/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210311.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, March 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 45
Headlines
ACTION COLLECTION: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ADAMAS PHARMA: MOU Signed to Settle Securities Class Suit
ADAMAS PHARMA: Putative Class Action in California Underway
AFTERMATH DISASTER: Guillory Sues Over General Laborers' Unpaid OT
AGE OF LEARNING: Ferguson Sues Over Misleading Subscription Fees
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Madrid Sues Over 36.4% Decline of Stock Price
ALCON INC: Consolidated Contact Lenses Related Suit Underway
ALL HOURS: Adler Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
ALL-PRO INTERIORS: Gil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Buck Suit
AMPLE FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
APEX BUSINESS: Edwards Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Vienna Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market
BLACKBAUD INC: Security Data Breach Related Suits Underway
BLUE APRON: Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement Set for May 10
BLUEBIRD BIO: Continues to Defend Leung Securities Suit
BOLD TRANSPORTATION: FLSA Certification of Hostler Class Sought
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons and Errichiello Class Suits Underway
BRUIN E&P: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Baker Suit Claims
BURTON CLAIM: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid Insurance Claims Adjusters' OT
CAHABA HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beavers Suit Says
CATALINA STRUCTURED: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
CINTAS CORP: Bearup Class Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to S.D. Ohio
CLIF BAR: Milan Suit Seeks Class Certification
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Melucci Suit Pending
COVANTA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breig Suit Alleges
CSE ICON: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premiums
CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Underway
DIALOG DIRECT: Faces Washington Suit Over Illegal Background Check
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
DRAKE-STATE AIR: Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification
EBIX INC: Faces Teifke Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
EL OTRO TIESTO: Mora Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Dougherty Pending
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
EXELON CORP: Bid to Junk ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Pending
EXELON CORP: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
FAULKNER COUNTY, AR: Wilks Seeks Deputy Sheriffs' Unpaid Overtime
FETCH FOR PETS: Levin Sues Over Pet Products' Deceptive Labels
FIDELITY SECURITY: Doss Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
FLORISSANT, MO: Plaintiffs Must File Second Amended Complaint
GENERAL MOTORS: Carr Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in VRDO-Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: GoHealth IPO-Related Securities Class Suit Underway
GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Regarding Arbitration in Class Suit Filed
GRIDSUM HOLDING: S.D. New York Tosses Claims in Xu Securities Suit
GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Says
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Willoughby Says
HOME CARE: Deprives Minimum, OT Pay Earned by Caregivers, Suit Says
HOME DEPOT: Stipulation to Continue Class Status Deadline Granted
HOME DEPOT: Stipulation to Continue Class Status Deadline Sought
HSBC USA: Canada Gold & Silver Price Fixing Related Suits Ongoing
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fixing Litigation
HSBC USA: Dismissal from Vasquez, Garcia Suit Under Appeal
HSBC USA: Dismissal of Platinum & Palladium Fix Suit Under Appeal
HSBC USA: Dismissal of Putnam Bank Suit Appealed
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Putative Class Suit Ongoing
IDS PROPERTY: Makenzie Suit Gets Initial Approval of Settlement
IKEA US: Dukichs Seek to Certify Class of Aggrieved Consumers
JIMMY JOHN'S: Bid for Class Certification Filing Due July 9
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing
KATE BROWN: Court OKs April 1 Extension to File Class Status Bid
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pedersen ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Foy Claims
LAKEWOOD OMF: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
MAMA'S ON WHEELS: Fails to Pay Staff's Proper Wages, Figueroa Says
MDL 2331: Bid to Transfer McAlexander v. Merck Denied
MDL 2964: Summary Judgment Bids in Insurance Suit Partly Denied
MIDLAND CREDIT: Azran Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MOMENTUM FOR MENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Freeland Alleges
NATIONAL WESTERN: Dyrssen Files Suit in E.D. California
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Holden Discrimination Suit
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Gordon
NORTH PACIFIC: May 17 Extension to File Class Status Bid OK'd
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Carroll et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & Tips
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Campana BIPA Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
OHIO RENAL: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Filing Due May 25
OUTER INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Underpays Big Red Operators, Gibson Suit Says
PAT KULETO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Suit Claims
PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon PERS Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
PHIL'S BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrasco Suit Claims
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Class Status of Eligible Injured Persons Sought
RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Sues Over 6.08% Drop of Stock Price
RENO, NE: Castellanos, et al., Seek to Certify Three Classes
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Roberts BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SEFCU: $5.85MM Settlement Wins Final OK in Story Suit
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia's Renewed Bid for Class Status Tossed
SK UNITED: Judge Recommends Certifying Day-Rate-Paid Driver Class
SMART ENERGY: Faces Xenes Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
SRP INVESTMENTS: Jovanovic Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bids to Dismiss Granted in Part in Street v. O'Toole
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Class Certified in Fritsch Suit, Ct. Says
SYLHET MOTORS: Vasquez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Putative Securities Class Suit Ongoing
TD BANK: Faces Altmann Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Claims
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Consultants Class Status Partly Granted
UNILEVER UNITED: Libbey Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
UNITED AIRLINES: Face Pringle Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
VEESTRO LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VERTICAL SCREEN: FLSA Final Certification Must be Filed by April 30
WELLS FARGO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for July 30
WELTMAN, WEINBERG: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
WHITE COTTAGE: DeCook Sues Over Unlawful Credit Card Transactions
WHITTEN CONCRETE: Underpays Laborers, Rodgers Suit Claims
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Proxy Suit Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Class Status Bid in Alaska Laborers Suit Pending
ZAVANNA LLC: Faces Baker Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
ZEREPSI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code, FLSA
*********
ACTION COLLECTION: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Collection
Agency of Boston. The case is styled as Genelle Jones, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Action Collection
Agency of Boston, Case No. 1:21-cv-01223 (E.D.N.Y., March 8,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Action Collection Agency of Boston --
https://www.actioncollection.com/ -- is a full-service collection
agency located in Middleboro, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: jitesh.roxx@gmail.com
ADAMAS PHARMA: MOU Signed to Settle Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
signed a Memorandum of Understanding on October 29, 2020 to settle
a putative class lawsuit for a payment of $7.5 million to eligible
settlement class members in resolution of claims asserted against
the Company, its officers, directors, and the other defendants.
On May 13, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Plymouth
County Contributory Retirement System against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers
in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda (Case No.
RG19018715).
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
Company and certain of the Company's current and former directors
and officers for allegedly making false statements and omissions in
the registration statement and prospectus filed by the Company in
connection with its January 24, 2018, secondary public offering of
common stock.
On October 29, 2020, Adamas signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
settle this lawsuit for a payment of $7.5 million to eligible
settlement class members in resolution of claims asserted against
the Company, its officers, directors, and the other defendants.
The settlement will be paid by the Company's Director & Officer
liability insurance.
As a result of signing the Memorandum of Understanding and the
potential liability becoming probable and estimable, the Company
has recorded a litigation settlement liability of $7.5 million,
which is included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated
balance sheets.
Additionally, the Company has recorded an insurance litigation
recovery of $7.5 million within prepaid expenses and other current
assets on the consolidated balance sheets, which represents the
estimated insurance proceeds agreed with the Company's insurance
carrier in excess of the Company's retention.
The Company and the other defendants continue to deny each of the
plaintiff's claims and all liability.
The Company has agreed to the settlement to resolve the disputes,
avoid the costs and risks of further litigation, and avoid further
distractions to management.
Adamas said, "This settlement remains subject to final
documentation and approval by the court. A final non-appealable
closure of this court action is expected in mid-2021."
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time-dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.
ADAMAS PHARMA: Putative Class Action in California Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California (Case No.
4:19-cv-08051).
On December 10, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws was filed by Ali Zaidi
against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers in federal court in the Northern District of
California (Case No. 4:19-cv-08051).
This lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers.
On March 16, 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by
Patrick Van Camp in federal court in the Northern District of
California (Case No. 4:20-cv-01815) naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former directors and officers as
defendants.
This lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by certain of the Company's
current and former directors and officers. The Company is named as
a nominal defendant only.
On April 6, 2020, another, virtually identical, shareholder
derivative lawsuit was filed by James Druzbik in federal court in
the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:20-cv-02320) naming
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
directors and officers as defendants.
This lawsuit contains the same allegations, claims, and defendants
as the first derivative action. The Company is named as a nominal
defendant only.
Other similar cases may be filed in the future.
In all of these actions, Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. These actions are ongoing.
The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses to
all actions and intends to defend itself vigorously.
Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., incorporated on November 15, 2000, is
a pharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in developing
medicines to manage the daily lives of those affected by chronic
neurologic disorders. The Company offers a platform based on an
understanding of time-dependent biologic effects of disease
activity and drug response to achieve relief without tolerability
issues. The company is based in Emeryville, California.
AFTERMATH DISASTER: Guillory Sues Over General Laborers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSEPH GUILLORY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFTERMATH DISASTER RECOVERY, INC.,
and ROBERT OBIE CORLEY, individually, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00170 (E.D. Tex., March 1, 2021) arises from the Defendants
alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
general laborer on or around June 2019 until February 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated general laborers were misclassified by the Defendants as
independent contractors. Although they consistently worked over 40
hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them overtime premiums
at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
they worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on his
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated who have not been
fully compensated for all work they performed, time spent, and
activities conducted for the benefit of the Defendants. The
Plaintiff and the Collective Class seek all unpaid overtime
compensation and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
as well as reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and litigation
expenses, including expert witness fees, along with pre- and
post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and
other relief as the Court may find proper.
Aftermath Disaster Recovery, Inc. provides cleanup services
required after natural disasters such as tornadoes, hurricanes,
major storms, flooding, and other events. Robert Obi Corley is
supervisor and one of the principals of the company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, PC
700 West Summit Dr.
Wimberley, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
AGE OF LEARNING: Ferguson Sues Over Misleading Subscription Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
MELINDA FERGUSON; and MARIE WEST, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGE OF LEARNING, INC.
d/b/a ABCmouse and ABCmouse.com, Defendant, Case 5:21-cv-00360
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2021) alleges that the Defendant unlawfully
charged membership subscription fees to the Plaintiff and the
Class.
According to the complaint, ABCmouse operates a membership-based
online learning tool called ABCmouse Early Learning Academy for
children ages 2 to 8 years old. Consumers can access ABCmouse at
the Defendant's website, abcmouse.com, and through the Defendant's
mobile application ("app"). The Defendant provides consumers access
to ABCmouse through memberships which typically cost $9.95 for a
monthly membership or $59.95 to $79.95 for a twelve-month
membership. The Plaintiffs and class members are consumers in
California who subscribed to Defendant's subscription-based
services and were illegally charged fees for that service.
From as early as 2012 to at September of 2020, the Defendant
allegedly failed to adequately disclose key terms of the
subscription services and instead enrolled consumers in yearly
plans that renewed indefinitely without the consumers knowledge or
consent. The Defendant's advertising for its service failed to
disclose that memberships automatically renew, the Defendant would
charge members each year unless the consumer canceled, and misled
consumers into automatic renewals by claiming a thirty-day free
trial, the suit says.
Age of Learning, Inc. provides educational services. The Company
offers parents and teachers with a safe engaging online environment
that supplements and supports preschool, kindergarten, and early
elementary school programs. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Madrid Sues Over 36.4% Decline of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN JESUS MERINO MADRID, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGEAGLE AERIAL SYSTEMS,
INC., J. MICHAEL DROZD, NICOLE FERNANDEZ-MCGOVERN, BRET CHILCOTT
and BARRETT MOONEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01991 (C.D. Cal.,
March 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding AgEagle Aerial Systems' business,
operations, and compliance policies in order to artificially
inflate prices of the company's securities between September 3,
2019 and February 18, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon and in fact never
had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than correct the
public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon, the
Defendants were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had
a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a result, the Defendants'
statements about AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to
close at $8.96 on February 18, 2021. As a result of the Defendants'
alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in
the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and
other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. is a commercial drone company with its
principal office located in Wichita, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
ALCON INC: Consolidated Contact Lenses Related Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Alcon Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit related to contact lenses.
Since the first quarter of 2015, more than 50 class action
complaints have been filed in several courts across the US naming
as defendants contact lens manufacturers, including Alcon, and
alleging violations of federal antitrust law, as well as the
antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws of
various states, in connection with the implementation of unilateral
price policies by the defendants in the sale of contact lenses.
The cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the claims
are being vigorously contested.
Alcon Inc. is an American- Swiss medical company specializing in
eye care products with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, and
incorporated in Fribourg, Switzerland. Alcon's American
headquarters are located in Fort Worth, Texas.
ALL HOURS: Adler Files TCPA Suit in D. Utah
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Hours Plumbing
Drain Cleaning 24-7-365. The case is styled as Jill Adler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All
Hours Plumbing Drain Cleaning 24-7-365, Case No. 2:21-cv-00141-DBP
(D. Utah, March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
All Hours Plumbing Drain Cleaning 24-7-365 --
http://www.allhoursplumbingslc.com/-- is in the Plumbing, Heating,
and Air-Conditioning Contractors industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW OFFICE
1887 N 270 E
Orem, UT 84057
Phone: (801) 845-2581
Email: matt@oremlawoffice.com
ALL-PRO INTERIORS: Gil Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
WERNEY O. GIL v. ALL-PRO INTERIORS, and DANIEL SHEEHAN, Case No.
CACE-21-003752 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty.,Feb. 22, 2021) is brought
on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly
situated seeking to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that when he worked more than 40 hours per
week for Corporate Defendant, he was not compensated time and one
half for the hours he worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiff worked for the Corporate Defendant from January 23,
2020 through October 10, 2020.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAE Z & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
AMERICAN GENERAL: Bid to Certify Class Denied in Buck Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUANE BUCK and ANN BUCK,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:17-cv-13278-NLH-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to Certify Class.
AIG offers personal insurance solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30nY3Dk at no extra charge.[CC]
AMPLE FOODS: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ample Foods, Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Ample
Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01225 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ample Foods, Inc. -- https://www.amplemeal.com/ -- provides food
products and create optimally nutritious meal replacements for
busy, health conscious people.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
APEX BUSINESS: Edwards Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAEL EDWARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APEX BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, a/k/a APEX BUSINESS
SOLUTIONS, LLC; JOSHUA NEAL and JOLINE NEAL, Defendants, Case No.
8:21-cv-00388 (C.D. Cal., March 1, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Verizon that was in
default.
According to the complaint, the alleged debt was assigned, placed,
or transferred to the Defendants for the purpose of collection.
Subsequently on or about January 20, 2021, the Defendants mailed or
caused to be mailed a dunning letter as an initial communication to
the Plaintiff. Allegedly, the Defendants made a number of false
representations to the Plaintiff that violated the FDCPA and the
Rosenthal Act by threatening the Plaintiff to take action that
cannot legally be taken, by using false representation or deceptive
means to collect or attempt to collect a debt or to obtain
information concerning a consumer, by collecting an amount that was
not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to provide
the Plaintiff with proper written notice and the required
mini-Miranda notice, and to disclose to the Plaintiff that the debt
was time-barred which means that the law limits how long Plaintiff
could be sued for a debt, that the Defendants could not sue the
Plaintiff for the debt nor could report the alleged debt to any
credit reporting agency, the suit adds.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unfair, deceptive, false,
harassing, and oppressive conduct or practice of collecting debts,
the Plaintiff was confused, deceived, and misled by the Defendants'
debt collection communications. Additionally, the Plaintiff has
suffered mental anguish, anxiousness, stress, fear, lost sleep and
felt feelings of despair as a result of the Defendants' conduct and
communications.
The Corporate Defendant is a debt collection agency that was owned
and operated by the Individual Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mona Amini, Esq.
Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Ave., Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: mona@kazlg.com
rlhyde@icloud.com
ARCONIC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Howard Consolidated Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arconic Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion seeking to
dismiss the consolidated purported class action suit entitled,
Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al., is still pending.
A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against ParentCo and
Klaus Kleinfeld.
A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
September 15, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et
al., against ParentCo, three former ParentCo executives, several
current and former ParentCo directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for ParentCo's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering.
The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.
On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. On April 9,
2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported class
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.
The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 ParentCo and Kleinfeld made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about ParentCo's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in ParentCo's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.
The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint
in its entirety without prejudice. On July 23, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended
complaint alleges generally the same claims as the consolidated
amended complaint with certain additional allegations, as well as
claims that the risk factors set forth in the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering were inadequate and that
certain additional statements in the sources identified above were
misleading.
The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses. On September 11, 2019, all defendants moved to dismiss
the second amended complaint.
Plaintiffs' opposition to that motion was filed on November 1, 2019
and all defendants filed a reply brief on November 26, 2019.
On June 22, 2020, counsel for Arconic and the individual defendants
filed a letter apprising the Court of a recent decision by the
Third Circuit and discussing its relevance to the pending motion to
dismiss.
Pursuant to an Order by the Court directing the plaintiffs to
respond to this letter, the plaintiffs filed a letter response on
July 9, 2020.
The motion to dismiss remains pending. Given the preliminary nature
of this matter and the uncertainty of litigation, Arconic
Corporation cannot reasonably estimate at this time the likelihood
of an unfavorable outcome or the possible loss or range of losses
in the event of an unfavorable outcome.
Arconic Corporation manufactures engineered products and forgings.
The Company offers aluminum sheets, plates, and other extruded
products for the aerospace, automotive, commercial transportation,
brazing, and industrial markets. Arconic serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Vienna Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market
------------------------------------------------------------------
VIENNA EQHO FARMS v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.,
CORTEVA INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA
CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.,
FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.,
GROWMARK INC., SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ INC., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00204 (S.D. Ill., Feb. 22, 2021) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of the classes consisting of persons
or entities in the United States, including its territories, that,
at least as early as January 1, 2014 and continuing through the
present (the Class Period), purchased from a Defendant a Crop
Input.
The Plaintiff brings this action for treble damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States against the Defendants.
The market for "Crop Inputs" -- seeds and crop protection chemicals
such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides --used by American
farmers is one of the largest markets in the world with annual
sales in excess of $65 billion.
This market is dominated by:
(1) four major manufacturers, Defendants Bayer CropScience
Incorporated ("Bayer"), Corteva Incorporated ("Corteva"),
Syngenta Corporation ("Syngenta"), and BASF Corporation
("BASF"), (collectively, the "Manufacturer Defendants")
(2) three large wholesalers, Defendants Cargill Incorporated
("Cargill"), Winfield Solutions, LLC ("Winfield"), Univar
Solutions, Incorporated ("Univar") (collectively the
"Wholesaler Defendants"), that control the distribution
of Crop Inputs to farmers; and
(3) retailers, including Defendants CHS Incorporated ("CHS"),
Nutrien Ag Solutions Incorporated ("Nutrien"), GROWMARK,
Incorporated ("Growmark"), Simplot AB Retail Sub,
Incorporated ("Simplot"), Tenkoz Incorporated ("Tenkoz"),
and Federated Co-operatives Limited ("Federated")
(collectively the "Retailer Defendants").
Historically and continuing to the present, the existing
distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs maintains
supra-competitive prices in part by denying farmers accurate
product information, including pricing information, which would
allow them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. As a
result, the average price American farmers pay for Crop Inputs is
increasing at a rate that dramatically outpaces yields, the suit
says.
For example, over the last 20 years, the price of one type of Crop
Input, seed corn, rose 300%, while corn yields increased only 33%
to 35%. In 1989, U.S. farms spent $15.6 billion overall on
chemicals, fertilizer, and seeds. This number rose to $59 billion
in 2019, outpacing inflation by 60%. Crop Inputs have consequently
composed a larger share of farm budgets. In 1989, Crop Inputs
composed 12.6% of farm expenditures; by 2019, Crop Inputs composed
16.4% of farmer spending. These increases are proving increasingly
devastating to farmers, who are now the least profitable level of
the American food supply chain and are drowning in hundreds of
billions of dollars of operating debt that is forcing them into
bankruptcy at a record pace.
Recognizing these inefficiencies, several electronic Crop Inputs
sales platforms launched in at least the past decade. These
electronic platforms aimed to provide a cheaper, more transparent
way for farmers to buy Crop Inputs, circumventing the existing
opaque, convoluted distribution system.
These new platforms threatened the Defendants' dominant market
position and control over Crop Inputs pricing. As a result, rather
than compete fairly with these new electronic platforms, the
Defendants allegedly conspired to block the platforms' access to
Crop Inputs by engaging in a group boycott, added the suit.
Given the structure of the Crop Inputs industry with the necessary
relationships between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, an
effective boycott of electronic platforms would not have been
feasible absent actual coordination and cooperation among
Defendants. Absent an agreement among themselves, the Defendants'
actions were against their independent economic self-interests.
As a result of Defendants' misconduct, farmers remain trapped in an
inefficient, opaque Crop Inputs market and have paid more for Crop
Inputs than they would have but for the Defendants' wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiff contends.
Bayer AG is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and
agriculture company.
Bayer CropScience Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bayer AG headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that develops,
manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, and
is a crop science company that sells Crop Inputs in the United
States.
Corteva develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United
States.
BASF Corporation is the principal U.S.-based operating entity and
largest subsidiary of BASF SE, a multinational pharmaceutical,
seed, and chemical company. BASF develops, manufactures, and sells
Crop Inputs in the United States. Syngenta Corporation is the main
U.S.-based operating subsidiary of Syngenta AG. It is headquartered
in Wilmington, Delaware.
Syngenta develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the
United States.
Cargill owns and operates a wholesaler AgResource Division, which
distributes Crop Inputs to Cargill’s retail network and to
retailers. Cargill's AgResource Division maintains contracts with
each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta entitling it to purchase
and distribute branded Crop Inputs and entitling it to special
rebates.
Winfield Solutions is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. It maintains
contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta
authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and
entitling it to special rebates. Winfield is also a major Crop
Inputs retailer that operates as a cooperative owned by its
members, which are 650 Crop Inputs retail businesses operating
2,800 retail locations throughout the United States and parts of
Canada.
Univar Solutions , Incorporated is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. Univar
maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta
authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and
entitling it to special rebates.
