles Superior
Court telling a judge a settlement had been reached in the
class-action lawsuit brought by former students at the now-defunct
school, Studio 4, though elements of the lawsuit may live on.
The document was filed on Feb. 11, but the settlement has not
previously been reported.
Actresses and ex-students Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal, who
first filed the lawsuit in 2019, have agreed to drop their
individual claims under the agreement, according to the court
filing. Their lawsuit said Franco pushed his students into
performing in increasingly explicit sex scenes on camera in an
"orgy type setting" that went far beyond those acceptable on
Hollywood film sets.
It alleged that Franco "sought to create a pipeline of young women
who were subjected to his personal and professional sexual
exploitation in the name of education," and that students were led
to believe roles in Franco's films would be available to those who
went along.
The lawsuit said the incidents occurred in a master class on sex
scenes that Franco taught at Studio 4, which opened in 2014 and
closed in 2017.
The two sides had been in discussions on a settlement for several
months, and the lawsuit's progress had been paused while they
talked.
Plaintiffs' attorneys from the firm of Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP,
confirmed the agreement in a statement to The Associated Press on
Feb. 20, adding that it will be "further memorialized in a Joint
Stipulation of Settlement to be filed with the Court at a later
date," but giving no further comment or details.
After-hours emails seeking comment from attorneys for the
defendants were not immediately returned.
In a previous court filing, Franco's attorneys, while praising the
#MeToo movement that helped inspire the lawsuit, called its claims
"false and inflammatory, legally baseless and brought as a class
action with the obvious goal of grabbing as much publicity as
possible for attention-hungry Plaintiffs." They pointed out that
Tither-Kaplan had previously expressed gratitude for the
opportunity to work with Franco.
The lawsuit also names Franco's production company Rabbit Bandini
and his partners including Vince Jolivette and Jay Davis as
defendants.
The sexual exploitation allegations of other plaintiffs in the
class action will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they may
be re-filed, the joint status report said.
Fraud allegations brought by those plaintiffs will be "subjected to
limited release," the document says, without further details or
explanation.
The document does not reveal how much money may be involved in the
deal.
Before filing the lawsuit, Tither-Kaplan aired her allegations of
sexual misconduct against Franco along with other women in the Los
Angeles Times after Franco won a Golden Globe Award for "The
Disaster Artist" in early 2018, when the wave of the #MeToo
movement was sweeping across Hollywood.
In a subsequent interview on "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,"
Franco called the sexual misconduct stories about him inaccurate,
but said, "If I've done something wrong, I will fix it. I have
to."
Franco, 42, best known for starring in comedies with Seth Rogen,
has generally kept a low-profile since the allegations arose in
what had been a highly productive period that culminated in the
acclaimed "Disaster Artist." [GN]
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Elmiron Drug Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avis Favaro, Elizabeth St. Philip and Alexandra Mae Jones, writing
for CTVNews.ca, report that they were prescribed a drug called
Elmiron to help with their persistent bladder pain. But now two
Canadian women are looking for justice, after they say the drug
damaged their eyesight.
"It started out with distortion of lines, and that progressively
got worse," Catherine D'Andrea told CTV News.
D'Andrea works as an archeologist, and says she now has trouble
seeing in dim lighting. Colour and brightness are diminished for
her.
She was first prescribed Elmiron in 2004 for interstitial cystitis,
a chronic condition that causes pressure and severe pain in the
bladder. Elmiron, known generically as pentosan polysulfate sodium,
is the only oral drug available for this condition, which affects
hundreds of thousands of Canadians, most of them women.
But after years of taking the medication, D'Andrea says it has come
at a cost.
"I am worried driving," she said. "I am worried about my ability to
walk up and down stairs."
As an archeologist, she spends a lot of time looking at small
objects to identify them, and her failing vision has made this
increasingly difficult.
"Another part of my job involves going into very rugged,
mountainous regions, hiking through uneven terrain, and so, again
when you are looking down and trying to establish a good footing,
it's difficult when you're not sure about what you're seeing," she
said.
In August of 2020, D'Andrea had a routine appointment with her eye
doctor, who had been aware that she'd been experiencing this
distorted vision.
"She mentioned that the drug Elmiron, because she saw it in my
file, could cause some of these symptoms," D'Andrea said.
D'Andrea looked up information about the drug as soon as she got
out of the appointment. After reading up on it, she decided that
same day to stop taking the drug, just in case.
Shop owner Lorean Pritchard, who lives in London, Ont., started
taking the drug in 2002. But she went off it in 2015, mainly
because it was expensive.
She now blames the drug for her gradual loss of vision.
"I just noticed over time that I wasn't seeing as clearly as I
should have," Pritchard told CTV News.
She said that signs appeared to be distorted, her eyes were filled
with "floaters," her ability to recognize people was weaker than
before, and, worst of all, reading grew more difficult.
"I am a passionate reader, that is my number-one love," she said.
The biggest impact has been on her vision while driving at night.
"I would see some road signs in advance and I would test myself,"
she said. "It was the distortion that cued me that things were not
right, even after I had new prescriptions."
Sometimes when customers are standing right in front of her at her
store, she can't see them clearly, she said.
"It has been very stressful," she said.
Pritchard worries about the "burden" there will be on her husband
if her vision continues to worsen.
"I'm not going to have the freedom to drive, I am not going to have
the ability to enjoy my books. It's going to affect my whole
lifestyle," she said.
Although Elmiron is effective at stopping bladder pain, studies
have been increasingly finding that it may be linked to damage in
the retina of the eyes.
One study found that about a quarter of people taking Elmiron for
five years or more had experienced significant damage to the
retina, and identified that more significant exposure to the drug
was associated with more severe atrophy.
A study from 2018 found that the retinal damage associated with
Elmiron is distinguishable from hereditary damage.
And a recent report warns the changes may progress even after
patients stop taking the drug.
Dr. Nieraj Jain, assistant professor of ophthalmology at Emory
University School of Medicine, was one of the first to raise alarm
bells about Elmiron.
He told CTV News that the damage seen in these patients affects
delicate cells that dictate how they process light.
"These cells are called photoreceptors," Jain said. "They're
light-sensing cells, and the cells underneath those photoreceptors
[are] called the retinal pigment epithelium, or RPP."
"Those cells need to be working well, they need to be in tip-top
shape, in order for us to have a very sharp vision that we have.
And in patients who have this Elmiron-related maculopathy, we're
seeing disturbances in the pigmentation there, and degeneration or
loss of some of those cells."
He said that some of these changes in the retina could persist
long-term, up to 20 years, "and perhaps in some eyes that are more
significantly affected … things can worsen down the road."
Warnings have been issued before. Last year, the Canadian
Urological Association Journal published an article about the
possible risks for long-term Elmiron users.
In 2019, Canada issued an alert about the drug, adding "the risk of
pigmentary maculopathy" -- a term that refers to a specific type of
vision loss -- to the warnings and precautions section for the drug
when it is sold in Canada.
And two months ago, Health Canada issued a letter to health-care
professionals, providing new information about the potential risks
of the medication.
"These changes may be irreversible, and retinal and vision changes
may progress even after cessation of therapy," the letter states.
But Pritchard says the advisories still aren't reaching patients.
She only found out about the risks of Elmiron by watching CTV
News.
Last spring, CTV News aired a story describing the dilemma many
people struggling with painful bladder conditions were grappling
with, forced to choose between bladder pain and a drug that could
damage their eyesight, according to emerging evidence.
"When I saw the CTV segment, it all made sense to me," Pritchard
said.
"I was relieved because I had answers, but then I was very
frustrated. Had I been told way back in 2002 that there was a
possibility that my vision would be affected and that I would lose
my vision, I probably would not have taken that prescription."
Both she and D'Andrea have joined a class-action lawsuit against
the drug makers, alleging that they did not disclose the risks of
the drug sufficiently to the public.
Janssen, the manufacturer of the drug, has said that they will
defend themselves and their product against the lawsuit.
"At Janssen, nothing is more important to us than the health and
safety of the patients who use our medicines," they told CTV News
in a statement. "ELMIRON® is an oral medicine indicated for the
treatment of Interstitial Cystitis, which involves inflammation and
irritation of the bladder wall. We work closely with Health Canada
to ensure the prescribing information for ELMIRON® appropriately
reflects the risks and benefits of the medicine based on the
information available to us. We plan to defend against the claims
made in this litigation."
If the class-action lawsuit is successful, the company could have
to pay up to $500,000 to each person affected.
D'Andrea said that realizing Elmiron might be behind her vision
loss was a "life-changing moment for sure."
She said she had planned to continue working as an archeologist
"for at least another seven or eight years," but that in light of
her vision, she's having to reconsider her entire life plans.
"In my weaker moments, I do get angry and upset, but for the most
part I'm doing my best to try to work around those obstacles," she
said.
In the meantime, the women are urging others on the medications to
get regular eye exams at the very least, and to watch for vision
changes that could be irreversible.
"In the short run, I think it is very important to get the word
out," D'Andrea said. "People who are taking the drug or thinking of
taking the drug should immediately go visit their physician." [GN]
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Jianpu Technology, Inc.
("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT) American Depositary Shares
("ADSs" or "shares") and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Jianpu securities
between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/jt.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) that certain of the Company's
transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business
Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business
substance; (2) that, as a result, Jianpu's revenue and costs and
expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; (3) that there
were material weaknesses in Jianpu's internal control over
financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be
restated; and (5) 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/jt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Jianpu you
have until April 19, 2021 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
JOHN HANCOCK: Court OKs Class Certification Bid in Baker ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Baker v. John Hancock Life
Insurance Company (U.S.A.), Case No. 1:20-cv-10397 (D. Mass.), the
Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting unopposed
motion to certify class.
The suit alleges violation of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
John Hancock Life Insurance Company, U.S.A. is a Boston-based
insurance company. Established April 21, 1862, it was named in
honor of John Hancock, a prominent patriot. In 2004, John Hancock
was acquired by the Canadian life insurance company Manulife
Financial.[CC]
LENDING CLUB: Bradford Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lending Club
Corporation. The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lending Club
Corporation, Case No. 4:21-cv-00588 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- was an American
peer-to-peer lending company, headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
LIZHI INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI)
Class Period: American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") purchased
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about January 17, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering")
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
On or about January 17, 2020 the company conducted its IPO, selling
4.1 million Lizhi ADSs at $11.00 per ADS. Defendants generated
approximately $45 million in gross offering proceeds from their
sale of Lizhi's securities in the IPO.
By the commencement of this action, Lizhi shares are trading below
$4 per share, a decline of over 63% from the offering price.
The complaint, filed on January 20, 2021, alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) at the
time of the IPO, the coronavirus was already ravaging China, the
home base, principal market, and significant hub for Lizhi, its
employees, and its customers; (2) the complications associated with
the coronavirus were already negatively affecting Lizhi's business,
as employees and customers contracted the virus, lost employment,
or otherwise experienced difficulty in generating, publishing, and
monetizing the content critical to Lizhi's platform; (3) even prior
to the IPO, Lizhi employees and customers complained of, and to,
Lizhi, which harmed the Company's reputation and financial
condition and prospects; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.
For more information on the Lizhi class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/LIZI
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
LOMPOC, CA: Federal Prison Inmates Get Support Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
KSBY reports that family, friends and community members are letting
Lompoc Federal Prison inmates know they are loved.
"Love Your Inmate," a local coalition that provides support for
inmates and their families, held a rally at Ryon Park in Lompoc
which is near prison grounds.
Representatives from Congressman Salud Carbajal's office, the
Lompoc Prison Task Force and local clergy spoke at the event.
Inmate supporters said they hope to bring attention to what they
call an "inadequate response" of the Covid-19 outbreak at the
prison.
"We want to let [prisoners and their families] know that they're
not forgotten. They don't have much of a voice, so it's really
important for those of us who do to use that voice to make sure
that their concerns are addressed," Showing Up for Racial Justice
(SURJ) Santa Barbara representative Tanya Hyde said.
The event was supposed to feature a flyover, but organizers
postponed it due to the winds.
From April 23 to May 1, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a
remote inspection of FCC Lompoc to understand how the pandemic
affected the complex and how prison officials prepared for,
prevented, and managed the spread of COVID-19 within the facility.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class-action
lawsuit filed May 16, 2020.
In the lawsuit, the ACLU argues Michael Carvajal, the Director of
the BOP, and Louis Milusnic, the Warden of Lompoc, have
demonstrated that "they will not take the measures necessary to
prevent the coronavirus from converting more prison sentences into
death sentences without court intervention."
They also alleged that the prison has under-reported the number of
inmates who have tested positive for the coronavirus.
"We hope that [prison officials] can address issues around
communication. Families have had a difficult time communicating
with their loved ones," Lompoc Prison Task Force chairwoman
Patricia Solorio said.
The Lompoc FCC houses at least 2,000 male inmates between the
medium-security U.S. Penitentiary, the low-security Federal
Correctional Institution and two work camps.
KSBY reached out to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for comment and
have not yet heard back. [GN]
LOWRY FARMS: Benito Suit Seeks Class Action Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNABE ANTONIO BENITO AND
JESUS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. LOWRY FARMS, INC. AND MICHAEL CLAYTON LOWRY
AKA CLAY LOWRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01039-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying the claims as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), on behalf of the
following class:
"all individuals admitted as H-2A temporary foreign
workers who were employed by Defendants for work in its
sugarcane planting operations in 2016, 2017, 2018 and/or
2019;" and
2. appointing their attorneys as counsel for the classes.
Between 2016 and 2019, the Defendants were certified for, and
employed, approximately 2,000 individual, non-supervisory H-2A visa
workers in their sugarcane planting operations.
The named Plaintiffs and the other class members worked planting
sugarcane for the Defendants pursuant to H-2A work visas.
(Discovery). The named Plaintiffs and the other class members
maintain permanent residences in Mexico.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pYtaj7
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson, Esq.
Norma Ventura, Esq.
James M. Knoepp, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 370037
Miami, FL 33137-0037
Telephone: (786) 810-5673
E-mail: aj.hernandez@splcenter.org
norma.ventura@splcenter.org
jim.knoepp@splcenter.org
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM: Bruns Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Vic Bruns, for himself and others similarly
situated v. Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P., Magellan Ammonia
Pipeline, L.P., a foreign limited partnership, Case No. CJ-21-00216
was removed from the Tulsa County District Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on Feb. 24,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00080-JFH-CDL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land.
Magellan Midstream Partners -- https://www.magellanlp.com/ -- is a
publicly traded company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucius James Wallace, Esq.
Paul Mario Catalano, Esq.
Robert David Humphreys, Esq.
HUMPHREYS WALLACE HUMPHREYS
9202 S Toldeo Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74137
Phone: (918) 747-5300
Fax: (918) 747-5311
Email: luke@hwh-law.com
paul@hwh-law.com
david@hwh-law.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amelia Ann Fogleman, Esq.
Barbara McHugh Moschovidis, Esq.
Craig Alan Fitzgerald, Esq.
Jeff Roderick, Esq.
GABLE & GOTWALS (Tulsa)
100 W 5th St. Ste. 1100
Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
Phone: (918) 595-4800
Fax: (918) 595-4990
Email: afogleman@gablelaw.com
bmoschovidis@gablelaw.com
cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com
jroderick@gablelaw.com
MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Settlement in Martin Suit Has Prelim. Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYRIL MARTIN; JENNIFER MARTIN; RUSSELL BAIRD; CYNDY
BAIRD; MICHAEL ARCHIBALD; SHELLEY ARCHIBALD; STEVE OLSON; JULIE
OLSON; ROBERT HAZELTON; and ALICIA HAZELTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; KYO-YA HOTELS & RESORTS; and DOE DEFENDANTS
1-50, Defendants, Civil No. 18-00494 JAO-RT (D. Haw.), Judge Jill
A. Otake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement Agreement and Release dated Aug. 20, 2020.
Defendants Marriott International, Inc. and Kyo-ya Hotels &
Resorts, and the Class Representatives, on behalf of themselves and
all members of the Settlement Class, entered into a Settlement
Agreement to settle the action. The Plaintiffs have filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the proposed Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement, the exhibits thereto, and the exhibits to the
Motion for Preliminary Approval set forth the terms and conditions
for a proposed settlement, release, and dismissal with prejudice of
the Lawsuit.
Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits and the
Motion for Preliminary Approval and its exhibits, Judge Otake
granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval. She preliminarily
approved the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement set forth
therein as fair, adequate and reasonable, subject to further
consideration at the Final Fairness1 Hearing.
For settlement purposes only, the Judge conditionally certified the
following Settlement Class: All United States and Canada residents
(1) who booked and paid for a stay (2) at one or more of the
following Hotels: The Royal Hawaiian, a Luxury Collection Resort;
The Moana Surfrider, a Westin Resort & Spa, Waikiki Beach; Sheraton
Waikiki; Sheraton Princess Kaiulani or Sheraton Maui Resort & Spa
(Hotels), (3) for a stay that took place on one or more dates
between October 8, 2018 through and including Nov. 27, 2018 (the
Class Period).
The Settlement Class is further divided into Subclass 1 and
Subclass 2 based on the segments and/or booking channel through
which the Settlement Class Members booked their stay.
a. Subclass 1: All Settlement Class Members who booked their
stay directly with Marriott or a Hotel and booking channels other
than through a Wholesaler, Online Travel Agent, or Group Booking.
This Subclass 1 is further categorized by the Hotel at which the
Settlement Class Member stayed: (i) Subclass 1(a): Sheraton
Princess Kaiulani, and (ii) Subclass 1(b): All Other Hotels.
b. Subclass 2: All Settlement Class Members who booked their
stay through a Wholesaler, Online Travel Agent, or Group Booking.
This Subclass 2 is further categorized by the Hotel at which the
Settlement Class Member stayed: (i) Subclass 2(a): Sheraton
Princess Kaiulani, and (ii) Subclass 2(b): All Other Hotels.
Finding that they have claims typical of absent class members and
are adequate representatives of those class members, the Judge
appointed Cyril Martin, Jennifer Martin, Michael Archibald and
Shelley Archibald to act as the representatives of Subclass 1; and
Russell Baird, Cyndy Baird, Steve Olson, Julie Olson, Robert
Hazelton, and Alicia Hazelton to act as the representatives of the
Subclass 2 pursuant to FRCP 23. She also appointed Bickerton Law
Group, LLLP, as the Class Counsel pursuant to FRCP 23(g).
