/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210312.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 12, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 46 Headlines ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Filing of First Amended Cooper Complaint Denied AMERICAN JOURNEY: Faces Gleitz Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida AMERICAN MINT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York APACHE CORP: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline APACHE CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action APACHE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline AUCTION EDGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUTO RUSH LLC: Vega Sues Over Undisclosed Fees, Worthless Repairs B.G. JAZZ: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Claims BAGGALLINI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Claims BAM TRADING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Smiley Files Suit in N.D. New York BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Remand of Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. BEVERLY HILLS: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Claims BLUEBIRD BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 13 Deadline BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline BLUEBIRD BIO: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline BOMANI COLD: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Fischler Alleges CHW GROUP: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan CITY SHORE: Nascimento Seeks Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Yaniv Sues Over Share Price Drop COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Detainees Certified in Walker Suit CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Espejo Class Suit COUNTY OF BURLINGTON: Welch Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in NJ EBIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline EDDCO MAINTENANCE: Norfleet Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT EHANG HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 19 Deadline EHANG HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of April 19 Deadline ELECTRIC RELIABILITY: Faces Class Action Over Texas Power Outages ELIZABETH BRADLEY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ENDO INT'L: Judge Denies Motion to Reconsider Lead Counsel Swap FACTORY DIRECT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York FANNIE'S INC: Ray et al. Seek Unpaid Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages FORD MOTOR: Reed Suit Transferred to E.D. California FRESENIUS USA: Faces Fenske Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violations FUBOTV INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline FUBOTV: Zhang Investor Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline GEICO CASUALTY: Court Grants Davis Leave to File Third Amended Suit GLENS FALLS: New York Court Narrows Claims in Richard Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Review Over Employees' Class Certification Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in IPO-Related Suit Gets Initial Approval GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Snap IPO Suit Gets Preliminary OK GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Altice USA IPO-Related Suit GOOD DEAL: Court Dismisses McIllwain From Dennis Consumer Suit GOOGLE LLC: Settles Employment Class Action Suit for $1.5 Million HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Baccari Claims HILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Collins Suit in California State Court HSBC USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Gold Fix Litigation HYUNDAI MOTOR: Law Firm Mulls Class Action After Tucson SUV Recall I&B CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Layani Class Suit Without Prejudice IMMUNOVANT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 20 Deadline INSULET CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Fees, Expenses Under Advisement INTUIT INC: Proposed Settlement Deal in Putative Class Suit Junked IRHYTHM TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 2 Deadline IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Reminds of April 2 Deadline IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 2 Deadline JAZZ PHARMA: Trial in Xyrem(R) Related Suit Set for Feb. 2023 JELD-WEN HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Cambridge Retirement Suit JELD-WEN HOLDING: Final Fairness Hearing Set for June 2021 JELD-WEN HOLDING: Molded Doors Related Suits in Canada Ongoing JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Pawar Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Zhang Investor Reminds of April 19 Deadline JP MORGAN: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Suits Ongoing JP MORGAN: Merchants' Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending JP MORGAN: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until May 2021 LIST COMPANY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York LOWE'S HOME: Rangel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California LRR INC: Court Strikes Voluntary Payment Doctrine Defense in Van LUCIANA A. FRAGALI: Filippelli Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages LVEB LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Feuillard Suit Alleges MAPEI CORPORATION: Faces Torres Suit Over Collection of Biometrics MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Dismisses Springmeyer Suit With Prejudice MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Physicians Healthsource Suit MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in McCurdy Class Action METROPOLITAN GEN: Court Tosses MSP's First Amended Class Complaint MICHIGAN: Bid to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Ackerman Denied MICROSOFT CORP: Fallout Class Suit May Hamper Bethesda Acquisition MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Glaab Sues Over Drop in Share Price MORAN FOODS LLC: Jones Hits Artificial Vanilla in Drinks MULTIPLAN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Suit in Texas Closed NAFPAKTOS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges NAVISTAR INT'L: Facing Drulias Putative Class Suit in DuPage NEW JERSEY: Pallipurath Files Suit v. DOC NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit NTT DATA: Denies Workers Proper Wage Pay, Mitchell Suit Says ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Tesetaxel Related Putative Class Suit Ongoing PENUMBRA INC: Facing JET 7 Product Related Putative Class Suit PENUMBRA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 16 Deadline PRO'S CHOICE: Faces Rand Employment Suit in California State Court QUALCOMM INC: Faces GBP480MM Consumer Class Action in U.K. QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Facing Three Putative Securities Class Suits QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Warranholder Putative Class Suit Underway REALOGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Bauman Putative Class Action REALOGY GROUP: Court Stays Discovery in Rubenstein Suit REALOGY GROUP: Discovery in Sitzer Putative Class Suit Ongoing REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit REALOGY GROUP: Leeder Putative Class Action Underway RESTAURANT BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial to Amend Complaint RESTAURANT BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada RIO PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Questions of Law in Leigh-Pink Suit RJ REYNOLDS: Final Judgment in Favor of Jones & Durrance Affirmed ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Zelewski Sues Over Stock Market Interference RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Cole Files Suit in N.D. New York SK FOOD: Underpays Production Employees, Deloney Suit Claims SPECIALTY FOUNDRY: Remand of Spencer Toxic Tort Class Suit Denied SPX CORP: Brass Appeals Amended ERISA Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ST. LOUIS, MO: 8th Cir. Review in Illegal Arrest Suit Sought STAR NURSING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Massey Suit Claims SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed SUTTER HEALTH: Bid to Seal Confidential Docs in ERISA Suit Granted TAWKIFY INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stanfield Case TENNANTS SALES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Weis Suit Claims TERRA OILFIELD: Underpays Operators, Wickliffe et al. Claim TIKTOK INC: Settles Consumer Privacy Class Action for $92 Million TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Files Suit in S.D. New York TRADER JOE'S: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Weiss Class Suit UBER BV: Alberta Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Avalos FLSA Suit UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit by MSP Recovery Claims Underway VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss Peterson Class Action Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Nix Penegar Putative Class Suit Pending VERISK ANALYTICS: Facing Dyloco Punitive Class Suit in California VIVINT SOLAR: Court Grants Dekker Leave to Amend Class Complaint WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid OT During COVID-19 Screenings WESTGROUP PORTOFINO: Sauber Sues Over Discrimination & Retaliation WHOLE FOODS: Frith Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. WILLIAMS CO: Awaits Court's Decision in Rights Agreement Suit WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 14 YRC INC: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Southern Furniture Suit [*] Maryland Introduces Biometric Information Privacy Bill Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Has PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Faces 1,100 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Expects Losses Due to A&EP Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Incorporated has $96MM Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Faces Damages Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 38,700 Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Exposure Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends PI Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Intl. Estimates $27.9MM in Future Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 1,153 PI Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $5.4MM Estimated Liabilities ********* ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Filing of First Amended Cooper Complaint Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AGATHA and MALCOLM COOPER, Parents, individually and on behalf of J.N., Student, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and NEW MEXICO PUBLIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 19-1141 SCY/SMV (D.N.M.), Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Filing of First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Agatha and Malcolm Cooper bring the action individually and on behalf of their son, J.N., a child with autism, who they allege was physically restrained multiple times while attending Albuquerque Public Schools during the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. They are suing the Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools ("APS") and New Mexico Public Education Department ("NMPED"), but have settled with APS, subject to a fairness hearing. NMPED, on the other hand, filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on Oct. 14, 2020. In granting the motion to dismiss, the Court allowed the Plaintiffs 30 days to move to amend their complaint consistent with the Court's order. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed the present Motion, attaching their proposed FAC. NMPED filed a response in opposition, arguing that the Court should deny leave to file the amendment because the FAC would be futile. The New Mexico legislature enacted NMSA Section 22-5-4.12 of the Public School Code to limit and regulate the use of physical restraints in public school, effective June 2017. Over a year later, in July 2018, NMPED enacted a regulation (6.11.2.10(E) NMAC) to implement that state law. J.N. has autism and anxiety and, as of Nov. 13, 2020 when the Plaintiffs filed their proposed FAC, was eight years old. In August 2017, J.N. started kindergarten at Bandelier Elementary School, in the Albuquerque Public Schools District. In December 2018, APS moved him to a special education program for students with autism at a different elementary school, Collett Park Elementary. During the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years, staff at both Bandelier and Collett Park used physical restraints to respond to J.N.'s nonconforming behaviors. In their original complaint, the Plaintiffs brought only one claim against NMPED: proposed class action for equitable and injunctive relief based on disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including an award of attorney's fees and costs. Their claim against NMPED for disability discrimination in the original complaint can be categorized into three types of allegations: (1) NMPED did not enact any regulations to enforce the 2017 state law (NMSA Section 22-5-4.12) until more than a year after the law became effective; (2) when NMPED did finally enact Regulation 6.11.2.10, the regulation did not mirror or properly implement Section 22-5-4.12; and (3) NMPED failed to monitor or enforce APS's compliance with Section 22-5-4.12. The Plaintiffs' proposed FAC maintains these three allegations but supplements the alleged facts in support of the allegations and, ultimately, their claim for injunctive relief based on disability discrimination. NMPED asserts that the Plaintiffs' FAC still fails to state a claim as to each category and that allowing the FAC would therefore be futile. Regarding the Plaintiffs' first argument, Judge Yarbrough finds that the Plaintiffs' FAC suffers from the same deficiency. The relief the Plaintiffs request is the same they requested in their original complaint: Injunctive relief "ordering changes in NMPED's regulations and its role in implementation and monitoring of NMSA Section 22-5-4.12 in the Albuquerque Public Schools." Accordingly, their complaint that NMPED took too long to enact its 2018 regulations does not relate to the relief they request and is thus not actionable. Moreover, as the Court stated in its previous Order, seeking changes in a regulation is different than seeking the enactment of a regulation and what the Plaintiffs seek in the FAC are changes and monitoring of a regulation already enacted. For these reasons, allowing the FAC as to a claim that NMPED failed to timely enact regulations would be futile. Next, in their FAC, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against NMPED requiring it to change its regulations to mirror the 2017 state law on use of physical restraints (Section 22-5-4.12). To this point, thye assert in their FAC that NMPED first enacted regulations in July 2018 and those 2018 regulations did not mirror, and thus did not implement, the 2017 state law and specifically undermined the state law in a number of ways. Judge Yarbrough finds that the Plaintiffs' claim that the 2018 regulations fail to mirror state law is moot due to the enactment of the 2020 regulations. And they fail to state a claim that the 2020 regulations do not mirror and implement state law because they provide no information on how the 2020 regulations are deficient. For these reasons, the Judge finds that allowing the FAC as to these claims would be futile. Similarly, he finds that the proposed FAC fails to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act allows for attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party. The out-of-court victory the Plaintiffs' litigation produced, however, does not make them a prevailing party for purposes of the Rehabilitation Act's fee provision. The Court found that their original complaint failed to state a claim under Section 504. Thus, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to fees under Rehabilitation Act for the work on their original complaint, even if NMPED later changed its regulations in response to the original complaint. The last claim for injunctive relief based on disability discrimination alleged in the FAC is the Plaintiffs' claim that NMPED failed to monitor APS' compliance with Section 22-5-4-12 and failed to enforce compliance with that state law at APS and other public schools. The Plaintiffs brought this same claim in their original complaint and the Court held that they failed to state a claim. The Court pointed out four deficiencies with the Plaintiffs' original complaint: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to state what legal duty NMPED had to ensure that all school districts in the state appropriately implement Section 22-5-4.12 in public schools; (2) assuming NMPED had a duty, the Plaintiffs failed to specifically state how NMPED breached that duty; (3) assuming NMPED had a duty to enforce Section 22-5-4.12 in the schools, and assuming NMPED breached that duty, the Plaintiffs failed to state facts to establish that APS's use of restraints on J.N. actually violated Section 22-5-4.12; and (4) the Plaintiffs failed to state how NMPED's actions discriminated against J.N. and other disabled students by reason of their disability. Accepting all facts in the FAC as true, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs cured the first two deficiencies and at least come close to curing the third deficiency. First, the FAC adds facts describing the duty NMPED has to enforce the Public School Code. Second, the FAC adds facts regarding NMPED's breach of its duty to enforce Section 22-5-4.12. Third, the FAC adds some facts regarding the circumstances of the restraints used on J.N. Doc. 53-1 paragraphs 74, 96. Yet, even accepting as true that NMPED knew prior to the 2017 enactment of NMSA Section 22-5-4.12 that students with disabilities need to be protected from restraints, the Plaintiffs offer no further facts to show that, once the state enacted Section 22-5-4.12, NMPED's failure to monitor compliance with the state law had a disparate impact on students with disabilities. Nor do they cite any case where a plaintiff has been successful in a disparate impact claim similar to the one they make. The Judge therefore finds that allowing the FAC as to the Plaintiffs' claim that NMPED failed to monitor and enforce Section 22.5.4-12 in schools in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act would be futile. For the foregoing reasons, Yarbrough denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Allow Filing of First Amended Complaint. Because the Court previously dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim against NMPED without prejudice with leave to move to amend and because the Judge is now denying leave to amend as futile, he dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' sole claim for injunctive relief against NMPED. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu43dhjs from Leagle.com. AMERICAN JOURNEY: Faces Gleitz Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Journey (PET), LLC, et al. The case is captioned as Paul Gleitz, et al., v. American Journey (PET), LLC and Chewy, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-60409-JEM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2021). The case arises from alleged fraud claims and is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez. The Plaintiffs also include Elle Goodrich and Richardo Sabater on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. American Journey is Chewy's own brand of pet food. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq. Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com AMERICAN MINT: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Mint LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Mint LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02015 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. American Mint -- https://www.americanmint.com/ -- offers coins for collectors at fair prices which includes a diverse selection of products including commemorative coins, legal tender coins, medals, knives, and more collector's items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal APACHE CORP: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Apache Corporation ("Apache' or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Apache between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Apache during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the April 26, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] APACHE CORP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action') in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Apache Corporation ("Apache" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APA) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Apache common stock between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Apache common stock during the Class Period and wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than April 26, 2021. You may contact David Kaplan (dkaplan@saxenawhite.com), an attorney and Director at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a Class member. Apache is an independent energy company that explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids. Within the United States, Apache's purported "core growth area' was an oil and gas field known as "Alpine High' located along the western edge of the Permian Basin in West Texas. By January 2016, Apache had purchased over 300,000 acres in the Permian Basin, including as part of the highly touted Alpine High project. As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Apache's operations and financial health, including the viability and profitability of Alpine High. Specifically, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available gas and oil in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they did in fact exist in the amounts purported; (iii) the foregoing misleading statements and omissions served to artificially inflate the value of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin and Alpine High specifically; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth emerged through a series of disclosures that caused Apache's stock price to fall and investors to suffer substantial losses. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, Delaware, and California, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION: David Kaplan, Esq. dkaplan@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 987-0860 Fax: (858) 369-0096 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] APACHE CORP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 26 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Apache Corporation ("Apache" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: APA) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 26, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Apache purposefully employed unrealistic assumptions about the amount and composition of oil and gas in Alpine High. The Company failed to build the proper infrastructure to drill and transport oil and gas at Alpine High safely and economically, even if resources existed in the amounts the Company claimed. The Company's misleading statements artificially inflated the value of its operations in the Permian Basin. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Apache, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] AUCTION EDGE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auction Edge, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Auction Edge, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02019 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Auction Edge -- https://www.auctionedge.com/ -- is a premier technology provider for independent auctions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal AUTO RUSH LLC: Vega Sues Over Undisclosed Fees, Worthless Repairs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristal Jadish Ortiz Vega, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Auto Rush LLC, and Western Surety Company, Defendants, Case No. 121184027, (Fla. Cir., February 10, 2020), seeks damages in excess of $30,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and for recovery of attorneys' fees and costs for breach of a motor vehicle dealer bond and for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. Auto Rush is an automotive dealership in Hillsborough County, Florida. Vega made a $3,000 down payment for a 2004 Infinity FX35 worth $4,000. She claims that she was illegally charged a "Dealer's Fee" of $250 after the vehicle was released to her. After exhibiting mechanical issues, said vehicle was sent back to the dealership but Vega was charged $500 for repairs and the keys were lost. Despite having paid the service fee, said vehicle was returned to her un-repaired. Western Surety Company is an insurance company located in Tallahassee, Florida. It issued a surety bond covering Auto Rush. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger D. Mason, II, Esq. Autumn D. Carty, Esq. ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A. 4610 Central Ave., Suite B Saint Petersburg, FL 33711 Telephone: (813) 304-2131 Email: rmason@flautolawyer.com atolar@flautolawyer.com admin@flautolawyer.com B.G. JAZZ: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. B.G. JAZZ GRILL, LLC d/b/a VIBRATO GRILL JAZZ, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01646-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, https://www.vibratogrilljazz.com/, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who 4 meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant offers the Website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which the Defendant offers in connection with its physical location. The goods and services offered by Defendant include reservations for in-person dining; ordering online for pick-up or delivery; special event services for parties of ten or more; the chef’s tasting menu which offers four courses and items such as asparagus soup, filet mignon skewers, lamb tagine, and raspberry tart; the dinner menu which offers items such as crab cakes, ahi tuna tacos, lamb lollipops, Caesar salad, seasonal oysters, ara king salmon, truffle fries, and chocolate budino; gift cards for purchase; the Defendant's contact information; the restaurant location; hours of operation; and a place where artists can inquire about bookings. The Defendant's Website also allows consumers to access the Defendant's social media pages and newsletter.[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 BAGGALLINI INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Tenzer-Fuchs Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MICHELLE TENZER-FUCHS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAGGALLINI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01121 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her computer. The Plaintiff claims that he has encountered multiple access barriers to the Defendant's Website, www.baggallini.com, during her visits, the last occurring in February 2021, with an intent to browse and attempt to purchase a new bag. Due to the multiple access barriers, she was effectively denied the full enjoyment of the goods and services of the Website and a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's Website purportedly lacked of a range of features and accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to make her desired purchase. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination as a result of its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Baggallini, Inc. is a bag retailer, specializing in women's handbags, totes, messenger bags, wallets, and jewelry organizers, owns, operates, manages, and controls the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (718) 971-9474 E-mail: Jonathan@ShalomLawNY.com BAM TRADING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BAM Trading Services Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BAM Trading Services Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02013 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BAM Trading Services -- https://www.binance.us/ -- is a California-based platform for cryptocurrency exchange services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Smiley Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. The case is styled as Atahsia Smiley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Beech Nut Nutrition Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-00271-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Beech Nut Nutrition Corporation -- https://www.beechnut.com/ -- is a baby food company that is owned by the Swiss branded consumer-goods firm Hero Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: (845) 356-2570 Fax: (845) 356-4335 Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS: Appeals Remand of Rascon Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Benchmark Electronics, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06632-RGK-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2020, the case was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 23, 2020. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for relief arising out of his employment with Benchmark. The Plaintiff sued over Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods under, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order remanding the action to state court in its entirety for all further proceedings. The appellate case is captioned as Luis Rascon v. Benchmark Electronics, Inc., Case No. 21-55210, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 8, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Benchmark Electronics, Inc. opening brief is due on March 18, 2021; and -- Appellee Luis Rascon answering brief is due on March 18, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LUIS RASCON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Samuel Wong, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com khaque@aegislawfirm.com sweerasuriya@aegislawfirm.com swong@aegislawfirm.com Defendant-Appellant BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS, INC. is represented by: Paul Scott Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Andrea L. Isaacs, Esq. Brooke Sikora Purcell, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 4 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4106 Telephone: (415) 774-3182 E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com aisaacs@sheppardmullin.com bpurcell@sheppardmullin.com BEVERLY HILLS: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, DeSalvo Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRETT DESALVO, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. BEVERLY HILLS SHIRT COMPANY, INC. d/b/a ANTO, a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01625-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2021) alleges that Beverly Hills failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's Website, https://www.antoshirt.com/ is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of the ADA, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read Website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who 4 meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant offers the Website to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with its physical locations. The goods and services offered by Defendant include bespoke services for dress shirts, sports shirts, formal shirts, tuxedo shirts, collars, cuffs, and fabrics; collections such as Anto for Howie Mandel, linen shirts, Anto | 1955, and Anto | Beverly Hills; shirts such as dress shirts, sport shirts, formal shirts, and tuxedo shirts; shirts sold in categories such as essentials, perfect white shirts, linen shirts, flannels, and cashmere shirts; cotton face masks; accessories such as ties, bow ties, and the Defendant's accessory collection, Anto signature ties; the Defendant's heritage, and shirt care. Defendant's Website also allows consumers to access information regarding personalized accounts, gift certificates, shirts available for purchase online, press releases, blog posts, bespoke fabrics, film and television appearances, making appointments, contact information, showroom locations, frequently asked questions, shipping, returns, Defendant's social media Webpages, and newsletter.[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 BLUEBIRD BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/blue. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors that: (1) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (2) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/blue or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in bluebird you have until April 13, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] BLUEBIRD BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming April 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE) securities between May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your bluebird investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/bluebird-bio-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA') for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease in the second half of 2021. On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would delay its BLA submission to late 2022 due to "feedback" from the FDA that requires the Company to provide additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease, as well as "COVID-19 related shifts and contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts." On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or 16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (2) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 13, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] BLUEBIRD BIO: Pawar Law Reminds Investors of April 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE) from May 11, 2020 through November 4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for bluebird bio, Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) data supporting bluebird's U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA') submission for LentiGlobin for sickle cell disease ("SCD') was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (2) defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (3) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 13, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] BOMANI COLD: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Fischler Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. BOMANI COLD BUZZ, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01568 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website, www.drinkbomani.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant denies full and equal access to its Website. Mr. Fischler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Fischler is, a resident of Astoria, New York, Queens County. As a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, he is a member of a protected class of individuals under Title III of the ADA. The Defendant is an online retailer of alcohol infused cold brew coffee, that comes in two flavors: original and vanilla. The Defendant sells its products online and through third-party retailers including Whole Foods Market, with locations throughout New York City. Through the Website, Defendant sells cans of its proprietary beverage in packs of 8, 12, 24 and 48. The Defendant's Website is heavily integrated with its online retail operations. Through the Website, customers can learn about the Defendant's products including ingredients and nutritional information, get drink recipes, learn about the company, and read press reviews.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392.4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com doug@lipskylowe.com CHW GROUP: Rogers Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHW Group, Inc. The case is styled as Scott Rogers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CHW Group, Inc. doing business as: Choice Home Warranty, Case No. 1:21-cv-00226-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CHW Group, Inc. -- https://www.choicehomewarranty.com/ -- provides home repair and maintenance warranties. It offers home protection, buyers and sellers, and real estate warranty.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Saldivar Sanchez, Esq. THE MAUL LAW GROUP PLLC 2401 Camelot Ct. SE, Ste. M Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Phone: (616) 888-1894 Email: gsanchez@maullaw.com CITY SHORE: Nascimento Seeks Construction Workers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, EDSON SILVESTRE DO NASCIMENTO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. CITY SHORE CONSTRUCTION INC. and RODRIGO LEME, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60482-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from approximately June 7, 2019 to October 30, 2020 as a construction worker. The Plaintiff asserts that he worked approximately an average of 62 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendants. But despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not properly pay him overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay, he added. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated construction workers to recover unpaid overtime wages accumulated from the date of hire and/or from 3 years back from the date of the filing of the complaint, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. City Shore Construction Inc. is a construction firm owned and managed by Rodrigo Leme. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tanesha Blye, Esq. Aron Smukler, Esq. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com asmukler@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com CLEANSPARK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of March 22 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of CleanSpark, Inc. ("CleanSpark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CLSK) from December 31, 2020 through January 14, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit CleanSpark Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On January 14, 2021, Culper Research published a report alleging, among other things, that CleanSpark has "fabricated key elements of its business, including purported customers and contracts" and that it is "rife with undisclosed related party transactions." Specifically, it alleged that the most recent acquisition of ATL Data Centers, LLC "is another Gutless Promotion Attempt." On this news, CleanSpark's shares fell $3.63 per share, or 9%, to close at $35.71 per share on January 14, 2021, thereby damaging investors. The stock continued to decline the next trading session by $4.56, or 13%, to close at $31.15 per share on January 15, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased CleanSpark securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/cleansparkinc-clsk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-356/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Clover Health Investments, Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company') (NASDAQ: CLOV) between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus in connection with its merger with Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH') in or around December 2020. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than April 6, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Clover investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Clover Securities Class Litigation Clover, headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, is a health insurance services company that primarily provides Medicare Advantage healthcare plans for seniors. On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SCH, a publicly listed special-purpose acquisition company, and began to trade under the symbol "CLOV.' The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that (1) Clover's Clover Assistant platform was under active investigation by the Department of Justice ("DOJ') for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation presented a risk to the Company, since it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class' technology; and (4) a significant portion of Clover's sales were derived from an undisclosed relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report revealing the existence of an active DOJ investigation of the Company for issues including kickbacks, marketing practices, undisclosed third-party deals, and Clover's software "Clover Assistant' that purportedly serves "low-income and often overlooked communities.' On this news, Clover's stock price fell $1.72, or approximately 12.3%, from its closing price of $13.95 on February 3, 2021, to close at $12.23 on February 4, 2021. The following day, on February 5, 2021, Clover disclosed that it was aware of the DOJ investigation prior to its merger with SCH, and that it had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission following publication of Hindenburg's report. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity.' Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus' and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world.' Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America.' For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Yaniv Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------- Matthew Yaniv, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Clover Health Investments, Corp., Vivek Garipalli, Andrew Toy and Joseph Wagner, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00109, (M.D. Tenn., February 10, 2021), seeks to recover losses on behalf of the investors who purchased or obtained Acadia publicly traded securities pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Clover is a health insurance service company that provides Medicare Advantage health plans to 57,000 members through a tech-heavy distribution platform. Clover Health merged with Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp III, an already publicly listed special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) which entailed a $1.2 billion investment into Clover, including a $400 million public investment in private equity from investors including Fidelity Management & Research Co, Jennison, Sen. Investment Group LP, Casdin and Perceptive Advisors. In addition to the $400 million private equity, Clover received up to $828 million of cash held in the trust account of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III. Following completion of the business combination with the SPAC, Clover Securities began trading publicly on January 8, 2021. The price of Clover Class A common stock reached a high of more than $17 per share on January 4, 2021. However, the registration statement used to complete the transaction failed to disclose that Clover was subject to an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, including its software "Clover Assistant" designed to serve "low-income and often overlooked communities," as well as kickbacks, marketing practices and undisclosed third-party deals. Clover's senior officers and directors also allegedly took steps to cash-in, filing an additional registration statement with the SEC that would register for resale and permit them to sell hundreds of millions of their personally-held Clover Securities. On this news, the market price of Clover Securities declined precipitously, with the Class A common stock alone closing down $1.72 per share on February 3, 2021, more than 12%, on unusually high trading volume of more than 67.6 million shares trading, or more than 5 times the average daily volume over the preceding 30 trading days. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Wood, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2203 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: cwood@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com - and - Jerry E. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com COOK COUNTY, IL: Class of Detainees Certified in Walker Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, CORNELIUS WALKER, Plaintiff v. THOMAS DART, SHERIFF, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00261 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Walker's motion to certify the action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Plaintiff Walker, an inmate at Cook County Jail whose disability requires him to use a wheelchair, alleges that Defendants Sheriff Dart and Cook County have not repaired a non-compliant ramp at the jail, in violation of Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 ("ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a) ("RHA"). Mr. Walker has been an inmate at the Cook County Jail since Sept. 20, 2015. He is a T3 paraplegic; he requires a wheelchair to move from place to place. While detained at Cook County Jail, he has been housed in the Cermak Infirmary, which is one of two buildings at the jail that complies with the ADA structural standards suitable for housing mobility impaired inmates. While at the jail, Walker has navigated a long ramp in the lower level of Cermak on a regular basis. Based on a March 2018 walkthrough, an employee of Cook County documented that the run of this ramp "exceeds code requirements" and provided five recommendations to bring the ramp into compliance with the ADA. Walker alleges that structural barriers prevent him and similarly situated wheelchair users from using the ramp similar to non-disabled inmates. He also alleges he suffered physical injuries because of the ramp, including burning hands while attempting to break while moving down the ramp, because the ramp is long and does not have a landing area to rest as required by the ADA. Mr. Walker seeks to represent a class of "all Cook County Jail detainees who have been assigned and currently use a wheelchair to traverse the Cermak ramp" under Rule 23(b)(2) and "all Cook County Jail detainees who have been assigned a wheelchair and used a wheelchair to traverse the Cermak ramp from May 5, 2018 to the date of entry of judgment," under Rule 23(b)(3). The Defendants challenge Walker's class certification motion by arguing that (1) Walker has failed to cite any legal violation; (2) Walker cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation; and (3) Walker has not met the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule 23(b)(3). Alleged Violation The Defendants first argue that Walker "cannot succeed on the merits" and his proposed class is premised on a "non-existent legal violation." They argue that the document Walker relies on does not identify an applicable code which was violated. Mr. Walker alleges that the Cermak ramp is long and does not have a landing area to rest as required by the ADA. He claims Defendants have failed to bring the ramp into compliance with the ADA. In the ADA regulation cited by the Defendants, Section 4.8.4 states, "Ramps will have level landings at bottom and top of each ramp and each ramp run" and "the landing length will be a minimum of 60 inches clear." And attached to Walker's certification motion is a March 2018 Cook County report specifically stating that the Cermak ramp is "47' long without a landing," "the run exceeds code requirements," and listing five recommendations including to "create compliant ramp landing" and addressing the landing area and handrails on the ramp. Thus, Judge Rowland opines that the Defendants' argument about Walker's ability to succeed on the merits is not persuasive; whether Walker can prove Defendants violated the ADA and RHA is a question for another day. Rule 23(a) Requirements The Judge has determined that Walker has met his burden to show the Rule 23(a) requirements are met. She finds that (i) Walker's reliance on the Defendants' prior representation about the number of wheelchair using detainees at the Jail makes it "reasonable to believe the size large enough to make joinder impracticable" in the case; (ii) Walker has met his burden to show common questions of law or fact are capable of class-wide resolution; (iii) Walker has met his burden to show his claim arises from the same course of conduct as other class members -- the Defendants' alleged failure to bring the Cermak ramp into compliance with the ADA and RHA; and (iv) she sees no reason to question the adequacy of Walker as representative. Having determined that Walker has met his burden to show the Rule 23(a) requirements are met, the Judge turns to Rule 23(b). Walker alleges that the Defendants act on grounds that apply generally to the class by failing to comply with the Structural Standards required by the ADA and RHA as it relates to the Cermak ramp. The Defendants maintain that a Rule 23(b)(2) class is inappropriate because plaintiffs would have "varied abilities and experiences" and "any injuries would vary from person to person. Judge Rowland opines that the proposed class members have a common injury -- inability to safely use the Cermak ramp -- that would be addressed by the same remedy -- bringing the Cermak ramp into compliance. And because she declines to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the Defendants' argument about individualized damages for the class members is moot. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirement Under Rule 23(b)(3), a plaintiff must show that questions of law or fact common to the class members predominate over individualized issues and that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating the case. Judge Rowland holds that Walker does not meet his burden to demonstrate a Rule 23(b)(3) class is appropriate. Walker does not cite any evidence to support his contention that common questions predominate over individualizes ones. As for superiority, the Judge cannot conclude based solely on Walker's unsupported assertions that both the predominance and superiority elements are met in order to allow a Rule 23(b)(3) class to proceed. For the she stated reasons, Judge Rowland granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Walker's motion to certify. The motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class is granted; the request to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class is denied. The Judge certified the following class under Rule 23(b)(2): "All Cook County Jail detainees who have been assigned and currently use a wheelchair to traverse the Cermak ramp." She appointed Cornelius Walker as the class representative, and Thomas Gerard Morrissey and Patrick William Morrissey as the class counsel. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/xy78u6hh from Leagle.com. CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Espejo Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EMILIO ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ALEC FABER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and AHNAF RAHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-CV-467 (MAD/ML) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. On April 23, 2020, Olivia Haynie filed the putative class action against Defendant Cornell University alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion stemming from Cornell's decision to close its campus and transition to online learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 25, 2020 and May 31, 2020, Plaintiffs Faber and Rahman, respectively, filed nearly identical class action complaints against Cornell University -- Faber v. Cornell, No. 3:20-CV-471, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D.N.Y.); and Rahman v. Cornell University, No. 3:20-CV-592, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D.N.Y.). On Aug. 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate these actions. The motion to consolidate was granted, and, soon thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. In the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs added Emilio Espejo as a Plaintiff to the action. On Oct. 29, 2020, Plaintiff Haynie voluntarily dismissed her claim. The Plaintiffs bring the case as a result of Cornell's decision not to issue certain refunds for the Spring 2020 semester after all classes were transitioned to an online format, most campus buildings were closed, and students were required to leave campus due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs are students, or parents of students, who were enrolled at Cornell University during the Spring 2020 term. Cornell's Spring 2020 semester began on Jan. 21, 2020. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Defendant announced on March 13, 2020, that it was suspending all classes effective immediately. The same day, it announced that all undergraduate and most professional students were required to leave campus no later than March 29, 2020, unless the students received an exception. The announcement also "strongly encouraged" students to leave campus prior to the deadline. Although not alleged in the complaint, the Defendant states that online instruction of students began on April 6, 2020. Cornell has since announced that it has, or soon will, issue refunds on room and board fees to be pro-rated from the March 29, 2020 closure. However, it has refused to offer refunds on tuition or other fees for the Spring 2020 term. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all people who paid tuition, fees, and room and board for -- or on behalf of -- students enrolled in classes for the Spring 2020 term. On Nov. 10, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. At the parties' request, the Court held oral argument on the motion on Feb. 8, 2021. Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Espejo's Standing Judge D'Agostino finds that Plaintiff Espejo's standing is based solely on the fact that he paid tuition for his child. The Plaintiffs do not allege that Plaintiff Espejo's child is a minor, that he directly contracted with Cornell, or that he is an intended third-party beneficiary. Without such allegations, Plaintiff Espejo cannot demonstrate injury-in-fact. Therefore, the Judge holds that the Court, as have many others considering similar issues, finds that the Plaintiff Espejo does not have standing to advance his claim. Breach of Contract Claims During oral argument, both parties agreed that, under New York law, an implied contractual relationship exists between the parties. The dispute surrounds the extent of the parties' agreement. Cornell argues that the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim based on Cornell's decision not to refund tuition fails because they cannot identify a sufficiently specific promise for in-person instruction or a refund absent such instruction. In opposition, the Plaintiffs argue that a number of written and oral statements from Cornell's website, academic catalogs, student handbooks, correspondence, marketing materials, and other circulars, bulletins and publications combine to create a specific promise for in-person instruction. At this early stage, drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, Judge D'Agostino finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a specific promise for in-person instruction. In support of their claim, among other things, the Plaintiffs point to Cornell's Class Roster, which indicated whether a course is scheduled to be taught in-person or online and included a building and classroom assignment. They also cite to various marketing materials which discuss campus activities and groups. Accordingly, Cornell's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to this claim. The Plaintiffs also allege that the parties entered into a contract which provided that they would pay fees for room and board in exchange for access to on-campus housing and/or dining for the Spring 2020 semester. It is their position that they should receive refunds pro-rated from the date that they were constructively evicted: March 13, 2020. See id. The Judge notes that although students were encouraged to leave campus as soon as possible, they were not required to leave until March 29, 2020. Such encouragement, absent allegations that Cornell attempted to prevent the Plaintiffs from accessing their housing before March 29, 2020, is not sufficient to constitute a breach of contract. As there is no such allegation in the case, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged breach with respect to this claim. Accordingly, Cornell's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim is granted with respect to the room and board fees. In the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they were charged a mandatory Student Activity Fee and other optional fees such as fitness center fees and student health fees. The Defendant, citing Chong v. Northeastern University, _ F. Supp. 3d _, 2020 WL 5847626, * 4 (D. Mass. 2020), argues that the Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the fees are too vague and conclusory to survive a motion to dismiss. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs allege that the fees at issue provide students with "services, access, benefits, and programs for which the fees were described and billed." Accordingly, drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, she finds that they have plausibly alleged a breach of contract claim with respect to these fees. Unjust Enrichment The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is in a much better position to bear the financial burden of the COVID-19 pandemic than the students. However, she says the Plaintiffs have not alleged, nor can she conclude, that the Defendant's refusal to refund tuition and fees and offer only partial refunds of room and board was tortious or fraudulent. Accordingly, she finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that equity and good conscience require restitution. Thus, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims is granted. Conversion The Judge finds that Cornell correctly argues that the Plaintiffs' conversion claim must fail because it is based on the same allegations as those alleged in their breach of contract claim. The Plaintiffs allege that they paid "tuition fees and others" and that Cornell failed to provide the services for which they paid. The relief sought for this claim is the return of the paid tuition and fees. These allegations and the relief sought are the same as those underlying the Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims. Thus, the Plaintiffs' conversion claim must be dismissed. Alternatively, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that the converted money is specifically identifiable. Although they allege that such payments were made to a specific fund for specific and identifiable purposes, this allegation is not plausible. As Cornell correctly notes, the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a cognizable property interest for purposes of a conversion claim. Additionally, the funds paid by the Plaintiffs are not sufficiently tangible property under these facts. Accordingly, Cornell's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' conversion claim is granted. New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 The Plaintiffs allege that Cornell's marketing materials created a reasonable expectation that they would receive an in-person educational opportunity and on-campus experience. Cornell argues that Plaintiffs' General Business Law claims should be dismissed because they are improperly based on an alleged failure to disclose a hypothetical possibility and, alternatively, no reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances would be misled by Cornell's statements. In response, the Plaintiffs argue only that the claims are sufficiently pled. The Judge holds that it cannot reasonably be said that Cornell had knowledge that a global pandemic would force the closure of colleges and universities across the country and require transition to online learning. Nor have the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Cornell was aware of the possibility of a pandemic and failed to disclose that information to potential students. She says an unforeseen pandemic forced the closure of institutions of all kinds across the world. The Governor of New York issued an executive order prohibiting in person, on-campus instruction. Accordingly, the Judge, as have others considering similar allegations, finds that no reasonable prospective student could be misled or deceived based on Cornell's statements. Cornell's motion to dismiss this claim is granted. After carefully reviewing the entire record in the matter, the parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated reasons, Judge D'Agostino granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56thrhy5 from Leagle.com. CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC, JOHN C. CHERUNDOLO, ESQ. -- jcherundolo@cheurndololawfirm.com -- in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC, T. WILLEY, IV, ESQ., ERIC POULIN, ESQ. -- eric@akimlawfirm.com -- BLAKE G. ABBOTT, ESQ., South Carolina, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., MAX STUART ROBERTS, ESQ. -- mroberts@bursor.com -- PHILIP LAWRENCE FRAIETTA, ESQ. -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., SARAH WESTCOT, ESQ. -- swestcot@bursor.com -- in Miami, Florida, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. TOPTANI LAW PLLC,, EDWARD TOPTANI, ESQ. -- edward@toptanilaw.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. LYNN LAW FIRM, LLP, KELSEY W. SHANNON, ESQ. -- kshannon@lynnlaw.com -- in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP, EDWARD CIOLKO, ESQ. -- eciolko@carlsonlynch.com -- GARY F. LYNCH, ESQ. -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- JAMES PATRICK MCGRAW, III, ESQ., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP, KATHLEEN P. LALLY, ESQ., in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OFFICE OF COUNSEL, VALERIE L. DORN, ESQ., ADAM PENCE, ESQ., in Ithaca, New York, Attorneys for Defendant. JENNER, BLOCK LAW FIRM-DC OFFICE, ISHAN KHARSHEDJI BHABHA, ESQ., LAUREN J. HARTZ, ESQ., in Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, PAUL RIETEMA, ESQ., in Chicago, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON: Welch Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against COUNTY OF BURLINGTON, et al. The case is styled as Christopher M. Welch, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COUNTY OF BURLINGTON; FELICIA HOPSON, COUNTY COMMISSIONER; C.F.G HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC; LES PASCHALL, CEO-CFG HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC; DORIS YAA, HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR; CONNIE, NURSE PRACTITIONER; NURSE JANE DOE(S) 1 THROUGH 3; WARDEN MATTHEW LEITH; CAPTAIN T. BLANGO; CAPTAIN IMAN; LIUETENANT P. BLANGO; LIEUTENANT N. PTASZENSKI; LIUETENANT R. CLUGSTEN; SERGEANT M. PEER; SERGEANT J. WILLIAMS; CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS JANE & jOHN DOE(S) 1 THROUGH 10; COUNTY EMPLOYEES JANE & JOHN DOE(S) 1 THROUGH 10; Case No. 1:21-cv-04526-RMB (D.N.J., March 9, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Burlington County -- https://www.co.burlington.nj.us/ -- is a county in the U.S. state of New Jersey. The county is the largest in New Jersey by area.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Christopher M. Welch 54 GRANT STREET P.O. BOX 6000 MOUNT HOLLY, NJ 08060 115254 BURLINGTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PRO SE EBIX INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 23 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Feb. 24 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Ebix Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) from November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Ebix securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Ebix Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com On February 19, 2021, Ebix revealed that RSM US LLP ("RSM"), its independent auditor, resigned. The resignation was "a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020," arising out of 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." Ebix and RSM also disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020. On this news, the Company's share price fell approximately 40%, from $50.74 to close at $30.47 on February 22, 2021. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Ebix securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ebix-ebix-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-364/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] EBIX INC: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of April 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood on Feb. 25 disclosed that on February 22, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is November 9, 2020 through February 19, 2021. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-ebix-inc/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Ebix, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Friday, April 23, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN] EBIX INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) ("Ebix") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Ebix securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or acquired Ebix securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 23, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/ebix-inc-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ebix Ebix supplies infrastructure exchanges to the insurance, financial, travel, cash remittances, and healthcare industries. The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Ebix filed its quarterly report for the period ended September 30, 2020 on a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, stating in relevant part that the "Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our 'disclosure controls and procedures' . . . [and] have concluded that these disclosure controls and procedures are effective." On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to Ebix's gift card business in India. RSM 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." Additionally, 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. Following this news, Ebix's share price fell $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; (3) Ebix's independent auditor, RSM, was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Ebix's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Ebix investors may, no later than April 23, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com http://www.ktmc.com[GN] EBIX INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on Feb. 24 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 26, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ebix lacked audit evidence to prove legitimate purposes for large and unusual transactions in its India gift card business. The Company suffered from material weaknesses in internal controls over gift cards and prepaid revenue. The Company's auditor was likely to resign over $30 million put into a trust account commingled with its outside legal counsel. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Ebix, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] EDDCO MAINTENANCE: Norfleet Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT -------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDA NORFLEET, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDDCO MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS, LLC, TASK FORCE MAINTENANCE, INC., EDWARD COLEMAN, II and BARBARA COLEMAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00327-ACA (N.D. Ala., March 2, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking unpaid overtime and liquidated damages owed to them. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in January 2014 providing cleaning and maintenance services to the Defendants' clients in the Birmingham Area until October 2020. The Plaintiff claims that despite working in excess of 40 hours per week for the Defendants, the Defendants did not properly pay her and other similarly situated employees' overtime compensation for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per week at one and one-half times of their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiff also seeks an injunction enjoining the Defendants from continuing to pay their workers, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs. The Corporate Defendants provide cleaning and maintenance services, and an integrated enterprise that share common management and ownership. Defendant Task Force Maintenance is the sole member of Eddco Maintenance Contractors, LLC. The Individual Defendants are owners of Task Force Maintenance. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. JACKSON + JACKSON 2100 Southbridge Parkway, Suite 650 Birmingham, AL 35209 Tel: (205) 414-7467 Fax: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net EHANG HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH) American Depository Shares ("ADSs') between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021 (and on February 16, 2021, only for those who purchased shares at or above the price of $112.00), inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Amberber v. EHang Holdings Limited, No. 21-cv-01392, and is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The EHang class action lawsuit charges EHang and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased EHang ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the EHang class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the EHang class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the EHang class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the EHang class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the EHang class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the EHang class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the EHang class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than April 19, 2021. EHang purports to be an autonomous aerial vehicle ("AAV') technology platform company that is "pioneering the future of transportation through [their] proprietarily developed AAVs and related commercial solutions." EHang's purported flagship passenger-grade AAV is the "EH216.' The EHang class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants concealed that: (i) EHang's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii) EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADSs began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) EHang's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and (v) as a result, EHang's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 16, 2021, analyst Wolfpack Research published a report entitled "EHang: A Stock Promotion Destined to Crash and Burn." In this report, Wolfpack Research wrote that EHang is "an elaborate stock promotion, built on largely fabricated revenues based on sham sales contracts with a customer [Shanghai Kunxiang Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. ("Kunxiang")] who appears to us to be more interested in helping inflate the value of its investment in [EHang] . . . than actually buying its products." Wolfpack Research claimed to have "gathered extensive evidence" to support its report, "including behind-the-scenes photographs, recorded phone calls, and videos of on-site visits to [EHang]'s various facilities." Wolfpack Research also noted that "in just 14 months as a publicly traded company, [EHang]'s PR team has put out 50 press releases . . . . However, [EHang]'s constant stream of press releases are easily proven untrue.' Finally, Wolfpack Research wrote that it "obtained Chinese court records which show that [EHang]'s [ADSs] may already be in serious jeopardy due to legal issues in China." On this news, the price of EHang ADSs lost over half of their value in a single-day decline of over 62%. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Michael Albert, 800-449-4900 malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] EHANG HOLDINGS: Zhang Investor Reminds of April 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of EHang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: EH) between December 12, 2019 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period'). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=ehang-holdings-limited&id=2590 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the April 19, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that - the Company's purported regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216 were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; its relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; the Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] ELECTRIC RELIABILITY: Faces Class Action Over Texas Power Outages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Winsor, writing for ABC News, reports that Texas' embattled power grid operator is facing lawsuits and resignations after more than 4 million customers lost electricity during a deadly winter storm. Morgan & Morgan, a Florida-based national law firm with over 700 attorneys, filed a class-action lawsuit on Feb. 23 against the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), alleging that the nonprofit corporation "utterly failed" to plan for the cold weather despite multiple warnings, leading to the collapse of its electrical network and resulting in widespread blackouts. "Despite receiving multiple unambiguous warnings, ERCOT's alleged failure to ensure reliable generating capacity during anticipated conditions forced many of its customers to endure dangerous freezing temperatures for long periods of time," attorneys Mike Morgan and Rene Rocha said in a statement on Feb. 23. "This was not the first time ERCOT has failed to plan and prepare for cold weather. But instead of learning the lessons of its past failures, ERCOT yet again disregarded its duties to its customers. Over 70 people have died and millions of others have suffered emotional and physical trauma due to ERCOT's alleged gross negligence." ABC News has reached out to ERCOT for comment. The lawsuit was filed in a district court of Texas' Harris County on behalf of a putative class that includes all current retail customers of ERCOT -- millions of Texans -- "who lost electric services or potable water services during the week of February 14, 2021 as a result of ERCOT's failure to ensure adequate generating capacity," according to the complaint. ERCOT, which manages the flow of electric power to more than 26 million customers in Texas, representing 90% of the state's electric load, allegedly received warning as early as Feb. 9 that an impending winter storm may jeopardize the integrity of its electrical network if reasonable measures were not taken, according to the complaint. Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott, who has been critical of ERCOT in the storm's aftermath, issued a disaster declaration in all 254 counties on Feb. 12 ahead of the severe weather, which the lawsuit argued "should have further emphasized the need for ERCOT to take appropriate measures to ensure system performance under the anticipated conditions." The storm moved into Texas on Feb. 14, blanketing the Lone Star State in snow and ice. During a press briefing, ERCOT president and CEO Bill Magness admitted that the Texas power grid had been just "seconds or minutes" away from a complete and catastrophic failure, as power demand increased and generators fell offline on the night the storm hit. By the morning of Feb. 14, more than 4.4 million customers were without power in Texas, according to data collected by PowerOutage.US. The extended power outages combined with record-low temperatures caused freezing pipes to burst across the state, depleting water reserves. Millions of people were also under a boil-water advisory due to concerns about potential contamination as water treatment plants suffered power outages. Mariaelena Sanchez, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, was among those who lost electrical services and potable water for "several days" due to ERCOT's alleged failures to plan and prepare for the deep freeze, according to the complaint. Sanchez was forced to "huddle under blankets in her dark and freezing home and ration scarce supplies of bottled water. During that time, Sanchez had to use snow to preserve "the little food she had that was not spoiled by the outages," according to the complaint. The lawsuit alleged that the "total state energy demand during the cold weather event peaked at around 69,000 megawatts -- significantly less than the total capacity of the ERCOT system or typical peak demands in summer." ERCOT allegedly failed "to reserve enough capacity to meet such foreseeable demands" as well as "to assess the integrity of its infrastructure, the environmental limitations of its power sources, and how abnormally cold weather may impact the availability of its power sources," according to the complaint. Although winter storms are not as common in Texas as elsewhere in the United States, the complaint noted that the state has experienced a number of cold weather events over the past few decades. The lawsuit alleged that "ERCOT has repeatedly disregarded its responsibilities" throughout the years to plan and prepare for the effects of cold weather on its electrical grid. The complaint cited winter storms in 1989 and 2011 that caused ERCOT's systems to fail, resulting in widespread blackouts and human suffering. The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and is seeking class certification, injunctive relief, damages and litigation costs for the named plaintiff as well as all other class members proposed in the complaint. This is not the only lawsuit to hit ERCOT in the wake of the historic cold snap. The family of an 11-year-old boy who died during the power outages in Conroe, about 40 miles north of Houston, filed a $100 million lawsuit against ERCOT and Entergy Texas, an electric power generation and distribution company. Meanwhile, ERCOT's top board leaders announced on Feb. 23 that they will step down amid outrage over the corporation's handling of the storm. Four board directors, including the chairwoman and vice chairman, submitted their resignations, which are effective on Feb. 24. A candidate for a board director position also said he was withdrawing his name from consideration. All five live outside of Texas, which only intensified scrutiny of ERCOT. In a letter to ERCOT board members on Feb. 23, the four departing leaders noted the "recent concerns about out-of-state board leadership." "We want to acknowledge the pain and suffering of Texans during this past week," they wrote. "Our hearts go out to all Texans who have had to go without electricity, heat, and water during frigid temperatures and continue to face the tragic consequences of this emergency." In a separate letter to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which oversees ERCOT, the board director candidate said he was requesting the withdrawal of his name "to avoid becoming a distraction," citing "concerns regarding the propriety of out-of-state directors." [GN] ELIZABETH BRADLEY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elizabeth Bradley Designs, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Elizabeth Bradley Designs, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01251 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Elizabeth Bradley -- https://elizabethbradley.com/ -- designs and manufactures needlepoint kits, adding new designs each year.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com ENDO INT'L: Judge Denies Motion to Reconsider Lead Counsel Swap --------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that have you ever seen a securities class action in which both the defendants and ousted lead counsel are demanding that the trial judge halt the case to allow an interlocutory appeal of a controversial ruling to swap out the lead plaintiff after the completion of class certification briefing? No? Me neither -- until contretemps in a shareholder class action against the pharmaceutical company Endo. Endo's lawyers at Latham & Watkins and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and former lead counsel from Bleichmar Fonti & Auld filed separate motions calling on U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson to allow them to contest his appointment earlier in February of a new lead plaintiff -- and a new lead counsel who just happens to be a former judicial colleague of Judge Baylson. Late on Feb. 24, the judge denied motions to reconsider his order appointing new leads, to stay the case and to allow an interlocutory appeal. "The court acted with due regard for the benefit of the putative class members, in view of the length of time this case has been pending and the need for expediting the process," the order said. "The court concludes it acted appropriately to discharge its duties." With their motions denied, the next recourse for Endo and Bleichmar Fonti would be a mandamus petition arguing that the judge abused his discretion in appointing a new lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Mandamus petitions are rare -- and even more rarely successful. But Bleichmar has already called, in its stay motion, for Judge Baylson to recuse himself in this case because his relationship with the newly-appointed lead counsel creates the appearance of partiality. It wouldn't be a huge leap from there to a mandamus petition. Joseph Fonti of the Bleichmar firm declined to comment, as did Endo counsel Marc Sonnenfeld of Morgan Lewis. New lead counsel Lawrence Stengel of Saxton & Stump, a retired federal judge, did not respond to my email. Nor did Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which had originally hired Stengel to serve as local counsel in the Endo class action and is now serving under him as co-lead. This whole controversy was precipitated by Judge Baylson's Feb. 4 decision to replace Bleichmar's client, a Chicago pension fund, as leader of the long-running case, which alleges that Endo misrepresented the extent to which its generic drug business relied on anticompetitive behavior. (Shareholders filed the case in 2017, after reports of a price-fixing investigation of the company and its competitors led Endo to write down its generics operation by $2.85 billion. Endo denies misleading shareholders.) The class action survived Endo's dismissal motion last February. By the end of 2020, Bleichmar and Endo had fully briefed class certification. But in January, after another prospective class representative sought to intervene in the case, Judge Baylson ordered additional briefing on lead plaintiffs' trading in Endo shares. In the Feb. 4 order bouncing Bleichmar's client, the judge said he was concerned that the Chicago pension fund had "damaged (its) credibility" in its responses to his queries about its trading. He also said he was worried that the fund might not meet the typicality requirement for class actions. Bleichmar vehemently denied that the law firm or its client had misrepresented anything or misled the court in any way, but the judge said he had to protect absent class members from inadequate representation. Endo argued that the judge could not appoint a new lead plaintiff under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in China Agritech v. Resh, which precludes successive shareholder class actions once the statute of limitations has run out on the original claim. But Judge Baylson ruled that China Agritech involved the filing of entirely new class actions, not new plaintiffs in ongoing cases. The judge appointed a different pension fund, for Bucks County employees, and three individual Endo investors to replace the Chicago pension fund as lead plaintiffs. He designated his onetime colleague Stengel to serve as lead counsel. Robbins Geller, which had been primary counsel for the Bucks County fund, was designated as co-lead, along with Pomerantz, which was counsel to the individual investors. There's since been some back-and-forth in the docket about Pomerantz's role -- the firm complained that it was being frozen out by Stengel and Robbins Geller but Judge Baylson said staffing decisions were to be made by Stengel -- and about the extent to which the new lead lawyers can revisit the operative complaint. At a scheduling conference on Feb. 24, the judge said that if Stengel and Robbins Geller tried to amend the pleading, he would likely deny the motion. But the most potentially consequential briefs are those casting doubt on the appointment of new leaders of the case at this late date. Endo's brief requesting an interlocutory appeal revived its argument that China Agritech precedent bars Bucks County from now asserting claims and serving as lead plaintiff. The company argued that Judge Baylson should avoid the time and expense of allowing the class action to proceed until the 3rd Circuit has figured out whether the lead plaintiff even has a viable claim. The Bleichmar Fonti motion also cited China Agritech as an "existential risk" for the class. But the motion went straight at Judge Baylson as well, arguing that he committed legal and factual errors in concluding that the Chicago pension fund and its lawyers could no longer lead the case. The judge, according to the Bleichmar brief, disregarded the statutory framework for lead plaintiff assignments when, of his own accord, he decided to revisit the Chicago fund's eligibility and devised his own rules for evaluating new lead plaintiff candidates. In addition, Bleichmar alleged, Judge Baylson has acknowledged that he had at least two ex parte conversations with Stengel about the prospect of the former judge serving as lead counsel. No actual Endo shareholder, according to the Bleichmar brief, picked Stengel as lead counsel -- he was serving as Robbins Geller's local counsel. So, according to the Bleichmar brief, Judge Baylson's private discussions with and selection of his former colleague were "procedurally improper." The brief called on the trial judge to recuse himself because his relationship with Stengel would lead an objective observer to doubt his impartiality. Stengel and co-lead counsel responded in the docket to Endo's motion for an interlocutory appeal, but not yet to the Bleichmar brief. Lead counsel's brief contended that courts have broadly rejected Endo's interpretation of China Agritech and that there's no need to delay this case for an interlocutory appeal. Judge Baylson rejected Bleichmar's call for recusal in his order on Feb. 24. He conceded that he called Stengel before finalizing the new lead plaintiff appointment, but said the call was to inform Stengel that, in Judge Baylson's view, the retired judge should serve as lead counsel. Judge Baylson said that Stengel called him back "a day or two later," to say that his co-counsel agreed with that arrangement. "These discussions did not in any way concern the merits of the case, or even the procedural aspects that might follow from the designation of lead and co-lead plaintiffs, and lead and co-lead counsel," Judge Baylson said in the Feb. 24 order. How far are Endo and Bleichmar willing to go to challenge the judge's unusual lead-plaintiff change-up? I suspect we'll soon find out. [GN] FACTORY DIRECT: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Factory Direct Trains, Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Factory Direct Trains, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01253 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Factory Direct Trains -- https://factorydirecthobbies.com/ -- is a hobby shop for premium quality model trains and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com FANNIE'S INC: Ray et al. Seek Unpaid Dancers' Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER LYNN RAY, FANCY MITCHAM, and DEBORAH RINGO, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated who consent to representation, Plaintiffs v. FANNIE'S, INC. d/b/a FANNIE'S CABARET, a Georgia Corporation, MICHAEL W. FULTON, an individual, and RICK PEFFER, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00864-SDG (N.D. Ga., March 2, 2021) bring this complaint as a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendants as dancers at the Defendants' gentlemen club, assert that the Defendants misclassified them and other similarly situated dancers as independent contractors. The Defendant allegedly did not pay them the federally required minimum wage and overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay when they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek. In addition, as a condition of their employment, the Defendants required them to pay kickbacks or fees including a $40 shift fee, a $10-$15 "tip out fee" at the end of each shift to the manager on duty, a $20 fee to the DJ, and a fee each time a dancer used the VIP rooms with a customer, the Plaintiffs add. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated who consent to representation, seek damages in the amount of their respective unpaid minimum wage, the amount of their paid kickbacks or fees, liquidated damages, interest, and other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems proper. Fannie's Inc. d/b/a Fannie's Cabaret operates a gentlemen's club owned by Michael W. Fulton. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. Thomas F. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP Post Office Box 1070 Tucker, GA 30085-10170 Tel: (404) 313-5538 E-mail: kmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com tfmartin@martinandmartinlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Reed Suit Transferred to E.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled Robert Reed, Stacey Coppock, Craig Morford, Kelli Morford, David Schiavi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-01631, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 9, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00417-KJM-AC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability. The Ford Motor Company, commonly known as Ford -- https://www.ford.com/ -- is an American multinational automaker that has its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell D. Paul, PHV, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Abigail J. Gertner, PHV, Esq. Amey J. Park, PHV, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net - and - Cody Robert Padgett, Esq. Steven R. Weinmann, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-4811 Fax: (310) 943-0396 Email: cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com steven.weinmann@capstonelawyers.com tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Christian J. Singewald, NCAED, Esq. WHITE & WILLIAMS 600 North King St., Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801-3722 Phone: (302) 654-0424 FRESENIUS USA: Faces Fenske Suit Over Alleged FCRA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL FENSKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESENIUS USA MANUFACTURING, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case 5:21-cv-00367 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 1, 2021) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures and distributes medical products for treating kidney failure. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -and- Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN LAW FIRM, INC. 880 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Facsimile: (818) 722-3974 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com FUBOTV INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against FuboTV, Inc. ("Fubo" or the "Company") (NYSE: FUBO) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-01641, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired common shares of Fubo stock between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased FuboTV securities during the Class Period, you have until April 19, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Fubo is a multichannel video programming distributor ("vMVPD"), offering subscribers access to thousands of live sporting events as well as news and entertainment content. Fubo's platform allows customers to access content through streaming devices, and on SmartTVs, mobile phones, tablets and computers. It streams its services to United States, Canada and Spain. In its regulatory filings and public statements, Fubo positions itself as a content distributor at the intersection of three "megatrends": cord-cutting, connected TV advertising, and online sports wagering. Fubo revenues are almost entirely derived from the sale of subscription services and advertising in the United States. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants disseminated false and misleading statements that misrepresented Fubo's financial health and its operating condition. These misleading statements included representations relating to a variety of Fubo's business operations and performance metrics, including, among others, Fubo's ability to grow subscription levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company's valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports wagering. For example, one of the Company's unrealistic promises included courageous claims of the Company's plans to scale its sport wagering business by, among other things, acquiring Balto Sports, which significantly inflated the price of Fubo securities, and also created a false basis for its valuation and revenue projections. In reality, the Company's prospects of scaling the sports wagering business was far from realistic given its size and market share, a fact that investors were never apprised of. As some analysts later described Fubo's strategy, it amounted to "putting a lipstick on a pig." Investors learned the truth gradually through a series of research reports beginning on December 23, 2020. Those reports revealed, among others things, that (i) Fubo's growth in subscriber and profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge; (ii) Fubo's offering of products would be subject to cost escalation; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve its long-term advertising growth goals; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into sports wagering. Upon the publication of the research reports, the price of Fubo securities declined 54% from a close of $52.59 on December 23, 2020 to a close of $24.24 on January 4, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] FUBOTV: Zhang Investor Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of fuboTV Inc. (NYSE: FUBO) between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period'). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fubotv-inc&id=2592 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=fubotv-inc&id=2592 If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the April 19, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that - Fubo's growth in subscriber and profitability were unsustainable past the seasonal surge in subscription levels; Fubo's offering of products was subject to undisclosed cost escalations; Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its only sports wagering opportunity; Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; the acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies, internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into online sports wagering; and as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] GEICO CASUALTY: Court Grants Davis Leave to File Third Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANET DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-2477 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division: (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Substitute Class Representative, and Dismiss Melissa Schaller Without Prejudice; and (ii) dismissed as moot the Unopposed Motion to Intervene by Movant-Intervenor Alma Lee Resendez. The Plaintiffs initiated the putative class action against several GEICO on June 13, 2019. On Feb. 6, 2020, after obtaining leave, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint adding claims against an additional GEICO defendant, GEICO General. On Feb. 24, 2020, after obtaining leave, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding claims against an additional GEICO defendant, GEICO Secure. Pursuant to the Court's preliminary pretrial order, the deadline for Motions to Amend was March 15, 2020. The Plaintiffs allege in the Second Amended Complaint that the GEICO defendants breached their insurance policies by failing to the pay the full sales tax, title transfer fees, and registration fees due under the policies after they suffered a total loss on their insured vehicles. The Plaintiffs each bring a claim for breach of contract under Ohio law on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a putative class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Particularly relevant, the Second Amended Complaint defines the putative class as: "All Ohio residents insured for PPA physical damaged by Defendants who suffered a first-party total-loss of a covered vehicle during the eight years before this lawsuit through class certification." The Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to amend the class period to those Ohio residents who "suffered a first-party total-loss of a covered vehicle during the fifteen years before July 30, 2020 through class certification." Additionally, they seek to substitute the identical claims of Alma Lee Resendez in place of Plaintiff Melissa Schaller and to dismiss Plaintiff Schaller without prejudice so that she may remain a member of the putative class. During discovery, the Plaintiffs' counsel discovered that Plaintiff Schaller was a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings and therefore seeks to replace her as a putative class representative. Contemporaneously with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend, Resendez filed an Unopposed Motion to Intervene. The Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion to for Leave to Amend and do not oppose the Motion to Intervene. Because the Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Leave to Amend after the Court's March 15, 2020 deadline, they must show good cause. The Plaintiffs submit that: (1) justice requires amending the statute of limitations period in the class definition; and (2) justice requires substituting Resendez in place of Plaintiff Schaller as a named plaintiff and putative class representative. The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs' goal of substituting Resendez's claims for Plaintiff Schaller's identical claims and do not oppose dismissing Plaintiff Schaller without prejudice. They do, however, oppose granting leave to amend the complaint as the procedure for accomplishing this goal; they argue that granting the accompanying Motion to Intervene is the proper method for substituting Resendez for Plaintiff Schaller. The Defendants also oppose the Plaintiffs' attempt to amend the class period. They argue that the changes the Plaintiffs seek to make should have been addressed in earlier pleadings and are "futile or unnecessary." Having discovered the uncodified 15-year statute of limitations, the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend in order change the class period from eight years to 15 years before July 30, 2020 through class certification. They picked July 30, 2020 as the operative date because that is the date on which they filed the instant Motion for Leave to Amend, making clear that they do not seek to have the proposed amended class period relate back to the date of the original Complaint. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants breached the contracts of some putative class members prior to Sept. 28, 2012 and thus, 15 years is the proper class period instead of eight years. Looking to the relevant factors, Judge Sargus opines that the Plaintiffs have shown the requisite good cause under Rule 16 to permit amending the class period. First, he says there is no evidence of undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the Plaintiffs part. And although the Plaintiffs filed the motion in July of 2020, four months after the Court's scheduling deadline, the discovery deadline at the time they filed thes motion was April 15, 2021 and no depositions had been taken. In all, the Plaintiffs' explanation for delay is sufficient to permit leave to amend. Second, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' proposed class expansion does not assert any new substantive claims. The proposed amendment comes well before the discovery deadline. And the Plaintiffs' proposed amendment will not relate back to the date of the original Complaint, but only to the date on which the Defendants were put on notice of the Plaintiffs' proposed expansion of the class period. Also, requiring the Plaintiffs to prosecute the grandfathered limitations claims in a duplicative lawsuit would be an impractical and inefficient use of judicial resources and the parties' resources. Third, without the amendment, the class period will extend back eight years from June 13, 2019; with the amendment, the class period will extend back 15 years from July 30, 2020. The Judge finds that the putative class members with claims under the 15-year limitations period should not be precluded from pursuing relief due to an oversight that the Plaintiffs' counsel diligently sought to correct, especially because the Defendants will suffer no prejudice and the amendment is sought several months prior the discovery deadline. Fourth, the Judge finds that the Defendants' challenge to the representative Plaintiffs' standing as class representatives is a challenge best left for the class certification stage. The Defendants argue that, because none of the representative Plaintiffs has individual claims that fall within the grandfathered 15-year limitations period, none of the Plaintiffs is a member of the class he or she seeks to represent. However, they cite no law for such proposition. In sum, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have shown good cause for amending the class period to 15 years before July 30, 2020 through class certification. Lastly, the Plaintiffs have also shown good cause for amending the complaint to substitute the claims of Alma Lee Resendez against Defendant GEICO Advantage for Plaintiff Schaller's identical claims against GEICO Advantage. In the end, the Judge opines, that it makes little difference whether Resendez joins the lawsuit through intervention or through amendment of the complaint. But because both methods are permissible, and because he is granting leave to amend for an independent reason, the most efficient resolution is to allow the Plaintiffs to substitute Resendez through amendment. Accordingly, he permitted the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint by substituting Resendez's claims against GEICO Advantage for those of Plaintiff Schaller. He will dismiss Plaintiff Schaller without prejudice so that she may remain a member of the putative class. Furthermore, because Resendez will become a named Plaintiff upon the filing of the Third Amended Complaint, Resendez's Motion to Intervene will be dismissed as moot. For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, Substitute Class Representative, and Dismiss Melissa Schaller Without Prejudice, and he dismissed as moot the Motion to Intervene by Movant-Intervenor Alma Lee Resendez. Plaintiff Schaller is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate Plaintiff Schaller from the lawsuit. The case is to remain open. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/23ab96mj from Leagle.com. GLENS FALLS: New York Court Narrows Claims in Richard Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- GLENS FALLS: Court Narrows Claims in Richard Class Suit In the case, DAPHNE RICHARD, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-00734 (BKS/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to: (1) dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and (2) strike certain of the Complaint's allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Plaintiff Richard brings the putative class action against Defendant Glen Falls and various Doe Defendants asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment/restitution, money had and received, and violations of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL") Section 349 arising out of the Defendant's practices with respect to overdraft fees and non-sufficient funds fees ("NSF Fees"). The Plaintiff is a resident of Glens Falls, New York and was a member of the Defendant during all time periods relevant to the Complaint. The Defendant offers consumer banking customers such as the Plaintiff a checking account, which comes with features such as a debit card and the ability to write checks, withdraw money from ATMs, schedule Automated Clearing House transactions, and conduct other types of debit transactions. When the Defendant determines that a customer's account does not have sufficient funds to complete a particular debit transaction, it may assess one of two types of fees: An Overdraft Fee, which occurs when Defendant authorizes and pays the transaction despite the insufficient funds, or an NSF fee, which occurs when Defendant rejects and does not pay the transaction. There are three types of "balances" for a customer's checking account: the "balance," the "collected available balance," and the "artificial available balance." The "balance," sometimes called the "actual balance" or "ledger" balance, reflects the money actually in the customer's account, without deductions for holds on pending transactions or on deposits. The "balance" is the official balance of the account that is used for reporting, regulatory and credit rating purposes. The "collected available balance" is the "balance" less holds placed on certain deposits pursuant to the Defendant's "Funds Availability Policy." The "artificial available balance" is the "collected available balance" less pending debit card transactions which have not yet posted. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant uses the "artificial available balance" to determine whether an account has sufficient funds to complete a transaction, and thus whether to charge an Overdraft or NSF Fee. She alleges that the Account Agreement nowhere states or implies that the Defendant will use an account's artificial available balance or collected available balance, as opposed to the actual or ledger balance, when determining whether to charge an Overdraft or NSF Fee. She contends that, to the contrary, the plain language of the "Insufficient Funds" section "expressly, or at least strongly implicitly," states that the actual balance will be used for such purposes. Therefore, the Plaintiff claims, by applying deductions for pending, unsettled debit card transactions to an account's balance when determining whether to charge an Overdraft or NSF Fee, the Defendant breached the terms of the Account Agreement. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant breached the Account Agreement by charging multiple NSF fees for the same transaction. She contends that this practice violates the Account Agreement, which provides that, if the funds in the account are insufficient to cover a transaction, the Defendant "may honor the check or other item and create an overdraft" (not "overdrafts"), and states in the Fee Schedule that a $32 fee will be charged "per item," not "per presentment of the item." The Plaintiff contends that the harm to consumers from the Defendant's allegedly improper practices is compounded because each Overdraft or NSF Fee "further reduces the balance and amount of funds in the account, resulting in and aggressively causing subsequent, otherwise non-overdraft transactions to be improperly treated as transactions for which the Defendant assesses further overdraft or NSF fees." She claims that this practice has been "deemed to be deceptive and substantially harmful to customers" by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Plaintiff provides several examples of instances in which she personally suffered harm from Defendant's allegedly improper practices. On behalf of herself and a proposed class, the Plaintiff brings claims against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment/restitution, money had and received, and violations of NYGBL Section 349. The Defendant's Motion seeks dismissal of all five of the Plaintiff's claims. It asks the Court to strike paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, which describe Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.17 ("EFTA"), on the grounds that the Plaintiff does not bring any claims for violations of the EFTA, and that therefore "any evidence relating to such violations would be entirely irrelevant, and thus inadmissible. Judge Sannes granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and strike certain of the Complaint's allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). She granted the Motion as to the Defendant's request for dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Second Cause of Action), unjust enrichment/restitution (Third Cause of Action), and money had and received (Fourth Cause of Action). She denied the Motion in all other respects. Among other things, the Judge finds that while the Plaintiff is correct that she is entitled to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action, she has not done so in the case; instead, she has pled a duplicative cause of action. The Plaintiff's only arguably non-duplicative allegation is her contention that the Defendant "unilaterally elected to and did program its software to create accounting gimmicks which would maximize its overdraft and NSF fees," and that by "implementing its overdraft and NSF fee programs for the purpose of increasing and maximizing overdraft fees, the Defendant executed its contractual obligations in bad faith." However, the Judge holds that this is simply another way of alleging that the Defendant exploited an ambiguity in the Account Agreement, adopted the interpretation of the Account Agreement that would maximize the amount of Overdraft and NSF Fees it could charge, and programmed its software accordingly. Thus, the allegation is simply a "repackaging of her breach of contract theory," not a basis for a separate, distinct claim. The Plaintiff's implied covenant claim must be dismissed. The Judge also finds that no party seriously disputes that the Account Agreement is a valid, enforceable contract that governs the issues raised in the Complaint; the only disputes relate to the interpretation of particular provisions. Under these circumstances, courts in the Circuit have generally dismissed quasi-contract claims. Likewise, in the case, the Plaintiff's claims for unjust enrichment/restitution and money had and received must be dismissed. Finally, the Judge notes that the Defendant merely seeks to strike background allegations, not substantive allegations that support any particular claim. Whether the challenged allegations remain in the Complaint or not, the scope of permissible discovery remains the same. The Defendant points to no cases in which a court has struck background allegations in circumstances analogous to those at issue. Given the early stage of the litigation, the high burden Rule 12(f) imposes on parties seeking to invoke it, and the Court's broad discretion in ruling on a Rule 12(f) motion, the Judge declines to strike the challenged allegations at this time. The Judge dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Second Cause of Action), unjust enrichment/restitution (Third Cause of Action), and money had and received (Fourth Cause of Action). A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum-Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7cjm5f59 from Leagle.com. John C. Cherundolo -- jcherundolo@cheurndololawfirm.com -- J. Patrick Lannon -- plannon@cherundololawfirm.com -- Cherundolo Law Firm, PLLC, in Syracuse, New York. Kevin P. Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer PA, in Woodbridge, New Jersey. Taras Kick -- Taras@Kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, in Los Angeles, California. for Plaintiff. Lukasz Sosnicki -- lsosnicki@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, in Los Angeles, California. Jonathan B. Fellows -- jfellows@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, in Syracuse, New York, for Defendant Glens Falls National Bank. GOLDMAN SACHS: Review Over Employees' Class Certification 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 the United States Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' April 7, 2020 decision affirming the district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm's conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which named as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks monetary damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On April 7, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On December 11, 2020, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' April 7, 2020 decision. 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: Settlement in IPO-Related Suit Gets Initial Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 court preliminarily approved the settlement in the putative securities class action suit related to Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering (IPO). Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 1, 2018 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of American depositary shares. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 28,026,721 American depositary shares representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $420 million. On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019. On December 1, 2020, the court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement among the parties. Under the terms of the agreement, the firm will not be required to contribute to the settlement. 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: Settlement in Snap IPO Suit Gets Preliminary OK -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 state court preliminarily approved the settlement in a litigation related to Snap Inc.'s sale of securities. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California beginning in May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million. The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily dismissed from the district court action on September 18, 2018. In the district court action, defendants moved for summary judgment on December 19, 2019, following the court's November 20, 2019 order approving plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The state court actions have been stayed. On April 27, 2020, the district court preliminarily approved a settlement among the parties, and on November 13, 2020, the state court preliminarily approved a settlement among the parties. Under the terms of the federal and state court preliminary settlements, the firm will not be required to contribute to either settlement. 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: Settlement Reached in Altice USA IPO-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 a settlement has been reached in the putative securities class action suit related to Altice USA, Inc.'s $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, County of Queens, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018, relating to Altice $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Altice and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million. On June 26, 2020, the court dismissed the amended complaint in the state court action, and on September 4, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs in the district court action filed a second amended complaint on October 7, 2020. On December 21, 2020, the parties informed the court in the district court action that they were finalizing the terms of a settlement in principle that would resolve the district court and state court actions. 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. GOOD DEAL: Court Dismisses McIllwain From Dennis Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELAINE DENNIS, and COURTNEY WHITE, Plaintiffs v. GOOD DEAL CHARLIE, INC., d/b/a Overstock Furniture & Mattress, JONATHAN McILLWAIN, SOUTHEASTERN LIQUIDATORS LLC, STRATEGIC PARTNER HOLDING, LLC, and CHEAP SLEEP, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-00295-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.), Judge Gregory K. Frizzell of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant McIllwain. Plaintiff Dennis filed the putative class action on June 18, 2020, and, on Aug. 27, 2020, Plaintiffs Dennis and Courtney White filed an Amended Class Action Complaint. The lawsuit is brought "on behalf of all persons who purchased mattresses sold by Good Deal Charlie, Inc., d/b/a Overstock Furniture & Mattress, in any of their regularly maintained retail locations in Oklahoma, specifically Tulsa and Lawton." In support, the Plaintiffs allege the following: Overstock and McIllwain ("Seller Defendants") represented and sold mattresses "as new, 'scratch and dent' and/or factory second or irregular mattresses" when, in reality, the mattresses "were previously used, had not been adequately cleaned and sanitized, were not clearly and properly labeled as 'used,' and were unfit for consumer use." In order to sell these used mattresses, the Seller Defendants "train their sales staff to illegally deceive their customers" about the condition of the mattresses in a variety of ways, and store and present the mattresses in such a way as to "conceal the used, dirty and stained condition of the mattresses." When customers unpackage their mattresses at home, realize the condition of the mattresses, and try to return them, Seller Defendants refuse to take the mattresses back or refund the customers. Regarding the remaining Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege the following: The Seller Defendants "purchased the improperly labeled and un-sanitized used mattresses from" Southeastern, Strategic, and Cheap Sleep ("Distributor Defendants"). The Distributor Defendants "distribute and sell used liquidation mattresses to Overstock, which are soiled, stained and unfit for consumer purchase or use." Further, they "knew or should have known they were selling improperly labeled and unsanitized used mattresses to the Seller Defendants who would in turn resell those used mattresses as is and without proper labeling or disclosure to consumers about the true nature and condition of those mattresses." The Plaintiffs claim that potential class members include "all persons and entities that have purchased used mattresses from Overstock in the state of Oklahoma," and allege that all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are met. They bring eight counts against the following Defendants: (i) Count 1: Statutory Deceit (Okla. Stat. tit. 76, Sections 1-4)--Seller Defendants, (ii) Count 2: Negligent Misrepresentation--Seller Defendants, (iii) Count 3: Unjust Enrichment--Seller Defendants and Distributor Defendants, (iv) Count 4: Violation of Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 15, Sections 751-765)--Seller Defendants, (v) Count 5: Negligence Per Se--Seller Defendants, (vi) Count 6: Aiding and Abetting Deceit--Distributor Defendants, (vii) Count 7: Negligence--Seller Defendants, (viii) Count 8: Breach of Implied Contract--Seller Defendants. In summary, the Seller Defendants are the Defendants in all Counts but Count 6, and the Distributor Defendants are the Defendants in only Counts 3 and 6. The Plaintiffs seek punitive damages from all the Defendants. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint on various grounds: (1) all the Defendants move to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) McIllwain moves to dismiss all counts against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in light of Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Section 682(B) (suits against officers, directors, and shareholders); (3) Strategic moves to dismiss Count 3 and Count 6 for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (4) Southeastern moves to dismiss Counts 3 and 6 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The Defendants challenge all three of the Plaintiffs' proffered bases: (1) the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"); (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a); and (3) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Plaintiffs counter that such arguments are appropriate at the class certification stage, but for now, they have adequately alleged subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The Defendants have not persuaded Judge Frizzell they are entitled to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that they satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA (diversity of citizenship and aggregated claims that exceed $5 million). Therefore, the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) argument is rejected. As this is the only ground for dismissal raised by Cheap Sleep, its motion is denied. For the same reason, Overstock's motion is also denied. Further, as the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, the Judge need not consider the Defendants' other arguments at this time. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion filed by McIllwain McIllwain argues that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for which relief can be granted because Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Section 682(B) shields him until after a judgment is rendered against Overstock, and that judgment returns unsatisfied. He contends that the Plaintiffs' suit is premature and must be dismissed. Considering all of the allegations, Judge Frizzell finds that Section 682(B)'s exception is inapplicable here as the Plaintiffs do not allege that McIllwain took tortious actions outside of his role as an officer of Overstock. Specifically, the Plaintiffs have "not asserted an individual claim" because the claims against McIllwain "mirror those against Overstock; the Amended Class Action Complaint asserts that Overstock is an alter-ego of McIllwain; and the Amended Class Action Complaint does not allege different conduct as between Overstock and McIllwain." The Plaintiffs have not yet obtained judgment against Overstock, nor has judgment been returned unsatisfied. Accordingly, the claim against McIllwain must be dismissed as premature. Rule 12(b)(2) Motion filed by Strategic Strategic lays out its personal jurisdiction argument in two sentences: "Personal jurisdiction fails, as well. This Defendant does not have the requisite contacts with the Plaintiff or the state of Oklahoma to avail itself of personal jurisdiction of this Court." In its reply, Strategic adds that there is no connection between the allegations against it and the causes of action asserted by the Plaintiffs, i.e. the counts against SPH do not 'arise from' the alleged contacts with the forum. Judge Frizzell holds that the Plaintiffs have pled that Strategic "purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum," because Strategic allegedly "acquires, warehouses, sells and distributes used mattresses at the direction of McIllwain and Overstock, including to the Tulsa and Lawton, OK, locations." The litigation "results from" alleged injuries that "arose out of" the sale of used mattresses Strategic allegedly acquired, sold, and distributed. Further, Strategic has offered no reasons why the exercise of jurisdiction here would "offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Therefore, the Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, and Strategic's Rule 12(b)(2) motion is denied. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion filed by Southeastern Southeastern argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, it contends that the Plaintiffs cannot succeed on their unjust enrichment claim (Count 3) against Southeastern because: "(1) the Plaintiffs cannot show that it was Southeastern's mattresses that they purchased from the Defendant Sellers, and (2) the Plaintiffs cannot show that Southeastern received any benefit whatsoever from their purchase of mattresses from the Defendant Sellers." Regarding the aiding and abetting deceit claim (Count 6), Southeastern argues that the Plaintiffs cannot sustain the claim because: "(1) it is not pled with particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)," and (2) the Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Southeastern knew about the Seller Defendants' conduct or that it gave "substantial assistance or encouragement" to the Seller Defendants. It also contends that both of these claims constitute "impermissible group pleading" based on "global allegations" about the Distributor Defendants generally, and that the Plaintiffs cannot cure these defects even if they were allowed time to amend. Accepting "all the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true" and construing "them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs," Judge Frizzell opines that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled an unjust enrichment claim. They allege that "the Seller Defendants purchase these mattresses 'as is' from the Distributor Defendants for roughly between $40 to $350," and then sell them to customers like the Plaintiffs at a large "mark-up." The Plaintiffs allege that this enrichment is coupled with an injustice for them, as well as similarly situated consumers, because they and the Class Members were given and received the mattresses with the expectation that the mattresses would perform as represented and warranted. Further, although the Plaintiffs have alleged that they bought mattresses generally, they are alleging that thousands of potential class members bought mattresses, and that the three Distributor Defendants provided those mattresses. Taking the Plaintiffs' well-plead allegations as true and construing them favorably for them, they have reasonably alleged that the class members bought mattresses provided by Southeastern. Therefore, Southeastern's Rule 12(b)(6) motion regarding Count 3 is denied. Regarding substantial assistance, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs similarly allege that the "Distributor Defendants provided substantial assistance to the Seller Defendants in the commission of their wrongs" by selling used mattresses to the Seller Defendants for relatively low prices, that were then sold at marked-up prices to customers. He finds and concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Southeastern provided substantial assistance in the alleged scheme. These allegations afford Southeastern fair notice of the Plaintiffs' claims and the factual ground on which they are based. As such, Southeastern's Rule 12(b)(6) motion regarding Count 6 is denied. Based on the foregoing, Judge Frizzell granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant McIllwain. Defendant McIllwain is dismissed from the suit. The Judge denied the remaining motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2bnfz8eu from Leagle.com. GOOGLE LLC: Settles Employment Class Action Suit for $1.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Staffing Industry Analysis reports that Google LLC and staffing provider Vaco Technology Services LLC reached an agreement to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by technology workers for $1.5 million, according to a filing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit claimed workers were not provided meal and rest periods, were not paid for all hours worked and not paid overtime, among other things. Defendants had denied the allegations, according to court records. Class members in the settlement include California workers employed by Vaco and assigned to work as an order audit operations specialist, content bug technician, Expedition associate or Expedition team lead at any time from Aug. 12, 2013, until the preliminary approval of the settlement by the court. Also included is a second class of workers outside of California who worked at Google through Vaco as an Expedition associate or Expedition team lead at any time from Aug. 12, 2014. There are an estimated 217 class members, and the average settlement share for each class member is $4,356 after costs. Case No. 5:17-cv-05605-BLF [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Baccari Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY BACCARI, DOMINICK GROSSI, HEATHER HYDEN, HALEY SAMS, and VITO SCAROLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01076-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2021) is an action alleging that the baby food products sold by the Defendant are tainted with toxic heavy metals. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant knew that the presence of toxic heavy metals in their baby food was a material fact to consumers, yet omitted and concealed the unsafe level of heavy metals from consumers. The Defendant's baby foods bear no label or warning to parents that it contains dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, the suit says. Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well as offers life and health insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven L. Bloch, Esq. Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Zachary Rynar, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP 184 Atlantic Street Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com isloss@sgtlaw.com zrynar@sgtlaw.com HILTON MANAGEMENT: Faces Collins Suit in California State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Management, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as SHASTA COLLINS v. HILTON MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL., Case No. CGC21589873 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 22, 2021). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Samuel K. Feng. A case management conference is set for July 28, 2021. Hilton Management is located in Princeton, New Jersey, and is part of the hotels, motels and resorts industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 3990 Old Town Ave, Ste. C204 San Diego, CA 92110-2933 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 Facsimile: (619) 599-8291 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com HSBC USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Gold Fix 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 a settlement in principle has been reached in in the case entitled, In re Commodity Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation (Gold Fix Litigation). Since 2014, numerous putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California, which were then transferred and centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants HSBC USA, HSI, HSBC and HSBC Bank plc, in addition to other members of the London Gold Fix. The complaints allege that from January 2004 through June 2013, defendants conspired to manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the afternoon London Gold Fix in order to reap profits on proprietary trades. In October 2020, the HSBC defendants reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs to resolve the consolidated action. The settlement remains subject to court approval. HSBC Bank USA is fully reserved for its portion of the settlement. 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. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Law Firm Mulls Class Action After Tucson SUV Recall ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hamish Goodall, writing for 7News.com.au, reports that a law firm has started investigating a potential class action against Hyundai after the carmaker recalled more than 93,000 Tucson SUVs over fears they could catch fire. Earlier in February, owners of Tucson models made from 2015 to 2021 were told that due to a manufacturing fault, an electronic circuit board could spark when the components are exposed to moisture. As a result, there's a risk of an engine compartment fire, even with the vehicle turned off, as the circuit is constantly powered. Hyundai said the cars are still safe to drive, but urged owners to park affected vehicles in an open space away from flammable materials and structures until a free repair had been organised. "Any situation where a car has the potential to set itself on fire is obviously an issue," motoring expert Alex Inwood told Sunrise. "But it is worth pointing out that at the moment, the risk does seem to be relatively low - there have been 12 instances of this issue in America, but so far in Australia it has been zero." Class Action Bannister Law is now investigating a class action on behalf of affected Hyundai Tucson owners. The law firm says it has received complaints from owners facing a range of issues as they can't park their car in the garage in case it explodes. "We believe this will cause many owners of the vehicles anxiety that they cant sleep calmly at night with their vehicle in the garage nor use it safely while driving," Bannister said in a statement. "Parking a vehicle (not in the garage) on the street will not always be permitted for many city dwellers nor feasible in a variety of circumstances which may result in additional expenses." Bannister lawyers say some owners may also be facing insurance issues by having to park outside. [GN] I&B CAPITAL: Court Dismisses Layani Class Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERARD LAYANI, et al., Plaintiffs v. ISAAC OUAZANA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. ELH-20-420 (D. Md.), Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has issued her Memorandum Opinion: (i) granting without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint; (ii) denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to File Surreply; and (iii) denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion For Entry of Order Pursuant To The Court's Inherent Authority To Sanction Defendants' Witness Tampering And Other Bad Faith Tactics To Gain A Litigation Advantage. The putative class action concerns an alleged scheme to defraud investors in rental properties in Baltimore. Plaintiffs Layani; Britt Investment Baltimore LLC; Yehuda Ragones; and RDNA Investments, LLC filed a "Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief." They sued multiple Defendants: Isaac Ouazana; Benjamin Ouazana; I&B Capital Investments LLC; WAZ-Brothers, LLC; WAZ Investments, LLC; WAZ-Management, LLC; and "John and Jane Doe(s) and John Doe Entities." The Plaintiffs allege that over a period of years, defendants "implemented a scheme to defraud passive investors in and owners of Baltimore real estate of money, property, and benefits of monetary value through false pretenses and representations." According to the Complaint, the Defendants' scheme to defraud can be broadly divided into two types: (a) Fraud in Marketing/Selling the Baltimore real estate; and (b) Property-Management-related Looting, Concealment, and Related Fraud. As to the first type, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants induced investors to purchase interests in Baltimore rental properties and to contract with defendants to manage the properties. But, the Defendants allegedly misrepresented key information about the properties, such as the value and quality of the property and the identity of the seller. With respect to the second category of fraud, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants' "deception" took "numerous forms," and generally involved "hiding or misrepresenting information about the operation and the condition of the properties under their control." Among other things, the Defendants allegedly withheld rental income and charged the Plaintiffs for repairs that were never performed. The Complaint, which is 125 pages in length, contains 10 counts and concerns twelve properties. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962 (Count One), as well as conspiracy to engage in conduct prohibited by RICO, in violation of Section 1962(d) (Count Two). In addition, the Plaintiffs bring eight claims arising under Maryland law, as follows: Negligence (Count Three); Negligent Supervision (Count Four); Common Law Fraud (Count Five); Constructive Fraud (Count Six); Breach of Contract (Count Seven); Conversion (Count Eight); Unjust Enrichment (Count Nine); and Accounting (Count Ten). ounts Three and Four are lodged only against the Doe Defendants. All other claims are lodged against all the Defendants. The Plaintiffs assert all counts on behalf of themselves and a putative class. The Complaint defines the putative class as all persons who: a. Purchased a full or fractional interest in properties sold directly or indirectly by Defendants, and whom, within four years before the filing of the action, the Defendants misled or defrauded, or attempted to mislead or defraud, irrespective of whether they were in fact misled or defrauded; or b. Entered into a written or implied property management services agreement with Defendants, and whom, within four years before the filing of the action, the Defendants misled or defrauded, or attempted to mislead or defraud, irrespective of whether they were in fact misled or defrauded. According to the Plaintiffs, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on the RICO claims (Counts One and Two), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1337. And, they assert that the Court "is vested with supplemental jurisdiction" as to the claims arising under State law (Counts Three to Ten), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs assert that the Court has jurisdiction over all claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Although the Complaint does not invoke the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") by name, it cites the pertinent statutory provision, Section 1332(d), and states that the elements of the provision are satisfied. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint, supported by a memorandum of law. They rely on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). And, they seek dismissal of the class action allegations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As to Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject matter jurisdiction, the Defendants argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 1331 because the Plaintiffs' RICO claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b), for various reasons. Moreover, they mount "a pre-discovery challenge to class certification," pursuant to Rule 23. In their view, because the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege a class, CAFA jurisdiction is also lacking. And, according to the Defendants, the Plaintiffs cannot claim diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332(a). The Plaintiffs' corrected opposition is supported by seven exhibits. The Defendants have replied. The Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a surreply. It is supported by a proposed surreply and exhibits. The Defendants filed their opposition, and the Plaintiffs have replied. In addition, the Plaintiffs have filed their Sanctions Motion. The Defendants oppose the Sanctions Motion, and the Plaintiffs have replied. The Surreply Motion The Plaintiffs advance three primary arguments in support of their Surreply Motion. First, they assert that in the Defendants' reply, the Defendants characterize the RICO claims and class claims as fabrications. And, according to them, the Defendants suggest that they bring those claims in bad faith. In Hollander's view, the Defendants do not argue bad faith or suggest any wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs or their counsel that might raise colorable claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Although the Defendants' reply might adopt an expressive (and aggressive) tone at points, it does not present new legal arguments that warrant a surreply. Nor do she discern a basis for granting the Surreply Motion on the ground that the Defendants made "incorrect legal arguments" in their reply. In addition, the Plaintiffs take issue with the Defendants' response to the exhibits submitted by the Plaintiffs with their opposition. In the Plaintiffs' view, a surreply is necessary to respond to that contention. Judge Hollander discusses the circumstances in which a court may consider exhibits appended to a complaint, a motion to dismiss, or a brief submitted in opposition to a motion to dismiss. As she explains, she may consider some of the exhibits submitted by the Plaintiffs, but not others. In particular, the Plaintiffs draw on the following statement: "Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." The Judge holds that the Plaintiffs misunderstand this statement: It does not permit a court freely to consider any and all exhibits submitted with briefing on a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Judge will deny the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion. The Sanctions Motion The Plaintiffs seek a Court order to rectify what they characterize as "the Defendants' ongoing campaign of witness tampering." The alleged campaign of misconduct is primarily directed at Phillipe Lerner, identified by the Plaintiffs as a "key witness" in the case. According to the Plaintiffs, the Ouazanas have taken assorted actions to intimidate and/or bring disrepute to Lerner, in an effort to cause him to "stop providing information about the Defendants' fraud." In the Plaintiffs' view, the Court's intervention is needed because the Defendants "refuse to stop or even acknowledge their misconduct, and are instead doubling down on their bad faith tactics." The Defendants "deny the factual allegations that form the basis for the Plaintiffs' motion." In their view, properly addressing the Plaintiffs' "he said, he said' allegations would, at a minimum, require a lengthy evidentiary hearing." In short, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to explain "how Mr. Lerner qualifies as a witness in the case," and that the Plaintiffs have failed to cite any apposite cases. Judge Hollander holds that it is clear that the Plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to recover attorney's fees. They do not assert that the Defendants have committed fraud on the Court or failed to comply with a Court order. Even if the affidavits they submitted demonstrate that the Defendants have engaged in bad faith, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive conduct, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a causal connection between the Defendants' misconduct and specific expenditures of attorney's fees. Therefore, although the averments are troubling, the Judge will deny the Sanctions Motion, without prejudice. Motion to Dismiss The Defendants urge dismissal of the RICO claims, contending that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead allegations in support of the existence of a pattern of racketeering activity or of a RICO enterprise. They also contend that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred by RICO's four-year statute of limitations, and that the Plaintiffs "impermissibly rely on securities violations," contrary to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c). The Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Dismiss at each step of the RICO analysis. Among other things, Judge Hollander holds that (i) because the Defendants do not contend that the Plaintiffs have alleged misconduct that is actionable under federal securities laws, she rejects the contention that Count One and Count Two are barred by the exclusionary clause of Section 1964(c); (ii) the allegations are sufficient to plead a RICO enterprise; and (iii) the Plaintiffs have not alleged a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. For these reasons, she will dismiss Counts One and Two, without prejudice, and with leave to amend. Without RICO claims, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. She turns to CAFA jurisdiction under Section 1332(d). The Defendants seek pre-discovery dismissal of the class allegations, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 23(d)(1)(D). According to them, the Plaintiffs have failed to plead a certifiable class. Judge Hollander opines that the Plaintiffs have gone to great lengths to allege various details of their dealings with each of the twelve properties at issue. But, they have not alleged that the contents of the Defendants' representations to Layani and Ragones, respectively, were standardized. Even if they had, proceeding on a class-wide basis would nevertheless necessitate individualized, fact-intensive inquiries as to reliance. Under the circumstances alleged, the Judge is not persuaded that a "a class-wide proceeding" would "generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." For the reasons she stated, the Judge concludes that, as pleaded, the proposed class does not satisfy Rule 23(a)'s commonality or typicality prerequisites. Accordingly, she need not address whether the proposed class meets the requirements of CAFA, embodied in 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). She will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the class claims, without prejudice. The Plaintiffs have asserted state law claims in Counts Three through Ten. They do not seek to rely on diversity as a basis for jurisdiction as to those claims. Nor could they; there is no complete diversity among the parties. Assuming that there is no original jurisdiction, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs may file their State-law claims in a Maryland court within 30 days following the entry of an Order of dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hollander denies the Plaintiffs' Surreply Motion; denies the Plaintiffs' Sanctions Motion, without prejudice; and grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, without prejudice, and with leave to file an amended complaint by April 2, 2021. If the Plaintiffs fail to do so, the Judge will direct the Clerk to close the case. At that point, dismissal would be without prejudice to the Plaintiffs' rights to file suit in State court within thirty days following the entry of an order of dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(d). An Order follows, consistent with the Memorandum Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ru28j7x from Leagle.com. IMMUNOVANT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 20 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Immunovant, Inc. ("Immunovant" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT) from October 2, 2019 through February 1, 2021 (the "Class Period'). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Immunovant securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Immunovant Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HSAC had performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Immunovant prior to the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to disclose safety issues associated with IMVT-1401; (ii) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to treating TED and WAIHA; (iii) the foregoing foreseeably diminished IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval, commercial viability, and profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 2, 2021, Immunovant issued a press release "announc[ing] a voluntary pause of dosing in its ongoing clinical trials for IMVT-1401.' Immunovant disclosed that it "has become aware of a physiological signal consisting of elevated total cholesterol and LDL [low-density lipoproteins] levels in IMVT-1401-treated patients' and "[o]ut of an abundance of caution, the Company has decided to voluntarily pause dosing in ongoing clinical studies in both TED and in [WAIHA], in order to inform patients, investigators, and regulators as well as to modify the monitoring program.' On this news, Immunovant's stock price fell $18.22 per share, or 42.08%, to close at $25.08 per share on February 2, 2021. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 20, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Immunovant securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/immunovantinc-imvt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-365/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List' thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] INSULET CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid for Fees, Expenses Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Insulet 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 plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses in Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, is still under advisement. Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain then current and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, (ATRS) alleged that the Company (and certain then current and former executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On February 8, 2018, the parties executed a binding stipulation of settlement, under which all claims were released, and a payment was made into an escrow account for the plaintiffs and the class they purport to represent. On August 6, 2018, the Court issued an order approving the settlement, but took the plaintiffs' motion for fees and expenses under advisement, which motion remains pending. The Company had previously accrued fees and expenses in connection with this matter for the amount of the final settlement liability that was not covered by insurance, the amount of which was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Insulet Corporation develops, manufactures, and sells insulin delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes. Insulet Corporation was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Acton, Massachusetts. INTUIT INC: Proposed Settlement Deal in Putative Class Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------------------------ Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the court rejected the proposed settlement agreement in the consolidated putative class action suit pending before the Northern District of California. Beginning in May 2019, various legal proceedings were filed and certain regulatory inquiries were commenced in connection with the company's provision and marketing of free online tax preparation programs. The company believes that the allegations contained within these legal proceedings are without merit. The company is vigorously defending its interests in the legal proceedings and cooperating in the inquiries. These proceedings include multiple putative class actions that were consolidated into a single putative class action in the Northern District of California in September 2019 and demands for arbitration that were filed beginning in October 2019. In August 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the putative class action claims be resolved through arbitration. Intuit entered into a proposed settlement agreement in November 2020 to resolve the putative class action, which was rejected by the court. As a result, the company expects the claims asserted to proceed in arbitration and the ultimate outcome of this matter remains uncertain. Intuit said, "In view of the complexity and ongoing nature of these proceedings and inquiries, at this time we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible financial loss or range of financial loss that we may incur to resolve or settle these matters." Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California. IRHYTHM TECH: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of April 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm securities between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/irtc. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' ("CMS") rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the iRhythm Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/irtc or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in iRhythm you have until April 2, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Reminds of April 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Feb. 24 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. ("iRhythm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IRTC) from August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased iRhythm securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit iRhythm Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth began to be revealed on December 1, 2020, when the CMS issued its final rule, which finalized the codes as anticipated, but did not finalize national pricing for certain products and services offered by iRhythm. Shares opened on December 2, 2020 at $183.00 each, down from the December 1, 2020, close of $240.64 per share. Then on January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that these rates were "way lower than" the former codes, citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but was now receiving just $42.68. On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased iRhythm securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/irhythmtechnologiesinc-irtc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-359/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List' thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC), Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN), Clover Health Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW), and bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: IRTC) Class Period: August 4, 2020 to January 28, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021 iRhythm offers a portfolio of ambulatory cardiac monitoring services on its platform, called the Zio service. iRhythm receives revenue for its Zio service primarily from third-party payors, which include commercial payors and government agencies, such as the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS'). Reimbursement from the CMS and other third-party payors is therefore critical to the Company's business. On January 29, 2021, Medicare Administrative Contractor Novitas Solutions published actual reimbursement rates under the CMS' 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. A Baird analyst commented that these rates were "way lower than' the former codes, citing one example where iRhythm was previously reimbursed around $311, but was now receiving just $42.68. On this news, the price of iRhythm common stock closed at $168.42, down approximately 33% from its January 28, 2021 close of $251.00. The 33% drop represents a one-day loss in market capitalization of approximately $2.4 billion. The complaint, filed on February 1, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period and in violation of the Exchange Act, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) iRhythm's business would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the iRhythm class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/IRTC Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN) Class Period: March 13, 2020 to December 15, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 5, 2021 On December 15, 2020, New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer ("Comptroller Stringer') called on the SEC to open an investigation into Tyson. In his letter to the SEC, Comptroller Stringer described Tyson's various failures to carry out its stated coronavirus protection policies. On this news, the price of Tyson shares fell $1.78 per share, or 2.5%, to close at $68.25 per share on December 15, 2020. The complaint, filed on February 2, 2021, alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly contagious coronavirus was spreading throughout the globe; (2) Tyson did not in fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect its employees in its facilities; (3) as a result, Tyson employees contracted and spread the coronavirus within the facilities; (4) as a result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (5) due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer financial harm related to its lowered production; and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Tyson class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/TSN Clover Health Investments Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV, CLOVW) Class Period: Securities purchased between October 6, 2020 to February 4, 2021 and/or pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021 Clover Health provides healthcare insurance services and purports to use proprietary technology to collect, structure, and analyze health and behavioral data. On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and Clover's common shares began trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOV,' closing at $15.90 per share, and on January 11, Clover's redeemable warrants began trading on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLOVW,' closing at $3.36 per warrant. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a report stating that prior to the merger, Clover has been under active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active investigation by the DOJ. On this news, shares of Clover common shares (CLOV) plummeted from their February 3, 2021 closing price of $13.95 per share to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021. The complaint, filed on February 5, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv) Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Clover Health class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/clover bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE) Class Period: May 11, 2020 and November 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021 Bluebird is a biotechnology company that engages in researching, developing, and commercializing transformative gene therapies for severe genetic diseases and cancer. The Company's gene therapy programs include, among others, LentiGlobin (bb1111) for the treatment of sickle cell disease ("SCD'). In May 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, bluebird announced that the Company expected to submit a U.S. Biologics Licensing Application ("BLA') to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA') for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021. On November 4, 2020, bluebird disclosed that it would no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead, citing "feedback' from the FDA requiring the Company to provide additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability' for LentiGlobin for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts,' bluebird adjusted its submission timing to late 2022. On this news, bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or 16.6%, to close at $48.83 per share on November 5, 2020. The complaint, filed on February 12, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii) defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the bluebird bio class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/Blue About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] JAZZ PHARMA: Trial in Xyrem(R) Related Suit Set for Feb. 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------- Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc 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 in the consolidated class action suit related to Xyrem(R) issued a Case Management Order that schedules this case for trial in February 2023. From June to September 2020, a number of class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect Xyrem purchasers, alleging that the patent litigation settlement agreements we entered with Hikma and other abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA filers violate state and federal antitrust and consumer protection laws, as follows: On June 17, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, or BCBS, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, or, collectively, the Company Defendants. The BCBS Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Eurohealth (USA), Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Lupin Inc. On June 18 and June 23, 2020, respectively, two additional class action lawsuits were filed against the Company Defendants and the BCBS Defendants: one by the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and another by the Government Employees Health Association Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On June 18, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc, and Roxane Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., and Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc. On June 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd., Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA), Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. On July 13, 2020, the plaintiffs in the BCBS Lawsuit and the GEHA Lawsuit dismissed their complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and refiled their respective lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 14, 2020, the plaintiffs in the UFCW Lawsuit dismissed their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on July 15, 2020, refiled their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the A.F. of L.-A.G.C Building Trades Welfare Plan on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc. The AFL Plan Lawsuit also names Roxane Laboratories Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Hikma Labs Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Lupin Inc. On August 14, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Self-Insured Schools of California on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against the Company Defendants, as well as Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc, Eurohealth (USA) Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Endo International, plc, Endo Pharmaceuticals LLC, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Sun Pharmaceutical Holdings USA, Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Wockhardt Ltd., Morton Grove Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wockhardt USA LLC, Mallinckrodt plc, and Mallinckrodt LLC. On September 16, 2020, an additional class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, by Ruth Hollman on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against the same defendants named in the Self-Insured Schools Lawsuit. The plaintiffs in certain of these lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers of Xyrem, and the plaintiffs in the remaining lawsuits are seeking to represent a class of indirect purchasers of Xyrem. Each of the lawsuits generally alleges violations of U.S. federal and state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with the Company Defendants' conduct related to Xyrem, including actions leading up to, and entering into, patent litigation settlement agreements with each of the other named defendants. Each of the lawsuits seeks monetary damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief against the alleged unlawful conduct, including disgorgement of profits and restitution, and injunctive relief. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed against the Company Defendants making similar or related allegations. If the plaintiffs were to be successful in their claims, they may be entitled to injunctive relief or we may be required to pay significant monetary damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. In December 2020, these cases were centralized and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the multidistrict litigation will proceed for the purpose of discovery and pre-trial proceedings. In January 2021, the Court issued a Case Management Order that schedules this case for trial in February 2023. Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc is a biopharmaceutical company based in Ireland. It was founded in 2003. One of the company's most significant products is the United States Food and Drug Administration approved drug Xyrem, the sodium salt of the naturally occurring neurotransmitter I3-Hydroxybutyric acid. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Cambridge Retirement Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, 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 putative class action suit entitled, Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc., et al. and trial in this matter is currently set for July 12, 2021. On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company, current and former Company executives, and various Onex-related entities alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants and Onex-related entities. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action. On May 8, 2020, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund were named as co-lead plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint on June 22, 2020. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 29, 2020, which was denied on October 26, 2020. Discovery is ongoing, and trial in this matter is currently set for July 12, 2021. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Final Fairness Hearing Set for June 2021 ---------------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, 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 final fairness hearing in the Direct Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in June 2021, and the final fairness hearing in the Indirect Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in July 2021. In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and one of the company's competitors in the doors market, Masonite Corporation, in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors. The suits were consolidated into two separate actions, a Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action. The suits allege that Masonite and JELD-WEN violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize the prices of interior molded doors in the United States. The complaints sought ordinary and treble damages, declaratory relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the claims lack merit and vigorously defended against the actions. On September 18, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuits, dismissing various state law claims and limiting plaintiffs' damages claims to a four-year period (from 2014-2018) under the applicable statute of limitations. Together with Masonite, the company filed motions to oppose class certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser Actions on May 19, 2020. On August 31, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the Direct Purchaser Action. In exchange for a full release of claims through the date of preliminary court approval of the settlement, each defendant originally agreed to pay $28 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class. On January 27, 2021, the parties to the Direct Purchaser Action revised the settlement agreement to modify certain terms, and each defendant agreed to pay a total of $30.8 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the date of preliminary approval of the revised settlement, which the court granted on February 5, 2021. In addition, on September 4, 2020, JELD-WEN and Masonite entered into a separate settlement agreement to resolve the Indirect Purchaser Action. Each defendant agreed to pay $9.75 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the execution date of the settlement agreement, and the court has granted preliminary approval of this settlement in the Indirect Purchaser Action. The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims lack merit and has denied any liability or wrongdoing for the claims made against the Company. The settlement agreements remain subject to final court approval and other conditions. The final fairness hearing in the Direct Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in June 2021, and the final fairness hearing in the Indirect Purchaser Action is scheduled to be in July 2021. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. JELD-WEN HOLDING: Molded Doors Related Suits in Canada Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- JELD-WEN Holding, 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 two putative class action suits in Canada related to its interior molded doors from the company or Masonite. On May 15, 2020, Developement Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company and Masonite in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, Canada, which was served on the company on September 18, 2020. The putative class consists of any person in Canada who, since October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors from the company or Masonite. The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between us and Masonite to agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for the alleged anti-competitive conduct. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On September 9, 2020, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, filed a putative class action against JELD-WEN and Masonite in federal court in the province of Ontario, which was served on us on September 29, 2020. The Ontario Action makes substantially similar allegations to the Quebec Action and the putative class is represented by the same counsel. In February 2021, the plaintiff in the Ontario Action noticed a proposed Amended Statement of Claim that replaces the named plaintiff, Kate O'Leary Swinkels, with David Regan. The plaintiff further anticipates staying the Quebec Action while the Ontario Action proceeds, although the company do not anticipate a hearing on the certification of the Ontario Action until early 2022. JELD-WEN said, "The Company believes both the Quebec Action and the Ontario Action lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against them." JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Pawar Law Reminds of April 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Pawar Law Group on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Jianpu Technology Inc. (NYSE: JT) from May 29, 2018 through February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Jianpu Technology Inc. investors under the federal securities laws. To join the class action, go https://bit.ly/3bAt5OC or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: that certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business substance; that, as a result, Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be restated; and as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff. Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Vik Pawar, Esq. Pawar Law Group 20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (917) 261-2277 Fax: (212) 571-0938 info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN] JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Zhang Investor Reminds of April 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law on Feb. 24 announced a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Jianpu Technology Inc. (NYSE: JT) between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period'). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=jianpu-technology-inc&id=2588 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the April 19, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that - (1) that certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result, Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019 were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Zhang Investor Law P.C. 99 Wall Street, Suite 232 New York, New York 10005 info@zhanginvestorlaw.com Tel: (800) 991-3756 [GN] JP MORGAN: LIBOR and Benchmark Rate Suits Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 face investigations and lawsuits related to LIBOR and Other Benchmark Rate matters. JPMorgan Chase has responded to inquiries from various governmental agencies and entities around the world relating primarily to the British Bankers Association's London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies and the European Banking Federation's Euro Interbank Offered Rate ("EURIBOR"). The Swiss Competition Commission's investigation relating to EURIBOR, to which the Firm and other banks are subject, continues. In December 2016, the European Commission issued a decision against the Firm and other banks finding an infringement of European antitrust rules relating to EURIBOR. The Firm has filed an appeal of that decision with the European General Court, and that appeal is pending. In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions related to benchmarks, including U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA and, in a separate consolidated putative class action, during the period that it was administered by ICE Benchmark Administration. These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated various benchmark rates by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in these rates and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. In actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR during the period that it was administered by the BBA, the Firm has resolved certain of these actions, and others are in various stages of litigation. The District Court dismissed certain claims, including antitrust claims brought by some plaintiffs whom the District Court found did not have standing to assert such claims, and permitted certain claims to proceed, including antitrust, Commodity Exchange Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and common law claims. The plaintiffs whose antitrust claims were dismissed for lack of standing have filed an appeal. The District Court granted class certification of antitrust claims related to bonds and interest rate swaps sold directly by the defendants and denied class certification motions filed by other plaintiffs. In the consolidated putative class action related to the time period that U.S. dollar LIBOR was administered by ICE Benchmark Administration, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, and the plaintiffs have appealed. The Firm's settlements of putative class actions related to Swiss franc LIBOR, the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and the Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SIBOR"), and the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate, and one of the putative class actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR remain subject to court approval. In the class actions related to SIBOR and Swiss franc LIBOR, the District Court concluded that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and plaintiffs' appeals of those decisions are pending. In addition to the actions pending or consolidated in the Southern District of New York, in August 2020, a group of individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting antitrust claims in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the Firm and other defendants were engaged in an unlawful agreement to set LIBOR and conspired to monopolize the market for LIBOR-based consumer loans and credit cards. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JP MORGAN: Merchants' Appeal in Interchange Fees Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 appeal by certain merchants in a class action seeking primarily monetary relief over interchange fees remains pending. Groups of merchants and retail associations filed a series of class action complaints alleging that Visa and Mastercard, as well as certain banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees and enacted related rules in violation of antitrust laws. In 2012, the parties initially settled the cases for a cash payment, a temporary reduction of credit card interchange, and modifications to certain credit card network rules. In 2017, after the approval of that settlement was reversed on appeal, the case was remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. The original class action was divided into two separate actions, one seeking primarily monetary relief and the other seeking primarily injunctive relief. In September 2018, the parties to the class action seeking monetary relief finalized an agreement which amends and supersedes the prior settlement agreement. Pursuant to this settlement, the defendants collectively contributed an additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion previously held in escrow from the original settlement. In December 2019, the amended agreement was approved by the District Court. Certain merchants appealed the District Court's approval order, and those appeals are pending. Based on the percentage of merchants that opted out of the amended class settlement, $700 million has been returned to the defendants from the settlement escrow in accordance with the settlement agreement. The class action seeking primarily injunctive relief continues separately. In addition, certain merchants have filed individual actions raising similar allegations against Visa and Mastercard, as well as against the Firm and other banks, and some of those actions remain pending. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. JP MORGAN: Precious Metals Futures Suit Stayed Until May 2021 ------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 consolidated putative class action suit related to alleged manipulation of precious metals futures has been stayed through May 2021. The company previously reported that it and/or certain of its subsidiaries had entered into resolutions with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which, collectively, resolved those agencies' respective investigations relating to historical trading practices by former employees in the precious metals and U.S. treasuries markets and related conduct from 2008 to 2016. The Firm entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with the DOJ in which it agreed to the filing of a criminal information charging JPMorgan Chase & Co. with two counts of wire fraud and agreed, along with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, to certain terms and obligations as set forth therein. Under the terms of the DPA, the criminal information will be dismissed after three years, provided that JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC fully comply with all of their obligations. Across the three resolutions with the DOJ, CFTC and SEC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC agreed to pay a total monetary amount of approximately $920 million. A portion of the total monetary amount includes victim compensation payments. Several putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Firm and certain former employees, alleging a precious metals futures and options price manipulation scheme in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment and deceptive acts or practices under the General Business Law of the State of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in February 2019, and the consolidated action is stayed through May 2021. In addition, several putative class actions have been filed in the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and Southern District of New York against the Firm, alleging manipulation of U.S. Treasury futures and options, and bringing claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege unjust enrichment. The actions in the Northern District of Illinois have been transferred to the Southern District of New York. The Court consolidated these putative class actions in October 2020 and set a deadline of February 2021 for the filing of a consolidated complaint. Two putative class action complaints have also been filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Firm and certain individual defendants on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares during the putative class period alleging that certain SEC filings of the Firm were materially false or misleading in that they did not disclose certain information relating to the investigations. Plaintiffs have filed a stipulation seeking consolidation of the actions and the appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and counsel, which is pending Court approval. JPMorgan Chase & Co. operates as a financial services company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Consumer & Community Banking (CCB), Corporate & Investment Bank (CIB), Commercial Banking (CB), and Asset & Wealth Management (AWM). JPMorgan Chase & Co. was founded in 1799 and is headquartered in New York, New York. LIST COMPANY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against List Company Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. List Company Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01252 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. LIST Company Inc. -- https://listcompanyinc.com/ -- offers home and event decor needs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC 175 Varick Street 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Phone: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com LOWE'S HOME: Rangel Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael Rangel, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Lowe's HIW Inc. (now known as Lowe's Home Centers, LLC), Case No. CIVSB2029110 was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 9, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00422 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Lowe's Home Centers Inc. -- https://www.lowes.com/ -- retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances. The Company markets lumber, garden tools and supplies, home electrical devices, electrical components, ceilings, wall panels, hardwood flooring, fasteners, fireplaces, and humidifiers.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Katherine V A Smith, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com LRR INC: Court Strikes Voluntary Payment Doctrine Defense in Van ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LLR, INC., d/b/a LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-0197-HRH (D. Alaska), Judge H. Russell Holland of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants' 20th affirmative defense, the voluntary payment doctrine affirmative defense. LuLaRoe is a multilevel-marketing company that sells clothing through fashion retailers located in all 50 states to consumers across the United States. The Plaintiff alleges that she resides in Anchorage, Alaska, which has no sales or use tax. She alleges that she made purchases from LuLaRoe retailers in other states and had those purchases shipped to her home in Anchorage, Alaska. The Plaintiff alleges that she was charged a 'tax' on purchases that she made from LuLaRoe's remote consultants, but such charge was not a 'tax' and LuLaRoe knew it was not a 'tax.' The Plaintiff commenced the action on Sept. 5, 2018. She brings the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. In Count I of her second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts an Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("UTPCPA") claim. She alleges that the Defendants have violated the UTPCPA by, among other things, representing on invoices issued to the Plaintiff and class members that they owed a tax when that representation was false; programming their POS system to add a non-existent tax to the Plaintiff and the class members' purchases; and programming their online point-of-sale payment system to misrepresent there was a tax on the class members' purchases and thereby surcharging the Plaintiff and members of the class. In Count II of her second amended complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a common law conversion claim. In their answer to the Plaintiff's second amended complaint, the Defendants assert a number of affirmative defenses. At issue in the instant motion is the Defendants' twentieth affirmative defense, which asserts that the Plaintiff's and the putative class' claims are barred, in whole or in part, under the voluntary payment doctrine because they voluntarily paid the sales taxes with full knowledge, or means of knowledge of the facts, of the sales taxes they paid. Pursuant to Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff now moves to strike the Defendants' voluntary payment doctrine ("VPD") affirmative defense. She argues that Defendant's VPD defense should be stricken because Alaska does not recognize the VPD as a defense to her causes of action. The Plaintiff argues that the Court need look no further than State v. Stein, 806 P.2d 346 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991), to predict that the Alaska Supreme Court would reject the VPD as a viable defense to her claims. She argues that the "rule" that the Stein court made reference to was the VPD and thus the Alaska Court of Appeals clearly rejected the VPD as a defense that would be recognized in Alaska. However, Judge Holland holds, that a closer reading of Stein reveals that the "rule" the court was referring to was not the VPD. Because Stein was not addressing the VPD, it is not "persuasive data" for predicting how the Alaska Supreme Court would decide the issue of whether the VPD is a viable defense to the Plaintiff's claims. Moreover, Stein was addressing the payment of an incorrect amount of money under a constitutional statute. The situation was not that Stein was not obligated to pay a fine, but rather that the amount of the fine he paid was incorrect. In contrast, the Plaintiff is alleging that she owed no sales tax at all, that the Defendants' imposition of any amount of sales tax was invalid. The Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim is a different matter. The Judge explains that UTPCPA expressly provides that "a waiver by a consumer of the provisions of AS 45.50.471-45.50.561 is contrary to public policy and is unenforceable and void." Applying the VPD to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim would essentially constitute a waiver of that claim and thus the Judge predicts that the Alaska Supreme Court would hold that the VPD is not a viable defense to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim. Nothing in the statute indicates that the Alaska legislature intended to limit AS 45.50.542 to contractual waivers, as the Defendants contend. Finally, if the Court were inclined to hold that the VPD applied to either or both of her claims, the Plaintiff argues that doing so would be inconsistent with Alaska law holding that equitable defenses are inapplicable to actions at law. The Judge holds that the argument fails. As the Defendants point out, under Alaska law, "estoppel and waiver," which are also equitable defenses are available even where only legal claims are brought in a litigation, citing Copper River Seafoods, Inc. v. Chubb Custom Insurance, Co. Case No. 3:16-cv-00039-TMB, 2018 WL 6220064, at *2 (D. Alaska Sept. 19, 2018). Similarly, although the VPD is an equitable defense, it can be asserted in an action at law. For these reasons, Judge Holland granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike. The motion is granted as to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim. The Defendants' twentieth affirmative defense, the VPD defense, is stricken as it applies to the Plaintiff's UTPCPA claim. The motion is otherwise denied. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/phvfjwu8 from Leagle.com. LUCIANA A. FRAGALI: Filippelli Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- THEREZINHA CRISTINA FILIPPELLI, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. LUCIANA A. FRAGALI, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-20846-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant to recover money damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a live-in nanny who performed various duties which included: picking up and driving minor children, taking care of their needs, and buying supplies. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay her minimum wages as required by the FLSA and remains owing to her these wages since January 18, 2021. On behalf of herself and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks an actual damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid wages, liquidated damages in an equal amount in double damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court deems equitable and just. Luciana A. Fragali is an individual defendant who resides in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Franklin A. Jara, Esq. JARA LAW FIRM 13876 SW 56 Street, Suite 262 Miami, FL 33175 Tel: (305) 372-0290 E-mail: Franklin@JaraLaw.com Joanna@JaraLaw.com LVEB LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Feuillard Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- AMAEL FEUILLARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LVEB, LLC d/b/a PIERRE'S; and PIERRE JOSEPH WEBER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01079 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 1, 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. Plaintiff Feuillard was employed by the Defendants as staff. LVEB, LLC owns and operates a restaurant under the trade name Pierre's, located at Bridgehampton, NY. [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 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 MAPEI CORPORATION: Faces Torres Suit Over Collection of Biometrics ------------------------------------------------------------------ JACQUELINE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAPEI CORPORATION, Case No. 2021L000229 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Feb. 22, 2021) is an action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information ("biometrics") without obtaining informed written consent or providing the requisite data retention and destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff contends that she was "clocking in" using her fingerprints during her tenure of employment with the Defendant. If Defendant's database of digitized fingerprints were to fall into the wrong hands, by data breach or otherwise, the employees to whom these sensitive and immutable biometric identifiers belong could have their identities stolen, among other serious issues, she adds. BIPA confers on the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois residents a right to know of such risks, which are inherently presented by the collection and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how long such risks will persist after termination of their employment. Yet, the Defendant never adequately informed Plaintiff or the Class of its biometrics collection practices, never obtained the requisite written consent from Plaintiff or the Class regarding its biometric practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies to Plaintiff or the Class, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for the Defendant's unauthorized collection, storage and use of these individuals' biometrics in violation of BIPA. Mapei is a worldwide company producing building materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Dismisses Springmeyer Suit With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SPRINGMEYER, ET AL. v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 20-cv-867-PWG (D. Md.), Judge Date Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, granted Marriott's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. The case involves the class action complaint filed by Pati Springmeyer and Joe Lopez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated following a data breach of Defendant Marriott that occurred in early 2020. The Plaintiffs allege that their personal information, along with that of approximately 5.2 million other guests, was improperly accessed. They bring 11 claims under various common law and statutory causes of action. Marriott is a global hotel and hospitality chain with more than 7,000 properties in 130 countries, headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. On March 31, 2020, Marriott announced a data breach affecting approximately 5.2 million guests. On that day, Marriott sent an email to affected guests and posted an incident notification on its website. The incident notification stated that at the end of February 2020, Marriott identified that "an unexpected amount of guest information may have been accessed using the login credentials of two employees at a franchise property." The notice said that Marriott believed the activity started in mid-January 2020. After Marriott discovered the unauthorized access, it stated that it disabled the login credentials, began an investigation, implemented heightened monitoring, and arranged resources to inform and assist guests. Marriott stated that it believed that the guest information that was accessed may have including the following, but that all this information was not present for every guest: (i) Contact Details (e.g., name, mailing address, email address, and phone number); (ii) Loyalty Account Information (e.g., account number and points balance, but not passwords); (iii) Additional Personal Details (e.g., company, gender, and birthday day and month); (iv) Partnerships and Affiliations (e.g., linked airline loyalty programs and numbers); and (v) Preferences (e.g., stay/room preferences and language preference). Marriott stated that its investigation was ongoing but had no reason to believe that the information involved included loyalty account passwords or PINs, payment card information, passport information, national IDs, or driver's license numbers. Plaintiffs Springmeyer and Lopez both allege that they stayed at Marriott properties, gave Marriott their personal identifying information ("PII"), and received the notice that their PII had been accessed without authorization. They allege that since the data breach, they have each spent time monitoring their accounts to protect the integrity if their PII and to detect and prevent any misuse of their PII. Marriott has offered the Plaintiffs one year of free enrollment in Experian's IdentityWorks credit monitoring service. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff Springmeyer alleges that she purchased credit monitoring services at an annual cost of $159.96. They allege that this data breach and their alleged damages were the result of Marriott's failure to implement appropriate safeguards for its guests' PII. Pending is the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It argues that the Plaintiffs lack standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Judge Grimm opines that the Plaintiffs must allege facts for the Court to plausibly infer that the unauthorized access of their PII by an unspecified bad actor or actors using Marriott employee credentials is fairly traceable to Marriott's conduct. In this regard, the Plaintiff attempts to plead the fairly traceable element by alleging that the data breach and their injuries are a result of Marriott's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its guests' PII. But these allegations, according to the Judge, are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true. The Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts describing Marriott's cybersecurity or steps that it could have or should have taken to prevent the data breach. To be sure, Judge Grimm says, the Plaintiffs repeat their conclusory allegations that Marriott's cybersecurity was unreasonable throughout the Complaint in connection with their 11 causes of action. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege this essential element of standing, their claims must be dismissed. For the reasons he stated, the Judge dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for lack of standing. The dismissal is with prejudice. He holds that the Plaintiffs were given an opportunity to amend and did so after the Defendant raised the very deficiencies with their allegations discussed herein in accordance with my premotion procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' have already amended their complaint in light of these particular deficiencies. Further amendment would be futile and the claims are dismissed with prejudice. In sum, Judge Grimm granted Marriott's motion to dismiss because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts to show that their alleged injuries are fairly traceable to Marriott's conduct. Because the Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint in view of these deficiencies, further amendment would be futile and the dismissal is with prejudice. A separate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ss4p9pwd from Leagle.com. MASIMO CORP: Continues to Defend Physicians Healthsource Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo 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 January 2, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI). On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On March 26, 2019, an amended complaint was filed adding Radha Geismann, M.D. PC as an additional named plaintiff. On June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On September 10, 2019, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On September 30, 2019, the Company filed its opposition to the motion for class certification, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on October 7, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the District Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion for summary judgment, and deferring ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On December 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification, which was denied on January 24, 2020. Trial of the individual plaintiffs' claims was scheduled for June 2, 2020, but on April 1, 2020, the District Court vacated the trial date and directed the parties to conduct an in-person mediation. The mediation has not occurred and no new trial date has been set. On July 13, 2020, the District Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying consolidated financial statements." Masimo Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and markets noninvasive monitoring technologies worldwide. Masimo Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in US & Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------ Maxar Technologies Inc. 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 class action suits in Colorado and in Canada alleging violation of the federal securities laws. On January 14, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned Oregon Laborers Employers Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, naming Maxar and members of management as defendants alleging, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were deficient in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking monetary damages. On October 7, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and members of management in connection with the Company's public disclosures between March 26, 2018 and January 6, 2019. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were allegedly false and/or misleading during the class period. On September 11, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. Also, in January 2019, a Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00613564-00CP in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Maxar and members of management claiming misrepresentations in Maxar's public disclosures and seeking monetary damages. On November 15, 2019, Mr. O'Brien and another Maxar stockholder resident in Canada issued a new putative class action lawsuit captioned Charles O'Brien v. Maxar Technologies Inc., No. CV-19-00631107-00CP, naming Maxar and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants as well as Maxar's auditor, KPMG LLP. On February 7, 2020, the January 2019 lawsuit was discontinued. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Company's statements regarding the AMOS-8 contract, accounting for its GEO communications assets, and WorldView-4 were false and/or misleading during the class period and claims damages of $700 million.  On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs served their motion record for leave under the Securities Act (Ontario) and to certify the action as a class proceeding, which motion is currently pending. The Company believes that these cases are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Court Narrows Claims in McCurdy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maxar Technologies Inc. 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 court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070. On October 21, 2019, a Maxar stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned McCurdy v. Maxar Technologies Inc., et al., No. I9CV35070 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, naming Maxar, and certain members of management and the board of directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's June 2, 2017 Registration Statement and prospectus filed in anticipation of its October 5, 2017 merger with DigitalGlobe. On April 30, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action against the same set of defendants as set forth in his original complaint. The lawsuit is based upon many of the same underlying factual allegations as the Colorado Action. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company's statements regarding its accounting methods and risk factors, including those related to the GEO communications business, were false and/or misleading when made. On January 24, 2021, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Maxar Technologies Inc. provides space technology solutions for commercial and government customers worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Space Systems, Imagery, and Services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Westminster, Colorado. METROPOLITAN GEN: Court Tosses MSP's First Amended Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MSP Recovery Claims, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC, Series PMPI, Plaintiffs v. Metropolitan Gen Ins. Co., and others, Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-24052-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended class complaint. The purported class action arises under the Medicare Secondary Payer ("MSP") provisions of the Medicare Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1395y, et seq. The Plaintiff's amended class complaint against the Defendants is one of numerous similar actions that have been filed by the Plaintiffs and other related entities in district courts throughout the United States. These cases tend to involve similar sets of allegations, that the Plaintiff or one of its affiliates obtained an assignment from a Medicare Advantage Organization ("MAO") to try to recover money linked to payments made or costs incurred by such MAO for the medical treatment of their enrollees who were injured in accidents. The MSP was enacted to combat the rising costs of Medicare. It reformed the Medicare system such that Medicare and MAOs became secondary payers who would not bear the costs of medical procedures that were already covered by primary payers, i.e. other private insurance companies. Under the MSP, Medicare and MAOs could still make "conditional payments" to cover the medical bills of their beneficiaries where a primary payer, such as the Defendants, could not be expected to remit prompt payment. Where Medicare or a MAO "has made a conditional payment, and the primary payer's 'responsibility for such payment' has been 'demonstrated,' as by a judgment or settlement agreement, the primary payer is responsible to reimburse Medicare or the MAO within 60 days." When a primary payer fails to remit such payment, Medicare can seek double damages from the primary payer under the MSP's right of action for the government. Assignees of MAOs, likewise, can seek double damages under the MSP's private right of action. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, as primary payers, have systematically and uniformly failed to honor their primary payer obligations under the MSP by failing to pay or reimburse Medicare MAOs for medical expenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile and other accidents that were paid by Medicare Advantage Organizations. They state that they utilize a "proprietary system" that matches health care claims data from their assignors to data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, police crash and incident reports, and data from primary payers, to identify instances where a primary payer failed to honor their obligations under the MSP. The Plaintiffs claims to have used their proprietary system to identify multiple instances in which their Assignors made conditional payments for accident-related medical expenses which should have been paid and/or reimbursed by the Defendants. They provided, as Exhibit A to their amended complaint, a list of claims that were identified by their data analysis. Unlike complaints filed in other similar lawsuits, the Plaintiffs do not provide a specific exemplar in their complaint showing an example of an instance or instances where a MAO made payments, together with the amount of those payments, for which the Defendants would have allegedly been responsible. Rather, it appears the Plaintiffs rely exclusively on their Exhibit A to their complaint. The matter is before the Court upon the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended class complaint. In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue, among other things, that the Court should dismiss the matter with prejudice under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(B)'s "two dismissal rule," or alternatively, because the Plaintiffs failed to "demonstrate" that the Defendants had a responsibility to make a payment under the MSP. Judge Scola turns first to the Defendants' second argument, that the Plaintiffs have failed to state cognizable claims under the MSP. In response to this argument, the Plaintiffs argue that they have adequately alleged Article III standing in their first amended complaint, though the Defendants note that they are not challenging the Plaintiffs' standing, but rather, whether the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the Defendants had a "demonstrated" responsibility to pay under the MSP. In MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Amerisure Insurance Company, the Court recently had an opportunity to consider claims raised in a substantially similar complaint against similarly situated defendants where the plaintiffs attempted to plead causes of action under the MSP by, as here, relying on a "sample list" of instances in an exhibit attached to the complaint. It found that the Amerisure plaintiffs failed to state cognizable claims under the MSP by relying on its exhibit. The Judge sees no reason to depart from Amerisure. He finds that while the deficiencies identified in Amerisure were considered in the context of standing arguments, the decision is instructive nonetheless as the Court finds that the instant complaint suffers from similar pleading deficiencies which are fatal to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Judge agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint "does not include any facts whatsoever related to any enrollee, the amount charged to Plaintiffs' assignors or amounts they supposedly paid, what exactly such payments were for, what treatment was provided, what exactly was supposedly covered and not paid by Defendants, or what coverage determinations were made by the Defendants." Absent such information, the pleading fails to state cognizable claims as it is completely devoid of non-conclusory factual allegations that would allow the Court or the Defendants to determine whether the Plaintiffs have stated cognizable claims under the MSP, specifically whether the Plaintiffs have "demonstrated" a responsibility by any of the Defendants to make payments under the MSP. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the complaint must be dismissed. Judge Scola, therefore, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended class complaint as the Plaintiff has failed to state cognizable claims under the MSP. He denies any pending motions, if any, as moot. The Clerk is directed to close the case. Furthermore, the Judge denies the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend, inserted, as an afterthought, at the end of their opposition to the Defendants' motion: the request is both procedurally defective and lacking in substantive support. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ab33ups2 from Leagle.com. MICHIGAN: Bid to Enforce Settlement Agreement in Ackerman Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERALD ACKERMAN and MARK SHAYKIN, Plaintiffs v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, Defendant, Civil Case No. 13-14137 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Linda V. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, entered her Opinion and Order: (i) striking the pro se motions filed by Gerald Ackerman and Daniel Horacek; (ii) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Finding that Defendant's Certification of Prison Kitchens is not in Compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Judgment that these Kitchens are to be Certified Kosher Kitchens; and (iii) denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Engage in Discovery in Support of Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. In the class action lawsuit, prisoners approved for a religious (kosher) diet claimed that their federal rights were violated by the Michigan Department of Corrections' provision of a one-size fits all vegan diet. The matter is again before the Court on several post-judgment motions filed by the Plaintiffs. Two of the motions are filed pro se by members of the Class, even though they are represented by counsel. As it is improper, Judge Parker is striking those motions. The class counsel did file two motions: (i) the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement, and (ii) motion for discovery. The motions have been fully briefed. The Plaintiffs' motions arise from the parties' settlement agreement, which provides in relevant part: "14. If Defendant provides Kosher meals produced inside Defendant's facilities, such meals will be produced inside a Certified Kosher kitchen. Once a facility kitchen is Certified Kosher, Defendant will provide written notice to Plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel and their expert(s) will have 21 days from the date of receiving the written notice to inspect the Certified Kosher kitchen. If, after inspection, Plaintiffs' counsel does not agree that a kitchen is operating in a Certified Kosher manner, Plaintiffs may move this Court to enforce this Agreement." In February 2020, the kitchens of several MDOC facilities were certified kosher through Kosher Michigan, LLC, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs' counsel of the certifications. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant breached the terms of the parties' settlement agreement by not obtaining an Orthodox Jewish agency to certify the kitchens, which would have mandated certain requirements not currently followed in the kitchens (e.g., the necessary involvement of Jewish individuals in the preparation of the food). The Plaintiffs maintain that because the kitchens were not properly certified in the first instance, there was no reason for their counsel and/or expert to inspect the kitchens in accordance with the process contemplated in the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs also seek discovery to assess the adequacy of Kosher Michigan's certification. For example, they want to find out how long Kosher Michigan's rabbi spent inspecting the kitchens, the equipment the rabbi used to kosherize the kitchens, and who was present. It is the second time Plaintiffs have asked the Court to find that the certifications violated the settlement agreement because they were performed by a Conservative rather than an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. On Feb. 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement contending that the Defendant had obtained "illegitimate" kosher certifications of the prison kitchens. The Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion less than two weeks before they filed their current motions. The Court denied the motion because it found "no indication that certification in accordance with Orthodox Jewish beliefs was the intent of the Settlement Agreement, or the lawsuit." As the Court noted, the Class certified is not limited to Orthodox Jews and the Plaintiffs never argued that the litigation is only about the religious beliefs of Orthodox Jews or that Orthodox certification was required. Perhaps most importantly, the word "Orthodox" appears nowhere in the settlement agreement, much less in reference to the type of certification required. Judge Parker opines that the words in a contract should be given their plain ordinary meaning. Courts may refer to dictionary definitions to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of undefined terms. Importantly, however, a word is not ambiguous simply because dictionary definitions differ. The Judge explains that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "kosher" as "right, good; applied to meat and other food prepared according to the Jewish law." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word as "sanctioned by Jewish law especially: ritually fit for use." Neither definition speaks to Orthodox Jewish law specifically. She says both definitions are consistent with the answer the Plaintiffs' counsel gave the Court at the final approval hearing when asked to address a class member's objection to the settlement agreement because it failed to provide for "recognized Orthodox Kosher certification." At the time, the counsel did not direct the Court to the definition of "kosher" found in Michigan's penal code, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 750.297e(1), which the Plaintiffs refer to in their reply brief to demonstrate the ordinary meaning of the word. They have never previously cited this definition to support their current definition of "kosher." There certainly is nothing to suggest that the parties were aware of this definition or intended its meaning when they entered into the settlement agreement. As the settlement agreement does not require Defendant to secure Orthodox kosher certification, the Judge declines the Plaintiffs' request to order the Defendant to show cause why she should not be held to have violated its terms. For the same reasons, she denied the Plaintiffs' request for discovery. Accordingly, Judge Parker struck the pro se motions filed by Gerald Ackerman and Daniel Horacek, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement agreement and motion for discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nca5xy3k from Leagle.com. MICROSOFT CORP: Fallout Class Suit May Hamper Bethesda Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laurent Giret, writing for onMSFT.com, reports that Microsoft's upcoming acquisition of Bethesda Softworks and its parent company ZeniMax Media could be delayed by a new class-action lawsuit over Fallout 4 DLCs. A new report from VentureBeat reveals that the X-Law Group, which filed a lawsuit against Bethesda for false advertising back in July 2019, has now filed papers to seek more information, and this could potentially block Microsoft's upcoming acquisition of Bethesda. The subject of the 2019 lawsuit was the Season Pass for Fallout 4, which failed to include all post-launch content for the action RPG title, contrary to what Bethesda previously promised. The Season Pass for Fallout 4 was announced back in September 2015, two months before the game actually shipped. At the time, Bethesda promised that the Season Pass would include "all of the Fallout 4 DLC we ever do for just $30." However, Bethesda raised the price of the Season Pass to $50 in March 2016, and the company later announced a Creation Club including curated content for Fallout 4 and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim that wasn't included for free with Fallout 4's Season Pass. That's what led the X-Law Group to file a lawsuit against Bethesda for false advertising in July 2019. Here's what Filippo Marchino, attorney at the class-action law firm believes Bethesda did wrong: "Simply put, Bethesda sold a Season Pass with the understanding that it was going to give the holders of the Season Pass any and all DLC content there was going to be created for the game Fallout 4 on a go-forward basis," Marchino said in an interview with GamesBeat. "They released a limited amount of DLC. Then they released a second wave of DLC, but decided to call it the Creation Club content and artificially removed it from the definition of DLC. Meaning that they promised people at the onset, we will give you everything we made. And then they reneged on that promise, and they did so to their benefit or the detriment of the plaintiffs. So that's where they did something wrong. They lied. They took money from gamers, and then they made more money." If the X-Law Group wants to prove that the Creation Club is downloadable content that should have been included for free with the Fallout 4 Season Pass, Bethesda apparently did a couple of other mistakes. Indeed, the developer failed to include an End User License Agreement with Fallout 4, and it also failed to clearly detail what type of content would be included in the game's Season Pass and if some future additional content could be excluded from it. If the lawsuit from the X-Law Group has yet to be certified as a class-action, Marchino told VentureBeat that Bethesda could avoid being held accountable by transferring its assets to another company or Microsoft before the latter acquires the Bethesda's parent company ZeniMax Media. "What we're going to try and do is go in and ask a judge to stop the sale between Microsoft and Bethesda to preserve the assets. And it's known as a motion for preliminary injunction," Marchino explained. If the cases goes forward, Bethesda could potentially risk a penalty that exceeds the $7.5 billion that Microsoft will spend to acquire ZeniMax Media. "It's a multibillion-dollar lawsuit, depending on the factor of the punitive damages," Marchino said. "Even a conservative multiplier of four or five times the damages would yield multibillions of dollars in damages. We can't reveal the exact number of people that bought the season pass, but you know that it is a substantial portion of the people that bought the game." Both Microsoft and Zenimax Media declined to provide a comment to VentureBeat about this lawsuit. If it does go to trial, it may not happen before 2022, but a settlement could happen before that. "It seems like the easiest thing to do would be to open up the Creation Club to everyone who bought the season pass," said David Hoppe, managing partner at Gamma Law to VentureBear. [GN] MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Glaab Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL GLAAB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., W. ALEXANDER HOLMES, and LAWRENCE ANGELILLI, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01887 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 1, 2021) is a class action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased the securities of MoneyGram between June 17, 2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Ripple's xRapid product (XRP), the cryptocurrency that MoneyGram was utilizing as part of its Ripple partnership, was viewed as an unregistered and therefore unlawful security by the SEC; (2) in the event that the SEC decided to enforce the securities laws against Ripple, MoneyGram would be likely to lose the lucrative stream of market development fees that was critical to its financial results throughout the Class Period; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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. MoneyGram International, Inc. provides payment services to consumers and businesses through a network of agents and its financial institution customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com MORAN FOODS LLC: Jones Hits Artificial Vanilla in Drinks -------------------------------------------------------- Saundra Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Moran Foods, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-10219 (D. Mass., February 9, 2021), seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and Massachusetts food labeling laws. Moran Foods operate Save-A-Lot grocery stores. It distributes, markets, labels and sells "Truli Vanilla Almondmilk." Jones alleges that their vanilla-flavored drinks contain vanilla flavor or vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor." [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 Email: pnwlaw@aol.com - and - John T. Longo, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. LONGO 177 Huntington Avenue, 17th Fl, Suite 5 Boston, MA 02115 Tel: (617) 863-7550 Email: jtlongo@jtlongolaw.com MULTIPLAN CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-multiplan-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html) on Feb. 24 disclosed that it filed a class action seeking to represent purchasers of MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") (NYSE: MPLN) securities during the period between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period') and all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which merger was consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). This action was filed in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Srock v. MultiPlan Corporation, No. 21-cv-01640. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Churchill IIII securities during the Class Period or that was entitled to vote on the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the MultiPlan class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the MultiPlan class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the MultiPlan class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the MultiPlan class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the MultiPlan class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Feb. 24. If you wish to discuss the MultiPlan class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-multiplan-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html. The MultiPlan class action lawsuit charges Churchill III and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist. In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S. healthcare industry. The MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements in connection with the Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business, operation, and prospects of MultiPlan. On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger – Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab' (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two years. As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Brian E. Cochran, 800-449-4900 bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN] NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholders' Suit in Texas Closed ----------------------------------------------------- Nabors Industries Ltd. 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 putative shareholder class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, closed. On September 29, 2017,the company was sued, along with Tesco Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on August 14, 2017. The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff appointment order. The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29, 2019. The parties filed appellate briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and arguments were heard on March 4, 2020. On August 19, 2020, the Fifth Circuit Court upheld the lower court's decision dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff failed to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court within the deadline. Accordingly, all appeal avenues have been exhausted and this matter is now closed. Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling-related services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S. Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. NAFPAKTOS INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ LAPORSHA BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAFPAKTOS, INC. dba DIAMOND CLUB CABARET, ERIC CHRISTOPHER YATES, JOSE DOE, and DOE MANAGERS, 1through 10, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00668 (Mar. 1, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as exotic dancer. Nafpaktos, Inc. dba Diamond Club Cabaret operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com NAVISTAR INT'L: Facing Drulias Putative Class Suit in DuPage ------------------------------------------------------------ Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on February 23, 2021, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Drulias v. Clarke, et al., Case No. 2021-CH-000022. On November 7, 2020, Navistar International Corporation, a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with TRATON SE, a Societas Europaea (Parent or TRATON), and Dusk Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving company in the Merger as a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Parent. On January 20, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company, the members of the Board, Parent and TRATON US, Inc. in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Drulias v. Clarke, et al., Case No. 2021-CH-000022 (Ill. DuPage Cty. Cir. Ct.). Drulias alleges breaches of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and full disclosure under Delaware law by the Company and the members of the Board, and alleges that Parent and TRATON US, Inc. aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 29, 2021, the Company filed the definitive proxy statement relating to the Merger. Navistar said, "While the Company believes that the disclosures set forth in the Proxy Statement comply fully with applicable law, in order to moot the purported stockholders' disclosure and breach of fiduciary duty claims in the Complaints, to avoid nuisance, cost and distraction, and to preclude any efforts to delay the closing of the Merger, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement with a supplemental disclosures. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://bit.ly/3emJN5K. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NEW JERSEY: Pallipurath Files Suit v. DOC ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. The case is styled as Joseph M. Pallipurath, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, HAVIS INC., UNIVERSITY CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE, RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY, GARY LANIGAN, MARCUS O. HICKS, SUSAN SPINGLER, DR. NWACHUKWU, DIANE BACA, SHARON R. GRAHAM, TIFFANY FAIRWEATHER, AMY EMRICH, CINDY FORD, CRAIG SEARS, MAGGIE REED, JONATHAN GRAMP, AKEISH WATTERS, RICHARD DEFAZIO, XIANGRONG ZHOU, FATHOM BORG, MERVIN GENESH, OFC. WITFIELD, MOBOLANLE EBO, OFC. LEWIS, OFC. MERREL, OFC. BECKER, DR. ROBIN MILLER, PAULO VERDEFLOR, DR. COFFMAN, JOHN/JANE DOE CEO of HAVIS Inc., JOHN/JANE DOE 1-43, SHARON AKER, DAVIS BRUC, Case No. 3:21-cv-04567-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., March 9, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. The New Jersey Department of Corrections -- https://www.state.nj.us/corrections/ -- is responsible for operations and management of prison facilities in the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se: Joseph M. Pallipurath P.O. Box 861 Trenton, NJ 08625 SBI#431700E/SN& NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON PRO SE NEW YORK: Doe Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jane Doe, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated February 17, 2021 and District Court's Judgment dated February 17, 2021, entered in the lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her minor child; and Childrens Health Defense and all others similarly situated, et al. v. Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health for the State of New York, et al., Case No. 20-cv-840, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 26, 2021, Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York entered an order: i. granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); ii. denying as moot the request by the Three Village, South Huntington, and Brother Migliorino Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Eastern District of New York; and iii. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Complaint as futile. The Plaintiffs, seven families on behalf of their minor children who are "medically fragile" with impairments in the functioning of their immune systems, and the Children's Health Defense ("CHD"), filed the proposed class action challenging New York's allegedly burdensome and narrow medical exemptions to mandatory school immunization requirements. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, including the New York State Department of Health ("DOH"), New York Commissioner of Health Howard Zucker, the DOH Director of the Bureau of Immunizations Elizabeth Rausch-Phung, M.D., seven school districts and their administrators ("School District Defendants"), and the Principal of St. Anthony's High School Brother David Anthony Migliorino, have violated their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process and equal protection rights, liberty interest in parenting and informed consent, and right to free public education under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a). The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Order entered by Judge Sannes. The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. Zucker, Case No. 21-537, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, March 5, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Jane Doe, on behalf of herself and her minor child; Jane Boe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor child; John Coe, Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor children; Jane Coe, Sr., on behalf of herself and her minor children; John Foe, Sr., on behalf of himself and his minor child; Jane Loe, on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child; Jane Joe, on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child; and Childrens Health Defense are represented by: Michael H. Sussman, Esq. MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, ESQ. 1 Railroad Avenue, P.O. Box 1005 Goshen, NY 10924 Telephone: (845) 294-3991 Facsimile: (845) 294-1623 E-mail: sussman1@frontiernet.net - and - Sujata Sidhu Gibson, Esq. THE GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 407 North Cayuga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Telephone: (607) 327-4125 E-mail: sujata@gibsonfirm.law Defendants-Appellees Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Health for the State of New York; M.D. Elizabeth Rausch-Phung, in her official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Immunizations at the New York State Department of Health; New York State Department of Health; Three Village Central School District; Cheryl Pedisich, acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Three Village Central School District; Corinne Keane, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Paul J. Gelinas Jr. High School, Three Village Central School District; Lansing Central School District; Chris Pettograsso, acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Lansing Central School District; Christine Rebera, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Middle School, Lansing Central School District; Lorri Whiteman, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Elementary School, Lansing Central School District; Penfield Central School District; Dr. Thomas Putman, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Penfield Central School District; South Huntington School District; David P. Bennardo, Dr., acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, South Huntington School District; BR. David Migliorino, acting in his official capacity as Principal, St. Anthony's High School, South Huntington School District; Ithaca City School District; DR. Luvelle Brown, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Ithaca City School District; Susan Eschbach, acting in her official capcity as Principal, Beverly J. Martin Elementary School, Ithaca City School District; Coxsackie-Athens School District; Randall Squier, Superintendent, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent, Coxsackie-Athens School District; Freya Mercer, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Coxsackie-Athens School District; Albany City School District; Kaweeda G. Adams, acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Albany City School District; Michael Paolino, acting in his official capacity as Principal, William S. Hackett Middle School, Albany City School District; and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Beezly J. Kiernan, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 Telephone: (518) 776-2023 - and - Gregg Tyler Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON LAWS, LLC 646 Plank Road, Suite 205 Clifton Park, NY 12065 Telephone: (518) 490-6428 E-mail: gtj@johnsonlawsllc.com - and - Adam I. Kleinberg, Esq. SOKOLOFF STERN LLP 179 Westbury Avenue Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 334-4500 E-mail: akleinberg@sokoloffstern.com - and - James Gerard Ryan, Esq. CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP 100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 357-3750 E-mail: jryan@cullenanddykman.com NTT DATA: Denies Workers Proper Wage Pay, Mitchell Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ BELINDA MITCHELL, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved Employees v. NTT DATA ENTERPRISE SERVICES, INC, Case No. 21STCV06953 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 22, 2021) is an enforcement action against NTT Data on behalf of the State of California and all other individuals who have worked for the Defendant in California as non-exempt hourly Claims Specialist and have been subject to the Defendant's policies of only compensating employees for the time spent processing claims. The Plaintiff contends that she and aggrieved Employees have been denied proper payment for all hours worked, including overtime, and the time spent off the clock working with and communicating with customers to properly process claims. She adds that she and Aggrieved Employees utilized their personal Internet and cell phones throughout the workday and were not reimbursed by the Defendant. The Defendant regularly failed to provide them with timely, legally-compliant meal and rest breaks because Aggrieved Employees' meal periods are regularly skipped, interrupted, or subject to interruption at all times, the Plaintiff adds. The Defendant failed to pay them the required premium pay when their meal and rest breaks were missed, untimely, or interrupted. Furthermore, throughout the relevant time period. The Defendant has failed to provide Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees timely and compliant wage statements and have failed to pay all wages owed after separation of employment to them, pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, the Plaintiff alleges. NTT is a Global IT Innovator delivering technology-enabled services and solutions to clients around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLAE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415)421-7100 Facsimile: (415)421-7105 E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallaee.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Tesetaxel Related Putative Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------------- Odonate 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 the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to tesetaxel. On September 16, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's current and former Chief Financial Officers. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety and tolerability of tesetaxel in the Company's public statements in violation of federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks damages allegedly sustained by the class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and that it has substantive defenses to the claims of liability and damages. The Company plans to respond accordingly. Due to the early stage of this matter, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company dedicated to the development of best-in-class therapeutics that improve and extend the lives of patients with cancer. The company's initial focus is on the development of tesetaxel, an investigational, orally administered chemotherapy agent that belongs to a class of drugs known as taxanes, which are widely used in the treatment of cancer. The company is based in New York, New York. PENUMBRA INC: Facing JET 7 Product Related Putative Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Penumbra, 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 facing a putative securities class action suit related to JET 7 Xtra Flex product. On January 15, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint was filed against the Company and its CEO, Adam Elsesser, and Executive Vice President, Global Marketing and Public Relations, Gita Barry, on behalf of a single shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020. The complaint alleges securities law violations based on allegedly misleading statements and/or omissions made in connection with the Company's JET 7 Xtra Flex product. The case is in the initial pleadings stage. The Company believes the claim lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. Penumbra said, "Given the early stage of these proceedings, it is not yet possible to reliably determine any potential liability that could result from this matter. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amount for potential loss associated with this matter." Penumbra, Inc. is a global healthcare company focused on innovative therapies. The company designs, develops, manufactures and markets novel products and have a broad portfolio that addresses challenging medical conditions in markets with significant unmet need. The company is based in Alameda, California. PENUMBRA INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of March 16 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Penumbra, Inc. (NYSE: PEN) ("Penumbra") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Penumbra common stock between August 3, 2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Penumbra common stock during the Class Period may, no later than March 16, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-143); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/penumbra-inc-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=penumbra According to the complaint, Penumbra is a global healthcare company that develops, manufactures and sells innovative medical devices for patients suffering from stroke and other vascular and neurovascular diseases. Until recently, one of Penumbra's flagship products was the "Jet 7 Xtra Flex," an aspiration catheter designed to be inserted into an affected artery, navigated to a blood clot, and used to suck the clot out of the patient's body. The Jet 7 Xtra Flex was introduced to the U.S. market in July 2019 and quickly became a "growth driver" for Penumbra, a key source of new revenues. The complaint alleges that in mid-2020, concerns about the Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety began to emerge. Despite the safety concerns, the defendants repeatedly assured investors during the Class Period that the Jet 7 Xtra Flex was "absolutely safe" and "not a product that has any possibility of needing to be recalled," as Penumbra was taking all necessary steps to protect patients. The truth regarding Jet 7 Xtra Flex's safety was revealed to the market through a series of disclosures beginning in September 2020. Then, on December 15, 2020, after the market closed, Penumbra issued a press release announcing that it was issuing an "urgent" recall of the Jet 7 Xtra Flex because the catheter "may become susceptible to distal tip damage during use" which could lead to injury or death. Following this news, Penumbra's stock price fell by 7%, from $188.82 per share on December 15, 2020 to $174.98 per share on December 16, 2020, a decline of $13.84 per share. Penumbra investors may, no later than March 16, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] PRO'S CHOICE: Faces Rand Employment Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pro's Choice Beauty Care, Inc. The case is captioned as Brittney Rand v. Pro's Choice Beauty Care, Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00294988-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Feb. 22, 2021). The case arises from employment-related issues. Pro's Choice distributes personal care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stralen, Esq. ARNOLD LAW FIRM, APC 865 Howe Ave., Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: jstralen@justice4you.com QUALCOMM INC: Faces GBP480MM Consumer Class Action in U.K. ---------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that an advocacy group for U.K. consumers on Feb. 24 filed a complaint looking to recover 480 million pounds ($677 million) from Qualcomm for overcharges allegedly stemming from anti-competitive licensing practices for smartphone technology, according to Hausfeld, the firm representing the group. [GN] QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Facing Three Putative Securities Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- QuantumScape 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 is facing three putative class action suits initiated by the company's purchaser of securities. Between January 5 and January 8, 2021, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by purported purchasers of QuantumScape securities. (Case No. 3:21-cv-00058-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed January 5, 2021); Case No. 4:21-cv-00070-JST (N.D. Cal. filed January 6, 2021); and Case No. 3:21-cv-00150-VC (N.D. Cal. filed January 8, 2021)) against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer or against the Company and certain members of management and the Board of Directors, and Volkswagen Group of America Investments, LLC ("VGA") . All three complaints allege that the defendants purportedly made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects, including information regarding the company's battery technology. One Complaint alleges a purported class that includes all persons who purchased or acquired our securities between December 8, 2020 and December 31, 2020. The other two complaints allege a purported class that includes all persons who purchased or acquired the company's securities between November 27, 2020 and December 31, 2020. QuantumScape Corporation is developing next generation battery technology for electric vehicles ("EVs") and other applications. The company is based in San Jose, California. QUANTUMSCAPE CORP: Warranholder Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ QuantumScape 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 a putative class action suit initiated by a warrantholder. On December 11, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported QuantumScape warrantholder (Index No. 656963/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.)) against the Company and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the plaintiff is entitled to exercise warrants within 30 days of Closing. The complaint also alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus/information statement dated September 21, 2020 and November 12, 2020 is misleading and/or omits material information concerning the exercise of the warrants. The complaint generally seeks, among other things, the ability to exercise the warrants within 30 days of Closing. QuantumScape said, "We removed the case to federal court, Case No. 1:20-cv-10842 (S.D.N.Y.)." QuantumScape Corporation is developing next generation battery technology for electric vehicles and other applications. The company is based in San Jose, California. REALOGY GROUP: Continues to Defend Bauman Putative Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC 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 suit entitled, Bauman, Bauman and Nosalek v. MLS Property Information Network, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). This is a putative class action filed on December 17, 2020, wherein the plaintiffs take issue with policies and rules similar to those at issue in the Moehrl, Sitzer and Rubenstein matters, but rather than objecting to the national policies and rules published by NAR, this lawsuit specifically objects to the alleged policies and rules of a multiple listing service that is owned by realtors, including in part by one of Realogy's company-owned brokerages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and seek a permanent injunction, enjoining the defendants from continuing conduct determined to be unlawful, as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Court Stays Discovery in Rubenstein Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC 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 in Rubenstein, Nolan v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Coldwell Banker, Sotheby's Investment Realty, and Homeservices of America, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut), granted defendants' motion to stay discovery pending its determination of the pending motion to dismiss. In this putative class action, the plaintiffs take issue with the same NAR policies related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claim the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers) and is a federal racketeering violation (instead of a violation of federal antitrust law). On October 29, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a statement with the Court outlining the alleged racketeering violations. The Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 30, 2020 and on January 23, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their objections and opposition. On January 25, 2021, the Court granted defendants' motion to stay discovery pending its determination of the pending motion to dismiss. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Discovery in Sitzer Putative Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC 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 putative class action suit entitled, Sitzer and Winger v. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. This is a putative class action complaint filed on April 29, 2019 and amended on June 21, 2019 by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger against NAR, the Company, Homeservices of America, Inc., RE/MAX Holdings, Inc., and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. The complaint contains substantially similar allegations, and seeks the same relief under the Sherman Act, as the Moehrl litigation. The Sitzer litigation is limited both in allegations and relief sought to the State of Missouri and includes an additional cause of action for alleged violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied defendants' motions to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). In September 2019, the DOJ filed a statement of interest and appearances for this matter for the same purpose stated in the Moehrl matter. In July 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the Company provide them with all materials produced for Sitzer, with such request related to and preceding the subsequent civil lawsuit filed and related settlement agreement between the DOJ and NAR in November 2020. Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Moehrl Putative Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC 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 Moehrl, Cole, Darnell, Nager, Ramey, Sawbill Strategic, Inc., Umpa and Ruh v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). This amended putative class action complaint, filed on June 14, 2019, (i) consolidates the Moehrl and Sawbill litigation reported in our Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019, (ii) adds certain plaintiffs and defendants, and (iii) serves as a response to the separate motions to dismiss filed on May 17, 2019 in the prior Moehrl litigation by each of NAR and the Company (along with the other defendants named in the prior Moehrl complaint). In the amended Moehrl complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act because defendant NAR allegedly established mandatory anticompetitive policies for the multiple listing services and its member brokers that require brokers to make an offer of buyer broker compensation when listing a property. The plaintiffs further allege that commission sharing, which provides for the broker representing the seller sharing or paying a portion of its commission to the broker representing the buyer, is anticompetitive and violates the Sherman Act, and that the defendant franchisors conspired with NAR by requiring their respective franchisees to comply with NAR's policies and Code of Ethics. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from requiring home sellers to pay buyer broker commissions or to otherwise restrict competition among buyer brokers, an award of damages and/or restitution, attorneys fees and costs of suit. In October 2019, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest for this matter, in their words "to correct the inaccurate portrayal, by defendant The National Association of Realtors ('NAR'), of a 2008 consent decree between the United States and NAR." A motion to appoint lead counsel in the case was granted on an interim basis by the Court on May 30, 2020. On October 2, 2020, the Court denied the separate motions to dismiss filed in August 2019, by each of NAR and the Company (together with the other defendants named in the amended Moehrl complaint). Discovery between the plaintiffs and defendants is ongoing. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. REALOGY GROUP: Leeder Putative Class Action Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Realogy Group LLC 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 suit entitled, Leeder v. The National Association of Realtors, Realogy Holdings Corp., Homeservices of America, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., RE/MAX LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division). In this putative class action filed on January 25, 2021, the plaintiff takes issue with certain National Association of Realtors (NAR) policies, including those related to buyer broker compensation at issue in the Moehrl and Sitzer matters, but claims the alleged conspiracy has harmed buyers (instead of sellers). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made agreements and engaged in a conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act and were unjustly enriched, and seek a permanent injunction enjoining NAR from establishing in the future the same or similar rules, policies, or practices as those challenged in the action as well as an award of damages and/or restitution, interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Realogy Group LLC provides residential real estate services in the United States and internationally. The company's Real Estate Franchise Services segment franchises residential real estate brokerages through its portfolio of brands, including Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial, ERA, Sotheby's International Realty, and Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate. The company was formerly known as Realogy Corporation. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Madison, New Jersey. Realogy Group LLC is a subsidiary of Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Latifi Suit Against TDL Group Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 TDL Group Corp. continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Samir Latifi. In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL Group Corp. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Latifi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons franchisees are required to sign. The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself and other members of the class. Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe this claim is without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International Inc. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 class action suit over employee no-solicitation and no-hiring policies have taken an appeal from the court's denial of their motion for leave to amend complaint. On October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against Burger King Worldwide, Inc. (BKW) and Burger King Corporation (BKC) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc. (RBI), BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed against RBI, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These complaints have been consolidated and allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. On March 24, 2020, the Court granted BKC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on April 20, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint. On April 27, 2020, BKC filed a motion opposing the motion for leave to amend. The court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend their complaint in August 2020 and the plaintiffs are appealing this ruling. Restaurant Brands said, "While we currently believe these claims are without merit, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this case or estimate the range of possible loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International Inc. RESTAURANT BRANDS: Suits Over Data Collection Underway in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 its alleged collection of geolocation data through the Tim Hortons mobile application. On June 30, 2020, a class action complaint was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership and The TDL Group Corp. in the Quebec Superior Court by Steve Holcman, individually and on behalf of all Quebec residents who downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application. On July 2, 2020, a Notice of Action related to a second class action complaint was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc., in the Ontario Superior Court by Ashley Sitko and Ashley Cadeau, individually and on behalf of all Canadian residents who downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application. On August 31, 2020, a notice of claim was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc. in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Wai Lam Jacky Law on behalf of all persons in Canada who downloaded the Tim Hortons mobile application or the Burger King mobile application. On September 30, 2020, a notice of action was filed against Restaurant Brands International Inc., Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership, The TDL Group Corp., Burger King Worldwide, Inc. and Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by William Jung on behalf of a to be determined class. All of the complaints allege that the defendants violated the plaintiff's privacy rights, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, consumer protection and competition laws or app-based undertakings to users, in each case in connection with the collection of geolocation data through the Tim Hortons mobile application, and in certain cases, the Burger King and Popeyes mobile applications. Each plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages for himself or herself and other members of the class. Restaurant Brands said, "These cases are in preliminary stages and we intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits, but we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any of these cases or estimate the range of possible loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant Brands International Inc. RIO PROPERTIES: Court Certifies Questions of Law in Leigh-Pink Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AARON LEIGH-PINK; TANA EMERSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. RIO PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-17556 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of Nevada the questions of law set forth in Section III of its Order. The suit arose after Plaintiffs Leigh-Pink and Emerson stayed at the Rio All-Suite Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. The rooms were complimentary, so the only charge that the Plaintiffs incurred was a $34.01 per day "resort fee" that covered access to the internet, telephones, and use of the fitness room. At first, the stays seemed uneventful. But unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, the Rio's water system had been contaminated with legionella, the bacteria that cause Legionnaires' disease. The Plaintiffs allege that the Rio knew of that contamination based on the following allegations. Before the Plaintiffs visited the hotel, the Rio had received a letter from the Southern Nevada Health District ("SNHD") stating that two guests had contracted Legionnaires' disease. SNHD investigators met with both the Rio's Vice President and its Facilities Senior Manager. The investigators stated that they planned to conduct an "environmental assessment," and at a follow-up meeting, they gave a PowerPoint presentation on the dangers of the bacteria. Yet that same day, the Plaintiffs allege, the Rio refused to remove "at least one guest" from a room that the SNHD wanted to test for legionella. A few months later, the Rio sent a letter notifying previous guests of the contamination. It reported that two guests had contracted Legionnaires' disease and that "recent testing indicated the presence of the Legionella bacteria in water systems at the Rio." The hotel claimed to have taken "aggressive remediation action to ensure the safety of the water," but it admitted that "until the system was fully treated, taking a shower or bath with the jets running may have put guests at risk by breathing water in the air." The Rio did not share that same information with any incoming guests. A guest soon commenced the putative class action in Clark County District Court. After removal, Leigh-Pink and Emerson became the named Plaintiffs. They had not contracted Legionnaires' disease, but based on the Rio's alleged failure to disclose the legionella, they sought to recover the resort fee. The Plaintiffs' operative complaint asserted claims for (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) negligence, (3) unjust enrichment, (4) "declaratory relief," and (5) two consumer fraud claims under Nevada Revised Statutes ("NRS") Section 41.600. These two consumer fraud claims derive from NRS Section 205.377(1), which prohibits "fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact," and NRS Section 598.0923(2), which prohibits failures "to disclose a material fact in connection with the sale or lease of goods or services." The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the appeal followed. In a separate memorandum filed concurrently with the Opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the claim for unjust enrichment and affirmed the dismissal of the claims for negligence, declaratory relief, and violations of NRS Section 205.377(1). It also rejected all but one of the Rio's arguments regarding the claims for fraudulent concealment and violations of NRS Section 598.0923(2). The memorandum leaves one remaining issue that is addressed in the case: Whether the Plaintiffs have suffered damages for purposes of their claims for fraudulent concealment and violations of NRS Section 598.0923(2). The district court concluded that the Plaintiffs did not suffer any damages. It noted that the Plaintiffs did not allege personal injury or property damage, which meant that the damages, if any, "were economic in nature." The resort fee could not fall within that category, the court continued, since the Plaintiffs received access to the amenities that the fee covered. Thus, the Plaintiffs received the "benefit of the bargain" and suffered no damages. The Rio echoes that analysis on the appeal. It contends that the only appropriate measures of damages are (1) "the out-of-pocket measure, which, in the misrepresentation context, is comprised of the difference between what the defrauded party gave and what he actually received; and (2) the benefit-of-the-bargain measure, which consists of the value of what the defrauded party would have received had the representations been true, less what he actually received. Under either measure, the Rio argues, the Plaintiffs cannot recover because they never alleged that access to the internet, telephones, and fitness room was worth less than the $34.01 they paid. In short, the Plaintiffs did not suffer damages because they "received exactly what they paid for." The Plaintiffs respond with a simple but untested theory. They point to their allegation that they would not have stayed at the Rio -- and would not have paid the resort fee -- had it disclosed the legionella contamination. Thus, say the Plaintiffs, they have alleged recoverable damages in the form of the money they paid to the Hotel which they would not otherwise have paid. The Ninth Circuit does not understand Nevada courts to have addressed the issue of damages -- i.e., whether a plaintiff suffers damages when, due to the defendant's misrepresentation, the plaintiff purchases a product or service that the plaintiff would not otherwise have purchased, even though the product or service was not worth less than what the plaintiff paid. The Appellate Court explains that in other cases, it has observed that where Nevada law is lacking, its courts have looked to the law of other jurisdictions, particularly California, for guidance. The court, too, has looked to California to inform its analysis of Nevada law. The most instructive California case is Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011). It concerned a defendant that labeled its products as "Made in U.S.A." even though they "contained foreign-made parts or involved foreign manufacture." The court held that plaintiffs who can truthfully allege they were deceived by a product's label into spending money to purchase the product, and would not have purchased it otherwise, have 'lost money or property' within the meaning of California's Unfair Competition Law. The federal district court in Nevada has followed this lead in Cruz v. Kate Spade & Co., LLC, No. 2:19-cv-952, 2020 WL 5848095, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2020). The court addressed allegations that the defendant had indicated the items it sold were significantly discounted from the prices listed on the tags when, in fact, the items were "never actually sold at the reference price marked on the tags. The district court concluded that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded damages for purposes of a consumer fraud claim under NRS Section 41.600. The Ninth Circuit holds that these authorities do not reflect a consensus, for courts in other jurisdictions have rejected plaintiffs' theory. It thus faces a question that involves matters of state law and policy that have not been addressed by the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals of Nevada, and that have divided courts in other jurisdictions. Because it believes that these questions are best resolved by the highest court in Nevada, it concludes that certification is appropriate. The question of law the Ninth Circuit certifies is: "For purposes of a fraudulent concealment claim, and for purposes of a consumer fraud claim under NRS Section 41.600, has a plaintiff suffered damages if the defendant's fraudulent actions caused the plaintiff to purchase a product or service that the plaintiff would not otherwise have purchased, even if the product or service was not worth less than what the plaintiff paid?" The Court does not intend this framing to restrict the Supreme Court's discretion. Should it accept certification, it may reformulate the question and consider any other issues it deems relevant. The Court respectfully requests that the Supreme Court of Nevada accepts and decides the question certified. The clerk of the Court will forward a copy of the Order, under official seal, to the Supreme Court of Nevada, along with copies of all briefs and excerpts of the record that have been filed in the Curt. It recognizes that, should the Supreme Court of Nevada accept certification, "the written opinion of the Supreme Court stating the law governing the questions certified will be res judicata as to the parties." Further proceedings in the Court are stayed pending resolution of the Supreme Court's decision whether to accept the certified question and, if so, the receipt of the answer to the certified question. The clerk is directed to administratively close the docket, pending further order. The panel will resume control and jurisdiction on the certified question upon receiving an answer to the certified question or upon the decision to decline to answer the question. The parties will notify the clerk of the Court within 14 days of any decision by the Supreme Court of Nevada to accept or decline certification. If the Supreme Court accepts certification, the parties will file a joint status report every six months after the date of acceptance, or more frequently if the circumstances warrant. As required by Rules 5(c)(4) and 5(c)(5) of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court has provided in the appendix of its Order the names and addresses of the counsel and have designated which party will serve as the appellant and the respondent should the Supreme Court of Nevada accept certification. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/unu8maud from Leagle.com. RJ REYNOLDS: Final Judgment in Favor of Jones & Durrance Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant v. JANICE DURRANCE JONES and JULIAN DALE DURRANCE, as personal representative for the Estate of Dorothy Watson Durrance, Appellees, Case No. 2D19-3537 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, affirms the final judgment in favor of the Appellees in all respects and certifies conflict with the Fifth District on an issue related to punitive damages. The Defendant appeals a final judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of Jones and Durrance in their wrongful death action based on their mother's tobacco-related death in the Engle progeny case. The jury awarded each of the Plaintiffs $250,000 in compensatory damages and a total of $3.25 million in punitive damages. On appeal, R.J. Reynolds argues that the trial court erred in applying and instructing the jury on the pre-1999 punitive damages statute, section 768.73, Florida Statutes. It contends that the more restrictive version, amended in 1999, should apply to the Plaintiffs' claims in the case because it "applies to all causes of action arising after the effective date of the act," Sections 768.73(5), Fla. Stat. (1999-2020), and the wrongful death cause of action arose in the case upon the decedent's death in 2000. R.J. Reynolds argues that the Court should revisit its decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Evers, 232 So.3d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), which conflicts with a more recent case from the Fifth District, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield, 266 So.3d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), review granted, No. SC19-601 (Fla. Aug. 13, 2020). In Evers, 232 So. 3d at 462-63, the Court held that the pre-1999 punitive damages statute applied to a wrongful death action that was derivative of a tobacco-related injury suffered by a member of the Engle class prior to the certification of the class. It reasoned that the wrongful death complaint related back to the Engle class-action complaint and that the plaintiff's right to file the wrongful death action was based on the decedent's status as an Engle class member, i.e., the "manifestation of a tobacco-related disease or medical condition" that qualified the decedent to be a member of the Engle class. Because the plaintiff "was entitled to the res judicata effect of the Engle class, her cause of action was not controlled by the 1999 amendment to the punitive damages statute." The Court's decision in Evers relied on the First District's decision in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen, 228 So.3d 684 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The next year, the Fourth District "agreed with the First and Second District Courts of Appeal in holding that the pre-1999 version of section 768.73, Florida Statutes, applies in an Engle progeny personal injury suit that is converted into a wrongful death action upon the smoker's death." Then, in 2019, the Fifth District decided Sheffield, 266 So.3d 1230. The Sheffield court disagreed with Evers and Allen and held that the post-1999 punitive damages statute applied in that case because the wrongful death action accrued on the date of the decedent's death in 2007, not when his tobacco-related injury manifested in 1994. The Sheffield court reasoned that Florida law is clear: a cause of action for wrongful death accrues on the date of the decedent's death. That combined with the express language of the statute -- "that it applies to all causes of action arising after its effective date" -- led to the conclusion that the post-1999 version of the statute applied. The Fifth District also concluded that the Evers decision "conflated 'manifestation' for purposes of class membership with the 'accrual' of a cause of action." Sheffield certified conflict with the decision in Evers as well as the decisions in Allen and Konzelman. In the case, the decedent died of a tobacco-related disease -- chronic obstructive pulmonary disease -- in 2000, but she was a member of the Engle class based on the manifestation of COPD prior to the certification date of the class. In accordance with its decision in Evers, the Court holds that the trial court properly applied the pre-1999 version of the punitive damages statute to the wrongful death action in the case, and it certifies conflict with Sheffield. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/cv3mmfr3 from Leagle.com. Marie A. Borland -- marie.borland@hwhlaw.com -- and Troy A. Fuhrman of Hill Ward Henderson, Tampa; and Jason T. Burnette -- jtburnette@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, in Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. David J. Sales -- david@salesappeals.com -- and Daniel R. Hoffman -- danrhoffman@yahoo.com -- of David J. Sales, P.A., Sarasota; James W. Gustafson, Jr. -- JWG@searcylaw.com -- Brian R. Denney -- brd@searcylaw.com -- Laurie J. Briggs -- LXB@searcylaw.com -- and T. Hardee Bass III -- THB@SearcyLaw.com -- of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley, P.A, West Palm Beach; and Hutch Pinder of Whittmore Law Group, St. Petersburg, for Appellees. ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Zelewski Sues Over Stock Market Interference --------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Zelewski, Richard Conley, Dillon Rogers, and James Hill, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial, LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00329, (M.D. Fla., February 10, 2021) seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief resulting from breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Sherman Act. Robinhood provides a service allowing its customers to effectuate trades in the stock market, targeted at retail customers. Its platform is primarily app-based aims to provide everyone with access to the financial markets. Beginning in January of 2021, the stock prices for GameStop Corp. began to rise, based upon increased investor interest caused by the excessive short positions in the company. This event received significant coverage in the press. As investors began to look for the next GameStop, investor interest in stock with ticker symbols AAL, AMC, BB, BBY, CTRM, EXPR, GME, KOSS, NAKD, NOK, SNDL, TR, and $TRVG stocks began to rise, causing their stock prices to increase. Until January 28, 2021, Robinhood allowed its users to take positions in these securities, both buying and selling. Upon information and belief, many Robinhood customers purchased these stocks in reliance on the continued availability of the Robinhood platform, allowing the customers to buy and sell when most advantageous to do so. However, on January 28, 2021, after the rise in GME gained widespread media coverage, Robinhood barred its customers from buying these stocks. Robinhood has announced it will allow limited transactions of these securities starting on January 29, 2021. This action artificially deflated the price of the effected stocks, harming all investors who held the stock, to the benefit of those holding short positions. Robinhood's interference in free trade left customers and retail investors with only two choices, either sell immediately at the rapidly falling price, or hold, and risk losing their entire investment. Plaintiffs used the Robinhood app to trade securities. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Powell, Esq. MATT LAW 304 Plant Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Tel: (813) 222-2222 E-mail: Pleadings@MattLaw.com PowellAndEspat@gmail.com - and - Dario D. Diaz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DARIO DIAZ, P.A. 1101 North Armenia Avenue Tampa, FL 33607-5307 Telephone: (813) 259-1017 Email: Pleadings@DarioDiazLaw.Com RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Cole Files Suit in N.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rust-Oleum Corporation. The case is styled as Nancy Cole, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00272-BKS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Rust-Oleum -- https://www.rustoleum.com/ -- is a manufacturer of protective paints and coatings for home and industrial use.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. ADHOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Fax: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com SK FOOD: Underpays Production Employees, Deloney Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ MARQUES DELONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SK FOOD GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00892-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 2, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a production employee at its Groveport, Ohio manufacturing facility between July 2018 and August 2019. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees as non-exempt employees and paid them on an hourly basis. However, despite frequently working over 40 hours per week, the Defendant only paid them for work they performed between scheduled start and stop times. The Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent performing pre-shift and post-shift duties, approximately 15 to 20 minutes per day, which are integral and indispensable part of their principal duties. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees were not compensated for all of the time they worked, including all of the overtime hours they worked over 40 each workweek at one and on-half times their regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Defendant failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate records of the unpaid overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees, the suit says. SK Food Group, Inc. manufactures custom food products for its customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Tel: (216) 696-5000 Fax: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com SPECIALTY FOUNDRY: Remand of Spencer Toxic Tort Class Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied the Plaintiffs motion to remand the case, KELVIN SPENCER, et al., Plaintiffs v. SPECIALTY FOUNDRY PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-CV-01023-MHH (N.D. Ala.), to state court. The opinion is the second chapter of a conversation regarding the 200+ Plaintiffs' effort to return their toxic tort lawsuit to Alabama state court where it began. Imerys Minerals USA, Inc., one of 10 named Defendants in the lawsuit, removed the action from state to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Under Section 1332(d), the lawsuit qualifies as a "mass action." A mass action is any civil action in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact. Through CAFA, Congress granted federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over mass actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and there is minimal diversity, meaning at least one plaintiff and one defendant are from different states. A federal court must exercise jurisdiction over a qualifying mass action unless "the local controversy exception or the home state exception applies," requiring remand to state court. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the home state exception does not apply in the case. That leaves the local controversy exception as the Plaintiffs' final option for remand. The Plaintiffs seek remand under the first prong of CAFA's local controversy exception. Judge Haikala opines that the Plaintiffs have proved by a preponderance of the evidence the elements of the local controversy exception in Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(1), Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(i)(III), and Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii). Through affidavits from the Plaintiffs' counsel, the Plaintiffs have established that more than two-thirds of them are Alabama citizens, that they incurred their injuries at the Grede foundry in Bessemer, Alabama where they worked, and that "no other class action or mass action has been filed by the Plaintiffs or other persons asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the Defendants as are asserted on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the case. Therefore, the local controversy exception will apply in the case if the Plaintiffs can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that at least one of the Defendants is an Alabama citizen, is a defendant from whom they seek "significant relief," and is a defendant "whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the proposed plaintiff class." The Plaintiffs identify Defendant Specialty as an Alabama citizen from which they seek significant relief. It is undisputed that Specialty is an Alabama corporation, so it is an Alabama citizen. The Plaintiffs allege that Specialty and Porter Warner Industries manufactured and distributed foundry chemical products and foundry and core room sand. They allege that they have suffered physical injuries, adverse medical symptoms, mental anguish and emotional distress, and aggravation of pre-existing condition. Specialty acknowledges that it distributed specialized foundry chemicals and core sand to the Grede Foundry, and it "distributed products of other named Defendants to Grede Foundry." It also acknowledges that it was aware of applicable OSHA requirements and other regulatory obligations relating to the Grede Foundry. In affidavits, several Plaintiffs have explained Specialty's role at the foundry. Several former Grede employees have stated that the foundry would not have been able to run without the chemicals that Specialty provided. Specialty's location a few miles from the foundry made Specialty the natural go-to for chemicals that the foundry required. Given the evidence that Grede mixed chemicals from the various defendants in its manufacturing process, the Judge opines that it likely will be difficult for the Plaintiffs to pinpoint a specific chemical from a specific manufacturer or distributor that caused them purported toxic exposure and injuries. But the evidence establishes that unlike the other manufacturers and distributors which the Plaintiffs have sued, Specialty delivered substantially more product to Grede over a longer period of time than the other defendants, and, more importantly, Specialty did more than simply deliver chemicals to Grede. Still, the Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that enables the Court to assess the ability of Specialty to pay an award of damages or the extent to which the Plaintiffs hope to recover damages from Specialty as compared to the other named Defendants. With respect to ability to pay, as a local defendant, Specialty may have fewer resources than some of the other Defendants. At oral argument, the Plaintiffs speculated that Specialty probably has insurance to cover a damages award. But there is no evidence to support that statement and no evidence that the other Defendants do not have insurance also. Because the Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of proving that Specialty is a significant Defendant under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A), Judge Haikala must exercise the Court's jurisdiction over the action under CAFA. Therefore, she denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/kvm4uewj from Leagle.com. SPX CORP: Brass Appeals Amended ERISA Suit Dismissal to 4th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs David Brass, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID BRASS, RICHARD HAMILTON, CHARLES KOZITZKY, RON BEEGLE, DAVID BABCOCK, and CARL VAN LOON, Plaintiffs v. SPX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00656-RJC-DSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2021, Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, entered an order: a. granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; b. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; c. dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint; d. denying as moot the Defendant's Motions in Limine to Exclude and Motion to Strike the Reports, Opinions, and Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Michael A. Dunn; and e. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Response in Opposition to Motion and Exclude Defendant's Expert Witness Report and Testimony of Adam Reese. In 2001, the UAW along with several retired SPX union members filed two class action lawsuits against SPX alleging it had violated the union members' rights to lifetime health benefits. The parties eventually negotiated a resolution to those suits, which led to the execution and court approval of two settlement agreements in 2004. In the Settlement Agreements, SPX agreed to provide certain health care benefits to retirees and surviving spouses for the remainder of their lives. After the signing of the Settlement Agreements in 2004, SPX made several changes affecting the provision of benefits to the settlement groups without complaint from the UAW. Plaintiffs/Retirees Brass, Beegle, Babcock, Van Loon, Hamilton, and Kozitzky, along with several other retirees who have since been dismissed from the case, filed their Complaint against SPX on Nov. 25, 2014. They brought two claims in their Complaint: (1) violation of the settlement agreements under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"); and (2) violation of employee welfare benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Following failed settlement discussions both parties sought summary judgment. The parties have also filed motions to strike expert witness opinions. The Plaintiff amended its complaint to contain four claims: two claims of violation of the Settlement Agreements' under section 301 of the LMRA, and two claims of 'violation of ERISA plans' under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the ERISA. Judge Conrad found that the determinative question in the case is whether SPX has provided the retirees with substantially equivalent benefits to those guaranteed in the original Settlement Agreements. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Judge Conrad's order. The appellate case is captioned as David Brass v. SPX Corporation, Case No. 21-1240, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, March 4, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID BRASS, RICHARD HAMILTON, CHARLES KOZITZKY, RON BEEGLE, DAVID BABCOCK, and CARL VAN LOON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Pamela K. Bratt, Esq. Michael L. Fayette, Esq. PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP 146 Monroe Center Street, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 451-8496 E-mail: mlfayette@sbcglobal.net - and - Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq. PATTERSON HARKAVY, LLP 100 Europa Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 942-5200 E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com - and - Sarah Riley Howard, Esq. WARNER, NORCROSS & JUDD, LLP 1500 Warner Building 150 Ottawa Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2807 Telephone: (616) 451-8496 Defendant-Appellee SPX CORPORATION is represented by: Demi Lorant Bostian, Esq. Mark Hiller, Esq. ROBINSON, BRADSHAW &HINSON, P.A. 1450 Raleigh Road Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Telephone: (919) 328-8800 E-mail: dbostian@robinsonbradshaw.com mhiller@robinsonbradshaw.com - and - Cary Baxter Davis, Esq. Amanda Pickens Nitto, Esq. Ethan R. White, Esq. ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA 101 North Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28246 Telephone: (704) 377-8386 E-mail: cdavis@robinsonbradshaw.com anitto@robinsonbradshaw.com ewhite@robinsonbradshaw.com ST. LOUIS, MO: 8th Cir. Review in Illegal Arrest Suit Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Gerald Leyshock, Lieutenant Colonel, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ALICIA STREET, RONALD HARRIS, FUDAIL MCCAIN, ASHLEY THEIS, and NICOLE WARRINGTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons v. LT. COL. LAWRENCE O'TOOLE, et al., in their individual capacities and CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, Case No. 4:19-cv-02590-CDP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from arrests made relating to protests after the 2017 Stockley Verdict. On September 15, 2017, after a four-day bench trial, a Missouri circuit court judge acquitted Officer Jason Stockley of the first-degree murder of Anthony Lamar Smith. This acquittal shocked many in the St. Louis community as an audio recording submitted into evidence in the trial captured Officer Stockley saying "we're killing this motherfucker, don't you know" in reference to Mr. Smith. Following the announcement of the Stockley Verdict, public protests began at multiple locations in St. Louis and surrounding communities. To many in the St. Louis community, Officer Stockley's acquittal was yet another example of white St. Louis area police officers killing African-American citizens with impunity, the Plaintiffs assert. They add that in the view of the protestors, the acquittal further supported their view that the American criminal justice system does not believe that Black lives matter. On September 17, 2017, officers from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department ("SLMPD") illegally seized and subjected the Named Plaintiffs and other protesters to violence without probable cause and in contravention of the U.S. Constitution and Missouri law, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant Officers either directly violated the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class's civil rights or conspired to do the same. They add that the Defendant Officers unlawfully battered, arrested, prosecuted, and inflicted emotional distress on the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class and/or conspired to do the same. The Defendants are seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated February 22, 2021 wherein Defendants' motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part; all Defendants except for the City of St. Louis and individual Defendants Leyshock, Sachs, Boyher, Rossomanno, Karnowski, and Jemerson were dismissed from the action without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned as Alicia Street, et al. v. Gerald Leyshock, et al., Case No. 21-1524, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, March 5, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on April 14, 2021; -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Scott Boyher, Randy Jemerson, Matthew T. Karnowski, Gerald Leyshock, Brian Rossomanno and Timothy Sachs is due on April 14, 2021; and -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Alicia Street, Ronald Harris, Fudail McCain, Ashley Theis, and Nicole Warrington, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, are represented by: Alicia Anne Campbell, Esq. CAMPBELL LAW, LLC 1500 Washington Avenue Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 588-8101 E-mail: alicia@campbelllawllc.com - and - Kiara N. Drake, Esq. Javad Mohammed Khazaeli, Esq. James R. Wyrsch, Esq. KHAZAELI & WYRSCH 911 Washington Avenue, Suite 211 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 288-0777 E-mail: kiara.drake@kwlawstl.com javad.khazaeli@kwlawstl.com james.wyrsch@kwlawstl.com Defendants-Appellants Gerald Leyshock, Lieutenant Colonel; Scott Boyher, Lieutenant; Timothy Sachs, Lieutenant; Randy Jemerson, Sergeant; Matthew T. Karnowski, Sergeant; Brian Rossomanno, Sergeant are represented by: Robert Henry Dierker, Jr., Esq. CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE 314 City Hall, 1200 Market Street Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000 Telephone: (314) 622-3361 E-mail: dierkerr@stlouis-mo.gov STAR NURSING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Massey Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SHARAE MASSEY, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAR NURSING, INC.; STAR NURSING SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01482 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly employee in the position of health care professional for travel assignments of Star Nursing in Cupertino, California from February 1, 2021 to March 1, 2021. As part of her compensation, the Defendant paid her an hourly stipend each week based on and fluctuated with the number of hours she worked. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week during her employment with the Defendants, and regularly worked 12 hours shifts per week throughout February 2021. However, the Defendant failed to include the value of the Plaintiff's stipend pay in her regular rate of pay when calculating her overtime compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated health care professionals were not paid the correct overtime premium at one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in excess 40 per week, the suit says. On behalf of herself and other similarly situated heath care professionals, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime, plus penalties and interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem proper and just. The Corporate Defendants provide health care throughout California and the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew B. Hayes, Esq. Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq. HAYES PAWLENKO LLP 1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B South Pasadena, CA 91030 Tel: (626) 808-4357 Fax: (626) 921-4932 E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com SUNESIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 notice of voluntary dismissal have been filed in the nine suits filed against the company relating to its merger with Viracta. On November 29, 2020, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization with Viracta Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Sol Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunesis, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into Viracta, with Viracta surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunesis. On January 8, 2021, a lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Sunesis in connection with the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta. The lawsuit was brought as a putative class action and captioned Mooney v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00182 (N.D. Cal.). The Mooney complaint named as defendants Sunesis, Merger Sub, Viracta and the members of the Sunesis board. The Mooney complaint alleged claims for breaches of fiduciary duty against the members of the Sunesis board, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against Sunesis, Viracta and Merger Sub, violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Sunesis board. The plaintiff contended that the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta is unfair and undervalues Sunesis, and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed on December 22, 2020 omitted or misrepresented material information regarding the proposed merger between Sunesis and Viracta, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Additional complaints were filed against Sunesis and the Sunesis board on January 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 29, 2021 (captioned Hajdini v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00359 (S.D.N.Y.); Blomquist v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00225 (E.D.N.Y.); Ciccotelli v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00406 (S.D.N.Y.); Zivan v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00478 (S.D.N.Y.); Rond v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00531 (S.D.N.Y.); Wheeler v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00511 (N.D. Cal.); Kubicek v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-00710 (N.D. Cal.); and Sabina v. Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-00860 (S.D.N.Y.)). The Ciccotelli and Sabina complaints additionally asserted claims against Viracta and the Merger Sub. All of the complaints alleged violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Hajdini complaint additionally asserted a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the board and interim Chief Executive Officer of Sunesis. All complaints sought injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 12, 2021, Sunesis filed a Form 8-K to update and supplement the proxy statement/prospectus/information statement with additional disclosures relating to the Merger. Notices of voluntary dismissal have since been filed in all nine lawsuits. The ultimate outcome of any litigation is uncertain and unfavorable outcomes could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. Sunesis said, "Regardless of outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of the defense costs, diversion of management resources and other factors. Except as provided above, we believe there is no litigation pending that could, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition." Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of small molecule therapeutics for oncology, inflammatory diseases and other unmet medical needs. The company is advancing two proprietary oncology product candidates intended for the treatment of cancer. The company is based in South San Francisco, California. SUTTER HEALTH: Bid to Seal Confidential Docs in ERISA Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re Sutter Health ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-01007-NONE-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division, grants the Defendants' Further Request to Seal Confidential Documents. Upon consideration of the Defendants' Further Request to Seal pursuant to the Court's Feb. 10, 2021 Order Granting Defendants' Request to Seal Confidential Documents, Civil Local Rule 141, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, Judge Drozd grants the request. The portions of Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Reply Brief") identified in the Defendants' Further Request to Seal Confidential Documents will remain sealed. In particular, the following portions of Defendants' Reply Brief will remain sealed: "Document Portion(s) of Document to be Sealed Portions of Defendants' Reply Brief (Dkt. 41) Redacted portions of Defendants' Reply Brief at pp. 1:18; 10:12-14; 10:16-11:2; fn. 10." A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6u3avrja from Leagle.com. R. Bradford Huss -- bhuss@truckerhuss.com -- Dylan D. Rudolph -- drudolph@truckerhuss.com -- Catherine L. Reagan -- creagan@truckerhuss.com -- TRUCKER & HUSS, A Professional Corporation, in San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants SUTTER HEALTH, THE RETIREMENT BENEFITS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE. TAWKIFY INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Stanfield Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Tawkify, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JEREMY STANFIELD, Plaintiff v. TAWKIFY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-07000-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 12, 2021, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. Tawkify is a dating website. Mr. Stanfield paid $3,700 to Tawkify to arrange six dates, two of which occurred but not to his satisfaction. He sought to cancel the contract and demanded a full refund. After obtaining only a partial refund, Stanfield filed a lawsuit, anchoring his claims in California's Dating Services Contract Act. Then, he received a full refund. Tawkify sought to compel arbitration of the matter. The Defendant now seeks a review of Judge Alsup's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Stanfield v. Tawkify, Inc., Case No. 21-15399, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 8, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Tawkify, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire is due on March 15, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 5, 2021; -- Transcript is due on May 4, 2021; -- Appellant Tawkify, Inc. opening brief is due on June 14, 2021; -- Appellee Jeremy Stanfield answering brief is due on July 13, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JEREMY STANFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Christian Schreiber, Esq. Monique Olivier, Esq. OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 484-0980 E-mail: christian@osclegal.com - and - Elliot Jason Conn,Esq. CONN LAW, PC 354 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 417-2780 E-mail: elliot@connlawpc.com Defendant-Appellant TAWKIFY, INC. is represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. Priscilla Szeto, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 19191 South Vermont Avenue Torrance, CA 90502 Telephone: (424) 221-7400 E-mail: jahmy.graham@nelsonmullins.com priscilla.szeto@nelsonmullins.com TENNANTS SALES: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Weis Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- GARY WEIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-01786 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Field Technician from on or about August 2011 until on or about November 10, 2020. As a field technician, the Plaintiff regularly performed manual tasks during the majority of his hours worked while employed with the Defendant, thereby spending more than 25 percent of their hours worked performing such manual tasks. The Defendant paid him and other field technicians by check every two weeks throughout the statutory period to the present. As a result, the Defendant failed to timely pay them their wages earned on a weekly basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in which the wages were earned, the suit says. Moreover, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to state that he only work 40 hours per week and move any hours over 40 to the next week in an effort to minimize their overtime costs. As a result, the Defendant failed to compensate him overtime at one and one-half times his applicable regular rate of pay for hours he worked over 40 per week. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to provide him with accurate wage statements that reflected the amount of hours that he worked every two weeks, and failed to pay him his final commission payment of approximately $1,500.00. Tennant Sales and Service Company provides cleaning products and solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com TERRA OILFIELD: Underpays Operators, Wickliffe et al. Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WICKLIFFE and ROBERT MORRISON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TERRA OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00028 (W.D. Tex., March 2, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as operators and were promoted to Supervisors at some point thereafter. Plaintiff Wickliffe was assigned at the Defendant's Water Treatment division from May 2019 through October 2020, while Plaintiff Morrison was at the Defendant's Water Transfer division from April 2018 through January 17, 2021. The Plaintiffs assert these claims: -- The Defendant refused to pay them and other similarly situated operators and supervisors for more than 12.5 hours per day, thereby failing to pay them overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in workweek; -- The Defendant refused to compensate them for their Remote Worksite Travel; and -- The Defendants refused to include the non-discretionary "Travel Bonus" it paid to them in their regular hourly rate. Terra Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield services company that provides both water transfer and water treatment services to oilfield frac sites in Texas and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. MORELAND VERRETT, P.C. 700 West Summit Dr. Wimberley, TX 78676 Tel: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com TIKTOK INC: Settles Consumer Privacy Class Action for $92 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Cullins, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that in the proposed deal, the video-sharing social media app also promises to tighten up its data privacy protocols. TikTok has reached a deal that will resolve a class-action complaint over consumer privacy violations via its current app and its predecessor, Musical.ly, and, if approved by the court, the video-sharing social platform will pay $92 million into a settlement fund. Amid the pandemic-prompted TikTok boom in the spring of 2020, a series of suits were filed by users of the service and parents of underage TikTokers. The matters were consolidated before an Illinois federal court, and on Dec. 18 an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs' allegations included that the app doesn't notify users that its filters and effects use facial scans that capture and store biometric data; that after a user records a video TikTok keeps a copy, even if the user never posts it, and there's no notification that any such transfer occurs; and that the app collects private and personally identifiable information and device data for the purpose of earning revenue through targeted ads. Class members were seeking to define the class as either a nationwide group of all U.S. TikTok and Musical.ly users or all users who live in California, Illinois or any state with "materially similar consumer protection laws." As to the biometric privacy issues, there was also a proposed Illinois subclass for all users who reside in that state and used TikTok or Musical.ly to create one or more videos. Details of the deal were announced on Feb. 25 after U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee on Feb. 24 gave class counsel the green light to file an oversized motion for preliminary approval. (Read the full motion here.) In addition to the payout, TikTok has promised to initiate a new privacy compliance training program to protect users' data. Under the proposed settlement, users who were based in Illinois will receive a larger share of the funds because that state's Biometric Information Privacy Act bans the unlawful collection and use of biometric data like facial scans. The settlement, which is posted in full below, also notes that TikTok has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing. A spokesperson for the company on Feb. 25 sent this statement to The Hollywood Reporter: "While we disagree with the assertions, rather than go through lengthy litigation, we'd like to focus our efforts on building a safe and joyful experience for the TikTok community." In a joint statement on Feb. 25, attorneys from FeganScott, Carlson Lynch and Bird Marella lauded the size and significance of the deal. "Social media seems so innocuous, but troubling data collection, storage, and disclosure can happen behind the scenes," said co-lead counsel Katrina Carrol. "This settlement sets out to prevent that." Lee will have to approve the deal before it's final, and a hearing was currently set for March 2.[GN] TOURO COLLEGE: Yodice Files Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touro College & University System. The case is styled as Mark Yodice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Touro College & University System, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as filed for Breach of Contract. Touro College and University System -- https://www.touro.edu/ -- is a private university system, headquartered in New York City, New York, in the United States with branches throughout the US and in other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Macleod Bradham, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 695-8050 Email: jbradham@msbllp.com TRADER JOE'S: Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Weiss Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the dismissal of the case, DANA WEISS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TRADER JOE'S, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-55841 (9th Cir.). Ms. Weiss appeals from the dismissal of her putative class action lawsuit challenging Trader Joe's "Alkaline Water + Electrolytes" water bottles. Trader Joe's "Alkaline Water + Electrolytes" features various statements on the bottle, including "ionized to achieve the perfect balance," "refresh & hydrate," and holographic plus signs. Weiss claims that those statements as well as other similar ones in Trader Joe's online newsletter misled her into believing that the water balances her internal bodily pH and provides superior hydration compared to other beverages. The district court properly dismissed the consumer protection claims. Claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act are all governed by the reasonable consumer standard. Under the reasonable consumer standard, a plaintiff must show that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled by the challenged statements. The Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court's well-reasoned analysis of the challenged statements. It explains that a reasonable consumer would not interpret any of the challenged representations to suggest either internal pH balancing or superior hydration. When considered within the context of the water bottle packaging as a whole, it says the phrase "ionized to achieve the perfect balance" clearly refers to the water itself being balanced. No reasonable consumer would interpret that statement to mean that the water itself will balance the consumer's own pH levels. Simply put, a reasonable consumer does not check her common sense at the door of the store. The rest of the challenged statements either constitute true expressions about the hydrating capability of water or are otherwise nonactionable puffery. The district court also properly dismissed the breach of warranty claims, the Ninth Circuit finds. Although the reasonable consumer standard technically does not apply to the warranty claims, it says, those claims still require some sort of actionable representation. Weiss premises her warranty claims on the exact same representations as her consumer protection claims. Nothing in the labeling or advertising promises that the alkaline water will help consumers achieve a perfect balance or provide superior hydration. Thus, the Court affirms the district court's dismissal of the breach of warranty claims. Finally, the Ninth Circuit notes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because the complaint cannot be saved by amendment. Dismissal without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/fns9rzr from Leagle.com. UBER BV: Alberta Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Ranjan Agarwal, Esq., Keely Cameron, Esq., J. Sébastien A. Gittens, Esq., and Justin Lambert, Esq., of Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, in Setoguchi v Uber B.V., 2021 ABQB 18, recently dismissed an application for certification of a proposed class action resulting from a data breach because there was no evidence of harm or loss. This class action followed a hacking event, in which the hackers obtained Uber users' names, phone numbers, and email addresses from the cloud. Uber did not initially reveal the data breach to class members, regulators, or police. In the three years following the incident, there was no evidence of fraud, identity theft, or any other economic loss. Rather, the evidence showed that the loss or harm was "wholly non-existent". In considering the harm or loss issues, the Court had regard for the nature of the personal information, noting that the applicable duty and standard of care will vary with the sensitivity of that information. Here, Uber successfully argued that the information that had been released was already in the public domain. To succeed in certifying a privacy class action, the plaintiffs must provide some evidence of loss or damages. All that is required is some "basis in fact' before certification is granted. On the facts before the Court here, there was no evidence that any of the data had been released beyond the hackers. To the extent that the plaintiffs were arguing future harm as a result of future misuse, the Court noted that should the hacked data somehow be used in the future and real evidence of harm or damage could be shown, that could support a new cause of action. In reviewing other cases involving proposed class actions resulting from data breaches, the Court noted that certifications have been granted where breaches are directly linked to individual harm. On the other hand, certification has been denied when the breach simply required a password to be changed or embarrassment from spam emails sent to friends. The Court also noted that any assessment of damages, if the case was certified, would have required individual trials given that any claim would be tied to whether the released information had been held as private by the individual and the harm associated with that relief. In that event, the Court found that a class action might not be the preferable procedure. The Court also perceived individual trials, given the nominal damages, would be a valuable gatekeeper function, in that the Court believed it would deter individual plaintiffs from pursuing inefficient claims. This decision follows other recent decisions highlighting the court's important gatekeeper function of ensuring judicial economy when considering class proceedings. [GN] UNITED STATES: Federal Circuit Appeal Filed in Avalos FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELEAZAR AVALOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00048-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. According to the complaint, between December 22, 2018 and January 25, 2019, several government agencies were affected by a lapse in appropriations. Plaintiffs in this case and twelve other pending cases are employees of affected agencies who performed work during that lapse as "excepted employees" -- those whose work relates to "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property." Pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, the agencies were unable to pay Plaintiffs' wages during the lapse in appropriations, because doing so would have been a criminal offense. Instead, each agency paid Plaintiffs all the wages that were owed to them "at the earliest date possible after the lapse" ended. Although it is not controverted that the government complied with the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, Plaintiffs nevertheless sued the government under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs claim that the government's failure to pay minimum and overtime wages on their regularly scheduled pay dates during the lapse violates those provisions. The Plaintiffs sought, among other relief, liquidated damages in the amount of those wages. The Defendant now petitions for permission to appeal an interlocutory order of the Court of Federal Claims dated February 23, 2021. The appellate case is captioned as Avalos v. US, Case No. 21-119, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March 5, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 19, 2021; and -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 19, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ELEAZAR AVALOS and JAMES DAVIS are represented by: Gregory O'Duden, I, Esq. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 800 K Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001 Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by: Director, Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNITED THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit by MSP Recovery Claims Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- United Therapeutics 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 class action suit initiated by MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI. On July 27, 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC filed a Class Action Complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and the company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint alleges that the company violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a pulmonary arterial hypertension fund so that those donations would go towards copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by the company. Plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for the company's drugs. Two members of the putative class, Humana Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Inc., have informed the company that they may bring claims directly against the company to recover alleged overpayments. United Therapeutics said, "We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit." Silver Spring, Md.-based United Therapeutics Corporation develops and commercializes therapeutic products for patients with chronic and life-threatening diseases. The Company offers products primarily in three therapeutic areas, including cardiovascular, cancer, and infectious diseases. VELODYNE LIDAR: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Velodyne investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/velodyne-lidar-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced in a press release that it was immediately replacing David Hall, the Company's founder and former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Marta Thoma Hall, the Company's former Chief Marketing Officer. An investigation by the Audit Committee had "concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and directors.' In addition, Velodyne's Board of Directors formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall. On this news, Velodyne stock price fell $3.14, or approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Velodyne should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Dismiss Peterson Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit initiated by Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, is pending. On September 24, 2020, former employees Jillyn Peterson, Gabe Hare, Robert Heynen and Adam Krajewski, filed suit in the United States District Court, District of New Jersey (No. 2:20-cv-13223-CCC-MF) against Defendants Insurance Services Office Inc. ("ISO"), the Plan Administration Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members, and the Trust Investment Committee of Insurance Services Office Inc. and its members. The class action complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA. The class is defined as all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the ISO 401(k) Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan, at any time between September 24, 2014 through the date of judgment. The complaint alleges that all defendants are fiduciaries with respect to the Plan. Plaintiffs challenge the amount of fees paid by Plan participants to maintain the investment funds in the plan portfolio and the amount of recordkeeper fees paid by participants. Plaintiffs allege that by permitting the payment of excessive fees, the Committee Defendants breached their ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty. Plaintiffs further allege that ISO breached its ERISA duty by failing to monitor the Committee Defendants who they allege committed known breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint does not specify damages but alleges the fiduciary breaches cost Plan participants millions of dollars. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on January 12, 2021. Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter." Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics and decision-support solutions to customers in rating, underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance, Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. VERISK ANALYTICS: Bid to Nix Penegar Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 motion to dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Cara Jane Penegar, as Executrix of the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr., is pending. On October 23, 2020, Cara Jane Penegar, as Executrix of the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Jr., filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 3:20-cv-585-RJC-DCK, against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, as well as Verisk Analytics, Inc. and ISO Claims Partners, Inc. (ISO). The complaint alleges that Liberty Mutual violated the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSPA") by failing to reimburse Medicare for medical services that should have been covered by its policies, with the result that Medicare bore the cost instead. The suit alleges that the company and ISO are jointly and severally liable because of their involvement in Medicare reporting and/or other plan management. The complaint pleads a North Carolina class and a nationwide class, each composed of: all Medicare enrollees (within the respective geographic areas) for whom Medicare paid for an item or service where Liberty Mutual was the carrier and/or the company and ISO were involved in claims administration; where defendants were demonstrated to be responsible for payment of the medical services via a workers' compensation judgment, settlement, award, or contractual obligation; where defendants provided notice to the government of the fact of the settlement, judgment or award establishing their responsibility on or after October 23, 2017; but where defendants failed to make timely payment. The complaint does not identify the amount of damages sought but seeks double damages under the MSPA on behalf of all class members for all amounts at issue, as well as interest and attorneys' fees. Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were fully briefed on January 28, 2021. Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter." Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics and decision-support solutions to customers in rating, underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance, Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. VERISK ANALYTICS: Facing Dyloco Punitive Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Verisk Analytics, 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 facing a punitive class action suit initiated by Peter Dyloco. On February 2, 2021 the company was served with a punitive class action lawsuit brought by Peter Dyloco in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Lead Intelligence, Inc. d/b/a/ Jornaya and Mouseflow, Inc. No. 3:20-cv-09099-JCS. In this action plaintiff alleges a class of all California residents who visited mazdausa.com and whose electronic communications were intercepted or recorded by Jornaya and/or Mouseflow without their consent. The class complaint alleges that we, Mazda and Mouseflow violated California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code sections 631 and 635 by "wiretapping' and "intercepting" the communications of California residents with Mazda during their visit to Mazda's website. For each of these counts, the complaint claims damages pursuant to Cal. Penal Code section 637 for the greater of 5,000 dollars or three times the actual damages per violation of the statute and injunctive relief. Verisk said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably estimate the liability related to this matter." Verisk Analytics, Inc. provides data analytics solutions in the United States and internationally. It provides predictive analytics and decision-support solutions to customers in rating, underwriting, claims, catastrophe and weather risk, natural resources intelligence, economic forecasting, and various other fields. The company operates through three segments: Insurance, Energy and Specialized Markets, and Financial Services. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey. VIVINT SOLAR: Court Grants Dekker Leave to Amend Class Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GERRIE DEKKER, et al., Plaintiffs v. VIVINT SOLAR, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. C 19-07918 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint. Defendant Vivint, in its various corporate forms, installs residential solar systems and sells homeowners the electricity produced for a 20-year term. The Plaintiffs' complaint, however, illuminates alleged liquidated damages clauses in Vivint's agreements, provisions which impose harsh and unlawful penalties onto dissatisfied customers. An order dated March 24, 2020, reluctantly compelled all but two Plaintiffs to arbitrate, finding that though the Plaintiffs could not, in fact, be compelled to arbitrate their claims for public relief under McGill v. Citibank, N.A., the agreements had ineluctably delegated that question to the arbitrator. But as the agreements had not clearly delegated formation defects to the arbitrator, the same order found that Plaintiff Juan Bautista had not agreed to arbitrate, given Vivint had the native Spanish speaker, with virtually no English proficiency, sign an English-form contract after conducting negotiations in Spanish. The March 24 order also found Plaintiff Gerrie Dekker, whose agreement contained no arbitration clause, traversed the statute of limitations, at least on the pleadings. Vivint timely appealed the denial of arbitration and Plaintiff Bautista moved to amend his complaint. A May 11 order denied Vivint's motion to stay pending appeal, and a May 24 order granted leave to amend in part. In brief, the Plaintiffs proceeded to discovery on two theories, seeking injunctive relief both from Vivint's unlawful liquidated damages provisions and from those agreements never actually formed due to the language barrier. Vivint missed JAMS' fee deadline, a material breach of the arbitration agreements under California's recently enacted Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.97. So an August 14 order vacated the March 24 order as far as it compelled select Plaintiffs to arbitrate and invited those Plaintiffs back into the forum. True to form, Vivint timely appealed and a September 15 order denied its motion to stay. Some named Plaintiffs were at JAMS. Many, including Bautista and Dekker, remained in the case. Vivint's parallel appeals pended. And, discovery plodded along, though the Court vacated the remaining deadlines because COVID-19 foiled the planned February 2021 trial. The court of appeals then issued an unexpected order on January 25: It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It vacated the oral argument scheduled for Feb. 2, 2021 is vacated. It remanded to the district court for it to determine if the Plaintiffs should be granted leave to amend the complaint. As it were, the parties had submitted supplemental briefing regarding subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal, suspecting that the court of appeals questioned whether the Plaintiffs' complaint and amended complaint had adequately alleged jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. But the court of appeals' delphic prescription leaves the Court, for the most part, to speculate. Indeed, the parallel appeal still appears to pend before the Court. Undaunted, however, the Plaintiffs have promptly moved to amend. The proposed complaint adds little new matter. Rather it formalizes, which the prior complaints had not done, the Plaintiffs' reliance on CAFA jurisdiction, alleging the putative class size, minimal diversity, and amount in controversy. The Defendants oppose. Vivint contests the putative class size and amount in controversy but no one disputes the minimal diversity between the California Plaintiffs and the Utah Defendants. First, Vivint contests the new allegations of jurisdiction with brief evidence and contends that the Plaintiffs must respond to a preponderance. Judge Alsup holds that the proposed amended complaint alone may support subject-matter jurisdiction, though that may be contested with competent evidence. In such event, the preponderance carries the case forward, except that allegations for the amount in controversy will stand unless refuted to a legal certainty. Next, the amended complaint proposes a primary class of all Californians who entered into a residential solar agreement with Vivint and a sub-class of those Californians who signed an English agreement after conducting the negotiations in another language. Vivint protests that few putative class members have accrued claims yet. It persists that its arbitration agreements will cut the class size to fewer than one hundred members. The Judge finds that the objection fails as illogical. He says Vivint's declaration of class size relies on thie errant arbitration argument and so is not probative of our operative class size, though it also seems to admit that about eight hundred customers have requested cancellation. This alone would satisfy CAFA's class size. Regardless, even excluding the arbitration-bound class members, the 1,300 who did not agree to arbitrate due to the language barrier will remain in the forum. Under any of the frameworks presented, the putative class will exceed 100 members. Regarding the amount in controversy, the Judge holds that Vivint has not, to a legal certainty, cut the amount in controversy to below $5 million. At $10,000 per class member, the Plaintiffs need only 500 members to invoke CAFA. On the unrefuted allegations of several to tens of thousands of class members, the Plaintiffs sail past the $5 million mark. All this without yet considering the Plaintiffs' entitlement to attorney's fees under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, which offers fees in successful suits to vindicate the public interest. Finally, the Plaintiffs submit in reply several hundred pages in support of the putative class size and amount in controversy. Given his conclusions, and given the Defendants have had no opportunity to respond, the Order does not rely on the new evidence. For the reasons he stated, Judge Alsup granted leave to amend. He vacated the March 18, 2021 hearing. The Judge confirmed the Court's subject-matter jurisdiction under CAFA. The parties will please inform the court of appeals. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/spdyfbv9 from Leagle.com. WALMART INC: Faces Suit Over Unpaid OT During COVID-19 Screenings ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alaina Lancaster, writing for Law.com, reports that employees for Walmart Inc. claim the company has skipped out on base pay and overtime wages during COVID-19 screenings at the start of each shift. Citing the Apple Store employee bag search case, a group of Walmart employees say the retailer owes them wages for the time it takes to screen them for coronavirus symptoms. [GN] WESTGROUP PORTOFINO: Sauber Sues Over Discrimination & Retaliation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ERIC SAUBER, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTGROUP PORTOFINO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; THE PORTOFINO HOTEL & MARINA, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV08200 (Cal. Sup. Ct., March 2, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants' pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act for its alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in 2019 to work as an executive chef at its hotel/restaurant located in Redondo Beach, California. He was unlawfully terminated on or about May 27, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts these claims: -- The Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff on account of his disability, which included work restrictions and being placed on medical leave and he was terminated during his legally protected medical leave; -- The Defendants denied the Plaintiff reasonable accommodations, including refusing to honor his request for medical leave to recover from his work-related injuries; -- The Defendants failed to engage in an adequate interactive process with the Plaintiff, including without limitation, with respect to the Plaintiff's request of a medical leave; -- The Defendants retaliated against the Plaintiff by unlawfully terminating him; and -- The Defendants failed to adequately prevent the continued discriminatory acts committed against the Plaintiff. As a result of the Defendant's alleged discrimination and unlawful retaliation, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer compensatory damages; including without limitation, lost wages, loss of future earnings and earning capacity, loss of bonuses and deferred compensation, emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of future advancement, and damage to the Plaintiff's reputation in the business community. Westgroup Portofino, LLC and The Portofino Hotel & Marina operate a hotel and a restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Majed Dakak, Esq. KESSELMAN BRANTLY STOCKINGER LLP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 400 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310) 307-4555 Fax: (310) 307-4570 E-mail: mdakak@kbslaw.com - and – Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com WHOLE FOODS: Frith Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Suverino Frith, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Suverino Frith, Savannah Kinzer, Cedrick Juarez, Faith Walsh, Mackenzie Shanahan, Corey Samuel, Abdulai Barry, Lindsay Vuong, Samantha Berimbau, Camille Tucker-Tolbert, Ana Belen Del Rio-Ramirez, Lylah Styles, Kayla Greene and Sharie Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-11358-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 13, 2020, the lawsuit seek injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiffs are Whole Foods employees in a number of stores around the country who began wearing masks with the message "Black Lives Matter" to protest racism and police violence against African-Americans. Face masks are required in most parts of the U.S. due to COVID19. Whole Foods allegedly began disciplining employees for wearing these masks and began sending employees home without pay for wearing Black Lives Matters masks. Whole Foods has threatened employees with termination if they continue wearing the masks. Plaintiffs claim that Whole Foods' selective enforcement of its dress code in disciplining employees who wear apparel expressing support for the Black Lives Matter movement constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and on the basis of employees' affiliation with and advocacy for Black employees. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order dismissing all claims against Defendants (except Plaintiff Savannah Kinzer's individual claim for retaliation against Defendant Whole Foods) and the judgment entered against them as a result of that dismissal. The appellate case is captioned as Frith, et al. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., Case No. 21-1171, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, March 4, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SUVERINO FRITH, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Anastasia Doherty, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com adoherty@llrlaw.com WILLIAMS CO: Awaits Court's Decision in Rights Agreement Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. 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 is awaiting court's decision on the consolidated putative class action suit related to stockholder rights agreement. On March 19, 2020, the company's board of directors approved the adoption of a limited duration stockholder rights agreements and declared a distribution of one preferred stock purchase right for each outstanding share of common stock. The Rights Agreement is intended to protect the interests of the company and its stockholders by reducing the likelihood of another party gaining control of or significant influence over the company without paying an appropriate premium considering recent volatile markets. Each preferred stock purchase right represents the right to purchase, upon certain terms and conditions, one one-thousandths (.001) of a share of Series C Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, $1.00 par value per share. Each one-thousandth (.001) of a share of Series C Participating Cumulative Preferred Stock, if issued, would have rights similar to one share of the company's common stock. The distribution of preferred stock purchase rights occurred on March 30, 2020, to holders of record as of the close of business on that date. The Rights Agreement expires on March 20, 2021. On August 27, 2020, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Rights Agreement. The plaintiff alleges that the individual members of our board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by adopting the Rights Agreement. On September 3, 2020, a purported shareholder filed a separate putative class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting identical claims to the August 27, 2020, lawsuit. Both complaints seek declaratory relief, an injunction against the agreement, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs, which are not expected to be material. The court consolidated the lawsuits. The trial occurred January 12 through January 14, 2021, and the company is awaiting the court's decision. The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. WILLIAMS CO: Trial in Wisconsin Class Suit to Begin June 14 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Williams Companies, Inc. 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 trial in the putative class action suit pending before a Wisconsin federal district court is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021. Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states filed individual and class actions against the company, its former affiliate WPX Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries, and others alleging the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery and pre-trial issues. The company had agreed to indemnify WPX and its subsidiaries related to this matter. In the individual action, filed by Farmland Industries Inc., the court issued an order on May 24, 2016, granting one of the company's co-defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Farmland's claims. On January 5, 2017, the court extended such ruling to the company, entering final judgment in the company's favor. Farmland appealed. On March 27, 2018, the appellate court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, and on April 10, 2018, the defendants filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court, which was denied on May 9, 2018. The case was remanded to the Nevada federal district court and subsequently remanded to its originally filed court, the Kansas federal district court where the company re-urged its motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion but granted the company's request to seek permission for an immediate appeal to the appellate court. Oral argument occurred before the appellate court on January 19, 2021. In the putative class actions, on March 30, 2017, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On June 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order. On August 6, 2018, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order denying class certification and remanded the case to the Nevada federal district court. The company reached an agreement to settle two of the actions, and on April 22, 2019, the Nevada federal district court preliminarily approved the settlements, which are on behalf of Kansas and Missouri class members. The final fairness hearing on the settlement occurred August 5, 2019, and a final judgment of dismissal with prejudice was entered the same day. Two putative class actions remain unresolved, and they have been remanded to their originally filed court, the Wisconsin federal district court. Trial is scheduled to begin June 14, 2021. The company said, "Because of the uncertainty around the remaining unresolved issues, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential exposure at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these actions and our related indemnification obligation could result in a potential loss that may be material to our results of operations. In connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability balance associated with this matter and, as a result, have exposure to future developments." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Williams Companies, Inc. operates as an energy infrastructure company primarily in the United States. The Williams Companies, Inc. was founded in 1908 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. YRC INC: 10th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Southern Furniture Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, SOUTHERN FURNITURE LEASING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. YRC, INC.; ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC.; YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC.; YRC WORLDWIDE, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3262 (10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of Southern Furniture's complaint. Southern Furniture filed the putative class action against a group of less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight carriers, all predecessors to or current subsidiaries of YRC. Southern Furniture's allegation is that YRC "carried out a widespread and systematic practice of overcharging its customers by intentionally using inflated shipment weights when determining shipment prices." YRC is an LTL carrier. This means that YRC "consolidates shipments that do not themselves constitute a full trailer to transport and deliver, generally for manufacturing and retail businesses." A business that wants to contract with YRC for shipping must use its pre-printed two-page form contract, where the only blank terms are for the customer's contact information and the weight of the shipment. YRC does not always rely on a customer's weight estimate when it assesses charges. Rather, the industry standard is for YRC to charge based on actual weight if it reweighs the shipment in question. If the actual weight is greater than the customer's weight estimate, that is a "positive reweigh." Conversely, if the actual weight is less than the customer's weight estimate, that is a "negative reweigh." Starting in September 2005, YRC eliminated negative reweigh corrections, resulting in overcharges. It did not, however, inform its customers about its revised reweigh policy. In December 2018, the Department of Justice unsealed a qui tam complaint that revealed YRC's reweighing scheme. Only then did Southern Furniture learn that YRC had been overcharging its customers. On March 8, 2019, Southern Furniture filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief in the District of Kansas against YRC, Roadway Express, Yellow Transportation, and YRC Worldwide. YRC then filed a motion to dismiss. The district court had not yet ruled on YRC's motion when Southern Furniture filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. YRC again moved to dismiss. Specifically, YRC argued that Southern Furniture had failed to comply with Section 13710(a)(3)(B). In addition, YRC argued that Southern Furniture lacked Article III standing, that Southern Furniture had failed to plead the minimum amount in controversy, and that Southern Furniture had failed to state a plausible claim. On Oct. 31, 2019, the district court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of YRC. The district court first rejected YRC's standing and amount-in-controversy arguments. With respect to standing, it determined that Southern Furniture's amended complaint alleged a concrete injury based on overcharges for shipments. And with respect to the amount in controversy, the district court determined that Southern Furniture's amended complaint alleged an injury to the putative class far in excess of the $5 million amount set forth in the Class Action Fairness Act. Next, the district court determined that Southern Furniture's alleged overcharges were governed by and did not comply with the 180-day limit set forth in Section 13710(a)(3)(B). Moreover, it refused to toll the 180-day period because -- in its view -- Section 13710(a)(3)(B) supplies a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations. Having found in YRC's favor under Section 13710(a)(3)(B), the district court expressly declined to address the other arguments raised in YRC's motion to dismiss. Southern Furniture timely filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, it argues the district court erred in dismissing its amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Specifically, Southern Furniture contests the district court's conclusion that Section 13710(a)(3)'s time limit applies to the case. YRC argues the time limit does apply and additionally invites the Court to affirm on the alternate ground that Southern Furniture lacks standing. Standing YRC argues that Southern Furniture's amended complaint is so vague as to the details of Southern Furniture's dealings with YRC that it fails to allege an injury in fact. The Tenth Circuit disagrees. It agrees with the district court that Southern Furniture has alleged an injury in fact. The amended complaint alleges that, "like thousands of other small businesses across the country, Southern Furniture contracted with YRC to ship goods pursuant to a standard, pre-printed bill of lading." Under that contract, the price "was based in part upon weight on multiple occasions." When YRC eliminated negative reweighs, Southern Furniture "paid more for shipments than it should have." From those allegations it is reasonable to infer that Southern Furniture contracted with YRC after 2005 but before 2018, i.e., during the period when YRC had secretly eliminated negative reweighs. These allegations are therefore sufficient to plausibly claim an injury in fact at the pleadings stage. Section 13710(a)(3) Southern Furniture advances three reasons why its amended complaint is not subject to Section 13710(a)(3)'s time limit: First, that Section 13710(a)(3) applies only before the STB, not in court. Second, that it is not a shipper. And third, that its amended complaint does not present a billing dispute. The Tenth Circuit opines that Section 13710(a)(3) applies in the Court. It opines that (i) the statute's mandatory language makes the right to contest or collect charges conditional on compliance with the time limit; (ii) Section 13710(a) (3) speaks both to optional proceedings before the STB and to the time limit for collecting or contesting charges; (iii) in the context of the ICCTA, there is no evidence Congress intended to delegate to the STB the question whether the 180-day time limit applies in Court; and (iv) a shipper or carrier can comply with the 180-day limit provided in Section 13710(a)(3)(B) and, if the issue remains unresolved, file a breach of contract action in an appropriate court within the applicable statute of limitations. The Tenth Circuit also disagrees with Southern Furniture's next argument is that Section 13710(a)(3) does not apply because it is not a "shipper" within the meaning of the statute. It opines that whether or not Southern Furniture is an "individual shipper," does not bear on whether Southern Furniture is a "shipper," as that term is used in Section 13710(a)(3)(B). The ICCTA's definition of "individual shipper" itself twice refers to "the shipper," indicating that the two terms mean different things. Consequently, the ICCTA's definition of "individual shipper" is not an appropriate guide to the meaning of "shipper" in Section 13710(a)(3)(B). The Tenth Circuit again disagrees with Southern Furniture's final argument that Sect 13710(a)(3) does not apply because the amended complaint asserts fraud and does not merely "contest charges." Southern Furniture does not assert a cause of action under Section 14704(a)(2). And while Southern Furniture does allege fraud, it does so as part of a claim "contesting charges" under Section 13710. Consequently, the Court would find it unpersuasive in light of the plain language of Section 13710(a)(3). Finally, the Court's interpretation of the statute is also not in conflict with the Second Circuit's decision in U.S. ex rel. Grupp v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 742 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014). There, the Second Circuit held that the 180-day time limit "cannot apply to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act. But the court reserved the question whether "the 180-day rule applies to other kinds of suits brought in court." In the case, Southern Furniture does not bring a claim under the False Claim Act or a qui tam action. For these reasons, the Tenth Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of Southern Furniture's complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 3, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/eadk4dj8 from Leagle.com. Eric D. Barton -- ebarton@wcllp.com -- Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri (Nicholas W. Armstrong, Price Armstrong, LLC, in Birmingham, Alabama, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellant. Stephen L. Hill, Jr. -- stephen.hill@dentons.com -- (Jacqueline M. Whipple -- jacqueline.whipple@dentons.com -- with him on the brief), Dentons US LLP, in Kansas City, Missouri, for Defendants-Appellees. [*] Maryland Introduces Biometric Information Privacy Bill ---------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ahlering, Esq., and Gerald Maatman Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that following in the footsteps of New York, Maryland recently introduced a standalone biometric information privacy bill, House Bill 218, that mirrors Illinois' highly litigious Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS Section 14/1 et seq., "BIPA") in many respects. Most notably, as presently drafted, Maryland's proposed bill, like Illinois' BIPA, provides for a private right of action, statutory penalties, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees -- which has spawned thousands of class actions in the Land of Lincoln. If enacted, the Maryland bill would become only the second biometric privacy act in the United States to provide a private right of action and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees for successful litigants. This represents a significant development for companies and employers operating in Maryland in light of the explosion of class action litigation that has arisen from Illinois' BIPA in recent years. Moreover, the recent introduction of such bills in Maryland and New York signal that states are increasingly modeling proposed biometric privacy litigation on Illinois' BIPA. Employers must take notice and monitor such developments to avoid being subject to a class action lawsuit – particularly as the purposes for utilizing such technology continue to expand. Details of Maryland's Proposed Legislation Like New York's proposed legislation that mirrors Illinois' BIPA in many respects which we previously blogged about here, Maryland has proposed a similar bill entitled "Commercial Law -- Consumer Protection -- Biometric Identifiers and Biometric Information Privacy." The proposed law, like Illinois' BIPA, prohibits private entities from capturing, collecting, or storing a person's biometrics without first implementing a policy and obtaining written consent, implements standards of care for the handling of biometrics, and prohibits disclosure of biometrics without consent. Most notably, the proposed bill provides for identical remedies to BIPA, whereas an aggrieved person under the proposed bill will be afforded a private right of action with the ability to recover $1,000 for each negligent violation, $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. However, Maryland's proposed legislation does differ from Illinois' BIPA in a couple of respects. For example, the definition of "biometric identifiers" is arguably even broader, extending to "data of an individual generated by automatic measurements of that individual's biological characteristics such as fingerprint, voiceprint, genetic print, retina or iris image, or any other unique biological characteristic that can be used to uniquely authenticate the individual's identity." Moreover, the proposed legislation also clarifies that the broader definition of "biometric information," which includes "any information regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared based on an individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual," does not include "information derived from an item or a procedure excluded under the definition of a biometric identifier," such as photographs or information captured from a patient in a health care setting or information collected, used, or stored for health care treatment, payment, or operations under HIPAA. Unlike Illinois' BIPA, the proposed Maryland legislation also clarifies that a policy regarding retention/destruction of biometrics need not be made "publicly available" if the policy "applies only to the employees of the private entity," and "is used solely for internal company operations." Implications For Companies Companies that are already familiar with the Illinois BIPA are undoubtedly aware of the threats that the proposed Maryland biometric privacy bill poses. While the Illinois BIPA was enacted in 2010, it has seen an explosion in class action litigation over the past few years brought by employees and consumers alleging that their biometric data was improperly collected for timekeeping, security, and consumer transactions. In fact, between 2015 and 2020 alone, there were over 1,000 Illinois BIPA class action complaints filed across the United States, with additional new filings continuing to be initiated every day. It remains to be seen if Maryland's biometric privacy bill will pass as drafted. However, if enacted as it is currently drafted, companies in Maryland can also expect to experience an onslaught of biometric privacy litigation. Compliance is key, and there no better time to think about your company's biometric privacy compliance than right now. Companies with Maryland operations that are utilizing anything that could be considered biometrics, for any reason, should consider audit their practices, policies, and procedures to avoid potentially costly exposure in the event that the bill ultimately passed. Businesses with compliance questions should contact a member of Seyfarth Shaw's Biometric Privacy Compliance & Litigation Practice Group. While this proposed bill was only recently introduced, Seyfarth Shaw will provide immediate updates on its progress when available. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Companies Has PI Claims ------------------------------------------------- Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold predominantly by the Company's discontinued Motion Control business between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Carlisle Companies states, "The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and defense costs associated with these lawsuits. "The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of December 31, 2020, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows. "The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred. "The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company records the insurance coverage as a long-term receivable in an amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance. "The Company is also involved in various other legal actions and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the ultimate outcomes of such actions and proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/2PQqc3N ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Co. Faces 1,100 PI Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company was named as assignee to approximately 1,100 lawsuits pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos at December 31, 2020 and 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "In the Separation, EID assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "At December 31, 2020 and 2019, Chemours had an accrual of $34 related to these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3vcI2hu ASBESTOS UPDATE: CNA Financial Expects Losses Due to A&EP Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNA Financial Corporation have exposures related to asbestos and environmental pollution (A&EP) claims, which could result in material losses, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Our property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposures related to A&EP claims. Our experience has been that establishing claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for casualty coverages relating to A&EP claims is subject to uncertainties that are greater than those presented by other claims. Additionally, traditional actuarial methods and techniques employed to estimate the ultimate cost of claims for more traditional property and casualty exposures are less precise in estimating claim and claim adjustment expense reserves for A&EP. As a result, estimating the ultimate cost of both reported and unreported A&EP claims is subject to a higher degree of variability. On August 31, 2010, we completed a retroactive reinsurance transaction under which substantially all of our legacy A&EP liabilities were ceded to National Indemnity Company (NICO), a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., subject to an aggregate limit of $4 billion (Loss Portfolio Transfer). The cumulative amount ceded under the Loss Portfolio Transfer as of December 31, 2020 is $3.3 billion. If the other parties to the Loss Portfolio Transfer do not fully perform their obligations, net losses incurred on A&EP claims covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer exceed the aggregate limit of $4 billion, or we determine we have exposures to A&EP claims not covered by the Loss Portfolio Transfer, we may need to increase our recorded net reserves which would result in a charge against our earnings. These charges could be substantial. Additionally, if the A&EP claims exceed the limit of the Loss Portfolio Transfer, we will need to assess whether to purchase additional limit or to reassume claim handling responsibility for A&EP claims from an affiliate of NICO. Any additional reinsurance premium or future claim handling costs would also reduce our earnings." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3cdqgC8 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Incorporated has $96MM Reserve at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Corning Incorporated is a defendant in certain cases alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of the Plan, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016. At December 31, 2020 and 2019, the amount of the reserve for these non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be $96 million and $98 million, respectively. The reserve balance as of December 31, 2020 and 2019 represents the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees for the estimated life of the litigation. "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000 and the Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became effective in April 2016. At December 31, 2016, the Company's liability under the Plan was $290 million, which was required to be paid through a series of fixed payments beginning in the second quarter of 2017. Payments of $130 million and $50 million were made in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, there is no further liability associated with this plan." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3qrJYPK ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Faces Damages Claim ----------------------------------------------------- Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., is one of several unrelated defendants in lawsuits filed in Louisiana state courts alleging that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud containing asbestos and allowed such drilling mud to have been utilized aboard its drilling rigs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Diamond Offshore states, "The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted in the lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our 1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation. We are unable to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at this time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any, resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3cgkgsj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Has 38,700 Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving approximately 38,700 claimants at December 31, 2020 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by them or asbestos materials present at their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We manufactured, among other things, rubber coated asbestos sheet gasket materials from 1914 through 1973 and aircraft brake assemblies containing asbestos materials prior to 1987. Some of the claimants are independent contractors or their employees who allege exposure to asbestos while working at certain of our facilities. It is expected that in a substantial portion of these cases there will be no evidence of exposure to a Goodyear manufactured product containing asbestos or asbestos in our facilities. The amount expended by us and our insurers on defense and claim resolution was $13 million during 2020. The plaintiffs in the pending cases allege that they were exposed to asbestos and, as a result of such exposure, suffer from various respiratory diseases, including in some cases mesothelioma and lung cancer. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages and other relief. "To date, we have disposed of approximately 154,200 claims by defending, obtaining a dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled $563 million and $554 million through December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $149 million and $153 million at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. In determining the estimate of our asbestos liability, we evaluated claims over the next ten-year period. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future may result in an increase in the recorded obligation, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded an insurance receivable related to asbestos claims of $90 million and $95 million at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. We expect that approximately 60% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $13 million was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at both December 31, 2020 and 2019. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2020, we had approximately $550 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. In addition, we had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims, and the receivable for recoveries from insurance carriers recorded in respect of these claims, reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these amounts. The estimate of the liabilities and assets related to pending and expected future asbestos claims and insurance recoveries is subject to numerous uncertainties, including, but not limited to, changes in the litigation environment, federal and state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants, recoverability of receivables due to potential insolvency of insurance carriers, our approach to defending and resolving claims, and the level of payments made to claimants from other sources, including other defendants and 524(g) trusts. "As a result, with respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Recoveries may also be limited by insurer insolvencies or financial difficulties. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics or events, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3cdf08V ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Intl. Faces Exposure Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc., is named in asbestos related personal injury claims related to North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "NARCO manufactured high-grade, heat-resistant, refractory products for various industries. Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation, owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. Allied Corporation sold the NARCO business in 1986 and entered into a cross-indemnity agreement which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser for asbestos claims. Such claims arise primarily from alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these products in 1980 and ultimately filed for bankruptcy in January 2002, at which point in time all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the reorganization of NARCO. The Company established its initial liability for NARCO asbestos claims in 2002. "Our updated estimate of NARCO asbestos liability, which was consistent with the previously recorded NARCO liability estimate, was $779 million as of December 31, 2020. The liability reflects an estimate for the resolution of Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims filed with the Trust, as well as unasserted Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims. The NARCO asbestos liability excludes the annual operating expenses of the Trust which are expensed as they are incurred. "The Company's insurance receivable of $254 million as of December 31, 2020, corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Honeywell conducts analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. Most of our insurance carriers remain solvent. However, select individual insurance carriers are now insolvent, which we have considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. Our judgments related to our insurance carriers and insurance coverages are reasonable and consistent with Honeywell's historical dealings and Honeywell's knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3ers4tR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Ingalls Still Defends PI Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. The costs to resolve cases during the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019, and 2018 were immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3bwJZh3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Intl. Estimates $27.9MM in Future Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. has estimated future claims for asbestos-related litigation cases to be $27.9 million and $22.1 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We are involved in a number of claims and lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and specific facts known. "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-containing components into our products for several decades. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the aggregate. "Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary depending on several factors, and are subject to policy limits, so we may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and judgments. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, we recorded expense of $5.6 million, $3.1 million and $4.0 million, respectively, net of probable insurance recoveries, for known and future asbestos-related litigation and is recorded in Losses (gains) and other expenses, net in the Consolidated Statements of Operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/38s9jCY ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Defends 1,153 PI Claims --------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc. is a defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 1,153 claims, arising from exposure to asbestos-containing materials included in products that they are alleged to have distributed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the various defendants’ manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos-containing products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that the Company’s subsidiary, MRC Global (US) Inc., purportedly distributed. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with the majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. "We annually conduct analyses of our asbestos-related litigation to estimate the adequacy of the reserve for pending and probable asbestos-related claims. Given these estimated reserves and existing insurance coverage that has been available to cover substantial portions of these claims, we believe that our current accruals and associated estimates relating to pending and probable asbestos-related litigation likely to be asserted over the next 15 years are currently adequate. This belief, however, relies on a number of assumptions, including: That our future settlement payments, disease mix and dismissal rates will be materially consistent with historic experience; That future incidences of asbestos-related diseases in the U.S. will be materially consistent with current public health estimates; That the rates at which future asbestos-related mesothelioma incidences result in compensable claims filings against us will be materially consistent with its historic experience; That insurance recoveries for settlement payments and defense costs will be materially consistent with historic experience; That legal standards (and the interpretation of these standards) applicable to asbestos litigation will not change in material respects; That there are no materially negative developments in the claims pending against us; and That key co-defendants in current and future claims remain solvent. "If any of these assumptions prove to be materially different in light of future developments, liabilities related to asbestos-related litigation may be materially different than amounts accrued or estimated. Further, while we anticipate that additional claims will be filed in the future, we are unable to predict with any certainty the number, timing and magnitude of such future claims. In addition, applicable insurance policies are subject to overall caps on limits, which coverage may exhaust the amount available from insurers under those limits. In those cases, the Company is seeking indemnity payments from responsive excess insurance policies, but other insurers may not be solvent or may not make payments under the policies without contesting their liability. In our opinion, there are no pending legal proceedings that are likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3rAT51R ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $5.4MM Estimated Liabilities --------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation has estimated its net asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs to range between $5,400,000 and $9,700,000 using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from December 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2021. Union Carbide states: "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. At December 31, 2020, the Corporation's total asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs, was $1,098 million ($1,165 million at December 31, 2019)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://bit.ly/3rcn3sF ********* 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 ***