Defendant CHS is one of the largest Crop Inputs wholesalers in the
United States. Like many large wholesalers, it also operates retail
networks bearing the CHS brand around the country that sell Crop
Inputs from brick and mortar stores.
Nutrien Ag Solutions sells Crop Inputs to farmers throughout the
country and maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF,
and Syngenta authorizing it to purchase and distribute Crop Inputs
and entitling it to special rebates. Nutrien is a large Crop Inputs
retailer headquartered in Illinois.
Tenkoz is one of the largest Crop Inputs retailers in the United
States. Tenkoz purchases and sells 25% of all crop protection
chemicals sold in the United States annually through 550 retail
locations and 70 wholesale locations around the country.
Simplot AB is a large Crop Inputs wholesaler and retailer that
operates 135 retail locations across 27 states. Federated
Co-operatives Ltd. is a large Crop Inputs retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Barrett, Esq.
John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
Sterling Starns, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095-0927
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Victoria Sims, Esq.
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
vicky@cuneolaw.com
bfinley@cuneolaw.com
BLACKBAUD INC: Security Data Breach Related Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Blackbaud, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend 30 putative consumer class action cases, related to its
Security Data Breach.
On July 16, 2020, the company first contacted certain customers to
inform them about the Security Incident, including that in May 2020
the company discovered and stopped a ransomware attack. Prior to
its successfully preventing the cybercriminal from blocking its
system access and fully encrypting files, and ultimately expelling
them from its system with no significant disruption to its
operations, the cybercriminal removed a copy of a subset of data
from our self-hosted environment.
The company is a defendant in 30 putative consumer class action
cases [27 in U.S. federal courts (some of which have been
consolidated under multidistrict litigation to a single federal
court), 1 in a U.S. state court and 2 in Canadian courts] alleging
harm from the Security Incident.
The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various
classes of individual constituents of our customers, generally
claim to have been harmed by alleged actions and/or omissions by us
in connection with the Security Incident and assert a variety of
common law and statutory claims seeking monetary damages,
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, and other related
relief.
Blackbaud, Inc., provides cloud software solutions to nonprofits,
foundations, corporations, education institutions, healthcare
organizations, and other charitable giving entities in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. It operates in three
segments: General Markets Business Unit, Enterprise Customer
Business Unit, and International Business Unit. The Company was
founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina.
BLUE APRON: Hearing on Final Approval of Settlement Set for May 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court has
scheduled a hearing for the final approval of settlement for May
10, 2021.
The Company is subject to a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging federal securities law violations in connection with
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain current
and former officers and directors made material misstatements or
omissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
that caused the stock price to drop. Pursuant to a stipulated
schedule entered by the parties, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on May 21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a
response on July 12, 2018 and defendants filed a reply on August
13, 2018.
On April 22, 2020, the Court entered an order (i) denying the
motion to dismiss insofar as Plaintiffs' allegations pertained to
certain of the disclosures in the registration statement and
prospectus claimed by plaintiff, and (ii) narrowing the factual
issues in the case.
On August 11, 2020, the parties held a mediation after which they
entered into a memorandum of understanding on August 14, 2020
regarding a proposed settlement. Discovery has been stayed since
August 14, 2020.
The Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
to resolve the class action litigation on October 28, 2020, which
was subsequently amended on November 12, 2020.
Under the terms of the settlement, a payment of $13.3 million is to
be made by the Company and/or its insurers in exchange for the
release of claims against the defendants and other released parties
by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members and for the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 1, 2021 and the Company will pay approximately $1.0
million of the settlement amount into escrow no later than March 3,
2021, with the remaining $12.3 million balance of the settlement to
be funded by the Company's insurers.
The Company's contribution to the settlement represents the portion
of its insurance retention amount, less the $1.0 million which had
been paid by the Company as of December 31, 2020 to cover legal
fees relating to this case and the related cases described below,
as well as the settlement of the state court action described
below.
The court has scheduled a hearing for the final approval of
settlement for May 10, 2021.
If the court does not grant final approval of the settlement, the
cases will continue.
The Company is also subject to a putative class action lawsuit
alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the
IPO, which is substantially similar to the above-referenced federal
court action. The action is currently pending in the New York
Supreme Court.
The Company was subject to another state court action that was
originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, but was voluntarily
dismissed by plaintiffs of September 15, 2020 and subsequently
re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on October 2, 2020.
On December 2, 2020, the Company settled this lawsuit, which did
not have a material impact on the Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements.
The Company is unable to provide any assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of any of these lawsuits or that an adverse resolution of
any of these lawsuits would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.
Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates direct-to-consumer platform that
delivers original recipes, and fresh and seasonal ingredients. It
also operates Blue Apron Market, an e-commerce marketplace that
provides cooking tools, utensils, and pantry items. Blue Apron
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
BLUEBIRD BIO: Continues to Defend Leung Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
bluebird bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Leung v. bluebird bio, Inc.,
et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00777
On February 12, 2021, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
Leung v. bluebird bio, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00777, by a
purported stockholder against the company and certain of its
officers.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officers and seeks unspecified damages.
The allegations relate to the company's disclosure on November 4,
2020 that it was adjusting the expected timing of submission of the
biologics license application, or BLA to the Food and Drug
Administration FDA for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease to late
2022.
bluebird bio, Inc. a biotechnology company committed to
researching, developing, and commercializing potentially
transformative gene therapies for severe genetic diseases and
cancer. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
BOLD TRANSPORTATION: FLSA Certification of Hostler Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD ROGGENKAMP,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOLD TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02036-HLT-JPO (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
of the proposed class of and requiring issuance of the notice to
the putative class members:
"a group of current and former hostlers who worked for the
Defendant Bold Transportation, and were misclassified as
exempt from overtime."
The Plaintiff contends that rather than pay its hostlers time and a
half for all hours over 40 in a workweek, the Defendant instead
paid them a straight time wage.
The Defendant Bold Transportation is a regional transportation
company. endant
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb.
25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/30zlOsd at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Hodgson, Esq.
THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
3609 SW Pryor Rd.
Lee's Summit, MO 64082
E-mail: mike@thehodgsonlawfirm.com
- and -
John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
Brad K. Thoenen, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
www.hkm.com
1501 Westport Road
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 875-3332
E-mail: jziegelmeyer@hkm.com
bthoenen@hkm.com
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jevons and Errichiello Class Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend two class action suits initiated by Enrique
Jevons and Mariano Errichiello.
On December 4, 2020 Enrique Jevons, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Boston Scientific Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney and
Daniel J. Brennan, stemming from the recall and retirement of the
LOTUS Edge(TM) Aortic Valve System (LOTUS System) in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On December 14, 2020, the parties agreed to transfer the case to
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
On December 16, 2020, Mariano Errichiello, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated, filed a second, materially
similar class action complaint against Boston Scientific
Corporation, Michael F. Mahoney, Joseph M. Fitzgerald, and Daniel
J. Brennan in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
The Company expects these cases to be superseded by a single
amended and consolidated class action complaint in the first or
second quarter of 2021.
On December 15, 2020, the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Boston Regional Office (Boston SEC) notified the Company that it is
conducting an investigation related to Boston Scientific's decision
to retire the LOTUS System, and issued a voluntary request for
documents and information related to that decision.
On February 10, 2021, the Boston SEC issued a second voluntary
request for additional documents and information. The Company is
cooperating fully with the investigation.
On February 8, 2021, the Company received a letter from The
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, a shareholder, demanding that
the Company's Board of Directors conduct an investigation into
actions by the Company's directors and executive officers regarding
statements made about the effectiveness and commercial viability of
the LOTUS System.
Boston Scientific Corporation, doing business as Boston Scientific,
is a manufacturer of medical devices used in interventional medical
specialties, including interventional radiology.
BRUIN E&P: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Baker Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRUIN E&P OPERATING, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00041-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., February 26, 2021) is a
collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant
seeking damages for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff has started working exclusively for the Defendant in
November 2017 until November 2019 as a non-exempt employee to
assist with oil and gas exploration and production related to oil
wells on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and in the Williston
Basin in North Dakota. The Plaintiff was on-call 24/7 to perform
troubleshooting and emergency repairs on oil wells, and managed the
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system and
vendors, as well as the onsite automation contractors.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked between
80 and 100 hours per week throughout his employment with the
Defendant. However, the Defendant failed to pay him overtime
premium pay for the overtime hours he worked at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay. Instead, he was only paid by the
Defendant a straight time pay for all hours he worked. In addition,
the Defendant failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which
accurately show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff on a daily
and weekly basis, added the suit.
Bruin E&P Operating LLC is an oil and gas exploration and
production company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
BURTON CLAIM: Ferguson Seeks Unpaid Insurance Claims Adjusters' OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATOYA FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURTON CLAIM SERVICE, INC., and SEIBELS
CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00580-SAL
(D.S.C., February 26, 2021) brings this collective action complaint
against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful policy and
practice that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an insurance claims
adjuster at the Defendant Seibels' offices in Columbia, South
Carolina for approximately two weeks in September 2018, and from
approximately October 31, 2018 to December 4, 2019.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay her overtime
compensation at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay
despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a week. As a result
of the Defendants' alleged unlawful policy and practice, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated insurance claims adjusters
have suffered damages.
The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, an additional and equal amount as
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and other
compensation.
The Corporate Defendants provide insurance claims adjusting
services to insurance companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blaney A. Coskrey, III, Esq.
COSKREY LAW OFFICE
1201 Main Street, Suite 1980
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803) 748-1201
Fax: (803) 748-1302
E-mail: coskrey@coskreylaw.com
- and –
Matt Dunn, Esq.
Rebecca King, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair Street
Kingston, NY 12401
Tel: (845) 255-9370
Fax: (845) 255-8649
E-mail: mdunn@getmansweeney.com
rking@getmansweeney.com
CAHABA HEIGHTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beavers Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CODY BEAVERS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. CAHABA HEIGHTS PLAZA, LLC; and MOHAMMED
(DAVID) DAWOUD, Defendants, Case 2:21-cv-00304-JHE (D. Ala., Feb.
25, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Beavers was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.
Cahaba Heights Plaza, LLC owns and operates Domino's Pizza
franchise stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
Hardin & Hughes, LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Telephone: (205) 523-0463
Facsimile: (205) 344-6188
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
CATALINA STRUCTURED: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLY ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CATALINA STRUCTURED FUNDING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00197 (W.D. Mich., February 28, 2021)
brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant placed a call on her
cellular telephone number ending in 4021 on or about February 6,
2021 in an attempt to promote and advertise its annuities and
structured settlements services. Although the Plaintiff asked the
Defendant to stop placing calls on her cellular telephone, the
Defendant continued calling her. At no point in time did the
Plaintiff provide the Defendant with her consent to be contacted on
her cellular telephone number which has been on the National Do Not
Call Registry since November 2007, the Plaintiff adds.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's unsolicited calls
caused the Plaintiff additional harm, including invasion of
privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,
and conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption to her
daily life.
The Plaintiff seeks an actual and statutory damages and treble
damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited call activity without obtaining consent first and
initiating calls to telephone numbers listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Catalina Structured Funding, Inc. offers annuities and structured
settlement services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@IJhlaw.com
CINTAS CORP: Bearup Class Suit Moved From W.D. Wash. to S.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THOMAS BEARUP JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CINTAS CORP., Case No.
2:15-cv-05844, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on March 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, strict
design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act by manufacturing and selling uniforms
that have adverse effects to human health.
Cintas Corp. is an American company that manufactures uniforms,
with headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maggie Diefenbach, Esq.
GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
520 Pike Street, Suite 2350
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 676-7539
Facsimile: (206) 676-7575
E-mail: mdiefenbach@gth-law.com
- and –
Kent T. Brandmeyer, Esq.
Yuk K. Law, Esq.
Trevor C. Wong, Esq.
L&B LAW GROUP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 820
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 304-9500
Facsimile: (626) 243-4799
E-mail: kent@pasadenalawfirm.com
chuck@pasadenalawfirm.com
trevor@pasadenalawfirm.com
- and –
Keith Griffin, Esq.
GIRARDI & KEESE
1126 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-0211
Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com
CLIF BAR: Milan Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH MILAN, SARAH AQUINO,
and ELIZABETH ARNOLD on behalf of themselves, those similarly
situated and the general public, v. CLIF BAR & COMPANY, Case No.
3:18-cv-02354-JD (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on April 8, 2021 to enter an order granting certification pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), of a Class comprised of the
following four Subclasses:
-- The California Clif Bar Subclass
"All persons in California who, between April 19, 2014
and the date the Class is notified of certification,
purchased Original Clif Bars in packaging bearing the
phrase "Nutrition for Sustained Energy";"
-- The New York Clif Bar Subclass:
"All persons in New York who, between April 19, 2015
and the date the Class is notified of certification,
purchased Original Clif Bars in packaging bearing the
phrase "Nutrition for Sustained Energy";"
-- The California Clif Kid ZBar Subclass:
"All persons in California who, between April 19, 2014 and
the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased
Clif Kid ZBars other than in 24-, 36-, or 42-bar
packages;" and
-- The New York Clif Kid ZBar Subclass:
"All persons in New York who, between April 19, 2015 and
the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased
Clif Kid ZBars other than in 24-, 36-, or 42-bar packages.
The Plaintiffs brought this action on April 19, 2018, asserting
class claims under California and New York law for consumer fraud
relating to Defendant Clif labeling of "classic" or "original" Clif
Bars and Clif Kid ZBars. The Plaintiffs assert that Clif markets
these bars with labeling and packaging claims that convey a health
and wellness message and say these claims are deceptive because
they are incompatible with the dangers of the excessive sugar
consumption to which the products contribute.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Oc2KNN
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
3150 Cabrillo Bay Ln.
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 767-0356
Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com
- and -
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
Melanie Persinger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
Hillcrest Professional Building
3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 692-3840
Facsimile: (619) 353-0404
E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Melucci Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February
23, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
motion to dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, Melucci
v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et al., Case No.
5:19-cv-01372-LHK.
On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).
The complaint named the company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.
The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees. On October 7, 2019, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff's consolidated complaint was filed on December
6, 2019.
The company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January
27, 2020. Rather than oppose the company's motion to dismiss, on
March 20, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint.
On May 11, 2020, the company moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. The company received plaintiff's opposition to the
company's motion on June 25, 2020 and filed their reply on July 27,
2020.
On November 20, 2020, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss in full and granted plaintiff leave to file a third amended
complaint, which plaintiff did on December 21, 2020.
On February 19, 2021, the company filed its motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint. Plaintiff's opposition to the company's
motion is due on April 20, 2021 and the company's reply is due on
June 4, 2021.
Corcept said, "We will respond vigorously to plaintiff's claims but
cannot predict the outcome of this matter."
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.
COVANTA HOLDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Breig Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN F. BREIG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVANTA HOLDING CORPORATION; and COVANTA
PROJECTS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00865 (E.D. Pa., Feb.
25, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Covanta Holding Corporation conducts operations in waste disposal,
energy services, and specialty insurance. The Company also owns and
operates waste-to-energy and power generation projects. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Reginald L. Streater, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: scarson@bm.net
ccoslett@bm.net
crodriguez@bm.net
rstreater@bm.net
-and-
Alice W. Ballard, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALICE W. BALLARD, P.C
123 S. Broad Street, Suite 2135
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 893-9708
E-mail: awballard@awballard.com
CSE ICON: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CSE ICON, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00040-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., February 26, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant seeking
damages for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Portal-to-Portal Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from on or about
November 12, 2012 through on or about April 1, 2020 as an
hourly-paid employee in the position of a Project Manager to assist
with oil and gas exploration and production related to oil wells on
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and in the Williston Basin in
North Dakota.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff routinely worked between
80 and 100 hours per week for the Defendant in 2017 through 2019,
and between 50 to 60 hours per week in2019 forward. However, the
Defendant failed to pay him overtime premium pay for the overtime
hours he worked at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay.
Instead, he was only paid by the Defendant a straight time pay for
all hours he worked. In addition, the Defendant failed to maintain
and preserve payroll records which accurately show the total hours
worked by the Plaintiff on a daily and weekly basis, the complaint
adds.
CSE Icon, Inc. is a consulting, engineering and technology
integration services firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
CUMULUS MEDIA: Class Suit Over 401(k) Plan Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is defending
itself against a putative class action lawsuit filed by two
individual plaintiffs in Georgia related to its 401(k) Plan.
On February 24, 2020, two individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia alleging claims regarding the
Cumulus Media Inc. 401(k) Plan.
The case alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
in the oversight of the Plan, principally by selecting and
retaining certain investment options despite their higher fees and
costs than other available investment options, causing participants
in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees, and by failing to
monitor other fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from February 24, 2014 through the date of any
judgment.
On May 28, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On December 17, 2020 the Court entered an order dismissing one of
the individual plaintiffs and all claims against the Company except
those that arose on or after February 24, 2019 (i.e., one year
prior to the filing of the Complaint).
The Company intends to continue to defend the case vigorously.
Cumulus said, "The Company is currently unable to reasonably
estimate what effect the ultimate outcome might have, if any, on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows."
Cumulus Media Inc., an audio-first media and entertainment company,
owns and operates radio stations in the United States. It operates
through two segments, Cumulus Radio Station Group and Westwood One.
The company offers content through approximately 428
owned-and-operated stations in 87 United States media markets; and
approximately 8,000 broadcast radio stations affiliates and various
digital channels. Cumulus Media Inc. was incorporated in 2018 and
is based in Atlanta, Georgia.
DIALOG DIRECT: Faces Washington Suit Over Illegal Background Check
------------------------------------------------------------------
LATEDIA WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIALOG DIRECT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-10445-LVP-RSW (E.D. Mich., February 26,
2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant
for its alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of
1970.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant offered his employment when
she applied as a customer service representative, but was cancelled
by the Defendant on the second day of her training informing her
that she failed the background check. The Defendant violated the
FCRA provisions by procuring consumer report information without
the Plaintiff's authorization, by failing to provide the Plaintiff
with pre-adverse action notice or a copy of her customer report
before terminating her employment, and by depriving her of her
ability to contest or discuss with the Defendant the content of her
customer report.
Dialog Direct, Inc. conducts background checks on many of its job
applicants as part of a standard screening process. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin St., Suite 700
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel: (813) 577-4761
Fax: (813) 559-4870
E-mail: medelman@forthepeople.com
DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE: Benson Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY
SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DOUBLEDOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, and INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada
corporation, , Case No. 2:18-cv-00525-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the Damages Class:
"All persons in the United States who purchased virtual
casino chips in DoubleDown Casino, DoubleDown Fort Knox,
DoubleDown Classic, or Ellen's Road to Riches on or after
April 9, 2014;"
2. certifying the Injunction Class:
"All persons in the United States who played DoubleDown
Casino, DoubleDown Fort Knox, DoubleDown Classic, or
Ellen's Road to Riches on or after April 9, 2014;"
3. appointing themselves to represent both Classes;
4. appointing Edelson PC as counsel to both Classes; and
5. approving the proposed preliminary injunction.
Because the central issues of this case -- including whether
virtual chips in DoubleDown Casino are "things of value" under
Washington law -- are common to every member of the proposed
classes, this case is ideally situated to proceed as a class
action. And certification of the proposed nationwide classes is
appropriate because Washington law governs Defendants' operation of
Washington-based DoubleDown Casino regardless of where any
particular player happens to be located at any particular time, the
Plaintiffs contend.
The Plaintiffs allege that the DoubleDown Casino is illegal under
Washington's gambling law, and that they may recover their losses
under the Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act.
The Plaintiffs Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson, two consumers who
have lost money playing DoubleDown Casino, seek to certify
nationwide damages and injunction classes to efficiently resolve
their claims against the Defendants.
The Defendants owned IGT, operate DoubleDown, and supply the
intellectual property IGT for DoubleDown Casino, a so-called
"social casino" that allows consumers to play actual Las Vegas slot
machine games, twenty-four hours a day, from mobile devices and
personal computers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bnhAtC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:
Todd Logan, Esq.
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Alexander G. Tievsky, Esq.
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Amy B. Hausmann, Esq.
Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
tlogan@edelson.com
bsilverkorn@edelson.com
jedelson@edelson.com
atievsky@edelson.com
abhausmann@edelson.com
- and -
Cecily C. Shiel, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: cshiel@tousley.com
DRAKE-STATE AIR: Collective Action Wins Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD DILL v. DRAKE-STATE
AIR, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00373-MJN (S.D. Ohio), the Hon.
Judge Michael J. Newman entered an order:
1. granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional
class certification;
2. conditionally certifying a collective class action on
behalf of:
"all installers who work or have worked for the Defendants
since September 7, 2017 through the present;"
3. approving the plaintiff's unopposed proposed class notice
and distribution methods;
4. directing the parties to confer; and
5. setting this case for a preliminary pretrial conference on
March 23, 2021
This is a civil case in which the Plaintiff asserts claims for
unpaid wages, including overtime compensation, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff asserts such claims against his
former employer, the Defendant Drake-State Air, and its owner Steve
Chrismer.
Drake State Air Systems, Inc. is located in Eaton, Ohio, and is
part of the Plumbing and HVAC Contractors Industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rvsCmu at no extra charge.[CC]
EBIX INC: Faces Teifke Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE MARIE TEIFKE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EBIX, INC., ROBIN RAINA, and STEVEN M. HAMIL,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01589 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19,
2021, inclusive (the Class Period) pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that
its independent auditor, RSM US LLP, 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, the suit says.
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, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that 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
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, added the suit.
Plaintiff Christine Marie Teifke purchased Ebix securities during
the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged
federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.
Ebix supplies infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial,
travel, cash remittances, and healthcare industries. The Individual
Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 530
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
EL OTRO TIESTO: Mora Seeks Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS E. MORA, and other similarly situated individuals v. EL OTRO
TIESTO CAFE CORP., and WILKINS E. CASTILLO, individually, Case No.
1:21-cv-20713-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2021) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The action is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action to
recover from the Defendants overtime compensation liquidated
damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff ("the asserted
class") and who worked over 40 hours during one or more weeks on or
after October 2019, without being adequately compensated.