Judge Otake approved the Notice. When notice pursuant to the
Notice Plan is completed, it will constitute due and sufficient
notice of the proposed Settlement and the Final Fairness Hearing to
all persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the
Settlement, in full compliance with the applicable requirements of
FRCP 23 and due process. The Judge also approved the form of the
Claim Form set forth in Section 7.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
Claim Forms must be submitted by Settlement Class Members not later
than 120 calendar days after the Notice Deadline.
The Judge appointed Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator
to supervise and administer the Notice Plan and provide
administration services as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
She ordered and directed the Settlement Administrator to provide
Notice to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Notice Plan.
She also ordered that the Settlement Administrator sends the Notice
and related documents to those Settlement Class Members with valid
addresses or email addresses set forth in the Defendants'
Confidential Reservation Reports.
The Settlement Administrator will mail the Notice to members of the
Settlement Class pursuant to the procedures described in the Notice
Plan within 45 days following entry of the Preliminary Approval
Order and will create a Settlement Website that will include the
Notice, the Claim Form, the Complaint in the Lawsuit, the
Settlement Agreement, and any orders of the Court relating to the
Settlement. By no later than 14 days before the Final Fairness
Hearing, the Settlement Administrator will cause to be filed with
the Court a Declaration of Notice Procedures, attesting to
compliance with the requirements of the Notice Plan.
Any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to be excluded from
the Settlement must send a written request for exclusion to the
Settlement Administrator stating a request to "opt out" or to be
"excluded" no later than 30 days prior to the Final Fairness
Hearing.
The Settlement Administrator will retain a copy of all requests for
exclusion. Not later than 14 days before the Final Fairness
Hearing, the Settlement Administrator will cause to be filed with
the Court, under seal, a declaration that lists all of the
exclusion requests that were timely and properly submitted.
Any Settlement Class Member who does not opt out and who wishes to
object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement or the Settlement Agreement will file with the Court and
serve on the Class Counsel and the Defense Counsel no later than 30
days prior to the Final Fairness Hearing a statement of the
objection signed by the Settlement Class Member.
Any attorney hired by a Settlement Class Member for the purpose of
objecting to the proposed Settlement, any proposed award for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, or any proposed Service Award and who
intends to make an appearance at the Final Fairness Hearing will
provide to the Settlement Administrator, the Class Counsel, and the
Defense Counsel, and file with the Court no later than the
Objection Deadline a Notice of Intention to Appear.
Any response to an objection will be filed with the Court no later
than 14 days before the Final Fairness Hearing.
The Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement will be filed and
served no later than 45 days before the Final Fairness Hearing.
The Class Counsel will file any motion requesting attorneys' fees
and expenses and/or service awards from the Settlement Fund no
later than 30 days before the Opt-Out Deadline and Objection
Deadline.
The Final Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Oct. 1,
2021, at 9:00 a.m.
By entering the Order, Judge Otake does not make any determination
as to the merits of the Lawsuit.
The following are the deadlines by which certain events must occur
pursuant to the Order:
a. April 5, 2021 - Deadline for Notice to be provided to the
Settlement Class (Notice Deadline)
b. Aug. 2, 2021 - Deadline to file Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards
c. Sept. 1, 2021 - Deadline to file objections or submit
requests for exclusion (Objection Deadline and Opt-Out Deadline)
d. Aug. 3, 2021 - Deadline for Settlement Class Members to
submit a Claim Form
e. Aug. 17, 2021 - Motion and memorandum in support of final
approval
f. Sept. 1, 2021 - Deadline for Class Members to file Notice
of Intention to Appear at Final Fairness Hearing
g. Sept. 17, 2021 - Deadline for Parties to file the
following: (1) List of persons who made timely and proper requests
for exclusion (under seal); (2) Declaration of Notice Procedures
detailing the scope, methods and results of the Notice Plan and
compliance with the obligation to provide notice to each
appropriate State and Federal Official as provided for in 28 U.S.C.
Section 1715(a) and (b) due process requirements
h. Sept. 17, 2021 - Deadline for Parties to respond to any
objections
i. Oct. 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. - Final Fairness Hearing
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yh26wvu9 from Leagle.com.
BICKERTON LAW GROUP, A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP, JAMES J.
BICKERTON -- bickerton@bsds.com -- BRIDGET G. MORGAN-BICKERTON --
morgan@bsds.com -- in Honolulu, Hawai'i, Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
CYRIL MARTIN; JENNIFER MARTIN, RUSSELL BAIRD; CYNDY BAIRD, MICHAEL
ARCHIBALD, SHELLEY ARCHIBALD, STEVE OLSON, JULIE OLSON, ROBERT
HAZELTON, and ALICIA HAZELTON individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.
MARUTI INVESTMENTS: Fails to Serve Disabled Travelers, Garcia Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARUTI INVESTMENTS, INC. and DOES 1-10,
Defendant, Case No. 21STCV06833 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
February 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide information
about the accessible features in the rooms at the Travelodge by
Wyndham Hollywood-Vermont/Sunset on its reservation Website at
https://www.wyndhamhotels.com/travelodge/hollywoodcalifornia/travelodge-hollywood-vermont-sunset/overview
for people with disabilities, including the Plaintiff. The Website
reservation system lacks sufficient information needed by disabled
travelers to assess independently whether a given hotel room would
work for them. As a result, the Plaintiff is unable to engage in an
online booking of the hotel room with any confidence or knowledge
about whether the room will actually work for him due to his
disability, the suit says.
Maruti Investments, Inc. is an owner and operator of the Travelodge
by Wyndham Hollywood-Vermont/Sunset located at 1401 N. Vermont
Ave., Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Ballister Jr., Esq.
Russell Handy, Esq.
Amanda Seabock, Esq.
Zachary Best, Esq.
CENTER FOR DISABILITY ACCESS
8033 Linda Vista Road, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: amandas@potterhandy.com
MASTERCARD INC: Class Action Set to Return to Court Next Month
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Knapman, writing for MoneySavingExpert, reports that a
landmark class action case against Mastercard, which if successful
could see millions of UK consumers receive £100s each in damages,
is set to return to court next month. It's the latest step in a
case that has rolled on for almost five years. Here's an update on
the most recent developments and what the next stage means for
consumers.
Former chief ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service, Walter
Merricks -- represented by law firm Quinn Emanuel -- first launched
the case against Mastercard in 2016. He claims the card giant
charged unlawful fees to retailers and businesses processing
transactions between 22 May 1992 and 21 June 2008.
Mr Merricks believes these fees were then passed onto shoppers in
the form of higher prices - regardless of whether you paid by
Mastercard or not. The class action case represents all consumers
who made purchases in the UK during the time frame above, and at
the time were aged 16 and over and had lived in the UK continuously
for at least three months. It's estimated each person could get
£300 if the case is successful, but there's no guarantee it will
be -- Mastercard contests the claim and says it "fundamentally"
disagrees with it.
According to Quinn Emanuel, the case will be the first mass
consumer claim brought under the new collective action regime
introduced by Parliament in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. See our
Consumer Rights guide for more on your legal protection and what
the Consumer Rights Act means for you.
Hearing set for the end of March
The next step in the process is a hearing, which will take place at
the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 25 and 26 March. This will
consider what can be included within the scope of the case and
whether the case can proceed. A judgment on that question is
expected by the end of May, although this isn't set in stone. A
timetable for the case to further progress will then be set out,
though it could still be at least a couple of years before there's
a final outcome.
Any proposed class action member or other interested party who
wants to make an oral or written submission to the CAT about the
case has until Friday 5 March to do so. You've also got until
Monday 15 March to object to the claim. This must be done in
writing - you can see more info in this legal notice, while the
address to return submissions to is listed on the Mastercard
Consumer Claim website.
The litigation is backed by third-party litigation funder Innsworth
Capital Limited, which has set aside £60.1 million to pay for it -
it will take a cut of the damages if the case is successful.
How the case has progressed to date
Here's a quick summary of the key developments so far in the
Merricks v Mastercard case:
* September 2016: Walter Merricks files his claim to the
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).
* July 2017: The CAT ruled that it couldn't look into class
action cases of this nature.
* August 2017: Mr Merricks asked for permission to appeal the
CAT's decision.
* September 2017: The CAT rejected Mr Merricks' application for
appeal, so he instead asked for permission from the Court of
Appeal.
* April 2019: The Court of Appeal granted permission for Mr
Merricks to pursue the case.
* July 2019: Mastercard appealed to the Supreme Court against
the Court of Appeal's decision.
* December 2020: The Supreme Court ruled against Mastercard and
said Mr Merricks' case could continue at the CAT.
What does Mastercard say?
A Mastercard spokesperson said: "This claim isn't being brought by
UK consumers but is being driven by US lawyers. We fundamentally
disagree with this claim and know people have received valuable
benefits from Mastercard's payments technology." [GN]
MDL 1869: Bid to Exclude Interline-Related Communications Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This document relates to: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER CASES
OXBOW CARBON & MINERALS LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD CO., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 1869, Case No. 07-0489
(PLF), Civil Action No. 11-1049 (PLF) (D.D.C.), Judge Paul L.
Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
denied both the Defendants' Motion to Exclude Interline-Related
Communications from Consideration for Class Certification or Any
Other Purpose Prohibited by 49 U.S.C. Section 10706, and Motion and
Memorandum of Law Regarding the Interpretation and Application of
49 U.S.C. Section 10706.
In Rail Freight, the Plaintiffs claim that Defendants BNSF Railway
Co., CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Railway Co. ("NS"),
and Union Pacific Railroad Co. ("UP"), in violation of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to
coordinate their fuel surcharge programs as a means to impose
supra-competitive total price increases on their shipping
customers. A rail fuel surcharge, as defined by the Plaintiffs,
"is a separately-identified fee that is charged by the railroads
for agreed-upon transportation services, purportedly to compensate
for increases in the cost of fuel." The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants conspired to impose rail fuel surcharges that far
exceeded any of their fuel costs. Similarly, in Oxbow, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants UP and BNSF conspired to fix
prices above competitive levels through a uniform fuel surcharge.
In 2008, the Defendants in Rail Freight moved to dismiss the claims
of both putative classes. On Nov. 7, 2008, the Court denied the
Defendants' motion regarding the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
("DPPs"), concluding that the DPPs had sufficiently alleged an
agreement in restraint of trade. Shortly thereafter, on Dec. 28,
2008, the Court denied in part and granted in part the Defendants'
motion regarding the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs"),
concluding that the IPPs' state law claims were preempted and must
be dismissed, but that the IPPs' federal antitrust claim for
injunctive relief could proceed. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit
affirmed the Court's dismissal of the IPPs' state law claims.
On March 18, 2010, the DPPs in Rail Freight moved for class
certification. On Sept. 8, 2010, the Defendants in Rail Freight
filed a motion to exclude interline-related communications from
consideration as part of the class certification process, and
further, to exclude such communications from consideration for any
other purpose prohibited by 49 U.S.C. Section 10706. On June 21,
2012, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without relying on any of the disputed evidence. The
Court therefore concluded that it was not necessary, at that time,
to rule on the Defendants' Section 10706 motion.
Subsequently, the D.C. Circuit vacated the Court's decision
granting class certification and remanded the case for further
consideration. On remand, the Court denied the DPPs' motion for
class certification--again without relying on the disputed
evidence; it therefore did not reach the Defendants' Section 10706
motion. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification.
After class certification was denied, the absent putative former
class members filed individual actions in district courts across
the country to pursue the conspiracy claim that had been advanced
by the putative class against the Defendants. Because of the
significantly different procedural postures of these cases from
those in MDL No. 1869, the Multidistrict Litigation Panel
consolidated them into a separate MDL which it assigned to Chief
Judge Howell--In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation (No. II), Miscellaneous No. 20-0008 (BAH), MDL No. 2952
(D.D.C.). Since then, additional cases have been filed and
transferred to MDL No. 2952--In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litig. (No. II), Miscellaneous No. 20-0008 (BAH), MDL No.
2952, 2020 WL 5016922, at *5 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2020). Aside from
limited factual additions, the approximately ninety-three
complaints in MDL No. 2952 generally repeat the claims made by the
putative class members in MDL No. 1869. See id. at *5-6.
On Dec. 19, 2019, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order
permitting the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in both Rail Freight
and Oxbow and the plaintiffs in any related cases before Chief
Judge Howell to file additional memoranda addressing the
Defendants' still-pending motions concerning Section 10706. In
addition, on March 16, 2020, the Court issued an order inviting the
U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
Surface Transportation Board to submit a statement of interest.
As a result of these two orders, additional memoranda were filed by
(1) the Defendants in Rail Freight and Oxbow ("Defendants"); (2)
the Plaintiffs in Rail Freight and Oxbow ("Plaintiffs"); (3) the
plaintiffs in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation (No. II), Miscellaneous No. 20-0008 (BAH), MDL No. 2952
(D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2020) ("new plaintiffs"); and (4) the
U.S.Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the
Surface Transportation Board ("the government").
The Defendants, the Plaintiffs, the new plaintiffs, and the
government take divergent positions on the interpretation of
Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), its application to the evidence, and
the proper allocation of the burden of proof.
Judge Friedman considered the written submissions, the relevant
case law, the oral arguments presented by the counsel at a motions
hearing on Aug. 26, 2020, and relevant portions of the record in
the case. He explains that the provisions of Section
10706(a)(3)(B)(ii) at issue are: the first sentence, which bars
certain inferences; the second sentence, which provides that
evidence meeting certain requirements will not be admissible; and
the third sentence, which requires the Court to act as gatekeeper
and determine whether the requirements of the second sentence are
satisfied before allowing the introduction of such evidence in any
proceeding before a jury.
The Defendants have moved to enforce the statutory bar on certain
inferences and to exclude certain evidence. Specifically, they
argue that, in contravention of the first sentence of Section
10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), the Plaintiffs improperly attempt to infer a
conspiracy based on similar actions taken by the rail carriers with
respect to other traffic. The Plaintiffs maintain that there are
no similar actions from which to draw inferences of a conspiracy.
The Defendants further argue that, pursuant to the second sentence
of Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii), the following evidence should be
excluded: (1) evidence of interline concurrence communications, (2)
evidence of alliance meetings, and (3) evidence of inter-railroad
logistical discussions regarding interline traffic. The Plaintiffs
maintain that the disputed evidence is not covered by Section
10706(a)(3)(B)(ii) because all of the evidence defendants seek to
exclude shows an overarching conspiracy regarding rates. These
disputes stem in part from the Defendants', the Plaintiffs', new
plaintiffs', and government's divergent interpretations of Section
10706(a)(3)(B)(ii).
The Judge first discusses the arguments to exclude evidence, and
then he addresses the arguments to bar inferences.
On the exclusion of evidence, the Defendants, the Plaintiffs, the
new plaintiffs, and the government dispute which of the parties
carries the burden of satisfying the requirements for
inadmissibility. They also dispute the scope and interpretation of
the terms "in any proceeding," "discussion," "agreement," and
"between or among" rail carriers, evidence of which (or of a rate
or other action resulting therefrom) is not admissible, as well as
the phrases "concerned an interline movement of the rail carrier,"
and "would not, considered by itself, violate the antitrust laws."
The Section 10706(a)(3)(B)(ii) makes inadmissible evidence of any
discussion or agreement between rail carriers if it "concerned an
interline movement of the rail carrier" unless the discussion or
agreement "considered by itself violated the antitrust laws, the
Judge opines. He says, the parties disagree over the meaning of
the term "concerned" and its application to the evidence the
Defendants seek to exclude.
Their dispute first and foremost raises the question of the scope
of the word "concerned" in the statute. Then, applying the proper
definition of "concerned," it raises the issue of how a court
should rule when a document (1) mentions, refers to, or alludes to
an interline movement of the rail carrier in the course of a
discussion or agreement that also concerns other topics, (2)
contains multiple discussions or agreements, one of which concerns
an interline movement of the rail carrier and others of which
concern single-line movements or other topics, (3) contains a
single discussion or agreement that involves multiple topics,
including interline movements of the rail carrier and single-line
movements or other topics, or (4) contains a discussion of a
general issue or topic, such as fuel surcharges, that applies to
both interline movements and single-line movements or other
topics.
The Judge does not agree with the Defendants. He points out that
applying the statute in the way they suggest would extend its
protection to discussions or agreements involving competing traffic
of the rail carriers. This interpretation is inconsistent with
Congress' stated purpose to protect limited categories of
discussions and agreements that concern interline movements.
The rail carriers are not in competition with regard to a shared
interline movement, but they remain competitors with regard to
other traffic, including single-line traffic and interline traffic
in which they do not participate. The Judge agrees with the
government that it would make little sense for Congress to have
limited rate bureaus' abilities to discuss, agree to, or vote on
such competing traffic as a way to encourage competitive rate
setting, but then to provide antitrust protection for these very
same kinds of discussions and agreements when engaged in by
unregulated private contractors. To do so would incentivize
competing rail carriers to engage in discussions and agreements
concerning such rates.
The Defendants' interpretation is also inconsistent with the
principle that evidentiary exclusions -- particularly an
evidentiary exclusion providing antitrust protections -- should be
strictly construed. On the other hand, allowing admission of all
of the evidence of the full discussion or agreement, including
those portions referencing interline movements, would deny the
safeguards of the statute to evidence that Congress expressly
intended to protect.
The Judge opines that the Court is not limited to the proposed all
or nothing approaches; the policy of the statute may be implemented
by redaction, or admission with a limiting instruction. Where
appropriate, evidence of a discussion or agreement that "concerned
an interline movement of the rail carrier," and meets the other
requirements of the statute, may be redacted so that evidence of a
discussion or agreement that does not "concern an interline
movement of the rail carrier," if relevant, may still be admitted.
Evidence of a discussion or agreement involving a general subject
matter that concerns both interline movements of the participating
rail carriers and other traffic, if the two are inextricably
intertwined with one another and redaction is impossible or not
feasible, may be admitted subject to a limiting instruction.
