/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 54 Headlines ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Purchasers' Class Suit Pending ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Consolidated Class Suit Set for Oct 2022 ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Filing of 3rd Amended Leavitt Suit Nixed ANWORTH MORTGAGE: Facing Ready Capital Merger Related Suits BEECH-NUT: Doyle Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene Related Suit Due April 22 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Claims in Thomas Suit Dismissed With Prejudice DETROIT, MI: Court Dismisses Howard Class Suit Without Prejudice EHEALTH INC: April 1 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit ENVESTNET INC: Unit Faces Drake Putative Class Suit in Alabama ENVESTNET INC: Wesch Putative Class Suit Underway ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Junks Beltz Bid for Rehearing of Appeal EXITO FRESH MARKET: Gonzales Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages FBCS INC: Southern District of New York Tosses Rajkumar FDCPA Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Action GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Discloses Final Approval of Skochin Settlement GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Facing McMillan Putative Class Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Class Suit in Virginia Underway GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Units Face Halcom Putative Class Suit GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds-Related Suit Underway GILEAD SCIENCES: Jacksonville Police Trust Class Suit Ongoing GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway GILEAD SCIENCES: Putative Class Suit vs Immunomedics Underway GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Layne Merger-Related Class Suit Ongoing GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Class Suit IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS: Cherkashin Sues Over Flight Cancelation IROBOT CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit J.M. SMUCKER: Packaging of Folgers Coffee Related Suits Underway JOHN HANCOCK: Court Denies Bid to Strike Romano's Jury Trial Demand LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Underway LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida LABORATORY CORP: Davis Putative Class Suit Underway LEXMARK INT'L: A.B. to Distribute Settlement Funds in OFPRS Suit MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint MARCUS & MILLICHAP: 11th Cir. Flips Remand of Smith to State Court MASONITE INT'L: Final OK of Settlements Set for June and July MASONITE INT'L: Price Fixing Related Suit Underway MASONITE INT'L: Stay of Price Fixing Related Suit Sought MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Underway MDL 2885: TCA Must Comply With Discovery Subpoena in Earplug Suit MGP INGREDIENTS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Pending NATIONAL SPINE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scoma TCPA Suit NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending OREGON: District Court Lets Parkerson to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Proposed Allocation Plan Pending ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Joint Motion for Withdrawal of Suit Granted ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Costas Granted Final Approval OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Amend Complaint in Mangrove Suit Granted OVERSTOCK.COM: Missouri Putative Class Suit Dismissed PAPA JOHN'S: Court Dismisses Danker Class Action PDC ENERGY: Facing Royalty Owner Purported Class Suit PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Ongoing PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale PROASSURANCE CORP: Alabama Putative Class Suit Underway QUICKEN LOANS: 2nd Amended Winters Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation Ongoing SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Grower Litigations Underway SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Consumer Class Suit SHERLOQ REVENUE: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Weiss FDCPA Suit SIMMONS FIRST: Continues to Defend Pace Class Suit SIMMONS FIRST: Walkingstick and Fort Putative Class Suit Underway SIMMONS FIRST: Wilkins Putative Class Suit Underway SIX FLAGS: Bid to Nix Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Pending SIX FLAGS: Discovery Kingdom Employees' Suit Ongoing SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Suit vs SFNE Granted Preliminary Approval SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Magic Mountain Employees' Suit SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Unpaid Overtime SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit STAMPS.COM: Fact Discovery in Karinski Class Suit Ongoing STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Hart Class Suit STELLA ORTON: N.Y. Sup. Certifies Class in Troshin Labor Suit STERICYCLE INC: Settles Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits TRANS UNION LLC: Choi Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: BCBSA Settlement Granted Initial Approval US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending USCB AMERICA: Wheeler Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in Delaware Pending VAXART INC: Consolidated Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suit Underway WESTROCK COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Junk Ferris Putative Class Action Pending ********* ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Purchasers' Class Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 24, 2019 and July 24, 2019, is pending. On March 2, 2020, a class action lawsuit against Align and two of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaint alleged claims under the federal securities laws and sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 4, 2020 against Align and three of our executive officers alleging similar claims as in the initial complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock from April 25, 2019 to July 24, 2019. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed on September 18, 2020. Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs, manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy, intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry, orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose, California. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Consolidated Class Suit Set for Oct 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in the consolidated class action suit in California is scheduled for October 3, 2022. On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align and three of its executive officers was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock. The complaint generally alleged claims under the federal securities laws and sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs and expenses incurred in the litigation. On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock. On November 29, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint against Align and two of its executive officers alleging similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock from May 23, 2018 and October 24, 2018. On September 9, 2020, Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Trial is scheduled for October 3, 2022. Align believes the claims that remain in the case are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs, manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy, intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry, orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose, California. ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Filing of 3rd Amended Leavitt Suit Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Hull Leavitt, Plaintiff v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-12433-NMG (D. Mass.), Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The case is a putative securities fraud class action brought by Lead Plaintiff Toker on behalf of himself and other similarly situated investors against Alnylam and certain Alnylam executives ("Individual Defendants"). Toker has alleged that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) & 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 by making false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period regarding the efficacy and marketability of "Patisiran", a new drug designed to treat hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis ("hATTR amyloidosis"). In December 2017, Alnylam submitted to the FDA a new drug application ("NDA") and marketing authorization application for Patisiran and continued to make public statements forecasting a high likelihood that, based on APOLLO III, the drug would be approved to treat all manifestations of hATTR amyloidosis, i.e., both polyneuropathy and cardiomyopathy ("broad-label approval"). In August 2018, however, the FDA approved Patisiran for the treatment of only polyneuropathy manifestations of hATTR amyloidosis. Around the same time and based on the same data, the European Medicines Agency ("EMA") approved the drug for all manifestations of the disease (in patients with polyneuropathy) and authorized inclusion of cardiac data on the drug label. A month later, the FDA released a report ("Final Report") discussing its review of Patisiran which several analysts characterized as critical of Alnylam for having provided insufficient cardiac efficacy data to support a cardiomyopathy indication. Soon thereafter, Alnylam's stock price fell and the lawsuit was filed. The Plaintiff alleges that between Sept. 20, 2017, and Sept. 12, 2018, the Defendants misleadingly stated to investors that APOLLO III data supported a dual treatment indication for Patisiran, namely, polyneuropathy and cardiomyopathy, thereby causing the company's stock price to become artificially inflated and permitting the defendants to reap a profit of $66 million from insider stock sales. When the alleged misrepresentations were disclosed to the public, the Plaintiff asserts, the stock price fell precipitously causing investors to suffer economic loss. In March 2020, the Court dismissed the first amended complaint ("FAC"), finding generally that 1) the Plaintiff did not plead specific facts demonstrating that the Defendants either knew broad label FDA approval for Patisiran was "impossible" or otherwise fraudulently mischaracterized the purpose or potential of APOLLO III, and 2) the Plaintiff's insider-trading-based allegations of scienter were inadequate. The Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file the SAC in June 2020, and has attached thereto a proposed SAC. He submits that the proposed SAC responds to the deficiencies noted by the Court in its Dismissal Order and, now, establishes a strong inference of scienter. First, he explains that the SAC has removed misstatements relating to whether the FDA would approve any cardiac data on the Patisiran label and, instead, narrowly focuses on Alnylam's ability to secure a dual indication for Patisiran that would, for example, allow for treatment of patients with pure cardiac manifestations of hATTR Amyloidosis based on APOLLO III. Second, the SAC adds the opinion of Dr. Darren Scheer, a purported regulatory expert, which the Plaintiff contends establishes that such dual indication approval was "radically implausible" (rather than impossible) because 1) APOLLO III was never designed to test the efficacy of Patisiran for cardiomyopathy hATTR amyloidosis patients, 2) the study had no primary or secondary cardiac endpoints "which are critical to support an FDA indication" and 3) the Defendants provided no cardiac efficacy data to the FDA. The Defendants respond that the claims of scienter in the proposed SAC are just as weak as they were in the FAC. The SAC provides no direct allegations of scienter and inadequate circumstantial claims that the Defendants "must have known" that their statements were misleading because of their education and experience. The Plaintiff maintains that he met the PSLRA's requirements for pleading scienter by alleging that 1) the Defendants, as highly educated pharmaceutical executives, knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the design of APOLLO III rendered FDA approval of a dual treatment indication