The Defendant is a Florida corporation, having a place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida where Plaintiff worked. Mr. Castillo
was and is now the owner/partner/officer and operator of Defendant
Corporation El Otro Tiesto Cafe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Summary Judgment Bids in Dougherty Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that motions for
summary judgments in the putative class action suit entitled, Kevin
L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (E.D. Mich.,
No. 16-cv-10089), is pending.
On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the company and Tim Mayleben,
captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al.
(No. 16-cv-10089).
The lawsuit alleges that the company and Mr. Mayleben violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17,
2015, public statement that the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial
before approving the company's lead product candidate.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August
18, 2015, and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.
On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and
on July 5, 2016, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in its favor.
On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion
to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment.
On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they
filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was
fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the
Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth
Circuit issued an opinion in which it reversed the district court's
dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
On October 11, 2018, the company filed a petition for rehearing en
banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit of Appeals
directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. On December 3,
2018, the Sixth Circuit denied the company's petition for en banc
rehearing, and on December 11, 2018, the case was returned to the
federal district court by mandate from the Sixth Circuit.
On December 26, 2018, the company filed its answer to the amended
complaint, and on March 28, 2019, the company filed its amended
answer to the amended complaint. On September 15, 2020, the company
filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for partial summary judgment, and on October 23, 2020, the
parties filed oppositions to both motions for summary judgment.
On November 20, 2020, the company and plaintiffs filed replies in
support of its respective motions.
Esperion said, "We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter
and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome."
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on
developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of
patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss ComEd Customers' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the
consolidated putative class action suit initiated by ComEd
customers is pending.
Three putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in Illinois state court in the third quarter of 2020 seeking
restitution and compensatory damages on behalf of ComEd customers.
These three state cases were consolidated into a single action in
October of 2020.
In addition, on November 2, 2020, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB)
filed a motion to intervene in the state cases pursuant to an
Illinois statute allowing CUB to intervene as a party or otherwise
participate on behalf of utility consumers in any proceeding which
affects the interest of utility consumers.
On November 23, 2020, the court allowed CUB's intervention, but
denied CUB's request to stay these cases.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, and ComEd
and Exelon filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional and
substantive grounds on January 11, 2021. Briefing on that motion is
ongoing.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Bid to Junk ComEd's Lobbying Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the putative class action suit related to ComEd's lobbying
activities, is pending.
A putative class action lawsuit against Exelon Corporation and
certain officers of Exelon and ComEd was filed in federal court in
December 2019 alleging misrepresentations and omissions in Exelon's
Securities and Exchange Commission filings related to ComEd's
lobbying activities and the related investigation.
The complaint was amended on September 16, 2020, to dismiss two of
the original defendants and add other defendants, including ComEd.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in November 2020.
Briefing was completed on February 17, 2021.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
EXELON CORP: Consolidated Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to the
company's violation of federal racketeering laws.
Four putative class action lawsuits against ComEd and Exelon were
filed in federal court in the third quarter of 2020 alleging, among
other things, civil violations of federal racketeering laws.
In addition, the Citizens Utility Board (CUB) filed a motion to
intervene in these cases on October 22, 2020 which was granted on
December 23, 2020.
In addition, on December 2, 2020, the court appointed interim lead
plaintiffs in the federal cases which consisted of counsel for
three of the four federal cases. These plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on January 5, 2021.
CUB also filed its own complaint against ComEd only on the same
day.
The remaining federal case, Potter, et al. v. Exelon et al,
differed from the other lawsuits as it named additional individual
defendants not named in the consolidated complaint.
On January 10, 2021, the Potter plaintiffs filed a motion asking
the court to clarify that their class action complaint against
ComEd, Exelon and the individual named defendants remains in
effect, notwithstanding the consolidated amended complaint, and
asked the court to stay the Potter case.
On January 21, 2021, the court determined that the appointed lead
counsel had sole discretion to determine which parties to name as
plaintiffs and defendants, and that the Potter plaintiffs have the
option to opt-out of that class and file a separate, individual
action against the defendants named in their original complaint.
The Potter plaintiffs have until March 23, 2021 to make that
decision.
Exelon Corporation is a utility services holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, distributes electricity to
customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Exelon also distributes gas
to customers in the Philadelphia area as well as operates nuclear
power plants in states that include Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
FAULKNER COUNTY, AR: Wilks Seeks Deputy Sheriffs' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES WILKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAULKNER COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00163-KGB (E.D. Ark., March 1, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt and
hourly-paid Deputy Sheriff from October 2016 until December 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Deputy Sheriffs regularly worked over 40 hours in a week.
Specifically, they were often required to attend meetings off the
clock, to complete paperwork after their shift was over, and to don
specific gear before clocking in. However, the Defendant allegedly
did not compensate them for all hours they worked and a sufficient
overtime premium at one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours they worked over 40 each week.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated Deputy Sheriffs,
the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime premium, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Faulkner County, Arkansas operates the Sheriff's department wherein
the Plaintiff was employed. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
FETCH FOR PETS: Levin Sues Over Pet Products' Deceptive Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVA LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FETCH FOR PETS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01894 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the New York General Business Law and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive and
misleading advertising and marketing of its Martha Stewart product
line. The Defendant represented its pet products as natural, but in
reality, they contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentation and omissions,
the Plaintiff and Class members paid a premium for the products.
Fetch For Pets, LLC is a pet product manufacturer with its
principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
FIDELITY SECURITY: Doss Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Security Guards
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY SECURITY SERVICES, INC.; AHMADSHAH
AHMADI; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV08643 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages owed every
pay period, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to
give meal breaks, failure to reimburse for business expenses, and
unfair business practices.
Mr. Doss was employed by the Defendants as a security guard in
California until April or May 2020.
Fidelity Security Services, Inc. is a security guard service
company based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
FLORISSANT, MO: Plaintiffs Must File Second Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BAKER, et al., v.
CITY OF FLORISSANT, Case No. 4:16-cv-01693-NAB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Nannette A. Baker entered an order:
1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration;
- the motion is granted to the extent it seeks to correct
a clerical error in the dates of the Plaintiffs' expert
report and deposition, and denied in all other respects;
2. directing the Clerk of Court to make a parenthetical
notation after the docket text for the Memorandum and
Order dated May 6, 2020, stating that the Memorandum and
Order dated May 6, 2020 has been amended by an Amended
Memorandum and Order issued on Feb. 25, 2021;
3. directing the Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended
Complaint in accordance with the Amended Memorandum and
Order within 10 days of this Order;
4. denying the Defendant's motion for contempt;
5. directing the Defendant to file its response to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification within 28
days of this Order;
6. denying as moot the Defendant's Motion to Shorten Time;
and
7. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Sur-
Reply.
On May 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification
of four of the seven modified classes that were the subject of the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint,
stating they believe the Court’s ruling as to the requested
modified classes was based on factual error.
Florissant is a city in St. Louis County, Missouri, within Greater
St. Louis. It is a middle-class, second-ring northern suburb of St.
Louis.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v6LnySat no
extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Carr Sues Over Defective Lithium-Ion Batteries
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CARR and JAN G. WYERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00306-SB (D. Or., Feb. 26, 2021) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to disclose the defective
high-voltage lithium-ion battery pack installed in its 2017-2019
model year Chevrolet Bolt.
According to the complaint, the Chevrolet Bolt have a serious
defect that significantly reduces their range, when the batteries
are fully or almost fully charged, they pose a risk of fire 10 (the
"Battery Defect"). The Defendant knew but failed to inform
prospective owners and lessees about this dangerous Battery Defect
and that they would be forced to decide between risking a
potentially fatal car fire or losing significant range. The
Defendant previously encouraged Chevrolet Bolt owners and lessees
to fully charge the Bolt Battery, the suit says.
The Defendant's alleged conduct has placed Chevrolet Bolt
purchasers and lessees in an untenable position, either fully
charge the Battery to be able to use the vehicle's stated 238-mile
driving range but run the risk of a serious fire, or lessen the
risk of fire by acquiescing to GM's recommended "fix" and lose at
least 10% of the range they expected to have.
General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts. The Company offers vehicle
protection, parts, accessories, maintenance, satellite radio, and
automotive financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory Kafoury, Esq.
KAFOURY & MCDOUGAL
411 SW Second Ave., Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 224-2647
Facsimile: (503) 224-2673
E-mail: kafoury@kafourymcdougal.com
-and-
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the class
plaintiff's March 2019 motion for class certification in the
Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation is still pending.
Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates.
These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The
complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and
state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The
complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state
antitrust law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.
On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.
On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.
The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Group Inc.
and Goldman Sachs & Co LLC (GS&Co.) continue to defend antitrust
suits alleging conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the
development of electronic platforms for securities lending
transactions.
Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to
securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017.
The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.
The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts
of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was
voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26,
2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
individual action on December 21, 2018. Defendants' motion to
dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in VRDO-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion
to dismiss the putative class action suit related tovariable rate
demand obligations (VRDOs) has been granted in part and denied in
part by the court.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in a
putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations
(VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.
On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law
claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal
antitrust law claims.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: GoHealth IPO-Related Securities Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Goldman
Sachs & Co. LLC continues to defend a consolidated putative
securities class action suit related to GoHealth, Inc.'s $914
million July 2020 initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on
September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.'s $914
million July 2020 initial public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders.
GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Objections Regarding Arbitration in Class Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties
in the class action suit alleging employee discrimination,
submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge's order granting in
part a motion to compel arbitration.
On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees.
The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and
GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees
in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations.
The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and
GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New
York City discrimination laws.
The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.
On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as
to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On
September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district
court's class certification decision and subsequently denied
defendants' petition for rehearing.
On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that
they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and
declaratory relief. On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the
district court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to
class members who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc.
and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related
disputes.
On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the
Magistrate Judge's order and defendants submitted conditional
objections in the event that the district judge overturns any
portion of the Magistrate Judge's order.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GRIDSUM HOLDING: S.D. New York Tosses Claims in Xu Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PEIFA XU, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRIDSUM HOLDING INC.,
GUOSHENG QI, MICHAEL PENG ZHANG, RAVI SARATHY, GUOFA YU, PERRY LIN
CHUI, XIANG FAN, YANCHUN BAI, XUDONG GAO, THOMAS ADAM MELCHER,
PETER ANDREW SCHLOSS, PRICE WATERHOUSECOOPERS ZHONG TIAN LLP,
GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., and
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 18
Civ. 3655 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the motions to dismiss.
The case is a putative shareholder class action against Gridsum, an
overseas holding company, as well as Gridsum's former accounting
firm, the underwriters of its 2016 initial public offering, and
various of Gridsum's current and former officers and directors. The
Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1944. The Shareholders seek to hold the
Defendants liable for misstatements arising out of Gridsum's
initial public offering materials and subsequent financial
statements.
On March 30, 2020, the Court issued an Opinion and Order regarding
the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). In its Opinion,
the Court dismissed the Securities Act claims against Gridsum, the
Underwriters, and one of the Individual Defendants, but granted the
Plaintiffs leave to replead these claims. It also dismissed Price
WaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian LLP ("PwC") because it had not been
properly served, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative
service on the other Individual Defendants. The Court, however,
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims
relating to Gridsum's 2016 Form 20-F and an April 2018 press
release.
The Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on May
7, 2020. Before the Court are three separate motions to dismiss the
TAC: One on behalf of Gridsum and Individual Defendant Melcher,
another on behalf of PwC, and one more on behalf of Individual
Defendant Chui.
On April 23, 2018, Gridsum issued a press release announcing that
the "audit report for the Company's financial statements for the
year ended December 31, 2016 should no longer be relied upon." The
press release stated that this action was taken in response to
several actions by PwC. According to the press release, PwC had
informed the Company on April 16, 2018 of "certain issues" it
identified while conducting its audit of financial results for 2017
relating to "revenue recognition, cash flow, cost, expense items,
and their underlying documentation which PwC previously raised with
the Company." The press release indicated that 2016 revenue could
be impacted by 2 million yuan and 2016 expenses could be impacted
by 6 million yuan. Gridsum's ADS listed on NASDAQ dropped over 16
percent that day and continued to drop thereafter. On April 30,
2018, Gridsum filed a notice with the SEC that its Form 20-F for
2017 would be delayed, and that its audit committee would be
conducting an investigation.
On May 1, 2018, Gridsum announced a proposed investment from Future
X Capital via a convertible promissory note worth $40 million. One
week later, on May 8, Gridsum announced that Future X had issued a
proposal to purchase all outstanding shares and bring the Company
private. Although Gridsum announced the formation of a committee to
evaluate the proposal in May 2018, the Company had not made any
announcement related to the proposal as of the date of the TAC.
On January 7, 2019, after several months of delays due to the
ongoing audit committee investigation and delisting procedures with
NASDAQ, Gridsum filed its 2017 Form 20-F with the SEC. The Form
20-F included both 2017 financial information and restatements of
Gridsum's 2015 and 2016 statements of operations. These included
several restatements regarding revenue, tax expenses, and accounts
receivable and payable for 2015 and 2016, which form the basis of
many of the Plaintiffs' claims in this case. As discussed in more
detail in the March 2020 Opinion, however, the Court found the
misstatements in the 2015 financial statement to be immaterial. See
Peifa Xu, 2020 WL 1508748, at *9. The crux of the Court's reasoning
in this regard was that the line-item differences pointed to by the
Plaintiffs were relatively small in the scheme of Gridsum's overall
operations.
The Court, however, found that alleged misstatements in the 2016
financial statement, as well as in the April 2018 press release,
could provide a basis for a securities fraud claim under the
Exchange Act. Among the misstatements identified were, for example,
a 9.2% overstatement of Gridsum's revenue and a 45.6%
understatement of Gridsum's net loss. The 2017 Form 20-F also
disclosed that the drop in net revenue and the balance sheet
changes were caused, at least in part, by a "change in [Gridsum's]
method for recognition of certain revenue." This referred to the
Company's prior practice of categorizing proceeds from sales to
certain subdistributors "at the time of sale."
Gridsum stated that this change in its revenue recognition applied
to its sales, beginning sometime in 2016, of a new "public
sentiment tracking services" product. In the restatements, however,
Gridsum reversed course and only recognized such proceeds when it
actually collected cash from the sub-distributor, ultimately
reducing the reported revenue. It also stated that it increased
accounts payable as of December 31, 2016, to "reconcile its
accounting" with that of its partners for certain SEM solutions, or
products regarding search engine marketing.
The 2017 Form 20-F also revealed that Gridsum had dismissed PwC on
June 28, 2018, and another auditor had been retained. The Form
revealed that PwC had previously warned Grisdum of "questions
related to its ability to rely upon the representations of
[Gridsum]," and that PwC's audit of Gridsum's 2016 financial
statements should not be relied upon. Gridsum's share price
decreased 5.6% in the day after this announcement, from 1.60 to
$1.51 per share.
The 2017 Form 20-F was later amended to disclose additional control
deficiencies, including "verification of certain revenue items" and
"documentation supporting certain transactions."
Plaintiff Xu filed his complaint against Gridsum on April 25, 2018.
On September 17, 2018, the Court consolidated the action with
another putative class action filed against Gridsum, Li v. Gridsum
Holding Inc., No. 18-cv-5749, and appointed William Barth as lead
plaintiff. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on
December 4, 2018, and Second Amended Complaint on March 1, 2019.
On March 30, 2020 the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims against Gridsum, Melcher, and the Underwriter
Defendants, denied the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims
against Gridsum, and granted the motion to dismiss all claims
against PwC based on improper service. The Plaintiffs filed the TAC
on May 7, 2020. On October 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed claims against Defendants Yu, Fan, Bai, Gao and Schloss.
Defendants Qi, Zhang, and Sarathy, who had not previously been
properly served, waived served on October 16, 2020.
The Court previously held that the Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims
did not sound in fraud. It cited the fact that the Section 11
claims were clearly set off from the Section 10b fraud claims, and
that the core allegations were consistent with a theory of a
failure to investigate or to possess a reasonable belief that the
2015 financials were not false or misleading. Peifa Xu, 2020 WL
1508748 at *7 (citing In re Refco, Inc. Sec. Litig., 503 F.Supp.2d
611, 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)).
The Defendants again argue that the newly-alleged claims sound in
fraud. They cite the fact that the same series of events and
allegedly false statements that provide the basis for the
Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims also provide the basis for
newly-alleged fraud claims.
However, this was also true of the Second Amended Complaint, and
the Court found this insufficient to trigger Section 9(b), given
the Plaintiffs' efforts to differentiate the claims, and given the
Plaintiffs' allegations of essentially negligent behavior. The
Defendants also argue that the new allegations regarding Gridsum's
failure to disclose its capital restructuring plan inherently
"sound in fraud." While the Court acknowledges that some of the
Plaintiffs' allegations could be understood to insinuate fraudulent
behavior, the Court will apply Rule 8(a) because the Plaintiffs
plead only negligence in connection to their newly pleaded claims.
In any event, even if the new allegations were analyzed under Rule
9(b), the Plaintiffs would still fail to state a claim, says
District Judge Edgardo Ramos.
According to Judge Ramos, the Plaintiffs' newly-alleged claims are
barred by the Securities Act's statute of repose. He also noted
that permitting the Plaintiffs to add new claims as amendments
after the repose period lapsed, simply because other misstatements
had been timely alleged, would abridge the Defendants' substantive
rights under the statute of repose (citing IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721
F.3d at 106). The same is true in the case. The Court, thus, finds
Barilli v. Sky Solar Holdings, Ltd., 389 F.Supp.3d 232, 264
(S.D.N.Y. 2019) persuasive and indistinguishable.
The Plaintiffs' new allegations are, therefore, dismissed as beyond
the statute of repose. However, even if they were not time-barred,
the Plaintiffs' newly-pleaded allegations would still fail to state
a claim.
The TAC also alleges that Gridsum failed to include in its
Registration Statement information about plans to bring its
"sub-optimal" structure to its anchor entities after the IPO, or
its plans to launch a new sentiment tracking services product in
October 2016. It alleges that these facts should have been included
in Gridsum's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition Result
of Operations ("MD&A") section of the Registration Statement, which
is intended to set forth a quantitative analysis of the company's
future prospects.
To survive a motion to dismiss on these claims, the Plaintiffs must
allege that Defendants (1) had an affirmative duty to disclose the
information; and (2) that the misstatement or omission was material
as of the date of the statement.
In general, there is no duty to disclose a specific business plan,
unless it is necessary as an update because the company had
previously "hyped a specific alternative plan," Judge Ramos notes,
citing Leandro Emergency Med. Grp. Profit Sharing Plan v. Philip
Morris Cos., Inc., 75 F.3d 801, 810 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing In re
Time Warner Inc. Sec. Litig., 9 F.3d 259, 268 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Judge Ramos points out that the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden
regarding either omission. The Plaintiffs point to Gridsum's
interim 2016 financial statement, which they allege materially
understated Gridsum's income tax liability as a result of the
undisclosed "sub-optimal" capital restructuring plan. However, this
change in tax liability was not material for the reasons discussed
in the above subsection. Thus, the 2016 interim financial
statement, and its statement of no income tax liability as of June
30, 2016, cannot serve as basis to make the nondisclosure of the
underlying proposed capital restructuring plan materially
misleading.
Allegations relating to Gridsum's alleged failure to disclose
additional internal control weaknesses are too conclusory to state
a claim, Judge Ramos also opines, among other things. Besides
simply quoting the 2017 20-F and its amendment, the TAC does not
sufficiently refer to facts supporting the substance of these
deficiencies
On the whole, the Plaintiffs' allegations support the inferences
that PwC's 2016 audit opinion was deficient, even negligent, and
that PwC likely did not perform procedures that it should have. But
they do not support the inference that these errors were done
fraudulently, Judge Ramos points out.
For reasons discussed in the Opinion & Order, the Defendants'
motions to dismiss are granted. Specifically:
* All claims arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act
against Defendants Gridsum, Melcher, the Underwriter
Defendants, PwC and Chui are dismissed;
* All claims arising under Section 15 of the Securities Act
against Chui and Melcher are dismissed;
* All claims arising under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
against Chui and PwC are dismissed;
* All newly-alleged claims arising under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act against Gridsum and Melcher, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against Melcher, in relation to
Gridsum's Registration Statement, are dismissed; and
* All claims arising under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Chui are dismissed.
However, nothing in the Opinion alters the Court's previous
decision denying Gridsum and Melcher's motion to dismiss claims
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and denying Melcher's
motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claim, arising from Gridsum's
2016 financial statement and 2018 press release. These claims
survive, as set forth in the Court's March 2020 Opinion and Order.
Defendants Gridsum, Melcher, Sarathy, Qi, and Zhang are directed to
respond to the TAC by April 23, 2018.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions, docket
numbers 210, 213, and 216, and to terminate Defendants Chui,
Goldman Sachs (Asia) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Inc., and PricewaterhouseCoopers Zhong Tian
LLP.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Feb. 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/teevnurs from
Leagle.com.
GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE: Blind Cannot Access Web Site, Desalvo Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. d/b/a MERCEDES-BENZ
OF BEVERLY HILLS; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-01822 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
Website, https://www.bhbenz.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like her, which
is a direct violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendants' corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Defendants' Website will
become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, the suit says.
Group 1 Automotive, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes-Benz Of Beverly Hills owns
and operates automobile dealerships. The Company sells new and used
cars and light trucks, provides maintenance and repair services,
and sells replacement parts, as well as arranges related financing,
insurance, and extended service contracts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Willoughby Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE WILLOUGHBY v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, d/b/a Earth's Best
Organics, Case No. 2:21-cv-00970 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021) is a
class action complaint against Hain Celestial for its negligent,
reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and
failing to fully disclose the presence or risk of arsenic, lead,
mercury, cadmium (heavy metals) and/or perchlorate or other
ingredients in the Defendant's Earth's Best Organic Baby Foods that
do not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and
statements of these products sold throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class and Sub-Classes including requiring full
disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in Defendant's
marketing, advertising, and labeling; requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and restoring
monies to the members of the proposed Classes.