For these reasons, the Judge denied the Defendants' motion for the
exclusion of exhibits as a whole. The following exhibits appear to
contain evidence of discussions or agreements beyond the limited
subject matter protected by the statute; the Judge therefore denied
the Defendants' motions to exclude the following exhibits: Def.
Mot., Exs. 16-30, 38-43, 45-46, 49, 50, 59, 61-67, 69, 76-77,
79-82. The Defendants may propose redactions to remove discussions
or agreements that concerned an interline movement of the rail
carrier, and, where redaction is impracticable or not feasible, may
request a suitable limiting instruction.
Relying on the first sentence of subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii), the
Defendants "request an order barring the Plaintiffs from seeking an
inference of a conspiratorial agreement from the fact that the
railroads engaged in bilateral, interline discussions, and then
took certain actions." They also request an order barring the
Plaintiffs from seeking an inference of a conspiratorial agreement
from any evidence of a rail carrier evaluating whether it would or
would not take "similar action" as something previously discussed
with an interline partner.
In order for an inference to barred, the Judge explains that there
must be not only the initial action, but also a similar action.
The statute provides that a party to the initial action of two or
more rail carriers must take a "similar action with respect to a
rate or related matter on another route or traffic." While the
statute specifies that the action of two or more rail carriers must
be with respect to an "interline rate or related matter," the
similar action may be with respect to "a rate or related matter on
another route or traffic." Therefore, similar action may include,
for example, a single rail carrier (who was a party to the first
action) setting a rate for one of its single-line movements. A
similar action may also include a single rail carrier (who was a
party to the first action) setting a rate for an interline movement
which it shares with another rail carrier (who was not a party to
the first action).
The Defendants argue that a similar action, as defined by the
statute, may include a discussion or agreement to take action. For
the same reasons that the Judge rejected this argument as applied
to "action," a "similar action" may also not be a discussion or
agreement under the statute. Thus, the statute does not bar
inferences from such discussions or agreements about whether to
take a particular action. At the proper time, the Court will
instruct the jury in accordance with the requirements of the
statute.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Friedman denied the Defendants'
Motions. An Order consistent with his Opinion is being issued the
same day.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/pc3szf5k from Leagle.com.
MDL 2323: Locks Gets 15% of E.W.'s Fee Award in NFL Concussion Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National
Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to
NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Locks
Law Firm v. SPID 100016274 (E.W.) Attorney Lien Dispute (Lien Case
No. 01596), Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, MDL No. 2323 (E.D. Pa.),
Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled on the assertion of
an attorney lien by Locks Law Firm against the award granted to
their former client, Settlement Class Member No. 100016274, E.W.
("Player").
Presently before the Court in the National Football League Player's
Concussion Injury Litigation is the assertion of an Attorney Lien
by Locks against the Award granted to their former client, the
Player, in the litigation that became part of the class action, In
re: National Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation,
No. 12-md-2323 (E.D. Pa.). By its lien, Locks Law seeks
reimbursement of its costs and payment of attorneys' fees of 22% of
the Award that has been authorized for the Player.
By his current counsel, Langfitt Garner PLLC, the Player challenges
the Lien, given that Langfitt also seeks a contingent fee for its
work in representing him. That work, which the Player agreed would
be compensated with a contingent fee of 20% of any monetary award
he received, involved the filing of a new claim that ultimately
resulted in approval of the sought-after monetary award.
The Player entered into a CFA with Locks Law on March 14, 2012 for
litigation against the NFL for alleged cognitive deficiencies
resulting from injuries sustained while playing in the NFL. Under
the terms of the fee agreement, and contingent upon the Player
obtaining a recovery, Locks would charge a fee of 33.33% of the net
recovery. The firm filed a short form complaint in the district on
his behalf in July 2012 pursuant to the Court's Case Management
Order No. 2.
For the next several years, Locks was heavily involved in work on
behalf of the class, in addition to monitoring the MDL docket and
individual filings for its individual clients. Leading up to the
filing of a claim, Locks arranged for the Player to undergo
consultative examinations and neuropsychological evaluations in
accordance with the requirements of the Settlement.
On April 26, 2017, Locks filed the pre-effective date claim on the
Player's behalf seeking a monetary award based upon the Alzheimer's
Disease diagnosis that Dr. Peters had identified on Nov. 20, 2015.
With the claim still pending in audit, Locks sought further expert
opinions as to the Player's condition and claim.
On June 7, 2019, the attorney who principally handled the Player's
representation, David Langfitt, left Locks and on June 10, 2019,
joined a new firm he had set up, Langfitt Garner. At the time of
this change in representation, however, the Player did not have a
claim actively pending with the Claims Administrator.
Following an initial evaluation on June 26, 2019, for his
complaints of headaches, memory loss, and dizziness, the Player was
referred for various studies and physical therapy, which he
underwent in June and July 2019. Langfitt ultimately decided to
pursue an evaluation of the Player by Julian A. Bragg, M.D., Ph.D.,
an MAF-qualified physician. Dr. Bragg composed a progress note
that expressed his view, based on his record review and evaluation,
that the Player had early onset Alzheimer's Disease. The following
day, he signed a form for purposes of the settlement claim
administration certifying this diagnosis.
In light of Dr. Bragg's assessment, Langfitt completed a new claim
form for the Player and, in coordination with the Player, submitted
the new claim on Nov. 15, 2019 seeking an award based upon Dr.
Bragg's diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease as of Nov. 11, 2019. On
Jan. 31, 2020, the Claims Administrator gave notice that the claim
was approved and that the Player earned a monetary award based upon
the Nov. 11, 2019 Alzheimer's Disease diagnosis of Dr. Bragg. The
NFL did not file an appeal.
In light of the attorney lien and the contingency fee agreements of
record, the Claims Administrator withheld from the Player's award
funds for payment of attorney fees in an amount equal to 22% of the
Monetary Award. This percentage reflects the presumptive cap on
attorney's fees imposed by the Court's April 5, 2018 Opinion and
Order. Of the attorney fee withholding, a portion reflecting 5% of
the Award was separately deposited into the Attorneys' Fees
Qualified Settlement Fund ("AFQSF") pursuant to the Court's June
27, 2018 Order Regarding Withholdings for the Common Benefit Fund.
Those funds may be distributed at a later date upon further
order(s) of Judge Brody. The Claims Administrator also withheld
funds for reimbursement of attorney costs based upon assertions
made by the counsel up to that point.
Pursuant to a briefing schedule, the Court issued through the
Claims Administrator, and in accordance with the Lien Rules, both
law firms submitted simultaneous Statements of Dispute on May 26,
2020 concerning their entitlement to a fee in light of the other
firm's CFA or attorney lien. Each submitted a Response to the
other's filing on June 10, 2020. Pursuant to Lien Rule 17, the
Record of Dispute was then referred to the Court for a
determination as to the appropriate distribution for the attorney
fees currently available for disbursement (representing 17% of
Player's Award) and the allocation of those funds that are
currently held in the AFQSF (representing 5% of the Player's
Award), if those funds, or a portion thereof, are distributed by
the Court at a future date. The Court also addresses the question
of how the limited funds withheld for reimbursement of attorney
costs may be allocated.
Langfitt contends that it should be paid "all or nearly all of the
attorney's fees," in that the award achieved by the Player "was
entirely attributable to Langfitt, not Locks." It notes that "the
Locks Claim failed, and the Player started again, because he had
to," and that "none of the work performed at Locks created the
Player's Award."
The parties consented that Judge Strawbrudge's on the matter will
constitute the final determination of the district court.
The Judge's evaluation of these positions involves a consideration
of the contingent fee agreements ("CFAs") between the Player and
his counsel and an assessment of the reasonableness of the
requested fees of both law firms in light of the analysis set out
by the Third Circuit's McKenzie decision--McKenzie Constr., Inc. v.
Maynard, 758 F.2d 97, 100 (3d Cir. 1985) and McKenzie Constr., Inc.
v. Maynard, 823 F.2d 43, 45 (3d Cir. 1987). This approach
obligates him to scrutinize the reasonableness of the CFA at the
time of the signing and then determine whether the circumstances
compel a different evaluation of the agreement at the time the
lienholder seeks enforcement.
Pursuant to the McKenzie five-part reasonableness analysis, the
Judge evaluates the "performance of the attorney's contractual
obligations [with consideration of the circumstances surrounding
the engagement of the attorney." His inquiry begins "by
scrutinizing the reasonableness of the contingent fee arrangement"
at the time of the contract's signing and comparing it to the
circumstances at the time of enforcement. Recognizing that the
District Court has already adjusted fee agreements through the Fee
Cap to account for the changed circumstances that occurred over the
course of the litigation, the Judge must determine if there were
other factors specific to the individual case that should be
considered in his assessment of the reasonableness of the fee at
the time of the enforcement of each contract upon which a lien is
based.
The Judge then examines the results the Player obtained, the
quality of the representation provided by each firm, and most
importantly the extent to which the efforts of the lienholder firm
substantially contributed to the result obtained while the client
was represented by the current counsel. Ultimately, the Judge
concludes that Locks's role in the litigation did not justify the
percentage award it seeks but rather would entitle it, in his view,
to only 15% of the total allocated fee.
The Judge agrees with Langfitt in large part and opines that the
work performed by Locks warrants a much smaller share of the fee
derived from the Player's award. The work performed by Locks Law
during the claim development and filing stages did not yield a
positive outcome for the Player, and the contingency specified in
the parties' fee agreement was not satisfied during the period of
the Locks representation. That initial denial, however, carried
with it certain lessons that could inform a future claim. There
remained the possibility that the Player could obtain new
documentation and file a new claim in the future.
Given Attorney Langfitt's familiarity with the unsuccessful claim,
Langfitt Garner was primed to assist the Player, and the Player
chose to engage Langfitt. Langfitt went on to perform what became
the most important work associated with the claim, knowing what
issues needed to be addressed based upon the AAP analysis of the
claim filed by Locks. The role of Locks in the development of the
new medical records and successful claim was ultimately relatively
minor.
Inasmuch as it was Langfitt's work that primarily created the fund
and achieved the successful result for Player, the Judge set the
total fee according to the CFA that Player entered into with
Langfitt. Thus, the total fee to be divided between the counsel
represents 20% of the Monetary Award, rather than the 22% fee
sought by Locks.
As alluded to, the Judge has concluded that a fair resolution of
the dispute is to divide the fee such that 15% of the fee is
allocated to Locks and 85% is allocated to Langfitt. The Claims
Administrator will reduce the disbursements in light of the 5%
holdback and will apportion the holdback funds between Locks Law,
Langfitt Garner, and the Player according to the proportion set
forth. The Claims Administrator will also disburse $1,738.81 to
Locks for its costs and $322.40 to Langfitt for its costs. Any
remaining withheld funds may be disbursed to the Player.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/w4ta4954 from Leagle.com.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Rosen Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Rosen, Tamer Nassar,
Reginald St. Jean, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Daimler AG, Case No.
1:21-cv-00787-WMR (N.D. Ga., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC -- https://www.mbusa.com/en/home -- is the
distributor for passenger cars of Daimler AG in the United States
located in Sandy Springs, Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 444-0773
Email: Adam@WebbLLC.com
flemond@webbllc.com
matt@webbllc.com
- and -
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
MCCUNE, WRIGHT, AREVALO, LLP-PA
555 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0580
MERCK & CO: Zostavax Causes Viral Infection, Miethe-McKay Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARI LOUISE MIETHE-MCKAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC. and MERCK SHARP
& DOHME CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00816-HB (E.D. Pa.,
February 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, strict liability, products liability, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide information
about the potential risk of viral infection of using Zostavax, a
vaccine designed and developed to prevent shingles. The Defendants
allegedly failed to exercise reasonable care in the design,
formulation, manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality
control, labeling, marketing, promotions, and distribution of
Zostavax because they knew, or should have known, that the product
caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for
administration to consumers. The Defendants also failed to exercise
due care in the labeling of Zostavax and failed to issue to
consumers and/or their healthcare providers adequate warnings as to
the risk of serious bodily injury, including viral infection,
resulting from its use, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff sustained severe and permanent personal injuries, as well
as significant conscious pain and suffering, mental anguish,
emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment
and injury.
Merck & Co., Inc. is an American multinational pharmaceutical
company based in New Jersey.
Merck Sharp & Dohme, Corp. is a company that operates as a
research-intensive biopharmaceutical company located in New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Lovett, Esq.,
Michael Goetz, Esq.
T. Michael Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-4737
E-mail: NLovett@ForThePeople.com
MGoetz@ForThePeople.com
MMorgan@ForThePeople.com
MONEYLION INC: Dismissal & Arbitration Ruling in DiCarlo Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARGGIEH DICARLO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MONEYLION, INC.;
MONEYLION OF CALIFORNIA, LLC; ML PLUS, LLC; ML WEALTH, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-55058 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
order dismissing DiCarlo's complaint and compelling arbitration
instead.
MoneyLion operates a smartphone app that offers financial services
to its customers. One service is the MoneyLion Plus program. The
program offers a $500 credit-builder loan. With a 5.99% annual
percentage rate, individuals with little or poor credit history can
start to create a positive record.
Ms. DiCarlo wanted to open her own hair salon, but she needed
credit. So she enrolled in the Plus program and took out a
credit-builder loan. Like everyone who joins the Plus program,
DiCarlo signed a Membership Agreement. The Agreement explains that
Plus members owe monthly fees, monthly investment deposits, and (if
applicable) monthly loan payments. It also has a provision that
gives each party the right to demand arbitration in case of a
dispute.
After a few months, DiCarlo fell behind on her fees, deposits, and
loan payments. She tried to cancel her Plus membership, but
MoneyLion refused. First, she had to pay off the loan in full. And
that could happen only after she covered the still-accumulating
membership fees. DiCarlo couldn't afford the fees, so she was
stuck.
DiCarlo filed the putative class action to take down MoneyLion's
"high-tech debt trap." She alleged that MoneyLion had violated,
among other things, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"),
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.
MoneyLion moved to compel arbitration, and the district court
granted the motion and dismissed the action. The appeal followed.
The focus of the case is the validity (or invalidity) of the
Agreement's arbitration provision. If the provision is valid, then
the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") requires the district court to
enforce it strictly. But DiCarlo insists that the provision
violates California law by prohibiting public injunctive relief.
If she's right, then the arbitration provision will self-destruct;
a poison-pill clause will render the "entire arbitration provision
null and void." There will be no arbitration obligation for the
court to enforce.
The district court rejected DiCarlo's interpretation of the
arbitration provision. It determined that the provision allowed
public injunctive relief and so did not violate California law.
The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court's interpretation of
the Agreement (and resulting decision to compel arbitration) de
novo. The focus is the parties' "objective intent, as evidenced by
the words of the contract, rather than the subjective intent of one
of the parties." When in doubt, both federal and state law point
toward interpreting the Agreement to permit arbitration.
The Ninth Circuit turns to the question at hand: Must DiCarlo act
as a private attorney general to seek public injunctive relief?
The evolution of the UCL and FAL, along with the California Supreme
Court's treatment of them, convinces the Court that the answer is
no. It opines that public injunctive relief is available under
California law in individual lawsuits--not just in
private-attorney-general suits. It follows that DiCarlo may secure
that relief in arbitration under the Agreement.
As for the fee-shifting private attorney general, the Court does
not think it affects the analysis for this particular Agreement. A
ban on the actual shifting of fees would not be relevant. DiCarlo
has not stated that she seeks attorney's fees, so a fee-shifting
ban would have no effect. In any case, the Court has no reason to
think that the availability of public injunctive relief could hinge
on whether those fees are up for grabs. Nor does it read the
Agreement to bar any claims that could support fee shifting in
court. Contract terms are interpreted in light of the company they
keep.
Thus, a plaintiff bringing an individual lawsuit may seek public
injunctive relief. The McGill court made clear that a litigant
proceeding as an "individual" "on his or her own behalf" may
"request public injunctive relief. In California, the litigants
proceeding in individual lawsuits may request public injunctive
relief without becoming private attorneys general. That means that
public injunctive relief is available to DiCarlo in arbitration
with MoneyLion. Since the arbitration provision does not violate
the McGill rule, it is valid.
If any doubt remains, consider this. Only an interpretation that
public injunctive relief remains available will render the
arbitration provision "lawful" and "capable of being carried into
effect." And only this interpretation facilitates arbitration. So
both California law and the FAA tell us what to do next -- construe
the Agreement to abide by McGill and allow arbitration.
Accordingly, Judge Amul Roger Thapar, writing for the Ninth
Circuit, affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/z37fp25f from Leagle.com.
Michael R. Owens -- owens@stuevesiegel.com -- (argued) and Bradley
T. Wilders -- wilders@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Sigel Hanson LLP,
in Kansas City, Missouri; John F. Edgar, Edgar Law Firm LLC, in
Kansas City, Missouri; for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Fred R. Puglisi -- fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- (argued) and Jay
T. Ramsey -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, in Los Angeles, California, for
Defendants-Appellees.
MORPHE LLC: Brooks Bid for Default Judgment Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE BROOKS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MORPHE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:20-cv-01219-KJM-DB (E.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Deborah Barnes
entered an order denying without prejudice the plaintiff's October
16, 2020 motion for default judgment.
At the February 12, 2021 hearing, however, the plaintiff's counsel
acknowledged that no class had been certified in this action. "'In
cases in which the district courts have entered a default judgment
against a defendant and no class has been certified, only named
plaintiffs can recover damages'".
At the February 12, 2021 hearing plaintiff's counsel also stated
that plaintiff was requesting injunctive relief. The Plaintiff's
memorandum in support, however, does not mention injunctive relief.
Thus, it is not clear what specific injunctive relief plaintiff
seeks. The Plaintiff is also advised that for an ADA plaintiff to
establish Article III standing to pursue injunctive relief,
plaintiff must demonstrate the threat of a future repeated injury
is real and immediate. To demonstrate sufficient likelihood of
future harm, a plaintiff can establish that plaintiff intends to
return to a noncompliant place of public accommodation where
plaintiff is "likely to reencounter
a discriminatory architectural barrier." Alternatively, a plaintiff
can show that the "discriminatory architectural barriers deter him
from returning to a noncompliant accommodation," but that plaintiff
would return if the barriers were removed. Id. It is not apparent
that any of the plaintiff's briefing satisfies the standing
requirement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dOqzFP at no extra charge.[CC]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased MultiPlan
Corporation (NYSE: MPLN) securities between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders
of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which was
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). Investors have until
April 26, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click https://www.bespc.com/cases/MPLN to participate in the
action.
Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan,
a healthcare cost specialist.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry.
The Multiplan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger
- Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
If you purchased MultiPlan securities during the Class Period or
were a Churchill III Class A common stock holder entitled to a vote
on the merger and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder,
have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against MultiPlan Corporation (f/k/a Churchill Capital
Corp. III) ("Churchill III") ("MultiPlan" or the "Company") (NYSE:
MPLN) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of MultiPlan between July 12, 2020 and November 10,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Churchill III and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Churchill III is a blank check company that merged
with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger
- Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years. As a result of this news, the
price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By November 12, 2020,
the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of
just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which
shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the
shareholder vote on the Merger
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of MultiPlan
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April
25, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: RM LAW Reminds of April 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased MultiPlan
Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III. ("Churchill III" or
the "Company") (NYSE: MPLN) securities during the period from July
12, 2020 through November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Churchill III shareholders may, no later than April 25, 2021, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of Churchill III and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.
The MultiPlan class action lawsuit charges Churchill III and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Churchill III is a blank check
company that merged with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry. The MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges
that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in
connection with the Merger and during the Class Period regarding
the business, operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger
- Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than April 25,
2021, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order
to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information about
class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C.
please visit our website by clicking here.
RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.
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]
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Bid to Dismiss Dent's 3rd Amended Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD DENT, JEREMY NEWBERRY, ROY GREEN, J.D. HILL,
KEITH VAN HORNE, RON STONE, RON PRITCHARD, JAMES MCMAHON, and
MARCELLUS WILEY, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, a New York
unincorporated association, Defendant, Case No. C 14-02324 WHA
(N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied without prejudice the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Third Amended
Complaint.
The action comes remanded on the heels of six years of litigation
and two trips to our court of appeals. Defendant NFL is an
unincorporated association of 32 separately-owned and
independently-operated professional football "clubs" or teams. It
promotes, organizes, and regulates the sport of professional
football in the United States. The named Plaintiffs are nine
retired individuals who were employed by and played for a number of
those football teams at various points in time between 1969 and
2008.
Since 1968 onward, the NFL players' union ("NFLPA"), which is
recognized as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of
present and future employee players in the NFL, and the NFL
Management Council ("NFLMC"), which is recognized as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of present and future employer
member Clubs of the NFL, have entered into various
collective-bargaining agreements ("CBAs"). The NFL, the clubs, and
the players have all been bound by the CBAs' terms.
In May 2014, the Plaintiffs brought the putative class action
against the NFL, followed by a second amended complaint in
September 2014. They alleged that they sustained various
injuries--such as muscular/skeletal injuries and internal organ
injuries--as result of what they have coined the NFL's "return to
play" business plan.
Under this plan, which aimed to maximize profits, injured players
were supplied an endless stream of strong pain medications--such as
Toradol, opioids, local anesthetics, and combinations thereof--to
dull their pain so that they could be returned to the filed as
quickly as possible, without allowing for proper healing time. The
medications were distributed, the Plaintiffs alleged, without
proper prescription, documentation, or disclosure of medical risks
and side effects, in violation of various laws.
The Plaintiffs' second and then-operative complaint brought nine
claims against the NFL arising out of this alleged conduct. Among
other claims, the Plaintiffs brought claims for negligent
misrepresentation, negligent hiring and retention, and negligence
per se. Their negligence claim was predicated on per se violations
of various federal drug statutes, such as the Controlled Substances
Act ("CSA"), the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), and
corresponding state laws.
In 2014, the NFL moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint on the ground that all the claims stated therein were
preempted under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,
29 U.S.C. Section 185(a). A 2014 order granted the NFL's motion,
finding that the Plaintiffs' claims required interpreting the CBA
provisions related to player health and safety. The Plaintiffs
appealed the 2014 order. In 2018, the court of appeal reversed and
remanded ("Dent I").
The NFL now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC, claiming that the
Plaintiffs' sole negligence claim is preempted because their
voluntary undertaking theory is a reincarnation of the theory
deemed preempted by the 2014 order (i.e., that the NFL failed to
curb the clubs' health abuses), and thus should be deemed preempted
for the same reasons: namely, that the Plaintiffs' claim is
substantially dependent on and would require interpretation of many
of the CBAs' health and safety provisions to determine whether it
acted negligently. The Plaintiffs oppose.
As an initial matter, Judge Alsup find some ambiguity in the court
of appeals' instruction that the Court "examines afresh whether the
NFL's general disclaimer of liability for individual players'
medical treatment is relevant" to the preemption inquiry." The
court of appeals did not provide a citation as to which CBA or
which section(s) thereof it was referring to.
The NFL says that the appellate court was alluding to a disclaimer
in the 2011 CBA, a disclaimer it had previously referenced in Dent
I. That disclaimer states that nothing in the 2011 CBA should "be
deemed to impose or create any duty or obligation upon either the
NFL or the NFLPA regarding diagnosis, medical care and/or treatment
of any player." The NFL does not rely on this disclaimer for
purposes of its present motion and no similar disclaimer appears in
previous CBAs.
At the hearing, both parties conceded that, with Jonathan Rex
Hadnot no longer a plaintiff, the 2011 CBA has no application to
the current Plaintiffs named in the TAC, though it may become
relevant if and when a class is certified. Accordingly, at this
stage of litigation, the general disclaimer of liability is
irrelevant.
Having considered the applicable CBAs, Jude Alsup denied the NFL's
motion to dismiss without prejudice to raising all the preemption
points again on summary judgment or at trial. While the NFL says
that the "core" injury the Plaintiffs allege arises out of their
premature "return-to-play"--an issue the CBAs cover--other
injuries, such as the harmful and long-term side effects from
over-administration of prescription medications, are also
implicated. And, unlike "return-to-play," the proper
administration and distribution of medications is not a subject the
CBAs explicitly cover. The counsel for the Plaintiffs insist they
can prove the voluntary undertaking claim without reference to any
of the CBAs, such as through voluntary programs that the NFL
allegedly imposed on the individual clubs. To illustrate the
viability of their proposed method of proof, there will need to be
a matching of each such undertaking against the CBAs to assess the
extent to which interpretations of the CBAs are intertwined with
the voluntary programs.
Another problem is whether the Plaintiffs' proof and theory will be
that the undertaking itself was negligently carried out, as opposed
to whether the NFL failed to intervene and stop the clubs' alleged
abuses of controlled substances in the face of receiving
information to that effect, Judge Alsup notes. For example, the
Plaintiffs point to the NFL's audits of the clubs' use of
prescription drugs, which allegedly showed or should have showed
that the clubs were supplying copious amounts of painkillers to
players.
Now, if the theory is that the audits themselves were negligently
conducted (such that they failed to reveal the true extent of the
problem), then little or no interpretation of any CBA will be
required. On the other hand, if the theory is that the audits
showed rampant misuse of painkillers by the clubs and that the
NFL's failure to intervene constituted negligence, then in
evaluating whether the NFL failed to do enough, we will need to
look at what the NFL committed to do on that subject (if anything)
in the CBAs. And, the Court will need to evaluate the extent to
which the terms of any CBA need to be "interpreted." At the
hearing, the NFL's counsel was unable to identify a single
provision of any CBA that was ambiguous and needed
"interpretation."
In sum, Judge Alsup holds that the case has been to the court of
appeals twice and the NFL has failed to win an affirmance of prior
dismissals. Rather than a third dismissal and overindulgence in
judicial notice, he believes the record for the court of appeals
will be more complete and true to history if they proceed to trial
and/or summary judgment.
For these reasons, he denied without prejudice NFL's motion to
dismiss. A case management order will follow.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/7jchtnj6 from Leagle.com.
NEW YORK, NY: Suit Over Accessibility Attains Class-Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Nessen at gothamist.com reports that a State Supreme Court
Judge ruled that a lawsuit filed against the MTA on behalf of a
coalition of accessibility rights advocates does, in fact,
represent a class of more than 500,000 people who claim they've
been excluded from the subway system because of a lack of
accessibility.
The 2017 lawsuit claims that because only 20% of the subway system
has elevators, the MTA is in violation of the Americans with
Disability Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
While this is one of three lawsuits the group has filed against the
MTA over a lack of accessible stations, the plaintiffs hope the
certification, which the MTA sought to deny, will now compel the
MTA to settle, rather than continue fighting the complaint, as the
agency has done for several years.
"It's time that they come to an agreement that the community can
rely upon. When will this source of discrimination end?" said Susan
Dooha, Executive Director of the Center for Independence of the
Disabled New York, which is one of the lead plaintiffs in the
lawsuit against the MTA.
She wants the MTA to commit to making all 472 subway stations
accessible.
Dooha said the 500,000 plaintiffs, which includes people with
non-visible disabilities, like arthritis or multiple sclerosis,
have faced discrimination from mass transit, reducing their access
to jobs, school, and social events.
The MTA wouldn't comment on the claims in the lawsuit, but said the
class certification was "agreed to by all the parties."
Dooha said the decision gives their case a real boost.
"They throw up roadblocks, like challenging our status as class
representatives and we've just knocked that hurdle out of the
ballpark," Dooha said. "
The MTA has paused its current capital plan, which would have added
70 more accessible stations, although it wrote in a statement that
it is "committed to completing" it. Dooha's group continues to
pursue the lawsuit, because the only reason the MTA began
installing elevators in the system in the first place was because
of a lawsuit over ADA violations. Dooha wants the commitment to be
legally binding, not just a pledge in an MTA board book that could
be subject to changes.
"The goal of making the entire system more accessible will continue
to inform the way we approach everything we do at the MTA and we
recently hired Quemuel Arroyo as the first ever Chief Accessibility
Office to lead this work," MTA spokesman Andrei Berman wrote in a
statement.
Arroyo, who was recently appointed to the position, said he doesn't
believe all stations need elevators and is exploring the
possibility of installing ramps at some stations instead. [GN]
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Flores' Amended Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER FLORES, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-5763(KAM)(RLM)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A.
Matsumoto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion
to partially dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint.
Ms. Flores is a female resident of New York City. On the evening
of Oct. 12, 2016, Ms. Flores was arrested by New York City Police
Department ("NYPD") officers in Queens, New York, on misdemeanor
charges for obstructing government administration. She alleges
that her arrest resulted after she advised her friends of their
rights while they were being searched by NYPD officers. At the
time of her arrest, Ms. Flores was experiencing what she describes
as "particular heavy" bleeding consistent with her menstrual cycle.
She was wearing a sanitary pad, but did not have additional
feminine hygiene products with her at the time of her arrest.
Upon her arrest, NYPD officers transported Ms. Flores to the 108th
police precinct. She informed multiple NYPD officers at the
precinct that she was experiencing menstrual bleeding, and she
requested feminine hygiene products. She was told by multiple NYPD
officers that no such products were available at the precinct. As
advised by the "John Doe" defendant police officers, Ms. Flores
attempted to use toilet paper and gauze to absorb the bleeding, but
neither was adequate, and her clothes were soiled and ruined as a
result of the bleeding. After Ms. Flores had been detained for
approximately six hours, her attorney brought her tampons.
The following day, Ms. Flores appeared for arraignment wearing the
same clothes that had been bloodied. The criminal court granted
Ms. Flores an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal pursuant to
New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 170.55, and her case was
dismissed and sealed.
On Oct. 11, 2019, Ms. Flores initiated the instant action by filing
a complaint on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
against the City of New York and several "John Doe" NYPD officers.
On Oct. 18, 2019, Ms. Flores amended her complaint.
Ms. Flores claims the Defendants deprived her of her rights under
the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
on the following grounds: deprivation of the privileges and
immunities guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth,1 and
Fourteenth Amendments; discrimination in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause on the basis of sex; a violation of the Due
Process Clause as a result of deliberate indifference to her
medical needs; and an unconstitutional policy or practice in
violation of the Due Process Clause.
Ms. Flores seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (1) requiring
the NYPD to make feminine hygiene products available to all women
in the NYPD's custody, (2) requiring NYPD training on the medical
necessity of such products, and (3) directing the NYPD to put in
place a system for monitoring the supplies of such products at
precincts to ensure that they are always available. She also seeks
compensatory damages on behalf of herself and the putative class.
The Defendants moved to dismiss portions of the amended complaint,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
standing (with regard to Ms. Flores' claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief), and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (with regard to Ms. Flores'
claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).
The Defendants first move to dismiss Ms. Flores' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Ms. Flores lacks standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief. Second, they argue that Ms.
Flores cannot state a claim pursuant to certain of the
Constitutional rights she has asserted in her amended complaint.
The Defendants argue that Ms. Flores lacks standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief because future harm to her is not
"imminent," because she was arrested one time in the past. They
rely on the seminal case on the issue of standing to seek
declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the
Constitution: The Supreme Court's decision in City of Los Angeles
v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). They contend that Ms. Flores' case
falls squarely within the holding of Lyons, and that she likewise
lacks standing because she has not shown that she is likely to be
arrested and detained while menstruating again.
In Lyons, the plaintiff had been subjected to a choke hold by
police officers, and sought an injunction to prevent the police
from using choke holds in the future, absent the threat of deadly
force. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff, who was
proceeding on behalf of himself only, could not establish standing
to seek injunctive relief, because the single incident alleged in
his complaint did "nothing to establish a real and immediate threat
that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation by an
officer or officers who would illegally choke him" again in the
future.
The Supreme Court noted that "nothing" in the police's policy
"suggested that the choke holds were authorized absent some
resistance or other provocation," and further stated that the
plaintiff would have to show not only that another encounter with
the police was likely, but "either, (1) that all police officers in
Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have
an encounter or, (2) that the City ordered or authorized police
officers to act in such manner."
Ms. Flores notes that Lyons was a split 5-4 decision, with the
dissenting justices strongly disagreeing with the majority based on
a long line of precedent interpreting the standing requirement.
She also argues that her status as a New York City resident means
that she will always be subjected to the City's "law enforcement
apparatus," and she could be "subjected to a custodial arrest" at
"any time" in the future.
Judge Matsumoto finds that these first two arguments by Ms. Flores
are slightly off the mark. Though Lyons was a 5-4 decision, and a
reasonable legal mind could disagree with the majority, it is still
binding on the Court. And in Lyons, the majority was clear that
living under the police's jurisdiction does not implicate an
imminent threat of harm that is sufficient to convey standing for
purposes of injunctive relief. Ms. Flores further argues that the
holding in Lyons does not necessarily control, based on the
specific facts alleged in her case.
The Judge agrees, at least at this stage, that Lyons is
distinguishable and that Ms. Flores has alleged sufficient facts to
confer standing. Accordingly, at this stage, she declines to
dismiss Ms. Flores' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief
due to lack of standing. Once the Court decides whether a class
will be certified, and more facts about the Plaintiffs and the
City's practices are available, it may revisit the issue, if
appropriate.
Next, Defendants argue that Section 1983 does not provide any
substantive rights, and that Ms. Flores has failed to identify the
deprivthe ation of any substantive rights protected by the Fifth or
Eighth Amendments, or by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause. They have not moved to dismiss Ms. Flores'
claims pursuant to the First and Fourth Amendments, or the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor do they argue that
Ms. Flores lacks standing to pursue compensatory damages stemming
from the alleged constitutional violations.
In her opposition to the motion to dismiss, Ms. Flores concedes
that she cannot state a claim for a violation of the Fifth or
Eighth Amendments, and that those claims "are properly dismissed."
The Judge, therefore, dismisses Ms. Flores's Fifth and Eighth
Amendment claims. The only substantive constitutional right at
issue in the Defendants' motion is thus whether Ms. Flores has
stated a claim pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Ms. Flores has alleged that all women detained at NYPD precincts
are forced to go without medically necessary products, and the
denial of these products has subjected "hundreds, if not thousands,
of menstruating female pre-trial detainees to highly unsanitary
conditions, substantial risk of infection, humiliation, and
degradation," none of which is suffered by male detainees. She has
further alleged that the Mayor of New York recognized the
"necessity" of these products for women, and yet, the City still
does not provide them to women detained by the NYPD.
At this stage, the Judge holds that these allegations are
sufficient to raise an inference of discriminatory intent, and for
Ms. Flores to state a plausible claim that the City violated the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ultimately,
to prevail on this claim, Ms. Flores will have to show that a
discriminatory intent was at least a motivating factor in the
City's decision to do so. For now, however, she has alleged a
plausible claim sufficient to survive the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Ms.
Flores' Equal Protection claim is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Matsumoto granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. She granted the
Defendants' motion with respect to Ms. Flores' claims pursuant to
the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and dismissed those claims. She
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to standing,
and with respect to Ms. Flores's other claims.
The case will proceed on Ms. Flores' claims pursuant to the First
and Fourth Amendments and pursuant to the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties will
proceed with discovery under the supervision of Magistrate Judge
Roanne L. Mann.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/45wp4mv8 from Leagle.com.
NISSAN NORTH: Class Certification Sought in Johnson Sunroofs Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERIDA JOHNSON, SUBRINA
SEENARAIN, CHAD LOURY, LINDA SPRY, LISA SULLIVAN, and APRIL AHRENS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00517-WHO (N.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 25, 2021, for
an order certifying classes of consumers who purchased Class
Vehicles in the states of California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
and New York.
The Plaintiffs' claims are based upon Nissan's refusal to
acknowledge and address a dangerous safety defect in its tempered
glass panoramic sunroofs which exists in all class vehicles at the
point of sale. Panoramic sunroofs ("PSR") manufactured for Nissan
by use tempered glass panels that are unable to withstand the
stresses and environmental factors present under ordinary driving
conditions (the "Sunroof Defect"). The Sunroof Defect causes the
Class Vehicles' PSRs to suffer from a propensity to shatter --
suddenly, violently, and without warning—creating a loud noise 12
and raining glass fragments down on the vehicle's occupants, which
in turn creates a serious safety hazard. Having experienced a
manifestation of the Sunroof Defect firsthand, the Plaintiffs filed
this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all others who purchased
or leased a Nissan vehicle with a Nissan factory-installed PSR
manufactured by either that incorporate tempered glass panels. The
Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief.
Headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, Nissan's North American
operations include automotive styling, engineering, consumer and
corporate financing, sales and marketing, distribution and
manufacturing for the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sy8sIt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
Justin G. Day, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
First Tennessee Plaza
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
justin@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and -
Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
Crystal Foley, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016-7416
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
cfoley@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1260
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1333
Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
PALADINO CONSTRUCTION: Halliburton Sues Over Underpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS HALLIBURTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PALADINO CONSTRUCTION, INC., ALLEN
PALADINO and MARK PALADINO, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00120-BRW
(E.D. Ark., February 22, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to include the bonuses that
were paid to the Plaintiff and other bonusing employees in their
regular rates when calculating their overtime pay.
The Plaintiff was employed as a horizontal directional drilling
engineer from 2013 until November of 2020.
Paladino Construction, Inc. is a construction company located in
Conway, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
PENUMBRA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN),
and Lizhi, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIZI). Stockholders have until the
deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about the case can be found at the link
provided.
Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN)
Class Period: August 3, 2020 to December 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 16, 2021
Penumbra is a global healthcare company that develops, manufactures
and sells innovative medical devices for patients suffering from
stroke and other vascular and neurovascular diseases.
Until recently, one of the Company's flagship products was the "Jet
7 Xtra Flex," an aspiration catheter designed to be inserted into
an affected artery, navigated to a blood clot, and used to suck the
clot out of the patient's body. The Jet 7 Xtra Flex was introduced
to the U.S. market in July 2019 and quickly became a "growth
driver" for the Company, a key source of new revenues.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures that caused
Penumbra's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial
losses.
Most recently, on December 15, 2020, the Company issued a press
release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" and "voluntary"
recall of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become
susceptible to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to
injury or death.
In response, Penumbra's stock price fell 7%, from $188.82 per share
on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020, a
decline of $13.84 per share.
The complaint, filed on January 15, 2021, alleges that defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety, as well
as the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Among other
things, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the
Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it unsafe for
its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately address the
risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and deaths, which
had in fact already occurred; (3) that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was
likely to be recalled due to its safety issues; and (4) as a
result, Penumbra's public statements as set forth above were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Penumbra class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PEN
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PENUMBRA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of Mar. 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE:PEN) investors to submit
their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed,
and certain investors may have valuable claims.
Class Period: Aug. 3, 2020 - Dec. 15, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Mar. 16, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PEN
Contact An Attorney Now:PEN@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Penumbra, Inc. (PEN) Securities Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Penumbra misled investors about the
company's Jet 7 Xtra Flex, a flagship product for treating
strokes.
According to the complaint, Defendants repeatedly assured investors
that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe," "exactly what we
hoped it would be," and "not a product that has any possibility of
needing to be recalled." In truth, Defendants allegedly knew that
(1) the Jet 7 Xtra Flex had known design defects that made it
unsafe for its normal use; (2) that Penumbra did not adequately
address the risk of Jet 7 Xtra Flex causing serious injury and
deaths, which had in fact already occurred; and (3) that the Jet 7
Xtra Flex was likely to be recalled due to its safety issues.
The truth emerged through a series of disclosures ending on Dec.
15, 2020, when Penumbra announced it was voluntarily recalling all
configurations of its JET 7 Xtra Flex device because it may be
susceptible to damage during use and subsequent patient injury or
death.
These events have driven the price of Penumbra shares sharply
lower.
"We're focused on investor losses and proving Penumbra misled
investors about the Jet 7 device's safety," said Reed Kathrein, the
Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a Penumbra investor or have information that may assist
our investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with
Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Penumbra should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email PEN@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw.
CONTACT:
Reed Kathrein
844-916-0895 [GN]
PRIME THERAPEUTICS: Shattuck Pharmacy Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Therapeutics
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shattuck Pharmacy Management PC
d/b/a Medic Pharmacy and Gifts a Domestic for Profit Corporation
individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated; and Kylene Rehder on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Prime Therapeutics LLC, a foreign limited
liablility company; Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual
Reserve Company; and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma, a division
of Health Care Service Corporation, Case No. CJ-2021-3, filed in
Oklahoma District Court, Ellis County, on Feb. 24, 2021.
The case type is stated CLASS ACTION seeking civil relief of more
than $10,000.
Prime Therapeutics LLC -- https://www.primetherapeutics.com/ --
operates as a non-profit organization. The Company provides smart
clinical solutions, solid benefit design, cost controls, and
pharmacy services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Benham, Esq.
RIFFEL LAW FIRM
3517 W Owen K Garriot Suite One
Enid, OK 73703
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Febreze Car Air Fresher Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that the
Febreze car air freshener lawsuit against Procter & Gamble has been
voluntarily dismissed.
Febreze car air freshener leaks allegedly damaged dashboards,
according to a lawsuit filed by three customers who claim the
devices leak because they are defective.
But in a motion to dismiss the class action, Procter & Gamble (P&G)
argues the plaintiffs are depending on "three alleged incidents and
some hearsay Internet posts."
According to the Febreze car air freshener lawsuit, the fresheners
suffer from an unspecified "design and/or manufacturing defect"
that allegedly cause the clips to "break, degrade, malfunction or
leak oil and/or other substances" onto the dashboards.
The plaintiffs who sued claim P&G uses false and misleading
advertising to sell the car air fresheners that clip to air vents
to deodorize the vehicles.
The company allegedly failed to warn customers that leaking car air
fresheners can damage the dashboards and other parts of the
interiors. The plaintiffs also allege customers have complained
about damage from leaking car air fresheners since at least 2015.
Based on court documents, plaintiff Angela Davis purchased a
Febreze car air freshener for her Nissan truck, but the device
began to leak oil or some other substance and caused damage to her
new truck.
Plaintiff Deanna Lopez purchased a Febreze car air freshener for
her 2005 Toyota Prius, but the air freshener allegedly leaked fluid
onto the dashboard and other interior surfaces which caused the
dash to melt. (Photo above)
And plaintiff Ursula Riley purchased a Febreze car air freshener
that allegedly leaked onto interior surfaces and melted the
vehicle's air vent. She said she was quoted a price of $400 to
repair the damage.
Motion to Dismiss the Febreze Car Air Freshener Lawsuit
Attorneys for P&G say the entire class action was filed alleging
after "some undisclosed period of use," the Febreze Car air
fresheners broke.
The motion to dismiss alleges allegations the car air fresheners
"break, degrade, [or] malfunction" are not enough to sustain the
plaintiff's claims.
P&G argues courts across the country routinely dismiss lawsuits
like this that merely allege, "the product broke so it must be
defective."
The plaintiffs have allegedly failed to show P&G's knowledge of an
alleged defect, which means the company could not have
misrepresented the quality of the car air fresheners or omitted
information if it had no knowledge of "some alleged, undefined
defect."
Allegations the Febreze car air fresheners "work in virtually every
vehicle," are "safe to use," are "long lasting," "eliminate tough
odors" and are "mess free" are allegedly "mere puffery" as found in
advertising.
In addition, P&G argues the plaintiffs have not alleged how any of
these claims are false or how they relate to allegations the air
fresheners might one day "leak."
P&G says it makes no representation the car air fresheners are
"immune to breakage and/or leaking, whether due to misuse, improper
storage, or damage from external influences."
The plaintiffs claim they reviewed the packaging before using the
air fresheners, even referencing statements on the packaging. But
the motion to dismiss alleges the plaintiffs seemed to have
forgotten where the packaging says, "Avoid direct contact with
plastics/dashboard as damage may occur."
"Plaintiffs implausibly allege they 'relied on the absence of any
warning or disclosure.' Aside from being conclusory, Plaintiffs'
contradictory 'pick-and-choose' allegations are insufficient to
sustain their fraud-based claims." - Attorneys for P&G
P&G also alleges implied warranty claims fail because not a single
plaintiff alleges the Febreze car air fresheners did not operate as
intended.
The motion to dismiss says just because the three plaintiffs may
have experienced alleged air freshener leakage for some unknown
reason does not render the devices unfit for their intended
purpose, which is to freshen the air.
Unjust enrichment claims must also allegedly be dismissed because
the plaintiffs received the benefit of the bargain because they
received exactly what was promised: Air fresheners that freshened
the air.
Consumer complaints cited in the Febreze class action allegedly
don't prove P&G knew of any alleged "undefined" defects. Out of 10
customer complaints, only three were posted before one of the
plaintiffs purchased the car air freshener. And some of the 10
complaints were posted on third-party websites.
In addition, none of the complainants claim they contacted P&G
about any alleged problems.
And even if P&G knew about complaints, being aware of a few
customer complaints allegedly doesn't establish the company knew
about alleged defects.
The Febreze car air freshener lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Eureka
Division: Davis, et al., v. The Procter & Gamble Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. [GN]
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Class Settlement in Hofstader Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NATHAN HOFSTADER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and RICHARD CERENZIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROVIDENCE
HEALTH AND SERVICES, SACRED HEART MEDICAL CENTER, and PROVIDENCE
HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00062-SMJ (E.D.
Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement, and
for award of attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards.
On Aug. 24, 2020, upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary
Approval Motion, and the record, the Court entered an Order of
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Under the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among other things, (1)
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement; (2) appointed
Hofstader and Cerenzia as the Class Representatives; (3) appointed
Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Mayo Law Group, PLLC as the Class
Counsel; and (4) set the date and time of the Final Approval
Hearing.
On Nov. 9, 2020, the Class Counsel timely moved for final approval
of the class action settlement and for attorney fees, costs, and
incentive award. Under their Final Approval Motion, the Plaintiffs
request final approval of the proposed class action settlement and
approval of the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, costs, and
incentive award.
On Feb. 19, 2021, Judge Mendoza conducted a hearing to determine
whether the lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for
class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Class Members and should be approved by the Court. He has
reviewed and considered the Agreement, Final Approval Motion, and
the record.
The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for: (1) Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and (2) Award of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
The Class is defined as: All individuals (or their guardians or
representatives) who from Feb. 20, 2014, until the date the Motion
for Preliminary Approval is filed with the Court, who received
emergency care medical treatment from a Providence Health and
Services Washington PHS-WA hospital, or a PHS hospital in
Washington State.
The Judge finally certified Nathan Hofstader and Richard Cerenzia
as the Class Representatives and has appointed Abbas Kazerounian
and Ryan L. McBride of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, and Boyd M. Mayo
of Mayo Law Group, PLLC as the Class Counsel.
The Agreement, which has been filed with the Court and will be
deemed incorporated in the Order, and the proposed settlement are
finally approved and will be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions thereof, except as amended by any order issued
by this Court. The material terms of the Agreement include, but are
not limited to, the following:
A. The Defendant will make the policy changes as described in
the Agreement, paragraph 26.
B. The Defendant will pay $2,500 to each of Hofstader and
Cerenzia payable through the Class Administrator as an Incentive
Payment for bringing and participating in the action;
C. The Class Counsel's hourly rates are fair and reasonable.
Defendant will pay to Class Counsel the sum of $95,000 as attorney
fees and costs; and
D. The Plaintiffs' counsel will pay the Class Administrator
directly for notice costs.
Five exclusions were received. The persons requesting exclusion
are: Angela Faucett, Latoya Minnifield, Asher Rivera, Ignacio
Stephens, and Heather Taylor. The Judge excluded these individuals
from the Settlement Class.
The Action is dismissed with prejudice in all respects.
The Clerk's Office is directed to enter judgment in the Plaintiffs'
favor and close the file.
The Clerk's Office is directed to enter the Order and provide
copies to all the counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/jbw64ukj from Leagle.com.
PUMP RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuits Over Unlawful Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Vanderveen writing for Cinema Blend, reports that the
COVID-19 pandemic forced many businesses to shut down due to safety
regulations, and restaurants were among the most affected. This
spelled trouble for ex-Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star,
Vanderpump Rules executive producer and restaurant mogul Lisa
Vanderpump. Her restaurants were shut down during quarantine but,
now, it's been reported that two of Vanderpump's restaurants are
facing a lawsuit.
Lisa Vanderpump and husband Ken Todd's restaurants PUMP and Villa
Blanca are being sued in a lawsuit by their produce distributor
West Central Produce, according to TMZ. Per the lawsuit obtained by
the trade, the restaurants last made payments to West Central
Produce in March 2020 but they have allegedly not received any
payment since. The lawsuit asserts that PUMP's last payment was
$9,144.70, while Villa Blanca's was $8,890.10. The company claims
the restaurants owe them around the figure of $100,000, and it's
suing for that very amount as well as some interest.
She left Real Housewives of Beverly Hills after nine seasons, but
Lisa Vanderpump still had four restaurants in Los Angeles and West
Hollywood -- PUMP, Villa Blanca, SUR and TomTom. All of which were
shut down back in March because of the quarantine rules. PUMP and
Villa Blanca both released joint statements at the time on
Instagram that read:
PUMP restaurant announced in October that it would be reopening,
with social distance dining, after seven months of being shut down.
However, Lisa Vanderpump made a statement back in July to the Daily
Mail that Villa Blanca was closing for good, saying:
The lawsuit against Lisa Vanderpump's restaurants comes on the
heels of Vanderpump herself facing a lawsuit. In December, Page Six
reported that Vanderpump was facing a class action lawsuit that
accused her of altering timesheet records, not paying wages and not
giving proper breaks for employees. Vanderpump has yet to address
the allegations in either lawsuit publicly.
Though these allegations have sprung up at a very tumultuous time,
Lisa Vanderpump is still going full force. Aside from her
restaurants, she has two new reality shows -- Vanderpump Dogs and
Overserved with Lisa Vanderpump -- and a potential book coming out.
[GN]
QUANTUMSCAPE CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of March 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of QuantumScape Corporation.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can
be found at the link provided.
QuantumScape Corporation (NYSE: QS)
Class Period: November 27, 2020 to December 31, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
On January 4, 2021, an article was published on Seeking Alpha
pointing to several risks with QuantumScape's solid-state batteries
that make it "completely unacceptable for real world field electric
vehicles." Specifically, it stated that the battery's power means
it "will only last for 260 cycles or about 75,000 miles of
aggressive driving." As solid-state batteries are temperature
sensitive, "the power and cycle tests at 30 and 45 degrees above
would have been significantly worse if run even a few degrees
lower."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $34.49, or
approximately 40.84%, to close at $49.96 per share on January 4,
2021.
The complaint, filed on January 5, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery
power, battery life, and energy density were significantly
overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale
its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric
vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
For more information on the QuantumScape class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/QS
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
QUEBEC: Settlement Agreement Reached in Veterans' Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Spector at Global News reports that a group of aging war
veterans living in Montreal is declaring victory.
A multimillion-dollar settlement agreement has been reached in a
class-action lawsuit that saw retired Canadian Forces soldiers
living at Ste. Anne's Hospital sue the federal and provincial
governments. The veterans had claimed that the quality of care at
Ste. Anne's had diminished when the facility was transferred from
federal to provincial control in 2016.
The lead plaintiff on the suit was Wolf Solkin, who fought for
Canada on European soil in the Second World War. Solkin learned of
the settlement just days before he died at 97 years old.
"That was really something. He said, 'Lou, we won!'" Solkin's wife
Louise Langlois-Solkin recounted to Global News.
Solkin had been living at Ste Anne's since 2013, and spoke out
repeatedly about how the quality of care had declined significantly
after the transfer.
"One of the few things we have left to us is our dignity and our
pride, and that dignity is being chipped away at," he told Global
News in 2018.
In early 2019, he became the lead plaintiff on the case. It
targeted the provincial and federal governments, as well as the
West Island health authority (CIUSSS).
"I would like to see the day our proper level of care is restored
along with our dignity as veterans and Canadians," Solkin said in
2019.
His health declined in 2020, but in his final days, he declared
victory. Both levels of government agreed to a settlement that
would pay out $19 million to veterans or their families. The
agreement also stipulated that care must improve for the
approximately 85 veterans left at Ste Anne's.
Langlois-Solkin was at Solkin's side when he got the news from his
lawyer.
"For a week before, he was very sick. But at this time, he was full
of energy," she recounted. [GN]
QUEENSLAND: 2011 Flood Victims Win Partial $440M Payout in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
theguardian.com reports that victims of south-east Queensland's
2011 floods have won a partial $440m payout a decade after the
negligent operation of two dams saw thousands of homes and
businesses swamped.
The Queensland government and state-owned dam operator SunWater
have agreed to the payout, which is about half of what is owed to
6,700 class action members.
But there has been no settlement with the other dam operator.
State-owned Seqwater is appealing the New South Wales supreme
court's decision in 2019 that Wivenhoe and Somerset dams were not
operated properly in the lead-up to the floods.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones found in 2019 that flood engineers
operating the two dams before and during a "biblical" deluge in
January 2011 failed in their duty of care.
He found some of their decisions ignored what was in a dam
operating manual they had helped draft – and that their delayed
actions worsened downstream flooding.
About 23,000 homes and businesses flooded in Brisbane and Ipswich
after huge releases were made to safeguard the structural integrity
of the dams.
Class action law firm Maurice Blackburn said Seqwater would
continue to appeal the 2019 ruling and, despite a partial win,
flood victims would have to endure a longer wait to see if the
second half of their claim succeeds.
"We hope it will bring some much-needed closure to our clients,
who have had to endure significant uncertainty and frustration
while the defendants fought this case at every turn," lawyer
Rebecca Gilsenan said in a statement.
"Of course, complete closure can only happen for our clients when
Seqwater also settles, or Seqwater's appeal is finalised. The class
will continue to vigorously fight Seqwater's appeal, buoyed by
today's substantial settlement reached with the other two
defendants."
Settlement is subject to approval by the NSW supreme court and
agreement on terms - with an approval hearing likely to happen
before Seqwater's appeal starts in May.
Part of the $440m settlement will go to litigation funder Omni
Bridgeway, which had estimated a total payout of $880m if
Seqwater's appeal fails.