for Patisiran "radically implausible"; and 2) the Defendants had a motive to commit securities fraud once their cardiomyopathy-focused drug, Revusiran, failed in order to "be the first to market an FDA-approved drug to treat hATTR amyloidosis" and to "reap tens of millions of dollars in insider sales proceeds." First, even assuming, arguendo, that the Defendants' forecasts of FDA approval of a broad label for Patisiran were materially misleading, Judge Gorton concludes that the factual allegations in the proposed SAC fail to give rise to a strong inference of scienter. Nothing in the SAC insinuates that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that full approval was "radically implausible." There is no direct claim of such knowledge or the prospect of adequate circumstantial evidence. Missing from the SAC is any allegation of a "smoking gun" or contention that Dr. Scheer (the Plaintiff's "regulatory expert") or others shared with the Defendants, during the Class Period, the opinion that APOLLO III could not support broad-label FDA approval. Also missing is any allegation that the FDA, at any time prior to the release of its Final Report in September 2018, expressed to the Defendants its disapproval of APOLLO III's cardiac data. Furthermore, the study design and its corresponding statistical analysis contradict plaintiff's contention that APOLLO III failed to evaluate efficacy for cardiomyopathy or hATTR amyloidosis more generally. Moreover, in 2019, the EMA approved Patisiran to treat both neuropathy and cardiomyopathy in polyneuropathy hATTR amyloidosis patients and allowed the inclusion of APOLLO III cardiac efficacy data in the label. Second, Judge Gorton holds that even viewing the allegations of motive in light of the other scienter allegations, the Plaintiff has failed to aver a strong inference of scienter. Accordingly, the amendment with respect to the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim is futile for lack of scienter and his motion to amend will, therefore, be denied. Lastly, the SAC also asserts a claim for control person liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. Section 20(a) imposes joint and several liabilities on any person who, "directly or indirectly, controls any person liable" under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Because the SAC fails to allege an underlying violation of the federal securities laws, the amendment with respect to the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim is also futile. Having found that the Plaintiff, for the second time, fails to state actionable claims for securities fraud and control person liability, Judge Gorton denied with prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vbj7hzw from Leagle.com. ANWORTH MORTGAGE: Facing Ready Capital Merger Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing putative class action suits related to its merger with Ready Capital Corporation. Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed by purported stockholders of the Company relating to the Merger. On December 6, 2020, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Ready Capital, a Maryland corporation, and RC Merger Subsidiary, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ready Capital, pursuant to which, subject to the terms and conditions therein, the Company will be merged with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub remaining as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ready Capital. Seven putative class action lawsuits have been filed by purported stockholders of the Company relating to the Merger. On January 7, 2021, Shiva Stein, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Shiva Stein v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00122. The Stein Action was filed against the Company and its board of directors in connection with the Merger Agreement. The complaint in the Stein Action asserts that the Form S-4 Registration Statement initially filed on January 4, 2021 in connection with the Merger contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning financial projections and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Stein Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, compensatory damages against the defendants, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 12, 2021, Giuseppe Alescio, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Giuseppe Alescio v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00258. The Alescio Action was filed against the Company, its board of directors, Ready Capital, and Merger Sub. The complaint in the Alescio Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing omitted material information concerning financial forecasts and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Alescio Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, the filing of an amendment to the registration statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 19, 2021, Joseph Sheridan, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled Joseph Sheridan v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00465. The Sheridan Action was filed against the Company, its board of directors, Ready Capital, and Merger Sub. The complaint in the Sheridan Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing contained materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process, financial projections, and financial analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Sheridan Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 20, 2021, Ken Bishop, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled Ken Bishop v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-00331. The Bishop Action was filed against the Company and its board of directors. The complaint in the Bishop Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial projections, financial analyses, the sales process and potential conflicts of interest involving the Company's financial advisor, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Bishop Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 21, 2021, Samuel Carlisle, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Samuel Carlisle