Plaintiff Charlotte Willoughby is a citizen of the State of
Illinois and a resident of Palatine, Illinois. She purchased the
Defendant's Baby Foods for her children, including Banana Apricot
Pumpkin with Quinoa Pouches, Broccoli Red Lentil Oat Pouches,
Butternut Squash Pear Pouches, and Peach Oatmeal Banana baby food
jars. Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Baby Foods, from various
retail outlets such as a Target store in Munster, Indiana and a
Meijer in Rolling Meadows, Illinois from at least September 2019
until late 2020.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Earth's Best Organics throughout the United States. It states that
it offers "organic infant, baby, and toddler foods that are pure,
quality products you can trust" and touts that it conducts
"Rigorous product testing to guarantee quality and safety."
The Defendant's packaging and labels further emphasize its alleged
use of quality ingredients that are safe for human infant, baby,
and toddler consumption by the use of its "Earth's Best" brand
name, suggesting that the ingredients and finished product are
premium and high quality, and the representation that the Baby
Foods are "organic baby food," suggesting that it is appropriate
for consumption by babies.
However, nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements,
warranties, and/or packaging does Defendant disclose that the Baby
Foods include and/or have a high risk of containing heavy metals or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements, the Plaintiff contends.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Hudson, Esq.
Charles LaDuca, Esq.
Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
C. William Frick, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone:(202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
bill@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
Joseph DePalma, Esq.
Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
scruzhodge@litedepalma.com
HOME CARE: Deprives Minimum, OT Pay Earned by Caregivers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKO BROOKS, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOME CARE ASSISTANCE OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; HOME CARE ASSISTANCE, INC., a
California Corporation; HOME CARE ASSISTANCE, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 100, Case No.
21STCV06850 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 22, 2021) is a
representative action complaint seeking civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act, Labor code.
The Defendants provide in-home health care services to elderly
persons throughout California. The Plaintiff has been employed by
the Defendants in the non-exempt position of "Caregiver" from
January 2020 to the present.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff previously worked for
Defendants in California from February 2017 to October 16, 2017,
when she transferred to Las Vegas, Nevada where she continued to
work until mid-2019. As caregiver, the Plaintiff provides personal
attendant services at the Defendants' clients' private homes.
The Plaintiff contends that during her employment, the Defendants
regularly, systematically, and impermissibly rounded and/or
truncated the hours worked by non-exempt employees in Defendants'
favor, which resulted, over a period of time, in the failure to
properly compensate them, including her, for all hours worked,
thereby depriving them of all required minimum and overtime wages
earned.
Specifically, Defendants required her and other aggrieved employees
to clock in and out using a call-in and/or smartphone application
system, which recorded their time worked to the minute, but the
Defendants' timekeeping system failed to pay her and other
non-exempt employees for all hours worked "on-the-clock," whether
by rounding and/or truncating of hours.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292-2350
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
HOME DEPOT: Stipulation to Continue Class Status Deadline Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MOSHTAGH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-01205-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez
entered an order that the stipulated motion to continue class
status deadline is granted and the class certification deadlines
are extended as follows:
EVENT DATE
Deadline for Reply in Support March 18, 2021
of Motion to Certify Class:
Class Certification Motion Noting March 19, 2021
Date:
The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot, is the largest
home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools,
construction products, and services. The company is headquartered
in incorporated Cobb County, Georgia, with an Atlanta mailing
address.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2PIkiSh at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff Steve Moshtagh, are:
Peter Stutheit, Esq.
STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
1 SW Columbia, Suite 1850
Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 493-7488
Facsimile: (503) 715-5670
E-mail: peter@stutheikalin.com
- and -
Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq.
Rachel M. Emens, Esq.
Henry Brudney, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 838-2504
Facsimile: (206) 260-3055
E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com
jrittereiser@hkm.com
remens@hkm.com
hbrudney@hkm.com
THe Attorneys for the Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., are:
Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
- and -
John S. Devlin, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111
Telephone: (206) 223-7000
Facsimile: (206) 464-0125
E-mail: devlinj@lanepowell.com
HOME DEPOT: Stipulation to Continue Class Status Deadline Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE MOSHTAGH, an
individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v.
THE HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2:19-cv-01205-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. continuing the current class certification reply deadline
from March 4, 2021 to March 18, 2021; and
2. continuing the current noting date for Plaintiff's class
certification motion from March 5, 2021 to March 19, 2021.
The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot, is the largest
home improvement retailer in the United States, supplying tools,
construction products, and services. The company is headquartered
in incorporated Cobb County, Georgia, with an Atlanta mailing
address.
A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30lGx2j at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff Steve Moshtagh, are:
Peter Stutheit, Esq.
STUTHEIT KALIN LLC
1 SW Columbia, Suite 1850
Portland, OR 97258
Telephone: (503) 493-7488
Facsimile: (503) 715-5670
E-mail: peter@stutheikalin.com
- and -
Donald W. Heyrich, Esq.
Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq.
Rachel M. Emens, Esq.
Henry Brudney, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 838-2504
Facsimile: (206) 260-3055
E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com
jrittereiser@hkm.com
remens@hkm.com
hbrudney@hkm.com
THe Attorneys for the Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., are:
Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP
580 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 765-9500
Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com
- and -
John S. Devlin, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111
Telephone: (206) 223-7000
Facsimile: (206) 464-0125
E-mail: devlinj@lanepowell.com
HSBC USA: Canada Gold & Silver Price Fixing Related Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend class action suits in Canada related to the alleged price
fixing conspiracy of gold and silver derivatives.
Beginning in December 2015, HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA, HSI,
HSBC Bank Canada and HSBC Securities Canada have been named, along
with other institutions, in several putative class actions filed in
the Superior Courts of Justice in the Provinces of Ontario and
Quebec, Canada.
These suits allege, among other things, that the defendants
conspired to manipulate the prices of gold and silver derivatives.
These claims include: (1) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova
Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Gold
Fix); (2) DiFilippo and Caron v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, et al.
(Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Province) (Silver Fix); (3)
Benoit v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al. (Superior Court of Justice,
Quebec Province) (Gold Fix); and (4) Ayas v. La Banque de
Nouvelle-Ecosse, et. al. (Superior Court of Justice, Quebec
Province) (Silver Fix).
These actions are proceeding.
HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.
HSBC USA: Discovery Ongoing in Silver Fixing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the case entitled, In re London Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust
Litigation.
In 2014, putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York naming
HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and the other members of The
London Silver Market Fixing Ltd as defendants.
The complaints allege that, from January 2007 through December
2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of physical
silver and silver derivatives for their collective benefit in
violation of the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act and U.S. antitrust
laws.
The actions have been transferred to and centralized in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The parties are proceeding under a third amended complaint.
Discovery is proceeding.
HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.
HSBC USA: Dismissal from Vasquez, Garcia Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs in Rigoberto
Vasquez and Eva Garcia et al v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., have appealed the
order of dismissal.
This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York in March 2018 against HSBC Bank
USA and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Corporation.
Plaintiffs purport to represent those that invested in a Ponzi
scheme allegedly orchestrated by Phil Ming Xu and certain companies
he allegedly controlled, such as WCM777. Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation is alleged to have accepted wire transfers from
plaintiffs to WCM777 from investors in furtherance of the Ponzi
scheme. HSBC Bank USA is alleged to have acted as Hong Kong and
Shanghai Banking Corporation's correspondent bank for certain wire
transfers to WCM777.
The purported class period is from June 2013 to May 2014.
Plaintiffs allege claims for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations, aiding and abettig fraud, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
conversion. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the amount of
$37 million plus punitive damages, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.
In August 2018, the HSBC defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
response, plaintiffs received leave from the court to file an
amended complaint, which the HSBC defendants moved to dismiss in
December 2018.
In May 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted HSBC Bank USA's motion and dismissed it from the
case.
Plaintiffs have appealed the district court's decision.
HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.
HSBC USA: Dismissal of Platinum & Palladium Fix Suit Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in the
Platinum and Palladium Fix Litigation have appealed the order of
dismissal from the court.
Since 2014, several putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants members of The London Platinum and Palladium Fixing
Company, including HSBC Bank USA, BASF Metals Limited, Goldman
Sachs International and Standard Bank, plc.
The complaints allege that, from January 2008 through November
2014, defendants conspired to manipulate the benchmark prices for
physical Platinum Group Metals ("PGM") and PGM-based financial
products.
In March 2020 the court granted the defendants' joint motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.
HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.
HSBC USA: Dismissal of Putnam Bank Suit Appealed
------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiffs in Putnam
Bank v. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., et al. (Case No.
19-cv-00439), have filed an appeal on the court's order of suit
dismissal.
In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of persons who purchased over the counter instruments paying
interest indexed to ICE LIBOR from a panel bank against HSBC Bank
plc, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America, HSBC USA and HSI, as well
as other panel banks, alleging a conspiracy to depress USD ICE
LIBOR from February 2014 (when ICE began administration of LIBOR)
to the present.
The complaint alleges, among other things, misconduct related to
the suppression of the benchmark rate in violation of U.S.
antitrust and state law.
In March 2020 the court granted the defendants' joint motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.
HSBC USA Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides consumer
and commercial banking products, and related financial services in
the United States. The company was founded in 1850 and is based in
New York, New York. HSBC USA Inc. is a subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc.
ICON PLC: Miller Labor Putative Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
ICON PLC said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and its
subsidiary ICON Clinical Research LLC, continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Chrystal Miller v. ICON plc et
al.
On April 20, 2020, an individual named Chrystal Miller who
previously worked for a subsidiary of the Company, ICON Clinical
Research LLC, filed a putative class action lawsuit, Chrystal
Miller v. ICON plc et al., in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo.
Her lawsuit was brought against the Company, ICON Clinical, DOCS
Global, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, and an individual former
employee of ICON Clinical.
The complaint alleges that the ICON defendants violated the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code by failing to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest
periods, provide accurate, itemized wage statements, and timely pay
all final wages to Clinical Research Associates employed in
California since April 20, 2016.
The suit seeks monetary damages, interest, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 22, 2020, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California. On November 4, 2020, the federal
court remanded the case to San Mateo Superior Court.
On December 23, 2020, ICON Clinical filed a cross-complaint against
Miller alleging causes of action for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conversion, breach of contract, and accounting.
ICON said, "The ICON defendants deny the allegations that they have
acted unlawfully and are vigorously defending the lawsuit."
ICON PLC provides contract clinical research services to the global
pharmaceutical industry. The Company manages clinical studies in
addition to providing data management, regulatory, and central
laboratory services. ICON currently operates offices in multiple
countries. The company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
IDS PROPERTY: Makenzie Suit Gets Initial Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKENZIE ZUERN, et al., v.
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-06235-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Michelle L. Peterson
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs Mackenzie and Eric Zuern's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement.
The Settlement:
-- The Defendant has agreed to pay a Settlement Fund of
$1,750,000.00, of which each class member will receive a
pro rata distribution from the Settlement Fund less any
court-approved attorneys' fees and costs, service awards,
and costs of notice and settlement administration.
-- Unless a class member validly and timely requests
exclusion, he or she will receive his or her distribution
from the Settlement Fund.
-- The Settlement Agreement also provides Settlement Costs
consisting of: (1) an award of attorneys' fees up to 25%
of the Settlement Fund and costs to class 13 counsel not
to exceed $17,000; (2) a service award to Plaintiffs in an
amount not to exceed $2,500 per class representative; and
(3) all costs of the Settlement Administrator not to
exceed $40,000.
The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement
Class for purposes of settlement only:
"All persons insured by a contract of automobile insurance
issued by IDS to a Washington resident, and who, from
October 25, 2013 through the date of the order granting
preliminary approval, received compensation for the total
loss of their vehicles under their First Party Coverages
(Comprehensive, Collision, and UIM) and received a total
loss valuation from IDS based upon an Audatex valuation."
The Final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for May 26, 2021, says
Judge Peterson.
The Plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated against Defendants IDS Property Casualty
Insurance Company (IDS), Ameriprise Insurance Company, and
Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance in Pierce County Superior Court.
The Plaintiffs own a 2014 Nissan Rogue 4WD 4D SUV that was damaged
on August 4, 2017. The Plaintiffs allege that at the time their
vehicle was damaged and deemed a total loss, the Plaintiffs were
covered by automobile insurance with Defendant IDS. The Plaintiffs
submitted a claim with IDS for the total loss of their vehicle. IDS
provided a total loss valuation based upon a valuation report it
obtained from Audatex North America, Inc. Audatex is a third-party
company that provides market valuation reports that contain values
for comparable vehicles recently sold or for sale in the geographic
area of the insured. The Plaintiff alleges that IDS instructs
Audatex as to what specific data to include in the report as the
basis for the valuation, including whether to include a "typical
negotiation" adjustment to the comparable vehicles. The "typical
negotiation" adjustment, according to the Plaintiffs, is based on
undisclosed and unfounded assumptions.
IDS operates as an insurance company. The Company offers property
and casualty insurance services throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38jAuj7 at no extra charge.[CC]
IKEA US: Dukichs Seek to Certify Class of Aggrieved Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANA DUKICH and JOHN
DUKICH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. IKEA US RETAIL LLC and IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02182-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
an order:
1. certifying the action as a class action con behalf of:
"aggrieved consumers who were promised a wall anchoring
kit or refund at their election, but who, like Plaintiffs,
received nothing from IKEA under the recall because it was
so badly orchestrated:
Every consumer in the U.S. and its Territories who
possessed an IKEA chest or dresser subject to the June 28,
2016 or November 21, 2017 recalls and who has received no
refund or wall anchoring kit from IKEA pursuant to the
recalls, from June 28, 2016 to the date of judgment, but
excluding: Defendants and their affiliates, parents,
subsidiaries, employees, officers, agents and directors;
any judicial officers presiding over this matter and the
members of their immediate families and judicial staff;
and the lawyers representing the parties;"
2. naming themselves as class representatives; and
3. appointing their lawyers as counsel for the class.
In this consumer class action, the Plaintiffs claim that IKEA
orchestrated their June 2016 chest and dresser voluntary recall
(re-announced in November 2017) in a negligent and deceptive
manner. Although IKEA admitted that a number of its chests and
dressers had a high risk of tipover with the potential to cause
serious injuries and thus should be recalled, the voluntary recall
effort itself fell short of its well-intended goals. The Plaintiffs
claim that IKEA violated the common law of negligence as well as
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
("UTPCPL").
IKEA is part of the furniture stores industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class action dated Feb.
25, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3sWy5mv at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Daniel J. Mann, Esq.
Edward S. Goldis, Esq.
Bethany R. Nikitenko, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER
WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
Facsmile: (215) 567-8333
E-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
dmann@feldmanshepherd.com
egoldis@feldmanshepherd.com
bnikitendo@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
JIMMY JOHN'S: Bid for Class Certification Filing Due July 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martin v. Jimmy John's,
LLC, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00415 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Roseann Ketchmark entered an order the parties' joint motion for
extension of time as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on
or before July 9, 2021;
2. The Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification due on or before August 20, 2021; and
3. The Plaintiff's Reply due on or before September 17, 2021.
The nature of suit alleges states contract product liability.
Jimmy John's operates and franchises restaurants.[CC]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in cART Antitrust Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
class action suit related to the combination antiretroviral
therapies (cART) to treat HIV.
In May 2019, a class action antitrust complaint was filed against
Janssen R&D Ireland and Johnson & Johnson in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The complaint alleges that Janssen violated federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws by agreeing to exclusivity
provisions in its agreements with Gilead concerning the development
and marketing of combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) to
treat HIV.
The complaint also alleges that Gilead entered into similar
agreements with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Japan Tobacco.
In March 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in April 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
In July 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
renewed motion to dismiss.
Discovery is ongoing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery in Remicade Antitrust Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the
consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re
REMICADE(R) Antitrust Litigation in United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Beginning in September 2017, multiple purported class actions were
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of REMICADE(R) against
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. alleging that Janssen
has violated federal antitrust laws through its contracting
strategies for REMICADE(R).
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes as In re
REMICADE(R) Antitrust Litigation in United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated
complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Discovery is ongoing.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: ZYTIGA(R) Antitrust Suit v. Janssen Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2021, that Janssen Biotech, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, continues to defend a
class action suit initiated by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Louisiana and HMO Louisiana, Inc., related to ZYTIGA(R).
In April 2019, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Louisiana and HMO
Louisiana, Inc. filed a class action complaint against Janssen
Biotech, Inc, Janssen Oncology, Inc, Janssen Research &
Development, LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
indirect purchasers of ZYTIGA(R).
Several additional complaints were filed thereafter in Virginia and
New Jersey. The indirect purchaser complaints generally allege that
the defendants violated the antitrust and consumer protections laws
of several states and the Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation
relating to ZYTIGA(R) in order to delay generic entry and seek
damages.
The Virginia cases have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with
the New Jersey case for pretrial purposes.
In May 2020, a class action complaint was filed against Janssen
Biotech Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research &
Development LLC and BTG International Limited in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of direct
purchasers of ZYTIGA(R).
The direct purchaser complaint alleges that defendants violated the
Sherman Act by pursuing patent litigation relating to ZYTIGA(R) in
order to delay generic entry, and seek damages and injunctive
relief.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
KATE BROWN: Court OKs April 1 Extension to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Maney, et al., v.
Kate Brown, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00570 (D. Ore.), the Hon.
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed request for an
extension of time to file their motion for class
certification, from march 1,2 021 to April 1, 2021;
2. granting the Defendants' unopposed request (within Joint
Status Report) for an extension of time; and
3. setting the next Joint Status Report deadline due by March
5, 2021.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus
Prison Condition involving Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Pedersen ERISA Suit Over Retirement Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS T. PEDERSEN and BEVERLY LEUTLOFF, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KINDER MORGAN RETIREMENT PLAN
A, KINDER MORGAN, INC., T. MARK SMITH, JESSE ARENIVAS, and
unidentified members of the Fiduciary Committee, Case No.
2:21-cv-10388-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich., Feb. 22, 2021) is a class action
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Under ERISA, the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A is required to
preserve all accrued benefits from previous retirement plans.
Curtis Pedersen was, for example, entitled to an unreduced early
retirement benefit of $3,679.98 per month starting on December 1,
2019, the first of the month after he turned age 62.
However, after three corporate acquisitions and one divestiture, a
"detailed" calculation of his benefits prepared by Kinder Morgan
shows that key plan terms and statutory protections have been
silently dropped, reinterpreted, revised, and cutback, so that the
monthly retirement benefits to which Mr. Pedersen is entitled has
been decreased to $1,933.69, which represents only 52.5% of the
retirement benefits he is due. Similar reductions have been made to
the retirement benefits of Ms. Leutloff and thousands of other
class members. These reductions were achieved by (1) decreasing the
participants' accrued benefits at retirement, and (2) modifying the
factors for early retirement to reduce benefits further, the suit
says.
Kinder Morgan's "detailed" calculations allegedly violate ERISA's
prohibition on "backloading" benefit accruals, its "anti-cutback"
protection for age 65 and early retirement benefits, its disclosure
rules for benefit restrictions and reductions, and its "actuarial
equivalent" requirements, as well as violating plan terms that were
to be "honored" under the provisions of corporate sales agreements
relating to the benefit obligations of acquired companies to their
employees.
Plaintiff Curtis T. Pedersen is a participant in the Kinder Morgan
Retirement Plan A who resides in Fenton, Mississippi (Livingston
County). Mr. Pedersen was born in November 1957, and worked for the
ANR Company from June 1979, when he was age 21, until November 2015
when he was age 58. After a series of corporate mergers, Mr.
Pedersen's retirement benefits are now covered under the Kinder
Morgan Retirement Plan A. Mr. Pedersen reached age 62 in November
2019 and commenced his retirement benefits under the Retirement
Plan on December 1, 2019.
Plaintiff Beverly Leutloff is a participant in the Kinder Morgan
Retirement Plan A who resides in Manteno, IL. Ms. Leutloff was
born in November 1958 and has worked for the ANR Company from March
1978 when she was age 19 until the present. As with Mr. Pedersen,
Ms. Leutloff's retirement benefits are now covered under the Kinder
Morgan Retirement Plan A after a series of corporate mergers. Ms.
Leutloff reached age 62 in November 2020, but did not commence her
retirement benefits from the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A
because Kinder Morgan's Claims Administrator denied that she was
eligible for "unreduced" retirement benefits at age 62.
Kinder Morgan was founded in 1997 by a group of investors led by
Richard Kinder, a former President of the Enron Corporation who now
serves as the executive chairman of Kinder Morgan. After Kinder
Morgan acquired the El Paso Corporation in 2012, the El Paso
Pension Plan was merged into the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan
effective December 31, 2012. Kinder Morgan is the plan sponsor for
the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A, and is responsible for
maintaining the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A in compliance with
ERISA and for appointing and removing all of the fiduciaries with
discretionary responsibilities related to the retirement plan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert B. June, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT JUNE, PC
415 Detroit St., 2nd Floor
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1117
Telephone: (734) 481-1000
E-Mail: bobjune@junelaw.com
- and -
Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
1667 K St., NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 289-1117
E-Mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net
- and -
Tybe Ann Brett, Esq.
Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
FEINSTEIN PAYNE DOYLE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Ave., Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-Mail: tbrett@fdpklaw.com
jhurt@fdpklaw.com
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Foy Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
RONITA FOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS
d/b/a LABCORP DIAGNOSTICS, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00165
(M.D.N.C., Feb. 26, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Foy was employed by the Defendant as service
representative.
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings is a clinical laboratory
company that offers clinical laboratory tests used by the medical
profession in routine testing, patient diagnosis, and in the
monitoring and treatment of disease. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Rothstein, Esq.
ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM, PA
1312 Augusta Street
Greenville, SC 29605
Telephone: (864) 232-5870
E-mail: drothstein@rothsteinlawfirm.com
-and-
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Avenue, Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
-and-
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Tamra Givens, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
-and-
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
LAKEWOOD OMF: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Discharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKEWOOD OMF SURGERY, INC.; DAVID KIM; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08622 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide proper
meal periods, failure to provide proper rest periods, failure to
timely pay wages upon termination, unfair competition, and
constructive termination in violation of public policy.