The case was heard in a NSW court because it was initiated before
class actions were allowed in Queensland in 2017. [GN]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Hawkins Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HAWKINS and
DARYL DUNSMORE, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, SAN DIEGO COUNTY JAIL, OFFICE
OF ASSIGNED COUNSEL, MICHAEL GARCIA, WILLIAM TRAINOR, JACKIE
BRADEN, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order:
1. denying in part motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissing complaint as to plaintiff dunsmore pursuant to
28 u.s.c. section 1915(g);
2. granting in part motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissing complaint as to plaintiff Hawkins for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 u.s.c. section 1915(e)(2)
(b) and 28 u.s.c. section 1915a(b);
3. denying motion for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access;
4. denying motion for class certification;
5. denying motion appointment of counsel; and
6. denying motion for a temporary restraining order.
The Court said, "Hawkins has also filed a document entitled "Motion
for ADA Access Fed. Rules of Regulations 35.107/CRC 1.100." The
document states: "Plaintiffs complain that they have made requests
to access court ADA coordinator according to Fed. 2 Rule of
regulations 35.107 and CRC 1.100 and received no response [thereby]
being discriminated against as qualified ADA individuals and now
motion for clarity on this matter by the court." He has also filed
a Motion for Class Certification. Because the Court has concluded
that Hawkins has not stated a plausible claim for relief, the
motions are denied without prejudice."
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kpfBrP at no extra charge.[CC]
SEEKING ALPHA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seeking Alpha Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Seeking Alpha Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01647 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Seeking Alpha -- https://seekingalpha.com/ -- is a crowd-sourced
content service for financial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SHUTTLE FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shuttle Finance, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Shuttle Finance, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01648 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Shuttle Finance, Inc., doing business as Acre --
https://www.getacre.io/ -- provides software solutions. The Company
develops platforms for exchanging cryptocurrency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SOUTHBRIDGE ROSEVIEW: Faces Class Action Over Covid-19 Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Turner, writing for CBC News, reports that families and
residents of the Southbridge Roseview long-term care home in
Thunder Bay, Ont. have filed a lawsuit against Southbridge Care
Homes and Extendicare, and their lawyers say they intend to certify
as a class action.
The lawsuit, filed by Toronto-based law firm Will Davidson, is
claiming $160 million for gross negligence, breach of the Human
Rights Code and wrongful death on behalf of all residents of
Southbridge-owned long-term care homes and retirement homes during
the pandemic, as well as family members for residents who died
during the pandemic.
"We've now launched this case against the home in Thunder Bay
because these families and these residents are entitled to have
answers as to what occurred, why it occurred and have their day in
court and be compensated for what they've lost," said managing
partner Gary Will.
The Southbridge Roseview long-term care home was the site of the
deadliest outbreak of COVID-19 in northwestern Ontario, infecting
more than 150 residents and staff and resulting in the deaths of 23
residents.
A provincial inspection report during the first few weeks of the
outbreak confirmed that staffing shortages, an inability to manage
wandering residents and inconsistent adherence to infection control
procedures likely contributed to the spread of COVID-19 in the
home.
The outbreak was first declared at Southbridge Roseview on November
17 after one staff member tested positive for the respiratory
disease.
Family member says he wants answers
Wayne Robinson, 81, is one of the 23 residents of Southbridge
Roseview that died after contracting COVID-19 during the outbreak.
He died on December 9, 2020.
His two children described him as "a loving and supportive father
who coached soccer without even knowing anything about the sport .
. . and learned to ski as an adult so the family could do [it] as
an activity together."
Robinson's son Jeff says he remembers being very concerned when he
heard that an outbreak was declared at Roseview.
"With long-term care, people are susceptible to getting the disease
and then passing it on."
As the outbreak continued, Jeff said his family grew increasingly
concerned with how the outbreak was being managed, especially as it
pertained to staffing levels and an inability to manage residents
wandering.
Now, he and his family are looking for accountability from
Southbridge.
"I'm hoping they acknowledge that they made a mistake," Jeff
Robinson said. "There's never been an apology or anything to say
'I'm sorry. For the first five days, we were totally understaffed.
We weren't prepared.'"
Long-term care home operators must be held accountable: lawyer
Gary Will, managing partner of Will Davidson, said the outbreak at
the Thunder Bay home was extremely concerning.
"We're now 10 months into the pandemic. There should have been lots
of lessons learned as a result of what we went through in March and
April of last year, and the sad reality is that the lessons have
not been learnt.
"There was not appropriate staffing, there was not appropriate PPE,
there was not appropriate testing," Will added. "So when COVID got
into this home, it spread rapidly, as it had previous to that."
The lawsuit was first launched in May 2020 against just one home
owned by Southbridge, the Orchard Villa home in Pickering. But on
February 9, just a few days after the outbreak at Roseview was
declared over, the law firm amended their claim to include all
residents and families of deceased residents at any
Southbridge-owned or operated homes.
Will says there are three classes to the lawsuit: the estates of
people that died during the pandemic; the group of residents that
contracted and recovered from COVID-19; and the "many individuals
who haven't been receiving a proper level of care," but who were
not infected with the disease.
"These people are entitled to a better existence in these homes,
and there has to be accountability and responsibility," Will said.
"One of the most disturbing things is that the government has
absolutely failed all Ontarians in failing to hold these homes
accountable."
He added, "none of these homes have lost their license. No one has
lost their job. No charges have been laid. No one has been held to
account."
The lawyer said if people and companies aren't held to account for
their negligence, they will continue to provide a substandard level
of care.
A date has not yet been set for certification hearings, which is
the next step in the legal process.
More than 21,000 residents and staff of long-term care homes had
been infected with COVID-19 since April 24, and nearly 630 homes
had been or are in an active state of outbreak, as of February 19.
In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Southbridge Care Homes
said they would not comment on the lawsuit while it is before the
courts, but that they are committed to providing "a high standard
of care." [GN]
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bid to Decertify Class in Dixon Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DIXON, et al., v.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00112-AGF (E.D. Mo.),
the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to decertify the class.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff class, as modified,
continues to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.
The Court said, "The Defendants' own description, the Plaintiffs'
core due process challenge still involves the lack of financial
inquiry, failure to consider non-monetary conditions, and excessive
bail. The Defendants have suggested no adversity or conflict
whatsoever among members of the class, nor any showing of divergent
preferences. The Court is not persuaded that any recent nuances
raised in Plaintiffs' withdrawn motion for preliminary injunction
(e.g., collusion between counsel, consideration of third-party
payors) are so unique as to destroy typicality. The Court is
satisfied that the named Plaintiffs' claims remain typical of the
class and that Plaintiffs continue to adequately represent class
members."
The Plaintiffs David Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Aaron Thurman, and
Richard Robards were detained in St. Louis jails because they were
unable to afford bail. The Defendants are the City of St. Louis,
its Commissioner of Corrections Dale Glass, its Sheriff Vernon
Betts, and several judges of the 22nd Circuit. On January 28, 2019,
the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under U.S.C. section
1983 asserting that the Defendants violated their constitutional
rights to equal protection and substantive and procedural due
process by detaining them after arrest without an opportunity to
challenge the conditions of their release.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 17, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3dLIxceat no
extra charge.[CC]
STERICYCLE INC: Daniel FLSA Suit Seeks to Certify Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILLIP DANIEL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. STERICYCLE INC.;
and SHRED-IT USA LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00655-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of this action and for
court-authorized notice pursuant to section 216(B) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA);
2. approving of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and
the consent form;
3. approving production of names, last known mailing
addresses, last-known cell phone numbers, email addresses,
work locations, and dates of employment of all putative
plaintiffs within 15 days of the Order; and
4. approving the distribution of the Notice and Opt-in Form
via first class mail, email, and text message to all
putative plaintiffs of the conditionally certified
collective, with a reminder mailing to be sent 45-days
after the initial mailing to all non-responding putative
plaintiffs.
Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 17,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ktr35z
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Charlotte C. Smith, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com
rtucci@gildahernandezlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq.
Richard W. Black, Esq.
Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
Meredith L. Schramm-Strosser, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4150
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 972-7000
Facsimile: (704) 333-4005
E-mail: JWalters@littler.com
RBlack@littler.com
JWaxman@littler.com
MSchramm-Strosser@littler.com
STERLING JEWELERS: Can Compel Arbitration in Lodge Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TARA D. LODGE, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC. and
COMENITY BANK, Defendants, C.A. No. 19-866-LPS (D. Del.), Judge
Leonard P. Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware granted the Defendants' request to compel arbitration of
Lodge's claims.
In the putative consumer class action, Plaintiff Lodge alleges that
Defendants Sterling and Comenity Bank opened a credit card in her
name without authorization, and that they did the same to
similarly-situated consumers.
Kay Jewelers is a Sterling branded store. There is a stand-alone
Kay Jewelers store in Lorain, Ohio. Heather Bouchonville has been
the manager of the Lorain Kay store since August 2018 and has
worked at Sterling jewelry stores for over 10 years. As part of
her job duties, Bouchonville regularly assists customers with
applying for Kay Jewelers "Long Live Love" credit card accounts.
In January 2019, applying in-store for a Kay Jewelers credit card
consisted of two steps: prequalification, and then submission of a
credit card application. Sterling uses mobile tablets to process
in-store applications. A customer's Social Security number ("SSN")
is required to advance past the first step of the tablet's
prequalification application process flow. Comenity cannot process
an application, or issue a credit card, without an SSN. A customer
agrees to prequalification by selecting the "I AGREE" button on the
in-store tablet. A credit card account number cannot be generated
until a credit application is completed and approved by Comenity.
On Jan. 18, 2019, Lodge visited the Lorain Kay store, as she did
every six months to have her jewelry cleaned and inspected
consistent with her warranty. Bouchonville was working in the
Lorain Kay store that day, and she was the first employee with whom
Lodge interacted. Bouchonville does not remember the interaction
with Lodge. Lodge is the only witness who testified at trial
having personal knowledge of what occurred in the Lorain Kay store
on Jan. 18, 2019.
According to Lodge, she told Bouchonville that she was there to
have her jewelry inspected and handed Bouchonville her jewelry;
Bouchonville went to an iPad and then Lodge told Bouchonville her
first and last name. She says that Bouchonville then placed a
brochure on the counter and told Lodge it is for her.
The Brochure (PTX-2; DTX-7 Ex. A) is a trifold document, comprising
approximately 14 pages, the outside of which features a glossy
photograph of a bride and groom along with the words, "Get
prequalified for the LONG LIVE LOVE Credit Card today. SPECIAL
FINANCING AVAILABLE." (When the Brochure was handed to Lodge, she
saw that Bouchonville had written Lodge's name, a dollar figure
($7,000), and a 16-digit number ending with 9685 on one of the
inner pages. The text at the top of the page on which
Bouchonville's handwriting appears states in part:
"Prequalification Terms and Conditions: I agree to be prequalified
for credit by Comenity Bank ('Bank') for a Long Live Love Credit
Card. I have read and agree to the disclosures provided on or with
this prequalification."
After leaving the store, Lodge placed the Brochure in the glove
compartment box of her husband's vehicle. At some point after Jan.
18, 2019, Lodge removed the Brochure from the glove compartment and
placed it in a drawer in her kitchen.
The Brochure contains contractual terms for the credit card account
for which, the Court finds, Lodge applied. The Terms include a
choice-of-law provision, which provides that "this agreement is
governed by Delaware and applicable federal law." The Terms also
include an arbitration provision. Under the Arbitration Agreement,
any claim that goes to the "validity or enforceability" of the
contract as a whole is explicitly assigned "for the arbitrator, not
a court, to decide." The Arbitration Agreement further provided
the Plaintiff with the opportunity to opt out within 30 calendar
days. Absent exercise of the opportunity to opt out, however, the
Arbitration Agreement remains in force even following closure of
the account.
On Jan. 21, 2019, Lodge received a credit alert indicating that a
credit card account had been opened in her name. She then
complained to Kay Jewelers' customer service via an online chat,
explaining that a credit card had been created without her
authorization. Lodge also left a voicemail with a district sales
manager for Sterling, claiming that she had received a Kay Jewelers
credit card for which she had not applied, that she had not given
her SSN, and that she did not know how she got the credit card.
Comenity closed Lodge's Kay Jewelers credit card account on Jan.
23, 2019.
The Defendants deny the allegation, deny that a class can be
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and assert that
Lodge's claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration clause in the alleged credit card agreement.
Following limited discovery, as agreed to among the parties, the
Court heard oral argument on the Defendants' motions to compel
arbitration and to stay the proceedings. Acting pursuant to
Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 4, and
applying a summary judgment standard, the Court held that genuine
disputes of material fact at that stage precluded a determination
that the parties had entered into an agreement to arbitrate. After
denying the Defendants' motions, the Court held a two-day remote
summary bench trial on the narrow issue of whether a contract
exists between the parties.
At trial, the Court heard testimony from multiple witnesses,
including Lodge, and received documentary evidence. The parties
then submitted post-trial briefing and proposed findings of fact.
Upon consideration of the entire trial record and the parties'
post-trial submissions, Judge Stark is persuaded that the
Defendants have shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Lodge objectively manifested assent to the Terms and that the
parties intended to be bound by all essential terms, including the
Arbitration Agreement. He agrees with the Defendants that three
factual findings -- each non-dispositive individually, but all of
which the Court credits in totality -- lead to the conclusion that
a contract was formed.
First, the Judge finds that Lodge provided her SSN (as well as
other personal identification information) to Bouchonville on Jan.
18, 2019. Second, it is undisputed that Lodge watched as
Bouchonville handwrote Lodge's name, a 16-digit credit card account
number, and a $7,000 credit limit directly on the Brochure
containing the Terms, and that Bouchonville handed the Brochure to
Ms. Lodge while stating, "Here, this is for you." Third, the facts
that Lodge walked out of the Lorain Kay store with the Brochure;
placed it in her husband's vehicle's glove compartment box and told
him, "Don't let me forget about it"; and later moved the Brochure
into her kitchen drawer provide further support for the Court's
conclusion.
Lodge makes several arguments against the Court's conclusions.
Ultimately, all are unavailing, especially given the Court's
findings of fact.
As the Defendants have persuaded him that Lodge objectively
manifested her assent to form a contract with the Defendants
pursuant to the Terms and intended to be bound by all essential
terms, including the Arbitration Agreement, Judge Stark granted the
Defendants' request to compel arbitration will be granted. An
appropriate Order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4mb2a6w8 from Leagle.com.
Chad J. Toms -- ctoms@wtplaw.com -- Kaan Ekiner, WHITEFORD TAYLOR &
PRESTON LLC, in Wilmington, Delaware.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek W.
Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gabriel E. Verdugo --
gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com -- Benjamin B. Gould , KELLER ROHRBACK
L.L.P., in Seattle, Washington.
Alison E. Chase -- achase@kellerrohrback.com -- Matthew J. Preusch
-- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P., in Santa
Barbara, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Rebecca L. Butcher -- butcher@lrclaw.com -- LANDIS RATH & COBB LLP,
in Wilmington, Delaware.
Valerie L. Hletko -- vhletko@kaplanhecker.com -- KAPLAN HECKER &
FINK LLP, in New York City.
Walter E. Zalenski -- wzalenski@buckleyfirm.com -- BUCKLEY LLP, in
Washington, D.C.
Scott T. Sakiyama -- ssakiyama@buckleyfirm.com -- BUCKLEY LLP, in
Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant Sterling Jewelers, Inc.
James D. Taylor, Jr. -- james.taylor@saul.com -- SAUL EWING
ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.
Ryan L. DiClemente -- ryan.diclemente@saul.com -- Colleen Fox --
colleen.fox@saul.com -- SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, in
Princeton, New Jersey, Attorneys for Defendant Comenity Bank.
TEICHERT PIPELINES: Olea Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELIAZAR OLEA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TEICHERT PIPELINES, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV49707, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on February
23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-01675 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay all wages
due upon termination, and failure to reimburse business expenses.
Teichert Pipelines, Inc. is a construction company located in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Cassandra M. Ferrannini, Esq.
Alexandra K. Lafountain, Esq.
DOWNEY BRAND LLP
621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 444-1000
Facsimile: (916) 444-2100
E-mail: cferrannini@downeybrand.com
alafountain@downeybrand.com
TEMPLE PLAZA: Class of Dancers Certified in Merriwether FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLA MERRIWETHER, et al., Plaintiffs v. TEMPLE PLAZA
HOTEL, INC. d/b/a BOUZOUKI CLUB, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-11854 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and
for an order for notice to the class.
Plaintiffs Merriwether and Ami Coleman, former dancers at
Defendants' Bouzouki Club in Detroit, bring the proposed collective
action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated current and former employees of Temple Plaza, Famous Door
II, Inc., and Dennis Kefallinos. They say the Defendants failed to
pay them and a class of similarly situated dancers at least minimum
wage for all hours worked and 1 1/2 times their regular rate for
overtime hours.
The Defendants operate a gentleman's club. The Plaintiffs, 10
current opt-in class members, and all other potential class members
worked as dancers at the Defendants' club. The Defendants did not
pay the dancers they employed. The Plaintiffs and other dancers
only received tips given by customers as compensation.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants decided the work hours
and maintained the Plaintiffs' work schedules. They did not permit
them to leave work early from their scheduled shifts without
express permission. They required them to wear certain uniforms or
types of clothing while working. The Defendants told the
Plaintiffs when to get on stage to dance. They charged them a fee
if they missed a call to the stage and fined them if they called
off work.
At the end of each shift, the Defendants allegely required the
Plaintiffs to give a portion of their tips, generally $155, to the
Defendants through the manager on duty. They allegely required
them to engage in a tip pooling arrangement; they paid the House
Mom $10 and the DJ $20 each time they worked.
The Plaintiffs and the class members allege they were not exempt
from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA at any
time during their employment, and the pay practice was similar for
each class member.
According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants' failure to pay minimum
wage and overtime was willful--with knowledge, or with reckless
disregard--of the FLSA statutory requirements. Their failure to
properly pay the Plaintiffs and the class members in violation of
the FLSA was not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that
their conduct complied with the FLSA. The Defendants were required
to pay the Plaintiffs at least minimum wage for all hours worked,
and one and one half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a week.
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the Plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as well as attorney
fees and costs.