v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00566. The Carlisle Action was filed against the Company and its board of directors. The complaint in the Carlisle Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing omitted or misrepresented material information concerning financial projections, potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, and the background of the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Carlisle Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 26, 2021, Reginald Padilla, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Reginald Padilla v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00702. The Padilla Action was filed against the Company and its board of directors. The complaint in the Padilla Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing was materially deficient and misleading in regards to financial projections, potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, and the background of the Merger, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The Padilla Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, the filing of an amendment to the registration statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it or necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 1, 2021, Diane Antasek, as Trustee for The Diane R. Antasek Trust Agreement, April 8, 1997, and Ronald Antasek, as Trustee for the Ronald J. Antasek Sr. Trust Agreement, April 8, 1997, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled Antasek et al. v. Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00917. The Antasek Action was filed against the Company and its board of directors. The complaint in the Antasek Action asserts that the Initial S-4 Filing was materially deficient in regards to potential conflicts of interest involving Credit Suisse, financial projections and financial valuation analyses in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and that the company's board of directors violated their fiduciary duty as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price. The Antasek Action seeks, among other things, an injunction enjoining the Merger from closing, rescission of the Merger or rescissory damages if the Merger is consummated, an order directing the company's board of directors to exercise their fiduciary duties to commence a sale process that is reasonably designed to secure the best possible consideration for the Company and obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders, an award of damages sustained, and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. Anworth said, "We intend to vigorously defend the Company and our board of directors against the Actions." Headquartered in Santa Monica, California, Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation is a mortgage real estate investment trust which invests in mortgage assets, including mortgage pass-through certificates, collateralized mortgage obligations, mortgage loans and other real estate securities. Anworth generates income for distribution to shareholders primarily based on the difference between the yield on its mortgage assets and the cost of its borrowings. Through its subsidiary, Belvedere Trust Mortgage Corporation, Anworth also invests in high-quality jumbo adjustable-rate mortgages and finances these loans through securitizations. BEECH-NUT: Doyle Hits Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food ----------------------------------------------------------- Mattia Doyle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Co., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00186 (N.D. N.Y., February 18, 2021), seeks injunctive relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates, manufactures, distributes and infant food throughout the United States under the "Beech-Nut." This action derives its claim from a recent report by the U.S. House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform revealing that certain brands of commercial baby food (including Gerber products made with ingredients such as rice flour, sweet potatoes, certain juices, certain juice concentrates, and carrots, among other ingredients) are tainted with significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury saying that exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent decreases in IQ and endangers neurological development and long-term brain function, among numerous other deleterious alarming conditions and problems. Doyle seeks full disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in Beech-Nut's marketing, advertising and labeling; requiring testing of all ingredients and final products for such substances. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Allison W. Parr, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: jtycko@tzlegal.com hzavareei@tzlegal.com aparr@tzlegal.com - and - Annick M. Persinger, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway, Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 254-6808 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com BIOMARIN PHARMA: Bid to Nix Valoctocogene Related Suit Due April 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------- BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the purported shareholder class action suit related to Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec, is due on April 22, 2021. On September 25, 2020, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, its President of Worldwide Research and Development and our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California, alleging violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false or misleading statements regarding the clinical trials and Biologics License Application (BLA) for valoctocogene roxaparvovec by purportedly failing to disclose that differences between the Company's Phase 1/2 and Phase 3 clinical studies limited the ability of the Phase 1/2 study to support valoctocogene roxaparvovec's durability of effect and, as a result, that it was foreseeable that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not approve the BLA without additional data. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. In December 2020, the court hearing the case appointed Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in February 2021, dropping the company's Chief Financial Officer as a defendant, and asserting that the Company misled investors about the progress of the FDA's review of our BLA for valoctocogene roxaparvovec. The company's motion to dismiss the complaint is due on April 22, 2021. BioMarin said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and we intend to vigorously defend this action." BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. owns and operates a facility that specializes in producing enzymes to treat diseases and various medical conditions, such as chronic genetic disorders. The company is based in San Rafael, California. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Claims in Thomas Suit Dismissed With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JASON THOMAS, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No. 20cv718-LAB (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice Thomas' claims and dismissed without prejudice the putative class claims. Plaintiff Thomas filed the putative consumer class action against Costco Wholesale, bringing claims based on the marketing and sale of earbuds. Thomas is a California citizen and Costco is a Washington corporation; jurisdiction is based on the Class Action Fairness Act. He alleges he purchased earbuds advertised as the latest version of the 2nd Generation Apple AirPods that were capable of wireless charging. Mr. Thomas argues that the earbuds were an "unknown hybrid mix" that did not include a wireless charging case, and were incapable of wireless charging. Specifically, he alleges the earbuds were advertised as "Apple AirPods Wireless Headphones with Charging Case (2nd Generation)." Apple's product description for Wireless AirPods is attached as an exhibit to the complaint, as is the Costco listing Thomas relied on. Costco filed a motion to dismiss, providing information from Apple showing that Apple sells two different kinds of wireless AirPods for different prices, the more expensive of which comes with a wireless charging case, and the less expensive of which comes with a standard charging case. With the former, the AirPods can be charged by putting them in the wireless charging case and placing it on a charging mat. With the latter, the AirPods themselves are wireless, but the charging case is not. Costco argues that Thomas bought the less expensive version which was accurately advertised, and asks that the Complaint be dismissed. Alternatively, it asks that the Court strikes portions of the Complaint purporting to bring claims by non-California residents who incurred no injury in California. Both parties asked the Court to take notice of information on company websites. While judicial notice of some websites is authorized, the websites referenced by the briefing were not of the type that could properly be judicially noticed, even though the parties did not dispute the websites' authenticity or object to judicial notice. The Court therefore converted the motion to a motion for summary judgment and permitted the parties to file evidence. They have done so, although in part they ignored the Court's direction regarding judicial notice. Neither party has sought discovery or shown a need for more information. Judicial Notice Thomas argues that the Court can properly take judicial notice of websites and other documents, as long as they are "publicly accessible." Judge Burns holds that to the extent that Thomas is asking the Court to take notice of the fact that certain reviews were posted, the webpage is not reliable or accurate enough. But if Thomas is asking the Court to take notice of the reviews for the truth of their content, the material is even less appropriate for judicial notice. The Judge treats all supplemental materials as proffered evidence. He has reviewed all the evidence, although his Order discusses only the evidence that is directly relevant to the analysis and ruling. The parties appear to agree that Thomas bought the AirPods and was confused about what he was buying. There appears to be no real dispute that some other customers were also confused and thought they were buying AirPods with a wireless charging case. The disputed factual issue is whether their confusion was reasonable. Motion to Dismiss New or expanded allegations in opposition to a motion to dismiss are considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend, but are not considered when ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion. This is significant in the case, because in his briefing on the motion to dismiss, Thomas both abandons some of his earlier contentions based on his post-filing investigation, and proffers class definitions that were not included in the Complaint. The Judge examines the Complaint as filed, but also considers changes Thomas intends to make to it. Summary Judgment First, the Judge finds that although Thomas has pointed to outside evidence in an effort to establish what consumer expectations were, the evidence is similarly lacking in foundation. Furthermore, because the Court is applying the summary judgment standard, the proffered evidence must be substantial enough that a reasonable jury could find for Thomas. While it is evident some consumers were confused by Costco's listing, evidence offered to show that these consumers were "acting reasonably in the circumstances," is lacking. This flaw means the case cannot go forward. Thomas has not pointed to evidence sufficient to show that Costco's listing would mislead or confuse reasonable consumers, he has not met his burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Second, the Judge holds that because the Complaint does not include a nationwide class, there is no need to strike nationwide class claims from it. However, on the showing he has made, Thomas will not be allowed to add a nationwide class definition. Conclusion and Order Judge Burns concludes that Thomas cannot satisfy the "reasonable consumer" standard, because he cannot show that his mistake about the AirPods he bought from Costco was reasonable. Rather, his misunderstanding was based in part on his own unreasonable mistake, and an unreasonable interpretation of Costco's product listing. Nor is there any evidence that a substantial number of other purchasers, in spite of acting reasonably under the circumstances, were misled. The standard set forth in cases such as Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939, 951 (2002); Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 508 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 2003); and Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008), is not met. Failure to satisfy this standard is fatal to all his claims. The Judge, therefore, holds that Costco is entitled to summary judgment. Judge Burns dismissed with prejudice Thomas' claims and dismissed without prejudice the putative class claims. The Clerk is directed to close the docket. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4txwdn23 from Leagle.com. DETROIT, MI: Court Dismisses Howard Class Suit Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DEBORAH HOWARD, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-10382 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The Plaintiffs, who are Detroit homeowners, allege their due process rights under the United States and Michigan Constitutions were violated by the City of Detroit and other local and state entities when they received purportedly untimely and deficient property tax assessment notices in 2017. The Plaintiffs also bring an unjust enrichment claim against Wayne County. The Plaintiffs bring the class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated homeowners, seeking injunctive and monetary relief. They allege that in 2017, after the City of Detroit completed a reappraisal of all residential property, the Detroit government -- the City of Detroit; the Offices of the Chief Financial Officer and Assessor of the City of Detroit; and Mayor Michael Duggan and Assessor Alvin Horhn, acting in their official capacities ("Detroit Defendants") -- failed to notify Detroit homeowners of their new property assessments until it was too late to appeal those assessments. According to the Plaintiffs, this resulted in the violation of every Detroit homeowner's right to due process, and because homeowners did not have the opportunity to appeal and "lower frequently over-assessed" property taxes, some homeowners paid more than they should owe, faced delinquency, or had their properties foreclosed on. The Plaintiffs aver that because Michigan's government had assumed control of Detroit's property tax assessment process from 2014 through 2017, State Tax Commissioners W. Howard Morris and Leonard D. Kutschman and STC Executive Director David A. Buick, all acting in their official capacities ("Michigan Defendants"), also bear responsibility for the alleged denial of their due process rights. The Plaintiffs further allege that Wayne County was "complicit" in this denial of due process and was unjustly enriched by the collection of delinquency and foreclosure revenues, interest, fines, and fees. The Plaintiffs' complaint brings three counts: Count I alleges the denial of due process in violation of the United States Constitution under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Detroit and Michigan Defendants; Count II alleges the denial of due process in violation of the Michigan Constitution against the Detroit and Michigan Defendants; and Count III alleges unjust enrichment against Wayne County. The Plaintiffs seek an order 1) declaring that their constitutional right to due process was violated through lack of timely notice of their property tax assessments and subsequent inability to appeal those assessments in 2017; 2) requiring the Detroit Defendants to allow homeowners to appeal their 2017 property taxes retroactively; and 3) requiring the Detroit Defendants (and, to the extent that they take future responsibility for Detroit assessments, the Michigan Defendants) to comport with their constitutional due process obligations by ensuring future assessment notices are sent in enough time to allow homeowners to appeal; or 4) if mailings are delayed, automatically extending appeal deadlines by 30 days after the date of mailing with clear, individualized notice of the extension given in writing to each property owner. The Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The Detroit Defendants aver they are presenting a factual attack on the complaint and ask the Court to consider a number of documents outside the pleadings. They argue that these documents show taxpayers were afforded a modified assessment review process in 2017 and that thousands of taxpayers took advantage of that process. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, state the Defendants have brought a facial attack and that the Court should not consider any outside materials. Jude Edmunds agrees with the Plaintiffs that the Defendants present a facial attack. She holds that the Plaintiffs' due process claims implicate the Tax Injunction Act and principles of comity. Because there is a state remedy that is plain, speedy, and efficient, the Court, a federal court, lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims. Count I of the Plaintiffs' complaint, alleging denial of due process under the United States Constitution, is therefore dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state forum. And because she is dismissing the Plaintiffs' federal law claim, the Judge declines to exercise the Court's supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims. Thus, she need not address the numerous issues raised by the parties with regard to these claims. Counts II and III of the Plaintiffs' complaint, alleging denial of due process under the Michigan Constitution and unjust enrichment, are also dismissed without prejudice. For the foregoing reasons, Jude Edmunds granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4rn6bsfp from Leagle.com. EHEALTH INC: April 1 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that hearing on the motion to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.)