The Plaintiff was employed as a dental assistant for the Defendants
in California.
Lakewood OMF Surgery, Inc. is an oral and facial surgery and
aesthetic medicine services provider based in Long Beach,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 733-2498
Facsimile: (562) 628-5501
E-mail: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com
MAMA'S ON WHEELS: Fails to Pay Staff's Proper Wages, Figueroa Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAMA'S ON WHEELS, LLC; and BORJA FABREGAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-20779-KMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2021)
is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Figueroa was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Mama's On Wheels, LLC owns and operates food service and catering
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 901-1379
E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
MDL 2331: Bid to Transfer McAlexander v. Merck Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
In the product liability litigation over Propecia and Proscar,
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation denied the proposed transfer of
McAlexander v. Merck & Co., Inc., (C.A. No. 2:20-15042, D.N.J.) to
the Eastern District of New York for inclusion in MDL No. 2331 as
moved by Merck & Co.
The panel says the McAlexander action does not share a common
factual core with the actions in the MDL sufficient to support
transfer. Actions in this MDL involve allegations that use of
finasteride, the active ingredient in Propecia and Proscar, causes
persistent sexual dysfunction in a subset of male users, sometimes
even after discontinuation of use of the drug. McAlexander v. Merck
& Co. involves similar alleged injuries arising from the use of
finasteride, though plaintiff's allegations are somewhat vague as
to his precise injuries.
Based on the panel's review of the progress of MDL 2331, the
benefits of transfer to this MDL are outweighed by the effects of
transferring a new action to this procedurally mature MDL, which is
nearing resolution. Per the panel, relative merits of transferring
new tag-along actions to an MDL can change over time as the
transferee court completes its primary tasks, and at a certain
point the "benefits of transfer should not be assumed to continue"
thus deeming that transfer of the McAlexander action to MDL 2331 is
no longer warranted. Only three procedurally advanced actions
remain in this MDL, which historically has had over 1,100 cases.
Should the McAlexander action progress to a point where discovery
is needed, the panel sees no reason why the parties in McAlexander
should not be able to avail themselves of the documents and
depositions accumulated in this MDL. Thus, even absent transfer,
most of the benefits of the MDL are available to expedite
resolution of McAlexander's action.
A full-text copy of the Court's February 5, 2021 order is available
at https://bit.ly/3eiL39W.
MDL 2964: Summary Judgment Bids in Insurance Suit Partly Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation captioned IN RE: SOCIETY INSURANCE
CO. COVID-19 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION PROTECTION INSURANCE LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to the Following Cases: VALLEY LODGE CORP.,
Plaintiff v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, a Mutual Company, Defendant; RISING
DOUGH, INC. (d/b/a MADISON SOURDOUGH), et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOCIETY
INSURANCE, Defendant; BIG ONION TAVERN GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. SOCIETY INSURANCE, INC., Defendant, MDL No. 2964,
Master Docket Nos. 20 C 5965, 20 C 02813, 20 C 05981, 20 C 02005
(N.D. Ill.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motions
to dismiss and summary judgment motions.
The multi-district litigation addresses Society Insurance's
broad-based denials of business-interruption coverage for a variety
of restaurants and other businesses in the hospitality industry
whose operations have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
District Judge Edmond E. Chang explains that the Opinion decides
dispositive motions in each of the three bellwether cases selected
by the Court. R. 69. Those cases are: Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC,
et al. v. Society Insurance, No. 1:20-cv-02005; Valley Lodge Corp.
v. Society Insurance, No. 1:20-cv-02813; and Rising Dough, Inc., et
al. v. Society Insurance, No. 1:20-cv-05981.
Society has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
in the Rising Dough action; and a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in the
Big Onion and Valley Lodge actions.
Background
The novel coronavirus has generated a global pandemic lasting
almost an entire year. Many government agencies around the world
have responded by closing (at least in part) businesses of all
kinds and by restricting activities, particularly group
gatherings.
At issue in the MDL are the impacts of those closures on the
Plaintiffs in those three cases: Specifically, businesses in the
hospitality industry in Illinois (the Big Onion and Valley Lodge
plaintiffs), and Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Tennessee (the Rising
Dough plaintiffs). All have been forced to modify their normal
business operations due to the pandemic--for example, suspending
in-person dining and relying only on take-out orders--and all
allege that they have lost significant revenue as a result. All
Plaintiffs--indeed, all the Plaintiffs in all the cases within this
MDL, by definition--are insured by Society Insurance against
certain interruptions to their business.
The fundamental questions at stake in the litigation are how
properly to classify the interruption that has happened, and
whether this particular interruption is covered under the policy.
Beyond following state and local government orders and guidance,
the Rising Dough plaintiffs also allege that the losses to their
businesses occurred as a direct result of the actual presence of
the coronavirus itself on the premises. The Big Onion plaintiffs
have similarly alleged that the "continuous presence of the
coronavirus on or around Plaintiffs' premises has created a
dangerous condition and rendered their premises unsafe and unfit
for their intended use and therefore caused physical property
damage or loss under the Policies."
For its part, Society counters that these losses, whether caused by
the coronavirus directly or by the government orders, simply do not
fall within the plain language of the policy invoked by the
Plaintiffs. In particular, the Plaintiffs allege that coverage
applies under the following policy provisions, common to all
plaintiffs (although each group of plaintiffs has sought recovery
under different subsets of these provisions):
* Business Income coverage, on the Businessowners Special
Property Coverage Form, section 5, Additional
Coverages . . .;
* Civil Authority coverage, on the Businessowners Special
Property Coverage Form, section 5, Additional
Coverages . . .;
* Contamination coverage, on the Businessowners Special
Property Coverage Form, section 5, Additional
Coverages . . .;
* Extra Expense coverage, on the Businessowners Special
Property Coverage Form, section 5, Additional
Coverages . . .; and
* the Sue and Labor provision, on the Businessowners Special
Property Coverage Form, part E, Property Loss Conditions...
Judge Chang notes that the policy does not contain a specific
exclusion of coverage for losses due to a virus or pandemic, which
is now--the Plaintiffs allege--a standard exclusion in the
insurance industry.
Society denied the Plaintiffs' claims for coverage in several ways.
First, it did so preemptively and en masse, circulating a
memorandum, on March 16, 2020, to its insurance agency partners,
observing that "a quarantine of any size, or brought about by a
governmental action without a Covered Cause of Loss, would likely
not trigger Business Income or Extra Expense coverages under our
policies." Second, Society denied individual claims that various
Plaintiffs filed. Third, Society issued another memorandum on March
27, 2020, this time to all of its policyholders, entitled "A
Message From our CEO on Pandemic Crisis." That memorandum does not
explicitly say that Society has denied or will deny all claims
resulting from pandemic-related shutdowns, but Society asserted
that "pandemic events" are generally excluded from insurance
coverage.
Certainly, at this point in the litigation, all parties agree that
Society has not paid, and does not intend to pay, the Plaintiffs'
pandemic-related claims, Judge Chang notes.
The Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits shortly after these denials of
coverage. Valley Lodge and the Big Onion plaintiffs filed their
complaints in the Northern District of Illinois. The Rising Dough
plaintiffs filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
In October 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued a transfer order centralizing all pandemic-related
litigation against Society Insurance in this Court. After
appointing counsel to lead the litigation on the Plaintiffs'
behalf, and after conferring with the parties on which motions to
use as bellwethers, the Court picked these three cases. To repeat,
Society has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
in the Rising Dough action, and a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for summary judgment in the Big Onion and Valley Lodge
actions.
Discussion
The parties dispute whether the coronavirus itself, the pandemic,
or the government shutdown orders (or some combination of those
three things) trigger coverage under this provision.
The Society policy does not purport to alter the proximate-cause
standard--or at least a reasonable jury could so find, Judge Chang
finds. The policy does not say that the business suspension must be
directly caused by a Covered Cause of Loss; the text simply says
that the business suspension must be "caused by" a Covered Cause of
Loss.
Judge Chang notes that it is true that Covered Cause of Loss is
defined as "direct physical loss," but that definition does not
purport to impose a stricter causation standard than proximate
cause. Instead, the proximate-causation standard applies both to
the adjective "direct" in the term "direct physical loss," and to
the "caused by" and "caused by or result from" language preceding
the loss and damage terms and definitions. As to "caused by" and
"result from," these are precisely the kinds of open-ended causal
terms that imply the default causal standard under State law,
without further constraint by any other language in the policy.
With proximate cause as the governing causation standard, a
reasonable jury could find (at least on the factual record so far)
that the novel coronavirus and the resulting pandemic proximately
caused the business interruptions, Judge Chang explains. "A
proximate cause is one that produces an injury through a natural
and continuous sequence of events unbroken by any effective
intervening cause." Cleveland v. Rotman, 297 F.3d 569, 573 (7th
Cir. 2002).
Even if the government shutdown orders (and not the pandemic
itself) played a causal role in the Plaintiffs' losses, and even if
those orders cannot be construed as a "direct physical loss," the
shutdown orders were proximately caused by the pandemic, Judge
Chang says. At least a reasonable jury could so find given the
policy's ambiguity, in which case the policy language must be
construed in favor of the Plaintiffs.
This leaves the question of whether the Plaintiffs' loss is
"physical" in nature--whether it is caused by the coronavirus
itself, the coronavirus pandemic, or government shutdown orders.
Remember that the operative text is "direct physical loss of or
damage to covered property," Judge Chang notes. The disjunctive
"or" in that phrase means that "physical loss" must cover something
different from "physical damage." That interpretive principle
refuses Society's first argument: that the coronavirus could not
constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered
property because the virus "does not cause a tangible change to the
physical characteristics of property." It would be one thing if
coverage were limited to direct physical "damage." But coverage
extends to direct physical "loss of" property as well. So the
Plaintiffs need not plead or show a change to the property's
physical characteristics, Judge Chang holds.
The more challenging interpretive question is whether the
restrictions imposed on the Plaintiffs' use of their premises count
as physical loss, Judge Chang says. Society observes, and the
Plaintiffs do not contest, that most of the restaurants have been
able to use their kitchens and, thus, continue to operate on a
take-out and delivery order basis during much (if not all) of the
pandemic period. But the Plaintiffs have not been able to use their
premises as they did for indoor, sit-down service before the
pandemic. Depending on the particulars of applicable shutdown
orders and the Plaintiffs' premises, some have not been able to
offer on-site service at all, while others have only been able to
do so at limited capacity.
Judge Chang points out that a reasonable jury can find that the
Plaintiffs did suffer a direct "physical" loss of property on their
premises. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the
pandemic-caused shutdown orders do impose a physical limit: the
restaurants are limited from using much of their physical space. It
is not as if the shutdown orders imposed a financial limit on the
restaurants by, for example, capping the dollar-amount of daily
sales that each restaurant could make. No, instead the Plaintiffs
cannot use (or cannot fully use) the physical space. Indeed, the
policy defines "covered property" to include buildings at the
premises, not just personal property or movable items.
Judge Chang says, the scope of the term "direct physical loss" is
genuinely in dispute. A reasonable jury could find for either side
based on the arguments and factual record presented so far in the
litigation. Society's motion for summary judgment is denied asto
the policy's business-interruption coverage.
Although the business-interruption coverage is sufficient, at this
stage of the litigation, for the coverage cases to move forward, it
is worth addressing the other coverage theories advanced by the
Plaintiffs, Judge Chang states. A decision now makes sense because,
as it turns out, the other coverage theories can be decided on the
current record and because it is worth streamlining discovery
upfront and eliminating discovery disputes now rather than later.
Society has moved for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs'
claims brought under the policy's Civil Authority coverage. The
Plaintiffs argue that, in essence, the government shutdown orders
in their various jurisdictions count as a covered "action of civil
authority."
But even if that were right, the problem for the Plaintiffs is that
the action of the civil authority must "prohibit access" to the
premises and the surrounding area, Judge Chang notes. As Society
correctly observes, even if the general public is prohibited from
congregating in the covered premises, there is no allegation that
employees are outright prohibited from accessing the premises--or
from accessing the immediately surrounding areas, for that matter.
Indeed, for some of the Plaintiffs, take-out customers and in-room
dining guests may access the premises (and the immediately
surrounding areas). The Civil Authority coverage is not triggered
by mere "loss of" property; there must be "prohibited" "access."
The Plaintiffs' claims for coverage under this provision must be
dismissed.
The analysis of the Contamination coverage provision is much the
same. The Plaintiffs have not been prohibited from accessing the
premises, and many have continued to produce food for take-out and
delivery purposes. For these reasons, neither the Civil Authority
nor the Contamination provisions are viable theories of coverage
under the policy.
The final coverage theory is advanced only by the Rising Dough
plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs have pleaded that their losses are
covered under the policy's Sue and Labor clause. Society seeks to
dismiss this claim on the grounds that the Sue and Labor clause is
"not a coverage grant," but rather "a Condition that the Insured is
required to comply with."
Society is right: the Sue and Labor clause does not independently
describe coverage, but instead sets forth what the insured must do
if there is coverage, Judge Chang holds. Nothing about the clause
sets forth a duty to pay on Society's part. Indeed, Section E of
the policy is entitled, "Property Loss Conditions," and is, thus,
distinct from Section A, "Coverage," which actually contains the
grants of coverage. On this issue, the plain language of the policy
is unambiguous: the Sue and Labor clause does not provide coverage.
The counts invoking this clause in the Rising Dough complaint
(Counts 5 and 10) are dismissed. This dismissal is with prejudice
because there is no conceivable way of fixing this particular
claim.
Lastly, Society targets the Illinois Insurance Code claims, 215
ILCS 5/155, advanced by the Big Onion and Valley Lodge plaintiffs,
alleging that Society denied coverage in bad faith. Section 155
provides for fee-shifting and potential penalties against insurers
if they are "vexatious and unreasonable" in denying a claim or in
delaying the settlement of a claim. Section 154.6 sets forth a list
of "improper" claims practices, and the Plaintiffs in the Illinois
bellwether actions have each alleged a modestly different set of
specific violations of that section.
Judge Chang opines that all of the allegations are anchored by the
same fundamental set of facts. Specifically, according to the
Plaintiffs, the March 16 and March 27, 2020 memoranda issued by
Society, which denied coverage across-the-board, allegedly
misrepresented the true scope of the insurance policies; Society
failed to investigate individual claims, as required, and instead
issued hasty denials not based on individual claims; and Society's
actions have caused an improper and lengthy delay in receiving
payment.
Society argues that, as a matter of law, claims under Section 155
must be dismissed if there is a bona-fide dispute over coverage. In
support of this contention, Society primarily relies on two
Illinois cases as examples of a bona-fide dispute over coverage as
fatally undermining Section 155 claims. Uhlich Children's Adv.
Network v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 929 N.E.2d 531, 543 (Ill.
App. Ct. 2010); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fisher Dev., Inc., 909
N.E.2d 274, 284 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
But in those cases, the decisions on the Section 155 theories were
made only after a definitive finding on the coverage question,
Judge Chang finds. In the specific factual settings of each those
cases, there was no reason to opine on whether an ultimate finding
that there is no coverage always means that there can be no viable
Section 155 claim. And, more importantly for purposes of this case,
the cases had reached the ultimate conclusion on the underlying
coverage dispute.
In the case, it might very well be that, ultimately, no reasonable
jury could help but find that there is a bona-fide dispute over
coverage, Judge Chang holds. But no discovery has taken place and
the case is, for purposes of this issue, at the pleading stage. To
be sure, there might be cases in which a coverage-dispute complaint
sets forth allegations that make it crystal clear that there is a
bona-fide dispute over coverage, thus precluding a Section 155
claim. In the case, however, the need for more factual development
prevents a pleading-stage dismissal of the claim, Judge Chang
adds.
Conclusion
Society's motions to dismiss and summary judgment motions are
denied to the extent that they target the claims for
business-interruption coverage. Those claims survive. Also, the
Section 155 claims survive in Big Onion and Valley Lodge. But the
summary judgment motions in the Big Onion and Valley Lodge actions
are granted as to the coverage theories under the Civil Authority
and the Contamination provisions, and in the Rising Dough case as
to the Sue and Labor clause.
To give the parties time to confer over the proposed next steps of
the case, including an efficient and speedy discovery schedule, the
status hearing of February 24, 2021, was reset to March 9, 2021, at
11:00 a.m. The Co-Lead Counsel team and Society will confer and
file a Joint Scheduling Report, setting forth the areas of
agreement and any competing proposals.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
Feb. 22, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/56329kfy from
Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Azran Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sheri Azran,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:21-cv-60524-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) --
https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone and Fax: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MOMENTUM FOR MENTAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Freeland Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SINORA FREELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOMENTUM FOR MENTAL HEALTH; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV376550 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 26, 2021) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Momentum For Mental Health operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization offers services including residential treatment
program, adult residential care, day rehabilitation, employment,
outpatient, and housing programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
NATIONAL WESTERN: Dyrssen Files Suit in E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Western Life
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Douglas Dyrssen
Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Western Life Insurance Company, National Western Life
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00356-NONE-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 8,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
National Western Life -- https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ --
provides high quality insurance products that meet the financial
security needs of well-defined market segments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20016, Suite 305
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Claims in Holden Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
denied in part and granted in part the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit titled CORNELL HOLDEN AND MIGUEL
MEJIA, Plaintiffs v. THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY;
THE PORT AUTHORITY POLICY DEPARTMENT; AND MICHAEL OPROMALLA, SHAUN
KEHOE, JOHN TONE, JORDAN ESPOSITO, MICHAEL DEMARTINO, RICHARD
AYLMER, PAUL MILLER, JOHN FITZPATRICK, PAUL O'DELL, AND OFFICERS
JOHN DOE 1-97, SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS
OFFICERS OF THE PORT AUTHORITY POLICY DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-2192 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs, Cornell Holden and Miguel Mejia, have brought the
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority Police
Department ("PAPD"), and Michael Opromalla, Shaun Kehoe, John Tone,
Jordan Esposito, Michael DeMartino, Richard Aylmer, Paul Miller,
John Fitzpatrick, and Paul O'Dell ("Officer Defendants"), in their
individual and official capacities, as officers of the PAPD, for
alleged violations of the plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs have alleged (1) false arrest in
violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) impermissible discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation or gender non-conformity in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and (3) infringement of a liberty interest protected by
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition,
they have sought punitive damages. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Officer Defendants targeted them, or failed to supervise arresting
officers who targeted them, for unlawful search, seizure, and false
arrest without probable cause, based on the impermissible
consideration of their perceived sexual orientation or gender
non-conforming presentation.
Further, the Plaintiffs claim that the Port Authority engaged in
and perpetuated a de facto custom or policy of failing to
supervise, train, or discipline officers assigned to plainclothes
patrolling of the Port Authority Bus Terminal ("PABT") men's
bathrooms, resulting in the targeting of men perceived to be gay or
bisexual, men who have sex with men, or who are otherwise gender
non-conforming, for unlawful searches, seizures, false arrests
without probable cause.
The Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment on (1) all
claims against the Port Authority, (2) all claims against the
non-arresting Officer Defendants, namely, Kehoe, Esposito,
DeMartino, Aylmer, Miller, O'Dell, and Fitzpatrick, and (3) all
claims based on alleged violations of the Plaintiffs' rights
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause
and Due Process Clause. They also argue that the Plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages against the Port Authority should be
dismissed.
The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims against the Port Authority, based on the
alleged violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs
have failed to establish either a policy or custom of
unconstitutional conduct or that the Port Authority's training and
supervision are constitutionally inadequate. The Defendants
primarily contend that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that the
Port Authority had an unconstitutional policy, custom, or practice
without a certified class, and that the Plaintiffs have failed to
allege more than a "single incident," which is insufficient as a
matter of law, to support municipal liability for a Section 1983
claim.
District Judge John G. Koeltl holds that both arguments are without
merit. In this case, the Plaintiffs have primarily sought to
establish that the Port Authority failed to train, supervise, or
discipline PAPD officers, thereby allowing unconstitutional
policing practices to occur and continue.
In sum, Judge Koeltl holds, considering the evidence in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could find
that the PAPD failed to train or to supervise and discipline
plainclothes officers, despite awareness of past issues, that this
failure was done with deliberate indifference to the consequences,
and that this failure to train or to supervise and discipline was a
proximate cause of the Plaintiffs being unlawfully subjected to
arrest without probable cause and to arrest in violation of their
rights to equal protection.
The Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
Section 1983 claims based on alleged violations of the Plaintiffs'
rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, arguing that the Officer Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity and, in the alternative, that the Plaintiffs'
equal protection claims lack sufficient factual support. They
assert that "neither the Second Circuit nor the Supreme Court have
held the Equal Protection Clause prohibits discrimination based on
sexual orientation or gender non-conformity," and thus such
principle was not "clearly established" in 2014 at the time of the
plaintiffs' arrests.
Judge Koeltl insists that this assertion misstates the law. First,
the Defendants' claim that the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit has not held that adverse discrimination based on sexual
orientation or gender non-conformity is prohibited by the Equal
Protection Clause is untrue. In 2012, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals in Windsor held that homosexuality is a "quasi-suspect"
class and discriminatory treatment of the class is subject to
"intermediate judicial review." Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d
169, 185 (2d Cir. 2012), aff'd on other grounds, 570 U.S. 744
(2013). Courts in the Second Circuit have repeatedly recognized
Windsor's application of intermediate scrutiny to sexual
orientation-based classifications as the controlling law within
this Circuit, dating back to before the relevant Plaintiffs'
arrests in 2014.
Moreover, whatever the level of scrutiny, it is clear beyond
dispute--and was clear in 2014--that there is no basis to arrest
people based on their sexual orientation, Judge Koeltl holds. The
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged and provided support for the
proposition that the PAPD engaged in a de facto policy of
discriminatory policing that specifically targeted for arrest
homosexual or gender non-conforming men.