The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of a collective
action with the following proposed class: All individuals currently
and formerly employed as dancers by the Defendants throughout
Michigan who were not compensated for all hours worked, who were
not compensated at minimum wage for hours worked up t0 40 hours per
week, or who were not compensated for overtime, or one and one-half
times minimum wage for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
during the period from three years prior to the filing of the
complaint to the present.
The Defendants make several arguments opposing the Plaintiffs'
request for conditional certification. First, they say the
Plaintiffs have not met their burden to demonstrate that
conditional certification is appropriate.
This argument fails on both grounds, Judge Roberts holds. She says
whether the Defendants' pay policy violated the FLSA is a
substantive issue that goes to the merits; it is not a proper
consideration at the conditional certification stage. Moreover,
contrary to the Defendants' contention, the putative Plaintiffs do
not need to be identically situated--with the exact same work
schedule, number of hours worked, and dance moves. The Plaintiffs
submit sufficient evidence that the putative Plaintiffs are
similarly situated. The Defendants subjected them to an allegedly
unlawful payment policy; and their claims are "unified by common
theories of Defendants' statutory violations."
Next, the Defendants alternatively argue that if the Court
conditionally certifies the collective action, the limitations
period should be two years--and thus the class period should be two
years before filing the complaint, rather than three--because the
Plaintiffs fail to provide factual grounds to support a claim for a
willful violation of the Act.
The Judge disagrees. She finds that the Plaintiffs allege that
they--and the putative Plaintiffs--were not exempt from the minimum
wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA, and that the
Defendants' failure to pay these wages was willful--with knowledge,
or with reckless disregard--of the FLSA statutory requirements, and
not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that their conduct
complied with the FLSA. As non-exempt individuals, the Plaintiffs
explicitly allege that the Defendants' violations of the FLSA were
willful. Thus, whether any alleged FLSA violation by the
Defendants was willful is a question of fact.
Finally, the Defendants say that the Plaintiffs' notice should not
be approved for issuance until the parties have an opportunity to
meet and confer on the content of the notice, so that the
Defendants may attempt to resolve their objections. While this
typically is a sound practice, it is unnecessary. The Defendants
only objection is that the three-year limitations period be removed
from the Plaintiffs' notice; the basis of this objection is the
same willfulness argument made by the Defendants discussed.
Because it is premature to decide if the Plaintiffs can establish
willfulness, there is no need for the parties to confer.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Roberts granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of an FLSA collective action
and for an order for notice to the class.
She conditionally certified the following class: All individuals
currently and formerly employed as dancers by the Defendants
throughout Michigan who were not compensated for all hours worked,
who were not compensated at minimum wage for hours worked up to 40
hours per week, or who were not compensated for overtime, or one
and one-half times minimum wage for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week, during the period from June 24, 2016 to the
present.
The Defendants must provide the names and contact information for
all potential opt-in Plaintiffs to the Plaintiffs' counsel by March
19, 2021. The Plaintiffs must send proposed members of the class
Notice of the action by March 30, 2021. The cClass members must
return opt-in consent forms by June 4, 2021.
The Court will hold a telephone status/scheduling conference on
June 8, 2021, at 3:30 p.m. It will circulate a call-in number.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3h4zrw3s from Leagle.com.
TIKTOK: To Pay $92MM to Settle Suit Over Personal Data Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TikTok has agreed to pay $92 million to settle dozens of lawsuits
alleging that the popular video-sharing app harvested personal data
from users, including information using facial recognition
technology, without consent and shared the data with third-parties,
some of which were based in China.
The proposed settlement, which lawyers in the case have called
among the largest privacy-related payouts in history, applies to 89
million TikTok users in the U.S. whose personal data was allegedly
tracked and sold to advertisers in violation of state and federal
law.
"First, it provides compensation for TikTok users, but equally as
important, it ensures TikTok will respect its users' privacy going
forward," Katrina Carroll, one of the lawyers for TikTok users,
said. "Social media seems so innocuous, but troubling data
collection, storage, and disclosure can happen behind the scenes."
The settlement is the result of 21 federal lawsuits filed mostly on
behalf of minors -- some as young as 6 years old -- that claimed
the company engaged in the "theft of private and personally
identifiable TikTok user data."
A TikTok spokesperson said while the company disagrees with the
assertions in the lawsuit, the company decided settling the case
was in its best interest.
"Rather than go through lengthy litigation, we'd like to focus our
efforts on building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok
community," the spokesperson said.
The legal battle has raged for more than a year. The suits were
merged into one multi-district action in the Northern District of
Illinois that cited violations of privacy laws in Illinois and
California. The laws require technology companies to receive
written consent before collecting data about a person's identity.
The suit also claimed TikTok broke federal laws, including privacy
and computer fraud and abuse statutes.
According to lawyers representing TikTok users, the app
"clandestinely vacuumed up" vast quantities of private and
personally identifiable data that could be used to identify and
surveil users without permission. Even information from draft
videos that were never shared publicly on the app were mined by
TikTok for data, the lawyers for the users alleged.
As millions in the U.S. turned to the app for videos of dance
challenges, cooking tips and silly skits, TikTok was allegedly
sending their information to servers in China, or in other
countries where China-based employees could access the data.
Tiktok also shared information about users, without their consent,
with Facebook, Google and other companies, the suit claims.
"The TikTok app's lighthearted fun comes at a heavy cost,"
plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
Investigators hired by the plaintiffs' lawyers found that TikTok
went to great lengths to hide the data collection and sharing
practices.
"Plaintiffs' investigation has revealed that [TikTok did so] by
obfuscating the source code that would reveal their misconduct,"
according to the suit.
The tentative settlement awaits final approval by U.S. District
Judge John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois.
Under the proposed terms of the settlement, TikTok will no longer
record a user's biometric information, including facial
characteristics, nor track a user's location using GPS data. TikTok
also committed to stop sending U.S. users data overseas and the app
said it would no longer collect data on draft videos before the
content is published.
Former President Donald Trump clamped down on TikTok over its ties
to China. The app is owned by Beijing-based tech company ByteDance.
TikTok has long maintained that authorities in China cannot access
U.S. user data, which is controlled by an American-led team.
The Biden administration has pulled back from its predecessor's
crackdown on TikTok, instead launching a broader review of
Americans' use of Chinese technology.
That said, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States, an interagency group led by the Treasury Department that
probes companies with overseas connections, is in the midst of a
national security review of TikTok that may force changes to the
company's corporate structure.
The proposed TikTok settlement announced follows a similar deal
struck last year in which Facebook paid $650 million to resolve
legal claims over collecting and storing biometric data of millions
of users.
Federal regulators have scrutinized TikTok's data collection
practices of minors. In February 2019, TikTok paid a $5.7 million
fine to the Federal Trade Commission over allegations the app
illegally collected personal information from children. [GN]
TOOTSIE ROLL: Beasley Product Liability Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MAXINE BEASLEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case
No. RG21086723, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on February 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01297 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Unfair Competition Law and for breach of implied warranty by
manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Tootsie products with
partially hydrogenated oil (PHO).
Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. is an American manufacturer of
confectionery headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David M. Jolley, Esq.
DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP
1999 Harrison Street, 26th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3520
Telephone: (510) 451-3300
Facsimile: (510) 451-1527
E-mail: djolley@donahue.com
TRICIDA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of March 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tricida, Inc. Stockholders
have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as
lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found
at the link provided.
Tricida, Inc. (NASDAQ: TCDA)
Class Period: September 4, 2019 to October 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021
Tricida is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development
and commercialization of its drug candidate, veverimer (TRC101), a
non-absorbed, orally administered polymer designed as a potential
treatment for metabolic acidosis in patients with CKD. Tricida has
completed a Phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of
veverimer in patients with CKD and metabolic acidosis.
On September 4, 2019, Tricida announced that it had submitted a New
Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") under the Accelerated Approval Program for approval of
veverimer for the treatment of metabolic acidosis in patients with
CKD.
On July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that,
on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the FDA,
stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's
NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that
preclude discussion of labeling and post marketing
requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he
notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the
FDA."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or
40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020.
Then, on October 29, 2020, Tricida announced an update on its
End-of-Review Type A meeting with the FDA regarding the veverimer
NDA, advising investors that the Company "now believes the FDA will
also require evidence of veverimer's effect on CKD progression from
a near-term interim analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval
under the Accelerated Approval Program and that the FDA is unlikely
to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for determination of
efficacy." Concurrently, Tricida disclosed that it "is
significantly reducing its headcount from 152 to 59 people and will
discuss its commitments with vendors and contract service providers
to potentially provide additional financial flexibility."
On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $3.90 per share, or
47.16%, to close at $4.37 per share on October 29, 2020.
The complaint, filed on January 6, 2021, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Tricida's NDA for
veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was
foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for
veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Tricida class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TCDA
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ULTRA ENTERPRISES: 2021 Music Festival Canceled Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Miami reports that electronic music fans will now officially
have to wait until next year to get their dose of the Ultra Music
Festival in downtown Miami.
Organizers officially said on Feb. 20 the event has been canceled
for a second straight year due to the coronavirus pandemic, with
the next scheduled event taking place March 25th-27th of 2022.
"We understand the disappointment and frustration that comes with
reading this," the statement said. "We feel and share it as well."
Ultra's general counsel attorney, Sandy York, sent a letter to the
city of Miami on January 23rd saying the novel conditions of the
coronavirus "remain in place" and hopes the event can return.
Ultra's 2021 event was scheduled to take place March 26th through
March 28th inside Bayfront Park, where it had been held prior to a
move to Virginia Key for the 2019 event.
The 2020 event was canceled last March amid growing concerns over
the pandemic that began to sweep through South Florida and the
United States. Ticket holders received an email that did not
mention refunds, but did say that they would get a chance to use
the tickets for either the 2021 or 2022 festivals.
Last May, two men sued and claimed they were denied refunds after
the electronic dance music festival was canceled. Samuel Hernandez,
of Miami, and Richard Montoure, of Washington filed the lawsuit
seeking class-action status to obtain full refunds, with interest,
for thousands of ticket holders from around the world.
Ultra was one of several events canceled in 2020, include Carnival
on the Mile and the Rolling Loud hip hop music festival, in the
weeks surrounding the pandemic. [GN]
UPPER DECK: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Upper Deck
Company. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Upper Deck
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-01650 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Upper Deck Company, LLC, founded in 1988 --
http://www.upperdeck.com/-- is a private company primarily known
for producing trading cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal Filed in Timber Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled POTTER v. VALEANT
PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
the Plaintiff and settlement class member Timber Hill LLC filed an
appeal on February 22, 2021 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit from the Order and Final Judgment entered in this
action by the District Court for the District of New Jersey on
February 5, 2021.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection to the Valeant
Securities acquired or purchased between January 4, 2013 and March
15, 2016.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational
specialty pharmaceutical company, with its U.S. headquarters
located in Bridgewater, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Critchley, Sr., Esq.
Christopher W. Kinum, Esq.
CRITCHLEY, KINUM & DENOIA LLC
75 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 422-9200
E-mail: mcritchley@critchleylaw.com
cwkinum@critchleylaw.com
- and –
Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10171
Telephone: (212) 894-7200
Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
- and –
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
VISALUS INC: Renewed Bid for Judgment Tossed in TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI WAKEFIELD,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
v. VISALUS, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01857-SI (D. Ore.), the Hon.
Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order denying ViSalus's renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial.
The Court previously ruled that ViSalus waived reliance on the
affirmative defense that it obtained prior written consent from
class members because, despite knowing that it had sought an FCC
waiver, "ViSalus did not plead as an affirmative defense that it
obtained written consent for the calls in a manner consistent with
the FCC waiver that it sought." To the extent that ViSalus argues
that substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict or
individual issues about whether class members consented to
ViSalus's call predominate issues common to the class because some
of the class members may have wanted to receive telemarketing calls
from ViSalus, the Court has previously explained that the argument
lacks merit because "the harm that the TCPA protects against is the
harm of being called without first giving prior express written
consent," not receiving undesired calls. Finally, the Court has
weighed the evidence and, for the reasons provided above, does not
find that it is against the clear weight of the evidence to find
that ViSalus made 1,850,440 prerecorded or automated telemarketing
calls to a mobile telephone or residential telephone line of a
customer without that customer's prior written consent.
Vi is an American multilevel marketing company based in Los
Angeles, California, with offices in Downtown Detroit, Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uyt0Cz at no extra charge.[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Carlos Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NICO CARLOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2028048, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on February
22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00294 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to pay timely wages upon termination, failure to
provide and maintain accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay timely wages, unlawful discount and deductions of entitled
wages, and unlawful business practices.
Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. is an American multinational retail
corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores, and grocery stores, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
Carmen M. Aguado, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
carmen.aguado@ogletree.com
- and –
Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com
WALMART INC: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss McKnight-Nero Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHEKETA McKNIGHT-NERO, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-1541 (APM) (D.D.C.), Judge Amit P. Mehta
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff McKnight-Nero filed the putative class action lawsuit
against Defendant Walmart after she was denied access to a
Washington, D.C., Walmart location's exclusive shopping hour for
customers with compromised health during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Complaint alleges violations of (1) the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq. ("ADA");
(2) the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code Sections
2-1401.01 et seq. ("DCHRA"); as well as (3) negligent retention,
training, and supervision.
Plaintiff McKnight-Nero is a resident of Maryland, who suffers from
various health conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure,
and a rare blood cancer. She alleges that on May 12, 2020, she
traveled to the Walmart store located at 5929 Georgia Avenue
Northwest in Washington, D.C., for the purpose of taking advantage
of the store's "exclusive shopping" hour for "Seniors and Customers
with Compromised Health" during the "COVID-19 public health
crisis."
According to Plaintiff, the store provides exclusive shopping
periods between the time of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Tuesdays and
Thursdays for Senior citizens over the age of 65 and people who
have an impaired immune system, or identify as 'immunocompromised,'
to "reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19 during regular
business hours."
Upon arriving at the entrance to the store at approximately 6:20
a.m., the Plaintiff alleges she was prohibited from entering by a
contracted security guard from Brosnan Security Solutions, a
company with which Walmart contracts to "perform security services"
at that particular location. It was after 7:00 a.m. and the end of
the exclusive shopping hour, the guard permitted her to enter the
store. The Plaintiff maintains that she was unable to shop,
however, due to the stress and anxiety of shopping with the
public.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the action on June 11, 2020.
The Complaint asserts seven counts: Counts 1 and 2 allege "Public
Accommodations Violation" and "Disability Discrimination" under the
DCHRA; Count 3 alleges "Disability Discrimination" under the ADA;
Count 4 alleges "Negligent Retention, Training and Supervision" 5;
Counts 5 and 6 allege "Disparate Impact--Public Accommodation
Discrimination" and "Disparate Impact--Disability Discrimination"
under the DCHRA; and Count 7 alleges "Disparate Impact - Disability
Discrimination" under the ADA.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its
entirety under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
12(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It has moved
to dismiss Counts 3 and 7 for lack of standing, and every Count for
failure to state a claim.
Judge Mehta begins with the Plaintiff's ADA claims. He then turns
to the Plaintiff's DCHRA claims and ends with her negligent
retention, training, and supervision claim.
For her ADA claims (Counts 3 and 7), the Plaintiff challenge her
access to a place of public accommodation and therefore arise under
Title III of the statute. Walmart argues that the Plaintiff lacks
standing to assert her ADA claims because she has not shown a
sufficient likelihood of future injury from Walmart's exclusive
shopping program that could be remedied by injunctive relief.
Judge Mehta agrees. He finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
allege any facts whatsoever establishing a likelihood of future
injury from Walmart's exclusive shopping program. For starters,
there is no indication that the Plaintiff ever plans to return to
the Georgia Avenue Walmart location. The Plaintiff does not reside
in the District of Columbia, she makes no representation that she
has ever visited this particular Walmart location in the past, and
she makes no averment that she intends to visit it in the future.
Even if the Plaintiff had made a bare assertion of intent to return
to the Georgia Avenue Walmart's exclusive shopping hour, that alone
is insufficient to show "real or immediate threat that she will be
wronged again."
Accordingly, because the Plaintiff has not shown a real or
immediate threat that she would be wronged again, she lacks
standing to seek injunctive relief. And because injunctive relief
is the only remedy available under Title III of the ADA, Counts 3
and 7 must be dismissed.
As to the Plaintiff's DCHRA claims (Counts 1-2 and 5-6), she
purports to be raising two disparate treatment claims--one for
"Public Accommodations Violation" (Count 1) and one for "Disability
Discrimination" (Count 2)--as well as two corresponding disparate
impact claims (Counts 5 and 6). But a "public accommodations
violation" is not a distinct claim from "disability discrimination"
under the DCHRA; they are two components of the same claim.
Accordingly, Count 1 is duplicative of Count 2, and Count 5 is
duplicative of Count 6. The Judge thus construes the Complaint to
allege one count of disparate treatment and one count of disparate
impact under the DCHRA. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for either claim.
The Judge opines that the Plaintiff's Complaint is devoid of any
facts showing that Walmart acted in any way because of her
disability. In fact, the Complaint squarely forecloses such an
inference, as it provides two reasons for the security guard's
action, both of which suggest the guard acted despite the
Plaintiff's disability, not because of it.
Because the Plaintiff has "proffered absolutely no allegations
supporting a plausible inference that" the security guard denied
her entry to Walmart's exclusive shopping hour because of her
disability, she has failed to state a claim for disparate treatment
under the DCHRA. Accordingly, the Judge dismisses Counts 1 and 2.
The Plaintiff's disparate impact claim (Counts 5 and 6) under the
DCHRA fails for similar reasons. The Judge finds that what the
Plaintiff seems to allege is that Walmart's policy or practice has
the effect of treating individuals with "hidden disabilities"
differently than persons with visible disabilities, but the same as
non-disabled persons. Such allegations are insufficient to state a
claim of disparate impact, and the Plaintiff offers no authority
suggesting otherwise. Even if she could state a disparate impact
claim by alleging that Walmart's policy disproportionately favors
one set of disabled persons over another, the Complaint lacks facts
supporting such an allegation.
Thus, because the Plaintiff has alleged no facts to plausibly show
that Walmart's exclusive shopping program policy or practice has a
"disproportionate impact on persons with disabilities," she has
failed to state a claim for disparate impact. Counts 5 and 6 are
therefore dismissed.