., is set on April 1, 2021. On April 8, 2020 and April 30, 2020, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company, its chief executive officer, Scott N. Flanders, its chief financial officer, Derek N. Yung, and its then-chief operating officer, David K. Francis, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The cases are captioned Patel v. eHealth, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal.) and Bertrand v. eHealth, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-02967 (N.D. Cal.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information regarding the company's accounting and modeling assumptions, rate of member churn and the company's profitability during the alleged class period of March 19, 2018 to April 7, 2020. The complaints allege that the company and Messrs. Flanders, Yung and Francis violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek compensatory and (in the Patel lawsuit) punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On June 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the above-referenced matters under the caption In re eHealth Securities Litig., Master File No. 4:20-cv-02395-JST (N.D. Cal.). The Court also appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated matter. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2020, which Defendants moved to dismiss. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is currently set to be heard by the court on April 1, 2021. eHealth, Inc. provides private health insurance exchange services to individuals, families, and small businesses in the United States and China. The company operates through two segments, Medicare; and Individual, Family and Small Business. eHealth, Inc. was incorporated in 1997 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. ENVESTNET INC: Unit Faces Drake Putative Class Suit in Alabama -------------------------------------------------------------- Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Envestnet Asset Management, Inc. (EAM), a company subsidiary, is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Drake v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-CV-02076-ACA. The Company's subsidiary has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed on December 28, 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The case caption is Drake v. BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc. et al., No. 2:20-CV-02076-ACA. The plaintiff alleges that EAM, acting as investment advisor to BBVA USA Bancshares, Inc.'s Compass SmartInvestor 401(k) Plan, among others, breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the selection and maintenance of the SmartInvestor Plan's investment options. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of SmartInvestor Plan participants from July 17, 2013 through December 28, 2020. Envestnet said, "While EAM has not yet responded to the complaint, EAM believes that it is not properly named as a defendant in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with the Company, that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously." Envestnet, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide open-architecture wealth management services and technology to independent financial advisors and financial institutions. The Company provides these services and related technology via its wealth management software. ENVESTNET INC: Wesch Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK. The Company and Yodlee were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs. The case caption is Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK. Plaintiffs allege that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a mobile application that uses Yodlee's application programming interfaces (API), and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties. The complaint alleges violations of certain California statutes and common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal statutes, including the Stored Communications Act. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner from 2014 to the present. The Company believes that it is not properly named as a defendant in the lawsuit and it further believes, along with Yodlee, that plaintiffs' claims are without merit. On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint. On February 16, 2021, the district court granted in part and denied in part Yodlee's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend. The court reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs. The Company and Yodlee intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Envestnet, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide open-architecture wealth management services and technology to independent financial advisors and financial institutions. The Company provides these services and related technology via its wealth management software. ERIE INDEMNITY: 3rd Cir. Junks Beltz Bid for Rehearing of Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of their appeal. On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn by alleged policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity. As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action. On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the Department was not a final, appealable order. On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors"). The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, and Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive damages and interest. On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity for failure to state a claim. The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 10, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Beltz II lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing of their appeal before the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit denied that petition on June 14, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania. EXITO FRESH MARKET: Gonzales Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Gonzalez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Exito JC Inc. (a/k/a Exito Fresh Market), John Doe Corporations 1 through 10, and other John Doe entities 1 through 10, and all other affiliated entities and/or joint employers, all whose true