By contrast, the events in the case all took place after the
decision of the Court of Appeals in Windsor and after it was
affirmed by the Supreme Court and the Plaintiffs here have alleged
animus and systemic discrimination. Therefore, the individual
Officer Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity for the
Plaintiffs' Equal Protection Clause claims, Judge Koeltl
concludes.
In the alternative, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' Equal
Protection Clause claim lacks factual support. They argue that the
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the arresting officers
were aware of the Plaintiffs' sexual orientation or gender
nonconformity, or that the Plaintiffs were intentionally
discriminated against or treated worse than "similarly situated"
individuals.
The Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants violated their
rights to equal protection when the Plaintiffs were subjected to
arrest without probable cause, which the they allege was the result
of a deliberate targeting of gay or gender non-conforming men by
the PAPD officers. They have presented evidence to show that the
population of lewdness arrests that occurred in the men's bathroom
during 2014, of which the Plaintiffs' arrests are a part, were
"idiosyncratic," occurred at counterintuitive times, and do not
match the age or racial characteristics of those arrested for other
offenses, and that the arrests were likely driven by "intentional
policy choices," and "not incidental to routine police patrols and
stops." The Plaintiffs have presented evidence to suggest there is
a history in New York of policing men's bathrooms in order to
target gay or gender non-conforming men, and that the idiosyncratic
arrests in 2014 were part of that pattern.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have both failed to show
the arresting officers knew of the Plaintiffs' sexual orientation
or gender non-conformity. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs
have only pleaded subjective "feelings" or "perceptions" of being
discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Judge Koeltl opines that the Plaintiffs have presented sufficient
evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that they
were treated differently from other PABT patrons in violation of
their right to equal protection, and that such differential
treatment was related to an impermissible consideration of their
real or perceived sexual orientation. Moreover, the question of
whether the arresting officers were aware of the Plaintiffs' sexual
orientation is a question of fact that depends on an assessment of
all the facts and that cannot be resolved in the defendants' favor
on a motion for summary judgment.
Finally, Judge Koeltl adds, the Plaintiffs have presented
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could
conclude that the Port Authority both had a de facto policy that
caused the targeting of gay or gender non-conforming men with
unconstitutional police tactics and failed to train and supervise
its officers appropriately.
The Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against Officer Defendants Kehoe,
Esposito, DeMartino, Aylmer, Miller, O'Dell, and Fitzpatrick,
arguing that such claims are without legal or factual support and,
because they were not raised in the initial complaint, they are
time barred. The Plaintiffs argue that each of the non-arresting
officers failed to ensure that the arresting officers had
established necessary probable cause for the arrest of both
Plaintiffs and failed to supervise appropriately the plain-clothes
policing tactics used in the PABT bathrooms. Further, they note
that Captain Fitzpatrick, as the Commanding Officer, in particular,
appears to have had a significant role in deciding and implementing
the PAPD's official policies and strategic initiatives, including
the TPU and the alleged use of plainclothes officers to conduct
"Quality of Life" arrests.
Judge Koeltl holds that the Plaintiffs' claims against the
non-arresting Officer Defendants are time-barred. The Court of
Appeals has concluded that Section 1983 claims based on events that
occurred within New York State have 3-year statute of limitations,
citing Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517 (2d Cir. 2013).
In the case, the events occurred in May and July of 2014, and the
Plaintiffs' original complaint was filed on March 27, 2017, and
named only Officers Opromalla, Tone, and Kehoe. It did not include
Captain Fitzpatrick, even though Captain Fitzpatrick was quoted in
the New York Times article that the Plaintiffs' attached as an
exhibit to the original complaint.
Thus, Judge Koeltl says, the Plaintiffs have failed to adduce
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude
that the non-arresting officers were personally involved in any
constitutional violations. The Defendants argue that the
Plaintiffs' general allegations that their rights to "due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment" were violated because they were
targeted based on their perceived sexual orientation or gender
non-conformity fail to state a claim.
As the Plaintiffs correctly note, their Second Amended Complaint
does not include a standalone "entrapment" claim, and thus, the
Defendants' arguments that entrapment is not an independent ground
for liability under Section 1983 are irrelevant, Judge Koeltl
holds. Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of
the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
The Court is also persuaded to join the majority of courts to have
considered the issue and find that the Port Authority--and the PAPD
as one of its constituent agencies--is immune from punitive
damages. In a letter, filed after oral argument, the Plaintiffs
have conceded that punitive damages are not available against the
Port Authority.
The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To
the extent not specifically addressed, the remaining arguments are
either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained, the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied in part and
granted in part. The Clerk is directed to close Docket Nos. 201 &
226.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated Feb. 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3saazz46 from
Leagle.com.
NEXSTAR BROADCASTING: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Gordon
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA GORDON v. NEXSTAR
BROADCASTING, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00007-DAD-JLT (E.D.
Calif.), the Court entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant Nexstar's motion for partial
summary judgment as follows:
a. The Defendant Nexstar's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
gender discrimination claim is granted;
b. The Defendant Nexstar's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's FEHA retaliation claim is granted;
c. The Defendant Nexstar's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's wrongful termination in violation of public
policy claim is granted;
d. The Defendant Nexstar's motion for summary judgment on
plaintiff's IIED claim is granted; and
e. The Defendant Nexstar's alternative motion for partial
summary judgment on its affirmative defenses is denied,
without prejudice, as having been rendered moot;
2. denying the defendant Nexstar's alternative motion as
moot; and
3. denying the defendant Mendoza's motion for partial summary
judgment as moot.
On November 10, 2017, the plaintiff filed the operative first
amended complaint (FAC) in this action, in which she asserts the
following claims: (1) sexual harassment in violation of the FEHA,
California Government Code against the defendants; (2) gender
discrimination in violation of FEHA against defendant Nexstar; (3)
wrongful termination in violation of public policy against
defendant Nexstar; (4) retaliation in violation of FEHA against
defendant Nexstar; and (5) intentional infliction of emotional
distress against all defendants.
On June 21, 2019, defendant Nexstar filed its motion for partial
summary judgment.
Nexstar owns and operates television stations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38BLSaz at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTH PACIFIC: May 17 Extension to File Class Status Bid OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO TORRES and JORGE
HURTADO JR., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, v. NORTH PACIFIC SEAFOODS, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01545-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge James R. Robart entered an order granting the Parties
stipulation as follows:
-- The deadline to serve discovery on class certification
shall remain unchanged;
-- The deadline for each party to respond to discovery that
has been served, but has not yet been responded to, shall
be extended 30 days;
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification shall be extended to May 17, 2021;
-- The deadline for the Defendant's opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification motion shall be
extended to June 21, 2021; and
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs' to file their reply to the
Defendant's opposition shall be extended to July 2, 2021.
North Pacific owns and operates seven shore-based seafood
processing plants strategically located in key seafood harvesting
regions of Alaska -- Kodiak, Sitka, Twin Hills, Kenai, Kasilof and
Naknek (two plants).
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bpthjC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:
Dan Drachler, Esq.
Henry Avery, Esq.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER &
ZWERLING, LLP
1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 223-2053
Facsimile: (206) 343-96360
E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com
havery@zsz.com
- and -
Robert S. Arns, Esq.
Jonathan E. Davis, Esq.
Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
THE ARNS LAW FIRM
525 Folsom St., 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94109
Telephone: (415) 495-7800
Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com
jed@arnslaw.com
ssd@arnslaw.com
- and -
Kevin Osborne, Esq.
Julie Erickson, Esq.
Elizabeth Kramer, Esq.
ERIKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP
182 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 635-0631
Facsimile: (415) 599-8088
E-mail: kevin@eko.law
julie@eko.law
elizabeth@eko.law
The Defendant is represented by:
Chelsea Dwyer Petersen, Esq.
Danielle M. Ryman, Esq.
Stephanie R. Holstein, Esq.
Sarah Schirack, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: CDPetersen@perkinscoie.com
DRyman@perkinscoie.com
SHolstein@perkinscoie.com
SSchirack@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Kara L. Heikkila, Esq.
Coeur d'Alene, Esq.
WITHERSPOON KELLEY
608 Northwest Boulevard, Suite 300
Telephone: (208) 667-4000
Facsimile: (208) 667-8470
E-mail: klh@witherspoonkelley.com
NORTHAMPTON RESTAURANTS: Carroll et al. Seek Unpaid Wages & Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN E. CARROLL, GERALDINE P. CORRIGAN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. NORTHAMPTON
RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a ABERDEEN BARN STEAKHOUSE, and KOSTAS
PRAMATIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00115 (E.D. Va., March 1,
2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiffs started working with the Defendants in August 2020
as servers at the Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants systematically and
routinely violated the FLSA by keeping a portion of the employees'
tips, which was not redistributed through a tip pool, and by
failing to properly pay them at the required minimum wage rate by
illegally applying the tip credit to their wages. Allegedly, the
Defendants wrongfully withheld wages of the Plaintiffs without the
written and signed authorization of the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs assert that they have suffered damages due to the
Defendants' unlawful conduct. Thus, they seek compensation for all
unpaid wages and tips, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees, and other relief
as the Court deems just and proper in equity and under the law.
Northampton Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Aberdeen Barn Steakhouse
operates a steakhouse restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christian L. Connell, Esq.
CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C.
555 East Main Street, Suite 1102
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tel: (757) 533-6500
Fax: (757) 299-4770
E-mail: Christian.connell@outlook.com
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Campana BIPA Suit Goes to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHELLE CAMPANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
2021-CH-00374, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01241 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by capturing,
collecting, storing, and/or using the voiceprint biometric
identifiers of the Plaintiff and Class members without valid
consent.
Nuance Communications, Inc. is an American multinational computer
software technology corporation, headquartered in Burlington,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
David C. Layden, Esq.
Elena M. Olivieri, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Telephone: (312) 222-9350
Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
E-mail: DLayden@jenner.com
EOlivieri@jenner.com
OHIO RENAL: FLSA Conditional Certification Bid Filing Due May 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID M. FREEMAN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OHIO RENAL
CARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02402-JPC (N.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge J. Philip Calabrese entered a case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:
Initial disclosures: March 11, 2021
Motions to amend pleading or May 25, 2021
add additional parties:
Motions directed to pleadings: : May 25, 2021
Motion for conditional May 25, 2021
certification under the FLSA:
Motion for class certification July 26, 2021
under Rule 23:
Fact discovery cut-off: September 27, 2021
Dispositive motion deadline October 25, 2021
Expert discovery cut-off: January 28, 2022
Initial expert report(s) due: November 30, 2021
Rebuttal expert report(s) due: December 31, 2021
Status conference: January 28, 2022
Ohio Renal is a ESRD Treatment Clinic (Dialysis Center) in
Cleveland, Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O9vUgw at no extra charge.[CC]
OUTER INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Outer, Inc. The case
is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Outer,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01235-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Outer -- https://liveouter.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer outdoor
furniture brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Underpays Big Red Operators, Gibson Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLY GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00103-JB-N (S.D. Ala., March 5, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the common law of Alabama by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees at the
required minimum wages and failing to compensate them overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed as a Big Red Operator by the Defendant
at its facility in Mobile County, Alabama from 2015 until February
24, 2021.
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC is a global stainless steel
manufacturer based in Calvert, Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq.
HOLSTON, VAUGHAN & ROSENTHAL, LLC
P.O. Box 195
Mobile, AL 36601
Telephone: (251) 432-8883
Facsimile: (251) 432-8884
E-mail: idr@holstonvaughan.com
- and –
Patrick H. Sims, Esq.
P.O. Box 7112
Mobile, AL 36670
Telephone: (251) 725-1316
E-mail: patrick@simslawfirm.net
PAT KULETO: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Chu Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAT KULETO RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT &
MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a WATERBAR, a California corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01426 (N.D.
Cal., February 26, 2021) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff claims that during his several visits to the
Defendant's Website, https://www.waterbarsf.com/, he has
encountered multiple access barriers which denied him full and
equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public on the Defendant's Website.
Due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired customers, such as the Plaintiff who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the
facilities and services of the Defendant offered to the public on
its Website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure comply with Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 which would provide the
Plaintiff and Class Members who are visually-impaired consumers
with equal access to the Website.
Pat Kuleto Restaurant Development & Management Company d/b/a
Waterbar operates a restaurant and offered excellently prepared and
presented seafood and other specialty menu items to the public
through its Website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
PEABODY ENERGY: Oregon PERS Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court
appointed Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund as lead
plaintiff.
On September 28, 2020, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System brought a securities lawsuit against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased Company stock between April 3, 2017, and
October 28, 2019 (Class Period), for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose certain adverse facts
pertaining to safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella
Mine and that, after a September 28, 2018 fire at the mine, made
false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose certain
adverse facts pertaining to the feasibility of the Company's plan
to restart the mine after the fire.
The Company believes the lawsuit lacks merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the allegations.
On January 12, 2021, the Court appointed Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff. On January 25, 2021, the Court
entered a scheduling order for this matter.
Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint by March 19, 2021. The
defendants must file their motion to dismiss by June 7, 2021.
Additional briefings at this phase of litigation should be
completed by the end of August 2021.
Peabody Energy Corporation is involved in mining and sale of
thermal coal to electric utilities and metallurgical coal for
industrial customers. The company was founded in 1883 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
PHIL'S BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Carrasco Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR CARRASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHIL'S BODY WORKS, INC.; DOMINICK VALENTI;
and RICHIE VALENTI, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01014 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 25, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Mr. Carrasco was employed by the Defendants as staff.
PHIL'S BODY WORKS, INC. is a family-owned-and-operated auto body
repair shop. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Class Status of Eligible Injured Persons Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CECELIA PRYCE suing
individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION;
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01467-RJD-RER (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class action defined as:
"All 'Eligible Injured Persons' as that term is defined by
11 NYCRR sections 65-1.1-65-1.3 covered under a policy of
insurance issued by PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE, PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE DIRECT
COMPANY and subject to the provisions of Insurance Law
section 5102, who had actual monthly wages in excess of
two thousand dollars per month, who have submitted First
Party Benefit claims to, and received payment from, one or
more of these defendants for First Party Benefits that
included claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at
least one month of First Party wage benefits, the
defendants claim coverage had fully exhausted on or after
March 13, 2013;"
Excluded from the Class are the defendant companies; any
entity that has a controlling interest in one or more of
the defendant companies; current or former directors,
officers and counsel of the defendant companies; and any
class member who has already received full compensation of
his or her lost wages under the applicable insurance
policy;
2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative, and
the undersigned as class counsel.
3. directing the parties to submit to the Court proposed
forms and schedules for providing notice to the class.
4. establishing a schedule for notice, fact discovery, future
motions practice, and trial.
Progressive Corporation is an American insurance company, one of
the largest providers of car insurance in the United States. The
company insures motorcycles, boats, RVs, and commercial vehicles
and provides home insurance through select companies.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rvZLhW
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class, are:
Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
Dirk Marschhausen, Esq.
MARSCHHAUSEN & FITZPATRICK, P.C.
73 Heitz Place
Hicksville, NY 11801
Telephone: (516) 747-8000
E-mail: kfitzpatrick@marschfitz.com
- and -
John K. Weston, Esq.
SACKS WESTON LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 925-8200
E-mail: jweston@sackslaw.com
RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Sues Over 6.08% Drop of Stock Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD JACOBOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION,
JEFFREY L. VENTURA, MARK S. SCUCCHI, and ROGER S. MANNY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00301-DSC (W.D. Pa., March 4, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Range Resources' business,
operations, and compliance policies in order to artificially
inflate prices of the company's common stock between April 29, 2016
and February 10, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells
in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the company to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased
the company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and
abandon its wells; (iii) the company was the subject of a
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021
for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP
investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to
close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Range Resources Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company, headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
Facsimile: (412) 471-1033
E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com
- and –
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
RENO, NE: Castellanos, et al., Seek to Certify Three Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE CASTELLANOS,
LAUREN COURTNEY, RACHAEL JASPER, BRIANNA MORALES, VICTORIA RACHET,
LILY STAGNER, NATALEE WELLS, CECELIA WHITTLE, and MARYANN ROSE
BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CITY OF RENO and MICHAEL CHAUMP, in his official capacity as
Business Relations Manager of Community Development and Business
Licenses for the CITY OF RENO and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00693-MMD-CLB (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order certifying the following classes:
-- Under 21 Dancers Class consisting of:
"all Adult Interactive Cabaret Performers who are between
18 and 21 years of age and who have a work card and/or
license as required under any provision of the Reno
Municipal Code ("RMC") to work as an Adult Interactive
Cabaret Performer, as well as all potential Adult
Interactive Cabaret Performers who are between 18 and 21
years of age, and who, but for the passage of RMC
5.06.080(b), effective May 8, 2019, would have performed
as licensed Adult Interactive Cabaret Performers at any
of the existing licensed Adult Interactive Cabarets in
Reno, hereinafter the "Under 21 Dancers Class";
-- All Female Dancers Class consisting of:
"all female Adult Interactive Cabaret Performers who were
required to pay a fee to the City of Reno as a condition
of dancing topless at a time contrasted to male adult
interactive cabaret performers who danced topless but
were not required to pay such fees, hereinafter "Female
Dancers Class"; and
-- 18 to 21 Year Old Patron Class consisting of:
"all patrons between the ages of 18 to 21 who were
prohibited from entering any Adult Interactive Cabaret
licensed by the City of Reno after the passage of RMC
5.06.080(b), effective May 8, 2019, on the same basis
that they may enter any other (non-adult) cabaret
licensed by the City of Reno.
Reno is a city in the northwest section of the U.S. state of
Nevada, along the Nevada-California border, about 22 miles from
Lake Tahoe, known as "The Biggest Little City in the World".
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 25,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3coCurV
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative class, are:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NE 89511
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
josh@thiermanbuck.com
leah@thiermanbuck.com
joshh@thiermanbuck.com
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Roberts BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LATOYA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RESTAURANT BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and POPEYES LOUISIANA KITCHEN, INC., Case No. 2021 CH 00353, was
removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 4,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01230 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to publicly
provide a retention schedule or guideline for permanently
destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and information;
failing to inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their
biometric identifiers and information were being collected and
stored; failing to inform them in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or
information were being collected, stored, and used; and failing to
obtain written releases from them before it collected, used and
stored their biometric identifiers and information.
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. is a fast food restaurant
company based in Oakville, Canada.
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. is an American multinational chain
of fried chicken fast food restaurants, headquartered in Miami,
Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kwabena Appenteng, Esq.
Orly Henry, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 372-5520
E-mail: kappenteng@littler.com
ohenry@littler.com
- and –
Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
E-mail: pmartin@littler.com
SEFCU: $5.85MM Settlement Wins Final OK in Story Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY STORY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CHRISTOPHER M.
SOTIR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; JENNY LEA RANDALL, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. SEFCU, Case No. 1:18-cv-00764-MAD-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
certification of the settlement class, final approval of
the class action settlement, approval of service awards,
and approval of attorneys' fees and costs; and
2. directing the Clerk to enter judgment in Plaintiffs' favor
and closing this case;
The Settlement Fund
-- The settlement establishes a gross settlement fund of
$5,850,000 of cash to be distributed as described by
the Settlement Agreement.
-- The Settlement Fund covers Class Members' awards,
service payments, attorneys' fees and costs, and the
settlement administrator's fees and costs.
-- The Class Members who are entitled to receive payments
from the Fund include the following classes:
(a) "Multiple NSF Fees on a Single Item Class" [defined
as] those members of Defendant who, from July 23,
2016 through March 31, 2020, were assessed more
than one NSF fee on a single payment transaction.
(b) "No Benefit Opt-In Class" [defined as] those
members of Defendant who from February 5, 2016,
through December 28, 2018, paid an overdraft fee
on a non-recurring debit card transaction that was
not refunded.
(c) "Sufficient Funds Class" [defined as] those members
of the Defendant who paid a Sufficient Funds
Overdraft Charge that was not refunded.
(d) "Sweep From Savings to Checking Account Class"
[defined as] any member of Defendant charged a
Sweep From Savings to Checking Account Overdraft
Fee.
-- The Settlement Claims Administrator will calculate
Settlement Awards based on the class information, and
will allocate such payments as follows:
Of the $5,850,000 Settlement Fund:
$3,065,000 (52.4%) is allocated to the "Sufficient
Funds Class";
$1,615,000 (27.6%) is allocated to the "No Benefit
Opt-In Class";
$1,000,000 (17.1%) is allocated to the "Multiple NSF
Fees on a Single Item Class"; and,
$170,000 (2.9%) is allocated to the "Sweep From
Savings to Checking Account Class."
This class action seeks compensation and injunctive relief due to
SEFCU's policy and practice of assessing fees on transactions when
there was enough money in the checking account to pay for the
transactions presented for payment.
On June 28, 2018, Plaintiff Amy Story commenced this putative class
action against the Defendant, alleging multiple causes of action
stemming from SEFCU's policy regarding overdraft fees.
SEFCU is a Federal credit union serving the Capital Region,
Syracuse, Binghamton, and Buffalo, New York areas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30nD03K at no extra charge.[CC]
SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia's Renewed Bid for Class Status Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current
employees, v. SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., NATIONAL BEVPAK, NATIONAL
BEVERAGE CORP., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-07798-JWH-AFM (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb
entered an order denying Garcia's Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.
The Court said, "It would be improper for this Court to conduct a
post hoc examination of Judge Anderson's reasoning and conclusions
regarding the sufficiency of the arguments and evidence that were
presented in connection with the Original Motion. That role is
reserved to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit already
declined to hear Garcia's interlocutory appeal of the Order.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Garcia has failed to establish
that reconsideration is warranted based upon a failure to consider
material facts."
Garcia, a former employee of the Defendants, filed this putative
wage and hour class action in California state court on behalf of
all employees employed by the Defendants in California.
Shasta Beverages is a food and beverages company based out of 6750
Moravia Park Dr., Baltimore, Maryland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kSrVkF at no extra charge.[CC]
SK UNITED: Judge Recommends Certifying Day-Rate-Paid Driver Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER RILEY v. SK UNITED
CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-10577-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whale recommends that:
-- the Plaintiffs' pre-discovery motion for conditional
certification and court-authorized notice to potential
opt-in Plaintiffs be granted;
-- the Court grant conditional certification and approve
distribution of the Notice appended to Plaintiff's motion;
-- the Court order the Defendant to identify all potential
opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of the entry of any order
conditionally certifying the collective; and
-- the distribution of the Notice be permitted by email and
text message, in addition to first-class mail.