Turning to the Plaintiff's final claim is for negligent retention,
training and supervision (Count 7), the Judge agrees with the
Defendant that this claim also fails, for at least two reasons.
First, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly state that the
contracted security guard discriminated against her on the basis of
her disability, and therefore "disability discrimination" is not a
cognizable predicate for a negligent retention, training, and
supervision claim. Second, and more critically, a common law claim
of negligent supervision may be predicated only on common law
causes of action or duties otherwise imposed by the common law.
Because the Plaintiff has not alleged independent tortious conduct
by the contracted security guard, the Judge holds that she cannot
maintain a claim against the Defendant for negligently retaining,
training or supervising its employees. Accordingly, Count 7 is
dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mehta granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in full. A final appealable Order accompanies
his Memorandum Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/364a684v from Leagle.com.
WAWA INC: Shoppers May be Eligible for a Payout Under Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat Ralph at phillyvoice.com reports that Wawa customers may soon
be eligible to receive gift cards or cash payments as compensation
for the convenience store chain's massive data breach in 2019.
A proposed settlement to a class action lawsuit would require Wawa
to hand out up to $8 million in gift cards and as much as $1
million in cash reimbursements.
If approved, any customers who used their debit or credit cards at
a Wawa store or fuel pump between March 4, 2019 and Dec. 12, 2019
would be eligible to file a claim and enter into the class action
lawsuit.
Here's how the proposed compensation process would work:
Affected customers would file claims at this website, which would
go live once the settlement is approved. The website would provide
people with information on how to file claims and list the
deadlines. Customers also would be able to file claims through the
mail.
Wawa customers who can present evidence of an actual or attempted
fraudulent charge would be eligible to receive a $15 gift card. All
other Wawa customers who purchased items during the data breach
would be eligible to receive a $5 gift card.
Gift cards would be valid for one year and usable toward any
purchase except cigarettes and other tobacco or nicotine products.
Gift cards also would be redeemable for fuel payments completed
inside Wawa stores.
Customers who can provide proof that they lost money because of an
attempted or successful malware attack would be eligible to receive
as much as $500 in cash. Eligible out-of-pocket costs include
credit freeze fees, bank fees and replacement card fees.
A third-party administrator would oversee the distribution of gift
cards and cash payments to customers.
Wawa would be responsible for notifying customers of the settlement
process during a four-week period. The company would be required to
post signs at payment areas inside stores and at fuel pumps,
provide a link to the settlement site on its own website, and issue
a press release providing details on how to file a claim.
All signs posted would include a QR code that could be scanned by
customers using their smartphones. Once the code is scanned,
customers would be automatically taken to the settlement website to
file a claim.
Wawa discovered the data breach in December 2019. The exposed
information included cardholder names, numbers and expiration
dates. Debit card pin numbers, credit card CVV2 numbers, ATM
machines and driver's license info were not impacted.
Some of the confidential information was believed to be sold online
by hackers. A class-action lawsuit was filed against Wawa within
days of the breach being announced.
The data breach is believed to have impacted more than 850 Wawa
locations and roughly 30 million sets of payment records. Malware
was present on most convenience store payment systems by late April
2019, according to the company.
Wawa notified law enforcement agencies and payment card companies
about the data breach shortly after its discovery. The convenience
store chain has worked with an external forensics firm and law
enforcement officials to conduct an investigation.
Wawa began rolling out an improved payment security method last
year by installing card chip readers at gas pumps. The new card
readers require customers to leave their cards in the machine for
about 30 seconds to process the payment. The data transmitted using
chip-enabled cards is encrypted and only a financial institution
can un-encrypt it.
The settlement also would mandate Wawa invest an additional $35
million into upgrading its data security systems. [GN]
WAYPOINT RESOURCE: Lewis Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WAYPOINT RESOURCE
GROUP, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Priscilla Lewis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WAYPOINT RESOURCE GROUP, LLC; John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-03396 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Waypoint Resource Group -- https://www.waypoint.com/ -- provides
third-party collection services for a variety of clients over a
number of industries, including telecom (cable, satellite,
internet, and phone), automotive, healthcare, and utilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
WELD COUNTY, CO: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS MARTINEZ, and CHAD
HUNTER, Plaintiffs, on their own and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons, v. STEVEN REAMS, Sheriff of Weld
County, Colorado, in his official capacity, Case No.
:20-cv-00977-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimer
entered an order:
1. granting the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of the
Proposed Class;
2. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification; and
3. certifying the class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for the purposes of
settlement only:
"all present and future inmates housed within the Weld
County Jail from April 7, 2020 through the "COVID-19
Emergency End Date" who are "medically vulnerable."
"Medically vulnerable" means inmates who, pursuant to CDC
guidelines for correctional facilities like the WCJ which
exist as of the date this proposed Consent Decree and
Final Judgment was submitted to the Court, have one or
more of the following conditions: are 65 years and older;
have chronic lung disease including COPD; have moderate to
severe asthma; have serious heart conditions such as heart
failure, coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathies; have
sickle cell disease; are immunocompromised; have severe
obesity (e.g. BMI of 30 or higher); have diabetes; have
chronic kidney disease and are undergoing dialysis; have
liver disease; have cancer; are pregnant; or are former or
current cigarette smokers."
On April 7, 2020, the plaintiffs brought this case as a class
action alleging that the defendant Sheriff Steven Reams acted with
deliberate indifference to the health of medically vulnerable
persons in custody at the Weld County Jail (WCJ) by failing to take
necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NHRl8j at no extra charge.[CC]
WHITE COUNTY, IN: Class of County Jail Inmates in Hines Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN A. HINES, on behalf of himself and a class of
those all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHERIFF OF WHITE
COUNTY, INDIANA, in his official capacity, Defendant, Case No. 4:20
cv 43-PPS-JPK (N.D. Ind.), Judge Philip P. Simon of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond
Division, Lafayette, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
The case is a proposed class action involving the alleged policy of
the White County Jail in Monticello, Indiana, prohibiting inmates
from having newspapers and receiving books through the mail. The
Plaintiff seeks certification of the class defined as all persons
currently confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the
White County Jail.
The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief on June 3, 2020, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, alleging the jail's prohibition on inmate's
possession of newspapers and receiving books through the mail
violates the First Amendment. In addition to the class-based
declaratory and injunctive relief, Hines also seeks his individual
damages. Hines also alleges the jail's prohibition on the wearing
of religious jewelry violates the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000cc, et seq.,
and the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Section
34-13-9-1, et seq., but the religious jewelry claims are brought by
Hines only and are not part of the motion to certify a class.
White County Jail has a policy concerning inmate possession of
literature. The handbook provides that books are not allowed to be
sent in the mail, although detainees may receive paperback books
from visitors. With the onset of COVID-19, beginning on April 9,
2020, the jail temporarily suspended inmate receipt of items from
their family and friends, including books.
Until somewhat recently, the jail allowed inmates to receive
newspapers only through the mail. However, the handbook was
amended on July 5, 2019, explaining because there were inmates
arguing with correctional staff about the newspapers, "newspapers
will not be allowed." In other words, newspapers are no longer
allowed at all inside the White County Jail.
The class representative, Hines, is currently incarcerated at White
County Jail and is an avid reader. He would like to be able to
subscribe to newspapers and order books directly from Amazon or
another distributor, and receive books through the mail, but he is
prohibited from doing so due to the jail's policy.
The Defendant, Sheriff of White County, Indiana, initially filed a
response objecting to the motion for class certification on the
basis that the Plaintiff had not properly exhausted his
administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
However, after an opportunity to investigate the matter, the
Defendant filed a notice of withdrawal of the exhaustion of
administrative remedies defense from its answer and its response to
the motion to certify the class.
The Defendant then filed an amended response to the motion for
class certification, stating it did not object to the motion, and
requesting the Court reviews the merits and evaluate whether the
Plaintiff has satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
Judge Simon finds that the requirements for a class action have
been met.
As to the Rule 23(a) requirements, first, the White County Jail
houses approximately 80 pretrial detainees and convicted inmates,
with the average daily population of the jail being 78 people.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has easily satisfied the numerosity
requirement. Second, there is a central, common question of
whether the White County Jail's policy and practice of not
permitting newspapers in the jail and not permitting inmates to
receive books by mail violates the Constitution. Third, the
typicality requirement is also met in this case because the
Plaintiffs challenge the same White County Jail practices
(prohibiting newspapers and banning books by mail), and will need
to rely on the same legal theories to prove their claims. Fourth,
the Defendant has not challenged the adequacy of the Plaintiff's
counsel or the adequacy of the named plaintiff, Hines.
As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the Judge finds that the
Plaintiff has sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and these
types of damages are particularly appropriate in a case like this,
where it seems the main objective is to eliminate the White County
Jail's alleged unconstitutional policies and procedures affecting
all of the inmates. Rule "23(b)(2) is the appropriate rule to
enlist when the plaintiffs' primary goal is not monetary relief,
but rather to require the defendant to do or not do something that
would benefit the whole class." This is precisely what the named
Plaintiff is attempting to do in the case--obtain declaratory and
injunctive relief designed to benefit the whole class. The
requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are therefore met.
For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Simon granted the motion to
certify the class, finding that a class of the Plaintiffs in the
case meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
Accordingly, a class consisting of: "all persons currently
confined, or who will in the future be confined, in the White
County Jail," is certified. Hines' individualized monetary damages
claim and his individual claim regarding the wearing of religious
jewelry are bifurcated. Any claim for individual damages for Hines
will be stayed and considered only after the conclusion of the
class claims. Finally, the appointed class counsel will be: Stevie
J. Pactor, Gavin M. Rose, ACLU of Indiana, 1031 E. Washington St.,
in Indianapolis, Indiana 46202.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yrdsjm7f from Leagle.com.
ZURICH AMERICAN: Court Dismisses Brunswick's Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRUNSWICK PANINI'S, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20CV1895 (N.D.
Ohio), Senior District Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division,
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs Brunswick Panini's and Kent Entertainment Group
originally filed the Complaint in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas
Court and amended their Complaint on July 22, 2020. The case was
removed to federal court on Aug. 25, 2020, on the basis of
diversity and CAFA jurisdiction.
Defendant Zurich issued Property Portfolio Protection Policy No.
CPO 1051670-05 to the Plaintiffs for the coverage period from May
10, 2019, to May 10, 2020. The Plaintiffs operate full-service
restaurant/bar facilities in Kent and Brunswick, Ohio. They made a
claim under the policy for Business Income Loss and Extra Expense
and Civil Authority Coverage due to the COVID-19 coronavirus
pandemic, which Defendant denied.
The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges claims for Declaratory
Relief, Breach of Contract and Breach of Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing on behalf of themselves and all individuals
and entities throughout the United States who, from Jan. 1, 2020 to
the present, have been insured by Commercial and/or Business Owner
Policies issued by the Defendant and were denied Business Income
Loss, Extra Expense and/or Civil Authority Coverage due to
COVID-19.
The Plaintiffs allege that on March 15, 2020, the Ohio Department
of Health restricted food and beverage sales in the state to
carry-out and delivery only, with no onsite consumption permitted
because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The stated goal of the order was
to slow the pandemic by minimizing in-person interaction "in an
environment with a multitude of hard surfaces." Effective March
23, 2020, all Ohio residents were ordered to stay at home and all
non-essential businesses in Ohio were required to cease all
activities.
After the Plaintiffs halted operations and shut their businesses by
order of the State of Ohio, they made claims under their Property
Portfolio Protection Policy with the Defendant.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that under the
Policies, the Plaintiffs agreed to make premium payments to the
Defendant in exchange for the Defendant's promise to indemnify them
for losses including, but not limited to, business income loss at
their commercial property location. The Policies are currently in
full effect, providing property, business personal property,
business income and extra expense, and additional coverages for the
effective period, which includes Jan. 1, 2020, to the present.
Based on the prevalence of the virus in northeast Ohio, it is
probable that the Plaintiffs sustained direct physical loss of or
damage due to the presence of coronavirus, and has unquestionably
sustained direct physical loss as the result of the pandemic and/or
civil authority orders issued by the Governor of Ohio.
The Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss on Sept. 30, 2020. It
argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege "direct
physical loss of or damage to property," which is a precondition
for coverage. The Defendant contends that the Microorganism
Exclusion forecloses coverage under the Business Income, Extra
Expense and Civil Authority provisions. Moreover, Civil Authority
coverage is limited to losses resulting from orders issued "in
response to" direct physical loss of or damage to property within
one mile of Plaintiffs' insured premises and from orders that
"prohibit access" to the insured premises.
Aside from the contractual arguments, the Defendant asserts that
the Declaratory Judgment claim should be dismissed because it is a
remedy not a standalone cause of action; and it is duplicative of
the Breach of Contract claim. Further, the Bad Faith claim should
be dismissed because Zurich's denial of coverage was correct or, at
a minimum, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The
Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint with
prejudice because the Plaintiffs have already amended once and are
unlikely to ever state a plausible claim for relief.
Although Judge Boyko is sympathetic to the plight of the food and
beverage industry in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, he opines
that he is not permitted to interpret the parties' contractual
language to bring about a more equitable result. Nor is he
authorized to find ambiguity where none exists.
He holds that a plain reading of the Zurich Property Coverage
Policy mandates the conclusion that there is no coverage for the
Plaintiffs' claimed business losses or damages because there was no
direct physical loss of or damage to their Property; and that, in
any event, coverage for the Plaintiffs' losses or damages is
excluded by operation of the Microorganism Exclusion. He denies
the Plaintiffs' prayer for Declaratory Relief and denies their
Breach of Contract claim because there was no breach. The Judge
also denies the Bad Faith claim as there is no coverage under the
Policy.
For these reasons, he granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
He also granted the Defendant's Request for Incorporation by
Reference and for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Dismiss
as unopposed.
In addition and in light of his decision, the Judge has elected to
exercise the Court's jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claim for
Declaratory Relief and declines the Plaintiffs' invitation to await
Ohio Supreme Court certification of a question from Cincinnati
Insurance Company in a case pending in the Southern District of
Ohio. Therefore, he denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and
the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay Proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tbuhf8zj from Leagle.com.
[*] Data Processing Companies Face Class Action Risk in EU
----------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Schaff, Esq., of Pinsent Masons, disclosed that if an
organisation is responsible for a data breach in Germany it can
face not only regulatory fines but also potential claims for
damages from those affected.
German courts recognise claims for compensation for damages over
and above those for direct financial losses.
German courts are dealing with a growing number of such claims
because the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) says that
those affected by breaches can make claims for non-material
damages, roughly equivalent to damages for pain and suffering. The
first German courts have already ruled that the GDPR violation
itself can already lead to non-material damages pay outs.
Non-material damages on the basis of the GDPR
In the event of data protection breaches, there is a risk of
extensive financial losses. Organisations are likely to be aware
that the GDPR allows supervisory authorities to impose fines in
such cases. However, many companies do not yet anticipate that data
protection violations can also trigger claims for damages under
article 82 of the GDPR.
It seems particularly relevant in this respect that persons can
claim not only material but also non-material damages in the event
of a breach of the GDPR -- comparable to damages for pain and
suffering.
There are risks where a data breach or cyber attack is down to
inadequate IT security measures or to an organisation not reacting
appropriately. It is not uncommon in these cases for the data
protection rights of hundreds or even thousands of customers,
employees or business partners to be violated. If the conditions
for a claim for damages are met, it can be very expensive for the
affected company.
Court rulings
German courts had historically been cautious when it came to the
amount of compensation for non-material damage, but this is
changing. German courts are stating now that compensation for
damages must be high enough to have a deterrent effect and cause
companies to increase their data protection precautions.
On 5 March 2020, the Düsseldorf labour court ordered a company to
pay a former employee EUR5.000 in damages. The employee had
exercised his right to information under article 15 of the GDPR.
However, according to the court, the company had not complied with
the request in due time and only incompletely.
In its judgment of 26 May 2020, the regional court of Darmstadt
also awarded an applicant €1.000 in non-material damages. The
company to which he had applied had mistakenly sent an email
referring to his application not to him, but to an uninvolved third
party, who was thus able to gain knowledge of the applicant's
salary expectations. The company had also failed to inform the
applicant about the incident in a timely manner.
The ruling of the Darmstadt regional court is one of the first
German rulings by a so-called ordinary court in which a person
affected was awarded non-material damages. Previously, the majority
of decisions had been issued by labour courts. However, the
decision of the regional court of Darmstadt makes it clear that the
issue is also relevant outside of labour courts.
The court concluded that the unlawful disclosure to an uninvolved
third party and the delayed notification of the data subject
exceeded a threshold. According to the court's view, the accidental
sending of the data subject's personal data to a third party
already causes the data subject to lose control over his or her
personal data and therefore awards a claim for non-material
damages. The court does not require proof of concrete disadvantages
suffered. In doing so, it applies a significantly lower standard to
the burden of presentation and proof than was previously the case
in German courts.
Both judgments thus interpret article 82 of the GDPR broadly.
However, they are not yet legally binding and can still be amended
in higher courts.
Regulators are also suggesting high compensation figures. The
Berlin Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information,
Maja Smoltczyk, pointed out in the context of the Schrems II
judgement of the European Court of Justice that data subjects can
claim compensation in the case of unlawful data exports and that
the compensation must be of a "deterrent amount".
Additional risk through EU class actions
If a larger group of people is affected by a data protection
breach, there is a risk that claims for damages could be brought by
means of class action proceedings. The new EU system for mass
actions could make it even easier for data subjects to bring such
actions, which may further increase the risk for data processing
businesses.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
adopted the new EU Directive on Representative Actions in November
2020. By the end of 2022 at the latest, all EU member states must
introduce a form of class action that complies with the
requirements.
The draft directive provides that in future so-called qualified
entities -- such as consumer associations -- will have the
possibility to sue companies for injunctive relief or damages on
behalf of injured consumers.
The harmonised model for class actions is intended to better
protect consumers in the member states from mass damage events.
Even minor damages, which individual consumers would not sue for,
but which in turn affect a large number of consumers in the same
way, should be able to be effectively pursued in this way. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***