Judge Whale says that any objections to the Report and
Recommendation must be filed within 14 days of service of a copy
hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and E.D.
Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2). Failure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Filing of
objections which raise some issues but fail to raise others with
specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have
to this Report and Recommendation. Within 14 days of service of any
objecting party's timely filed objections, the opposing party may
file a response. The response shall be not more than 20 pages in
length unless by motion and order such page limit is extended by
the court. The response shall address specifically, and in the same
order raised, each issue contained within the objections.
The complaint in this case alleges that the Named Plaintiff Roger
Riley was employed by the Defendant S&K, a Texas corporation. Riley
drove a delivery truck, delivering packages for FedEx. He states
that he worked out of S&K's distribution center in Auburn Hills,
Michigan, although S&K also employs drivers that work out of other
distribution centers. According to the Collective and Class Action
Complaint, S&K pays its drivers, including Riley, on a day-rate
basis, not hourly, and classifies them as being exempt from
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff and similarly situated drivers "frequently drove
vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds and work in excess of 40
hours in a workweek." The Plaintiff alleges that regardless of how
many hours he and similarly situated drivers worked, the Defendant
paid them a flat rate of $160 per day.
The Plaintiff brings this collective action under section 216(b) of
the FLSA on behalf of the following class of employees:
"All current and former day-rate-paid Drivers who worked for
Defendant in the United States at any time from three years
prior to the date the Court grants conditional certification
through a date specified by the Court."
A copy of the Magistrate Judge Recommendation dated Feb. 25, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Px99n5 at no
extra charge.[CC]
SMART ENERGY: Faces Xenes Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAFAEL XENES, Plaintiff v. SMART ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-20807-XXXX (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated persons against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed numerous calls to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number 754-xxx-3773 beginning in
February 2020 for the purpose of encouraging the purchase of its
"solar panels" product. The Plaintiff asserts that he has not
provided the Defendant with his written consent to be contacted in
his cellular telephone number, which has been added on the National
Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days prior to the calls.
Allegedly, the Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) in placing its calls that was confirmed by the Plaintiff
when he answered at least two of the Defendant's calls.
The Plaintiff and all members of the proposed classes have been
harmed by the acts of the Defendant in the form of multiple
involuntary telephone and electrical charges, the aggravation,
nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the
receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, and
violations of their statutory rights.
The Plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the Defendant from
engaging in the future telemarketing as well as statutory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as is just
and equitable under the circumstances.
Smart Energy, Inc. markets solar panels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Tel. (Direct): (813) 337-7992
Tel. (Main): (813) 224-0431
Fax: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
gnichols@wfclaw.com
SRP INVESTMENTS: Jovanovic Files TCPA Suit in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SRP Investments LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Djordje Jovanovic, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRP Investments LLC,
Stephanie Rose Polydoroff, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Unknown Parties DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00393-JJT (D. Ariz., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
SRP Investments LLC is a limited liability company located in
Scottsdale, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Khalil Chebat, Esq.
ENARA LAW PLLC
7631 E Greenway Rd., Ste. B2
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Phone: (602) 687-2010
Email: info@enaralaw.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: Bids to Dismiss Granted in Part in Street v. O'Toole
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss in the lawsuit styled ALICIA STREET, et al., Plaintiffs v.
LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19 CV 2590 CDP
(E.D. Mo.).
Five named plaintiffs filed the putative class action arising out
of the mass arrest "kettling" incident that occurred in the City of
St. Louis on September 17, 2017. Their First Amended Complaint
names as Defendants the City of St. Louis, the then-acting Chief of
Police Lawrence O'Toole, the Director of Public Safety Charlene
Deeken, and more than three hundred individual police officers.
The Plaintiffs bring their claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
Missouri state law. They make specific factual allegations against
only a handful of the Individual Defendants, although most of the
17 counts are brought against either all Defendants or all
Defendant Police Officers; most of the factual allegations are made
against "defendants." All Defendants have filed motions to
dismiss.
Background
On Friday, September 15, 2017, the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis issued its verdict in State of Missouri v. Stockley (Case No.
16220CR02213-01 (Mo. 22nd Jud. Cir. Sept. 25, 2017)). After a bench
trial, Police Officer Jason Stockley was found not guilty of the
first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. This event prompted
anti-police demonstrations and protests in the City of St. Louis
and surrounding areas. Although most of the protests were peaceful,
officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD")
amassed at several protest sites wearing military-like tactical
dress and armed with riot gear. As the protests continued
throughout the weekend in different city locations, there were
multiple instances of police use of chemical agents, such as pepper
spray, to disperse crowds.
On the evening of Sunday, September 17, 2017, protesters had
gathered in downtown St. Louis. After property damage was found in
one area of downtown, police began blocking roads and directing
civilians to the intersection of Washington Avenue and Tucker Blvd.
The Plaintiffs allege that defendants Lt. Timothy Sachs and Lt.
Col. Gerald Leyshock planned to "kettle" or gather everyone into
that intersection, not allow anyone in the area to leave, and
arrest them all. They allege that supervisory defendants Sgt. Scott
Boyher, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski, Sgt. Randy Jemerson and Lt. Brian
Rossomanno supervised and directed line officers under their
command to form lines of officers blocking each of the four streets
leading to the intersection in anticipation of the mass arrests.
They allege that the Defendants knew or should have known that this
action would result in the arrests of people without probable
cause.
Shortly after 11:00 p.m. and without warning, the four lines of
officers began to converge and the Plaintiffs were informed that
they were all under arrest. The Plaintiffs allege that the
protesters had not been engaged in any violence or illegal behavior
before the incident, and many of the gathered people were residents
of the area, members of the press, and others peacefully watching
the protests. The Plaintiffs allege that they instantly put their
hands in the air to surrender, and that they all attempted to get
to the ground when ordered to do so. Regardless, SLMPD officers
indiscriminately sprayed members of the crowd with pepper spray and
kicked and beat those in the crowd, most of whom were not resisting
in any way. Officers then tightly handcuffed every individual with
plastic zip ties and the approximately 120 arrestees were
transported to the St. Louis City Justice Center ("CJC"), where
they all remained confined without receiving medical assistance for
their injuries. The Plaintiffs were released 12-24 hours later.
Upon release, all were given summonses showing they had been
charged with "failure to disperse" and instructing them to appear
at St. Louis City Municipal Court on October 18, 2017. On October
13, 2017, the St. Louis City Counselor's office withdrew the
summonses. None of the Plaintiffs were subsequently charged.
Plaintiffs' Claims
The Plaintiffs bring their Amended Complaint in 17 counts. Counts
I-VI are brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The first four
counts are brought against "all defendant officers" and allege
violations of the Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to assembly,
association, speech, and press (Count I); Fourth Amendment rights
to be free from excessive force (Count II) and from unlawful
seizures (Count III); and conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of their
civil rights (Count VI). Count V is brought against "all
defendants" and alleges they were deliberately indifferent to the
Plaintiffs' serious medical needs. Count VI seeks to impose
municipal liability of the City of St. Louis for the underlying
Section 1983 violations alleged in the earlier counts.
The Plaintiffs additionally assert Missouri state law claims for
battery (Count VII); false arrest (Count VIII); false imprisonment
(Count IX); abuse of process (Count X); malicious prosecution
(Count XI); negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count XII);
conversion (Count XIII); civil conspiracy (Count XIV); and failure
to intervene (Count XV). Count XVI raises a challenge that two St.
Louis City Ordinances (Count XVI) violate due process, both
facially and as applied. Finally, Count XVII brings a novel claim
based on the St. Louis City Charter against Defendants O'Toole and
Deeken only, alleging that they are vicariously liable for both the
Section 1983 and the state-law violations committed by the
individual officers.
Discussion
The Plaintiffs make specific allegations only against Acting Chief
of Police Lawrence O'Toole, Director of Public Safety Charlene
Deeken, Lt. Brian Rossomanno, Lt. Colonel Gerald Leyshock, Lt.
Timothy Sachs, Sgt. Randy Jemerson, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski and Lt.
Scott Boyher. As to all other Defendants there are no individual
allegations. All claims against the Individual Defendants against
whom no specific allegations are made will be dismissed.
Judge Perry opines that the Defendants cannot be held liable merely
because they were employed by the SLMPD on the night some members
of that department may have violated the Plaintiffs'
rights--liability under Section 1983 requires proof of a causal
link between each defendant and the specific wrongs that defendant
committed. Put differently, asserting broad, sweeping allegations
that a group of defendants committed constitutional misconduct is
not sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiffs' pleading obligations as
to each defendant within that group.
Absent specific and plausible factual allegations, the Plaintiffs'
claims are merely legal conclusions couched as factual allegations,
Judge Perry holds. Moreover, the Plaintiffs' vague allegations fail
to provide each Defendant with fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests. Accordingly, all claims against
the Defendants against whom no specific allegations are made must
be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Sachs planned and Defendant
Leyshock approved the plan to arrest everyone who was in the
vicinity of Washington Avenue and Tucker Boulevard. They allege
that Rossomano and Jemerson directed people into the area, knowing
that they would be arrested and knowing that there was not probable
cause to arrest them. The Plaintiffs also allege that the
Defendants knew it was likely that the unjustified use of force
would be used. All of the named Plaintiffs allege that they were
arrested without probable cause and that excessive force was used
in their arrest.
Judge Perry holds that the allegations are sufficient to state
claims for violations of Section 1983 for violating the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights to be free from the use of excessive force as
alleged in Count II and to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures as alleged in Count III. The Defendants are not entitled
to qualified immunity because these allegations, when taken as true
for purposes of their motion to dismiss, sufficiently show that
these Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' clearly established
rights.
Defendants Sachs and Leyshock, who issued the order to arrest the
Plaintiffs, and Defendants Boyher, Karnowski, Rossomanno, and
Jemerson, each of whom are alleged to have personally directed and
overseen the unlawful arrests, are not entitled to qualified
immunity at this motion to dismiss stage of the case, Judge Perry
holds.
Count V alleges that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent
to the Plaintiffs' serious medical needs after their arrests. The
Plaintiffs variously allege that they were injured by pepper spray,
by being thrown to the ground or beaten, and/or by being placed in
overly tight restraints. They allege that they asked for medical
care after they were taken to the CJC and while they were being
held, but received none.
Even if the plaintiffs' complaints of skin and eye irritation from
pepper spray, cuts and bruises, and too-tight restraints were
serious enough to constitute objectively serious medical needs,
there is no allegation that any Defendant knew of such needs and
disregarded them, Judge Perry finds. Hence, Count V is dismissed in
its entirety.
In Counts IV and XIV, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
Officers are liable under Section 1983 and under state law for
conspiring to violate their civil rights. The Plaintiffs' theory of
liability can be traced as follows: Defendants Leyshock, Sachs,
Jemerson, and Rossomanno conspired to "design and implement" the
kettling plan; Defendants Boyher and Karnowski joined the
conspiracy when they "directed officers under their control and
supervision" to execute the kettling; the remaining mass of
supervisors and officers then joined the conspiracy when they
"agreed to participate" in the kettling, and these officers then
committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy by confining,
arresting, and assaulting the Plaintiffs; applying zip cuffs and
deploying pepper spray; and maliciously initiating charges against
the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants move to dismiss on several grounds. They first
contend that the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars conspiracy
claims against police officers employed by the same municipality.
Alternatively, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to
qualified immunity on the Section 1983 conspiracy claim because the
law regarding the application of the intracorporate conspiracy
doctrine is unsettled and thus not "clearly established." The
Defendants also argue that even aside from the intracorporate
conspiracy doctrine, there is no precedent in the Eighth Circuit
which clearly establishes that every officer involved in a mass
arrest can be held liable for a conspiracy to commit an unlawful
mass arrest. Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, asserting that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any
facts showing a conspiratorial "agreement" between Defendants Sachs
and Leyshock, the Defendants who allegedly developed the kettling
plan, and the multitude of officers who effectuated the mass
arrest.
Next, the Defendants contend that the Eighth Circuit's silence on
the applicability of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to
Section 1983 claims renders the law in this Circuit so unsettled
that SLMPD officers could not have reasonably known that they could
be subject to Section 1983 conspiracy liability--thus, entitling
them to qualified immunity on all of plaintiffs' conspiracy claims.
See, e.g., Baude, No. 4:19CV1564 RWS, at pg. 25.
Judge Perry disagrees. The Eighth Circuit has consistently
recognized Section 1983 conspiracy claims against police officers
from the same police department if those police officers conspire
to violate clearly established constitutional rights. See, e.g.,
Small v. McCrystal, 708 F.3d 997, 1010 (8th Cir. 2013). Judge Perry
concludes that the Defendants are not entitled to qualified
immunity on the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim by virtue of the
intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.
As for the Plaintiffs' state law conspiracy claim, Missouri law
recognizes that there can be no conspiracy between an agent and a
principal. However, the Court finds no Missouri precedent
supporting the Defendants' contention that the intracorporate
conspiracy doctrine applies to bar conspiracy claims asserted
against police officers sued in their individual capacities, and
not as agents of their municipal employer. The Court declines to
dismiss the state law conspiracy claim on this basis as well. The
Court also will deny the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts IV
and XIV.
The Plaintiffs bring tort claims of battery, false arrest, false
imprisonment, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligent
infliction of emotional distress and conversion against the
individual officers and the City itself. As threshold matters, the
City invokes sovereign immunity as a reason to dismiss these counts
as to it, and the other Defendants invoke official immunity. Judge
Perry concludes that both arguments must be rejected. The motion to
dismiss the state law claims on the basis of sovereign immunity is
denied.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants acted with malice in
carrying out the kettling and arrests. The remaining defendants all
also summarily argue that Counts VII through XIII alleging Missouri
torts of battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, abuse of
process, malicious prosecution, negligent infliction of emotional
distress and conversion must be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.
Judge Perry agrees that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
against any of the remaining Defendants for the counts alleging
abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and conversion. Judge
Perry will, therefore, dismiss Counts X, XI, and XIII but will deny
the motion as to the remaining counts.
The Judge also notes that there is no allegation that the
Defendants were involved in the issuance of formal charges. Hence,
both Counts X and XI are dismissed.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claim for negligent
infliction of emotional distress (Count XII) must be dismissed
because the conduct which allegedly caused the emotional distress
mirrors the conduct asserted in the plaintiffs' battery claim,
relying on K.G. v. R.T.R., 918 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Mo. banc 1996), as
quoted in State ex rel. Halsey v. Phillips, 576 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.
banc 2019). While this may be true of claims for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, plaintiffs only allege a
negligent infliction claim, so K.G. and Halsey do not bar this
claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Count XII is denied.
Judge Perry also opines that the motion to dismiss is granted as to
conversion (Count XIII), because the Plaintiffs' claim that "SLMPD
officers seized, discarded, or destroyed property owned by some
Plaintiffs" is conclusory and provides no notice of who allegedly
took what from whom. Judge Perry adds, among other things, that
this Court is not the proper forum to litigate complex and
unsettled questions of state law preemption over obscure municipal
ordinances. Therefore, she declines to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Count XVII and will dismiss the claim without
prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out in the Memorandum and Order, all claims
against the officers against whom no specific allegations were made
are dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' deliberate
indifference to medical needs claim (Count V) is dismissed in its
entirety. The state-law claims of abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, and conversion (Counts X, XI and XIII) are also
dismissed for failure to state a claim. The claims for punitive
damages against the City of St. Louis are stricken, but the City's
motion to dismiss is otherwise denied. Finally, Count XVII, which
is the only claim against Defendants O'Toole and Deeken, is a novel
claim based on state law and the City charter over which Judge
Perry declines to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1367(c)(1), so it is also dismissed without prejudice.
The claims and Defendants remaining in the case are:
* Counts I, II, III, IV, XIV and XV against Defendants Lt.
Brian Rossomanno, Lt. Col. Gerald Leyshock, Lt. Timothy
Sachs, Sgt. Randy Jemerson, Sgt. Matthew Karnowski and Lt.
Scott Boyher;
* Count VI seeking to impose municipal liability on the City
of St. Louis for the actions taken by the remaining
individual defendants in Counts I, II, III and IV; and
* Counts VII, VIII, IX, XII and XVI against the City and
Defendants Rossomanno, Leyshock, Sachs, Jemerson, Karnowski
and Boyher.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
[ECF 19, 21, 23, and 25] are granted in part and denied in part as
set forth; all Defendants except for the City of St. Louis and
Individual Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Boyher, Rossomanno,
Karnowski, and Jemerson are dismissed from this action without
prejudice.
Counts V, X, XI, and XIII are dismissed in their entirety, with
prejudice. All claims for punitive damages from the City of St.
Louis are stricken. Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1367 over Count XVII is denied and Count XVII is dismissed
without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Feb. 22,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4kcxkkn from
Leagle.com.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Class Certified in Fritsch Suit, Ct. Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grant Fritsch v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC et al., Case No.
5:17-cv-02226-VAP-KK (C.D. Calif. ), the Hon. Judge Virginia A.
Phillips entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for
determination of an uncertified class.
After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in
opposition to, the Motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate
for resolution without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15.
The parties are familiar with the facts of the case; the Court only
recites the facts that are pertinent to the instant Motion. On
October 31, 2017, the Defendant removed this employment putative
class action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
On February 5, 2018, while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending,
the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino entered an order
certifying a class under California procedural law.
Defendant moved the Court for an order ruling that no class has
been certified in this case. Specifically, Defendant argued that as
a result of the Ninth Circuit's order vacating the Court's December
7, 2017 Remand Order, the state court's order certifying the class
is invalid because: (1) the state court decision was issued after
the case had been properly removed to federal court; and (2) the
state court ruling was issued pursuant to California procedural law
and not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. (Dkt. 77). The Court
agrees. Plaintiff failed to explain how, in the absence of a valid
remand order, the state court decision can stand following removal.
Swift Transportation is located in Phoenix, Arizona, and is part of
the truckload carriers industry.
A copy of the Civil Minutes -- General dated Feb. 25, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30pDMgq at no
extra charge.[CC]
SYLHET MOTORS: Vasquez Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VASQUEZ individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SYLHET MOTORS INC. (DBA AS SYLHET MOTORS) and KABIR
NURUL AND MABO RAMEN, Case No. 1:21-cv-00959 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22,
2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wage
orders pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the
hours over 40 per week that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked,
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked over 40,
either at the straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the required
"spread of hours pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond him to all
other similarly situated employees. He adds that the Defendants
maintain a policy and practice of requiring him and other employees
to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the
minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law and regulations.
The Plaintiff was an employee of the the Defendants. He was
primarily employed to perform various duties or washing cars and
cleaning the Car Dealership.
The Defendants own, operate or control a used car dealership under
the name "SYLHET MOTORS" in Jamaica, New York. The Individual
Defendants serve or served as owners, managers, principles of the
Defendant Sylhet Motors, and through the corporate entity operates
or operated the Used Car Dealership as a joint or unified
enterprise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
Aygul Charles, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL PC
www.LuchaPorTusDerechos.com
42 Broadway, 12 th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
TACTILE SYSTEMS: Mart Putative Securities Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the
company's response on the amended complaint in the purported
securities class action suit entitled, Brian Mart, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Tactile Systems
Technology, Inc., et al. is due on June 4, 2021.
On September 29, 2020, a complaint in a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and three of our present or
former officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the following caption: Brian Mart,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc., et al.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business,
operational and compliance policies, and financial results during
the time period from May 7, 2018 through June 8, 2020, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On February 1, 2021, the court appointed the St. Clair County
Employees' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. Their amended
complaint is due April 5, 2021.
The company's response is due June 4, 2021.
Tactile said, "We intend to move to dismiss the action."
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. a medical technology company that
develops and provides innovative medical devices for the treatment
of chronic diseases. The company is based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
TD BANK: Faces Altmann Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL ALTMANN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TD BANK USA, N.A. & RAUSCH, STURM, ISRAEL,
ENERSON & HORNIK, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00351-MMA-BGS
(S.D. Cal., February 26, 2021) is a class action complaint against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Defendant TD Bank employed Defendant
Rausch to collect an alleged debt incurred by the Plaintiff. On or
around January 29, 2021, Defendant Rausch mailed to the Plaintiff a
debt collection letter causing its attorneys to threaten filing a
lawsuit against Claimant. However, the letter does not provide any
information that the attorney signing the letter or any other
associate within that law firm is a licensed attorney in
California. Through this conduct, the Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 by engaging in conduct the natural consequence of
which is to harass, oppress and abuse Claimants and by using false,
deceptive and misleading representations in connection with the
collection of the alleged debt, the suit adds.
The Corporate Defendants are debt collectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
Juliana G. Blaha, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (866) 219-3343
Fax: (866) 219-8344
E-mail: Josh@SwigartLawGroup.com
Juliana@SwigartLawGroup.com
- and –
Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Tel: (619) 222-7429
Fax: (866) 431-3292
E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com
TRIANGLE CAPITAL: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms
the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the Lead
Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit entitled IN RE: TRIANGLE CAPITAL
CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. LIFEWISE FAMILY FINANCIAL
SECURITY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, and GARY W. HOLDEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; YUN
CHENG; CHI WAI LEUNG; STEVEN LYNN KOEPPEL; SUSAN MARIE KOEPPEL;
GERALDINE CHECKMAN; HENRY WERDENBERG; ELIAS DAGHER, Plaintiffs v.
TRIANGLE CAPITAL CORPORATION; E. ASHTON POOLE; STEVEN C. LILLY;
GARLAND S. TUCKER, III, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-2162 (4th
Cir.).
Affirmed by published opinion. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee wrote
the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and Judge Quattlebaum joined.
LifeWise is the lead plaintiff in the securities fraud class action
suit against Triangleand three of its controlling
shareholders--Poole, Lilly, and Tucker. In November 2017, several
of Triangle's investments made in 2014 and 2015 faltered, causing
Triangle's shares to decrease by 21%. LifeWise, a shareholder in
Triangle, alleges that the Defendants knew or should have known of
the risks of those investments but defrauded them by failing to
disclose such alleged risks. After the district court dismissed
LifeWise's Amended Complaint without prejudice, LifeWise moved for
leave to file its Proposed Second Amended Complaint ("PSAC"). The
district court denied leave to do so as futile under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the PSAC failed to
adequately allege scienter.
Triangle is a business development company ("BDC") providing
"customized financing to lower middle market companies located
primarily in the United States." Poole, Lilly, Tucker, and Brent
P.W. Burgess (who is not a defendant) were all C-level executives
in Triangle between 2014 and 2017.1 Poole, Lilly, and Tucker also
held positions on Triangle's Board of Directors.
Just before announcing the results for 2015's final quarter, on
February 3, 2016, Triangle issued a press release announcing that
Poole was replacing Tucker as Triangle's CEO, but that Tucker would
remain Chairman of Triangle's Board. Tucker also received a $2.5
million bonus as part of the restructuring of positions. Triangle
subsequently reported a "strong finish" in 2015's final quarter,
noting that it continued to "excel in originating high-quality new
investments in the lower middle market."
The following months brought several more changes to Triangle. In
June 2016, four months after Poole took over as Triangle's CEO, the
company announced a new operational plan referred to as "TCAP 2.0."
This plan called for Triangle to begin shifting its focus "away
from riskier, high-yield investments" and instead placing "greater
emphasis on unitranche financing." Then, in July 2016, Triangle
closed an underwritten public offering of its common stock, netting
approximately $120 million in proceeds, to be used "to infuse
further investments." In October 2016, Burgess resigned from both
his position as Triangle's CIO and as a director.
The Defendants' message to investors was less optimistic over the
course of 2017 than in prior years. In February 2017, when Triangle
announced the results for 2016's final quarter, Poole told
investors on a call that "Triangle was moving in a 'positive'
direction, as opposed to its direction in previous periods, and
implied that Triangle had weathered the storm that had gripped the
entire BDC industry in 2015." Just five days after that call,
Triangle raised another $132 million in equity through a stock
offering. And not long after that, Triangle "announced that it had
amended its senior credit facility and increased the facility by
$135 million or 45%."
Triangle then saw its investment portfolio begin to falter. In
August 2017, Triangle announced that the amount of full-non-accrual
assets in its portfolio increased to 5.4 percent of its total
portfolio at cost. In a subsequent call with investors, Lilly again
reflected on Triangle's business strategy in 2014 and 2015.
Then, in November 2017, Triangle announced that its third quarter
saw seven additional investments go on full non-accrual status.
During a subsequent call with investors, Poole explained how the
investment decisions made from 2013 to 2015 contributed to this
result. Poole called this the "wrong" decision in hindsight.
Shortly thereafter, Triangle's stock price decreased by $2.57 per
share, a 21% decline, amounting to a $262 million market
capitalization loss since the beginning of 2014.
After LifeWise filed its initial suit against the Defendants, the
district court consolidated LifeWise's case with two others and
named LifeWise the lead plaintiff. Accordingly, LifeWise filed an
Amended Complaint on behalf of the newly formed proposed class
members, defined to include those who owned Triangle shares between
May 7, 2014, and November 1, 2017, excluding the Defendants,
Triangle's officers and directors, and their immediate family
members. The Amended Complaint asserted two claims: (1) a violation
of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78j(b), as implemented by Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5(b), by Triangle;
and (2) a violation of section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
by Tucker, Poole, and Lilly, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).
The Defendants successfully moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The district court found that the Amended Complaint asserted four
types of false statements and omissions, but that LifeWise failed
to adequately allege that any were actually false or misleading.
The district court dismissed the Amended Complaint without
prejudice, and gave LifeWise 21 days to seek leave to file a second
amended complaint. LifeWise thereafter sought leave to file the
PSAC at issue here, supplementing its two claims for relief with
additional factual allegations.
But LifeWise's second bite at the apple fared no better. Upon
review of the PSAC's factual allegations set forth, the district
court found that LifeWise sufficiently alleged that the Defendants
knew of the industry opinions about the effect of unitranche
investing and increased lenders on mezzanine financing, and the
district court assumed that the industry opinions cited by LifeWise
would be material to investors. It concluded, however, that
LifeWise failed to allege scienter, a necessary element of both of
its section 10(b) and 20(a) claims. It, therefore, denied leave to
amend as futile and dismissed LifeWise's claims with prejudice.
LifeWise's timely appeal followed. At a general level, LifeWise
states that it is not looking to hold the Defendants liable simply
because they made bad investments. Instead, it argues that the
Defendants knew in 2014 and 2015 that the mezzanine lending market
was contracting, and that the mezzanine deals that remained were of
inferior quality than what was available before the rise of
unitranche lending. They assert that this knowledge, coupled with
the "false" representations about the quality of those deals and
the state of the mezzanine market, give rise to a strong inference
of scienter.
To support that inference, LifeWise points to factual allegations,
including the advice from Triangle's internal investment advisors
at some unspecified time between 2013 and 2015 that Poole, Lilly,
Tucker, and Burgess should adopt a unitranche-first investment
strategy, and Poole and Lilly's 2017 statements to investors
regarding their choice in 2014 and 2015 to continue with a
mezzanine-first investment approach.
To the extent that the Appellate Court can make any inference of
scienter from these allegations, it is exceptionally weak, Judge
Agee says. To begin with, Judge Agee notes, LifeWise relies heavily
on its allegation that Triangle's C-level executives, who both
served on and largely controlled the investment committee's
decisions, were advised that the mezzanine lending market was
contracting, and that Triangle should focus on unitranche lending.
As Tellabs demands, the Appellate Court accepts this allegation as
true (Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd., 551 U.S. at 322
(2007)).
But, two factors diminish the strength of any scienter inference
that could be drawn, Judge Agee opines. First, omissions and
ambiguities count against inferring scienter, for plaintiffs must
state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference
that the defendant acted with the required state of mind. Here,
LifeWise never specifies when this advice was given, how firm in
their conviction these investment advisors were in recommending
that Triangle should avoid mezzanine deals moving forward, or what
a mix of mezzanine and unitranche investments should look like.
These ambiguities, and the lack of a motive to defraud, thus,
diminish the strength of any scienter inference that can be drawn
from the allegation, the Judge holds.
Next, LifeWise suggests that the Appellate Court should infer from
the advice that some of the Defendants' investment advisors gave
that they had contemporaneous knowledge that the mezzanine lending
market was in fact devoid of quality deals. Pointing to Lilly's May
2017 and Poole's November 2017 statements to investors, LifeWise
argues that those statements equate to admissions that the
Defendants knew in 2014 and 2015 that they were investing in
low-quality deals. But LifeWise cannot connect the
backwards-looking statements of Lilly and Poole to actual
contemporaneous knowledge that the 2014-2015 mezzanine market had
no viable prospects. LifeWise's argument is purely speculative,
Judge Agee points out.
For similar reasons, Judge Agee holds that the Appellate Court
cannot reasonably draw that same inference from Poole's November
2017 conversation with investors. Of course, many bad investments
will, in retrospect, look like the "wrong strategic call." But
nothing that Poole said plausibly suggests that Triangle or its
C-level executives knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that
each of their portfolio companies bore inherently more risk than
the typical "high yield" or "junk" securities that constituted
Triangle's investment portfolio, Judge Agee explains. In fact,
Triangle regularly disclosed to its investors that "junk" was how
their investments would be classified.
In addition, LifeWise points to Tucker's departure in 2016 (along
with his $2.5 million bonus) and Poole's subsequent changes to
Triangle's investment strategy as evidence of fraudulent intent.
But without allegations demonstrating the Defendants'
contemporaneous knowledge that their 2014 and 2015 investments
lacked quality, Judge Agee finds it difficult to give this regime
change any weight toward a scienter inference.
Finally, LifeWise asserts that the Defendants' motivations to raise
capital in 2016 and 2017, and their generalized motive throughout
the class period to keep share prices and dividends high in order
to attract more investors, are further evidence of their fraudulent
intent. Once again, the Appellate Court rejects these types of
generalized motives--which are shared by all companies--as
insufficient to plead scienter under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
Considering these allegations holistically and in their proper
context, the Appellate Court holds that LifeWise has failed to
allege a "strong" inference of scienter. The much stronger
inference is that the Defendants had an honest debate about the
merits of a subjective business judgment, and in hindsight, simply
made the wrong choice with some investments.
Judge Agee also holds that the breadth of the Defendants' risk
disclosures to investors further strengthens the competing
inference of innocence. First, as noted previously, the Defendants
told their investors that they invested in "junk" rated companies.
These companies often "hac dimited financial resources to meet
future capital needs," creating the risk that they "may be unable
to meet their obligations" to Triangle. Compounding things, there
was often little publicly available information about these
companies, so if Triangle could not obtain "all material
information" about them, it "may not make a fully informed
investment decision."
Triangle's investments were by design "highly speculative" and
presented "a higher amount of risk than alternative investment
options and a higher risk of volatility or loss of principal." That
is why Triangle's investors could reap high returns because the
underlying investments were high risk--and they knew that before
investing, Judge Agee points out. Thus, the Defendants warned that
investing in Triangle "may not be suitable for someone with a lower
risk tolerance."
Second, the Defendants warned about the "highly competitive" nature
of the market they operated in: "[i]f we are forced to match our
competitors' pricing, terms and structure, we may not be able to
achieve acceptable returns on our investments or may bear
substantial risk of capital loss." And if competition increased
further, Defendants could be forced "to accept less attractive
investment terms."
According to Judge Agee, these risk disclosures help contextualize
the Defendants' statements throughout 2014 and 2015. While the
Defendants shared with investors their optimism with the quality of
investment opportunities they saw in those years, this did not mean
that they were guaranteed to prove fruitful. That is precisely what
the Defendants disclosed. Without particular facts showing that the
Defendants knew, at the time they made these investments, that they
all lacked quality, or that they inherently bore more risk than the
other "junk" investments from years prior, LifeWise cannot show
that its proffered inference of scienter is as strong as the
inference of innocence.
Accordingly, the Appellate Court holds that LifeWise has not
satisfied the PSLRA's heightened burden for pleading scienter. This
failure is fatal to both its securities fraud claim against
Triangle, and its director liability claims against Poole, Lilly,
and Tucker.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court affirms the district court's
dismissal of LifeWise's claims with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Feb. 22, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ez2m9exz from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Patrick Donovan -- donovan@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP, in New York City, for the Appellant.
Ashley Charles Parrish -- aparrish@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING,
LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Daniel K. Bryson, WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Joshua N. Mitchell -- jmitchell@kslaw.com -- in Washington, D.C.,
Michael R. Smith -- mrsmith@kslaw.com -- B. Warren Pope --
wpope@kslaw.com -- Bethany M. Rezek -- brezek@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING LLP, in Atlanta, Georgia, for the Appellees.
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Consultants Class Status Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON KUDATSKY, on behalf
of himself, and on behalf of those similarly-situated, v. TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, Case No. 3:19-cv-07647-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order that:
-- On the issue of whether Tyler Implementation Consultants
(ICs) are properly classified as exempt, the class of ICS
(without senior ICs) is certified;
-- The request to certify senior ICs with that class is
denied;
-- The motion to certify a class as to the other claims is
Held in abeyance;
-- Class notice appearing adequate, request for its approval
is granted; and
-- Nichols Kaster, LLP, is apppointed counsel for the class.
The Defendant Tyler Technologies sells sophisticated software to
facilitate business and public sector operations. It offers various
product "suites," but its Public Administration and K-12 Education
suites feature here. Tyler utilizes Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) Implementation Consultants (ICs) to customize software and
train clients to use each of the suites.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kUarUN at no extra charge.[CC]
UNILEVER UNITED: Libbey Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KENDRA LIBBEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., and
CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, Case No.
4:20-cv-08075, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on March 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01220 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranties, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, and the
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act by marketing and selling
TRESemme Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and TRESemme Keratin Smooth
Color Shampoo with deceptive labels.
Unilever United States, Inc. is a manufacturer of personal care
products based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Conopco, Inc., doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
is a personal care products company based in New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
16748 McCormick Street
Los Angeles, CA 91436
Telephone: (917) 471-1894
E-mail: alex@whitfieldbryson.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Face Pringle Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
RIORDAN PRINGLE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00112-JMS-WRP (D. Haw., Feb. 22, 2021) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, United's automated text messages sent
to Plaintiff after he requested them to stop caused Plaintiff
actual and tangible harm, including without limitation, an invasion
of his privacy, the tying up of his cellular telephone line,
depletion of his cellular telephone’s battery life, aggravation
at receiving further text messages after requesting that they stop,
annoyance, intrusion on his seclusion, trespass, and conversion.
Further, Plaintiff suffered loss of time as a result of reviewing
the text messages and responding back to the text messages in
attempts to have the text messages stop. United's text messages
also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily
personal and/or work life, the Plaintiff alleges.
In 2019, United and its affiliated carriers operated more than 1.7
million flights carrying more than 162 million customers. While
operating its business, United actively chose to communicate with
its customers through SMS text messages, which are sent to
consumers’ cellular telephones through the use of an ATDS.
United Airlines, Inc. is a major American airline headquartered at
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois. United operates a large domestic
and international route network spanning cities large and small
across the United States and all six continents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
7 Waterfront Plaza
500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 400
Honolulu, HI 96813
Telephone: (703) 424-7576
E-mail: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
VEESTRO LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veestro, LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Veestro,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01228 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Veestro -- https://www.veestro.com/ -- offers plant-based meals,
made fresh and delivered to customers frozen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
VERTICAL SCREEN: FLSA Final Certification Must be Filed by April 30
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM GARCIA, for
himself and all others similarly situated, v. VERTICAL SCREEN,
INC., Case No. 2:18-cv-04718-JD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jan. E.
DuBois entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to
extend discovery and filing deadlines as follows:
-- The deadline for completing discovery is hereby extended
from January 22, 2021 to March 19, 2021 to permit
completion of the Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) designee
deposition;
-- The Plaintiff will file his FLSA Final Certification /
R.23 Class Certification Motion by April 30, 2021;
-- The Defendant will file its Opposition and/or any Motion
for Decertification by May 31, 2021 and Plaintiff will
file his Reply (if any) by June 16, 2021;
-- The Defendant will file its Summary Judgment Motion by
April 30, 2021; and
-- The Plaintiff will file his Opposition by May 31, 2021 and
the Defendant will file its Reply (if any) by June 16,
2021.
Vertical Screen was founded in 1989. The company's line of business
includes providing on-line information retrieval services on a
contract or fee basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cqov4T at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Deadline for Class Status Bid Filing Set for July 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS LAU, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:20-cv-03870-AJN
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan entered a civil case
management plan and scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline to complete Phase 1 June 30, 2021
discovery:
-- Class certification and FLSA July 30, 2021
conditional certification
motion filing deadline:
-- Deadline to file oppositions August 27, 2021
to class certification and
FLSA certification motions:
-- Deadline to file replies to September 17, 2021
oppositions to class certification
and FLSA certification motions:
Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California,
operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices
throughout the United States and overseas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38jH4Xb at no extra charge.[CC]
WELTMAN, WEINBERG: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weltman, Weinberg &
Reis Co., LPA. The case is styled as Israel Friedman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Weltman, Weinberg
& Reis Co., LPA, Case No. 1:21-cv-01219 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA -- https://www.weltman.com/ -- is
a nationally-recognized full-service creditors' rights law
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: jitesh.roxx@gmail.com
WHITE COTTAGE: DeCook Sues Over Unlawful Credit Card Transactions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA DECOOK; and KATARZYNA TYLAK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITE COTTAGE PIZZA,
INC.; and WHITE COTTAGE PIZZA, INC. - HANOVER PARK, Defendants,
Case No. 2021L000246 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Feb.25, 2021) alleges
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
systematically, routinely, and repeatedly (a) fail to provide the
disclosures required by credit card companies when imposing their
"Service Fee," and (b) charge "Service Fees" for debit and prepaid
card transactions, both are in violation of the credit card
companies Rules and Regulations, and are unfair and deceptive
practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
White Cottage Pizza, Inc. is a pizza & Italian cuisine restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, 105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
E-mail: mpeterson@vandwlaw.com
WHITTEN CONCRETE: Underpays Laborers, Rodgers Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES RODGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITTEN CONCRETE, CO., LLC, LYNN M.
CASTLEBERRY and KEVIN CASTLEBERRY, Defendants, Case No.
4:21-cv-00167-BRW (E.D. Ark., March 1, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants seeking relief for their
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid
Laborer from June 2019 until September or October 2020, and then as
an hourly-paid Foreman for three weeks in October 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated laborers
regularly worked hours for which they were not paid, including
off-the-clock. The Defendant allegedly paid them for up to 40 hours
of work each week, regardless of whether they worked hours over 40.
Because the Plaintiff and other similarly situated laborers
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, they were not paid
sufficient overtime compensation at one and one-half times of their
regular rate and their hourly fell below the FLSA minimum wage, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of all similarly
situated laborers seeking all unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
Whitten Concrete, Co., LLC operates a concrete supply company owned
by the Individual Defendants, who exercised supervisory authority
over their employees work schedule, pay policy and the day-to-day
job. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid for Summary Judgment in Proxy Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the motions for summary judgment in the class action suit
entitled, In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,' Master
File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA, is pending.
On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management, and
certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers
Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and
Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly
false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the
Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for alleged 'control person' liability with respect to
such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint
further contended that the allegedly false and misleading
statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept
inadequate Merger consideration.
The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount. On February
20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the University of
California as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP as Lead Counsel for the putative class, consolidated
all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions, and
captioned the consolidated action 'In re Willis Towers Watson plc
Proxy Litigation,' Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA.
On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument,
the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint
in its entirety.
On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal.
On May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, and on August 30,
2019, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal order and remanded
the case to the Eastern District of Virginia for further
proceedings consistent with its decision.
On September 13, 2019, the defendants filed a petition for
rehearing by the Fourth Circuit en banc, which the Fourth Circuit
denied on September 27, 2019. On November 8, 2019, the defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss in the Eastern District of
Virginia based upon certain arguments that were advanced in their
original motions to dismiss, but undecided by both the district
court and the Fourth Circuit. On December 18, 2019, the parties
completed briefing on the defendants' renewed motions, and, on
December 20, 2019, the court heard argument on the motions. On
January 31, 2020, the court denied the motions.
On June 12, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, in connection with which it indicated that it is
seeking class-wide damages of approximately $456 million. On
September 4, 2020, the court granted Lead Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, certified the putative class, and appointed
Lead Plaintiff as the Class Representative for the certified class.
On October 16, 2020, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and to exclude Lead Plaintiff's proposed experts. Also on
October 16, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion to exclude certain
of the defendants' proposed experts.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
WILLIS TOWERS: Class Status Bid in Alaska Laborers Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020,
that the motion for class certification in the consolidated suit
entitled, Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F.
Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, is pending.
On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported
former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers
General Employees' Pension Fund and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust, filed putative class action complaints on behalf
of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against
the former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors,
Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees'
Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132,
and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi,
et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively.
Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action described above, the complaints assert claims against the
former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary
duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty.
On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley,
Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. Based on similar allegations as the
Eastern District of Virginia action described above, the complaint
asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and
against all other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.
Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On
March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents' motion
and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the
appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 2, 2018,
the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions and
all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the
Delaware Court of Chancery.
On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska
designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action. On September 14,
2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Alaska Complaint.
On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On January 11, 2019, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on
March 29, 2019, the parties completed briefing on the motions.
The court heard argument on the motions on April 11, 2019 and, on
July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. On
August 22, 2019, Fort Myers and Alaska filed a notice of appeal
(only with respect to Messrs. Haley and Ubben and ValueAct) from
the court's July 25, 2019 dismissal order to the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware. On November 22, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the appeal, which was submitted on April 22, 2020 for
decision in lieu of argument.
On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
reversed and remanded the case to the Court of Chancery for further
proceedings consistent with its decision. On July 27, 2020, Fort
Myers and Alaska filed a motion for class certification, which is
currently pending. On September 14, 2020, Mr. Haley answered the
amended complaint.
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.
ZAVANNA LLC: Faces Baker Suit Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZAVANNA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00042-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., February 26, 2021) is a collective
and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from November 2019 to
April 2020 as an hourly-paid employee to assist with oil and gas
exploration and production related to oil wells.
The Plaintiff asserts that he worked between 50 and 60 hours per
week throughout his employment with the Defendant. However, the
Defendant failed to pay him overtime premium pay at one and
one-half times his regular rate of pay when he worked more than40
hours in a given workweek. Instead, he only received his hourly
rate of $84.00 for each hour of work regardless of the number of
hours he worked. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain and
preserve payroll records which accurately show the total hours
worked on a daily and weekly basis, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks all damages available for the Defendant's
failure to timely pay all overtime wages owed, including back
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and post-judgment interest.
Zavanna, LLC is an oil and gas exploration and production company.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
Taneska Jones, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARS SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
tjones@eeoc.net
ZEREPSI INC: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages Under Labor Code, FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
NOEMI RUSSO, an individual v. ZEREPSI, INC. dba SUNNY'S SALOON, a
California Corporation; SAUL PEREZ, an individual; INDALECIO J.
PEREZ, JR., an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01641 (C.D. Calif., Feb. 22, 2021)
asserts claims against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay
minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful taking of
tips, and illegal kickbacks in violation of the California Labor
Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that she worked at the Defendants' principal
place of business located at 20922 Lassen Street, Chatsworth,
California. She adds that the Defendants failed to pay her minimum
wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the
FLSA. The Defendants' conduct allegedly violates the FLSA, which
requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime
work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay.
The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 20922 Lassen Street, Chatsworth, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
Alejandro Marin, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
jesenia@kristensenlaw.com
alejandro@kristensenlaw.com
*********
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 ***