names are unknown, Tanuja Patel, individually, Bindita Patel, individually, Jayesh Patel, individually, Piyush Patel, individually, and John and Jane Does 1 through 10, individually, all of whose true names are unknown, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02834 (D. N.J., February 18, 2021), seeks recovery for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Defendants operate a supermarket where Gonzales worked as a non-exempt laborer. He accuses Exito of failing to provide overtime wages, at the rate of one and one half times the regular rate of pay, for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week. He claims to have worked six days per work week, Monday through Saturday, either from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., or 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., with an hour meal break or approximately fifty-four hours per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com FBCS INC: Southern District of New York Tosses Rajkumar FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, NAVINDRA RAJKUMAR and RAYMOND JUNMOK KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FBCS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00218 (ALC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs Rajkumar and Kim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the action against FBCS, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiffs commenced the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on Jan. 9, 2020. The Plaintiffs alleged that FBCS, a "debt collector" with its principal place of business in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, violated the FDCPA. The Plaintiffs' allegations stem from a collection letter received by Ms. Rajkumar dated Jan. 7, 2019, and a collection letter received by Mr. Kim dated May 23, 2019. The collection letters received by each Plaintiff are substantively identical. The Plaintiffs allege that these letters violate the FDCPA in multiple ways. First, they allege that the language on the back of the letter indicating that the Defendant "is not obligated to renew this offer" violates the FDCPA because it "could lead the least sophisticated consumer to believe that the Defendant is not obligated to accept disputes," "not required to obtain or send the Plaintiff verification of the debt if requested," and "not required to send information concerning the original creditor if requested by the Plaintiff." Second, the Plaintiffs assert that the letter violates FDCPA's requirement that a collection letter makes clear that a consumer can dispute a debt in writing and that a consumer can request the name and address of the original creditor. They allege that because the letter contains two separate mailing addresses and the website on the letter contains two additional addresses, the lease sophisticated consumer would "likely be confused and uncertain as to which of the multiple addresses she should" send her written dispute and/or request for the name of the original creditor, and would likely not exercise these rights and/or would be "discouraged" from exercising these rights. Third, the Plaintiffs allege that the offer to make a down-payment, and then pay the remaining balance within 30 days, violates the FDCPA because it is open to multiple interpretations as to when the thirty days expires. They also assert that the offer is open to multiple interpretations because it is unclear where the settlement payment must be sent. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the letter "buries the required validation notice within its text" as it is "contained on the second page in running text in the body of the letter in the same font size and color as the rest of the body of the letter" and "the Section 1692g rights are visually inconspicuous and cannot be readily discerned from the rest of the letter." The Defendant filed their motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum of law on March 13, 2020. The Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2020, and the Defendant submitted a reply in further support of their motion on April 17, 2020. On Sept. 2, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion for leave to file sur-reply, which the Court denied on Sept. 19, 2020. However, the Court permitted the Defendant to file a supplemental letter brief discussing recent authority by no later than Sept. 28, 2020, and also permitted the Plaintiff to file a responsive supplemental letter brief by no later than Oct. 5, 2020. The Defendant filed their supplemental letter brief on Sept. 25, 2020, and the Plaintiffs responded on Oct. 5, 2020. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is deemed fully briefed. Judge Carter agrees with Judge Matsumoto's reasoning set forth in Dillard v. FBCS, Inc., No. 19-cv-968, 2020 WL 4937808 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020) that (1) the use of multiple addresses does not render the debt collection letters misleading or in violation of the FDCPA since "even the least sophisticated consumer should be able to deduce that Defendant's address is the address that appears below the defendant's name three times"; (2) when read as a whole, "the least sophisticated consumer would understand that the front of the letter provides an 'offer' to pay a reduced amount and various payment options to satisfy the debt" and would not assume that the required notices regarding disputing or inquiring about the debt "were merely offers" based on the language that defendant "is not obligated to renew this offer"; (3) the option to make a down payment and then pay the remaining balance thirty days after the initial payment is received is not misleading or in violation of the FDCPA; and (4) the placement of the validation notice does not violate the FDCPA as "the notice is not printed in a smaller font, or overshadowed by other large or bold font" and instead is "provided in legible typeface, among other important information." The Judge sees no reason to depart from Judge Matsumoto's conclusion that "nothing about the collection letter at issue leads to the conclusion that the recipient would be duped into validating a debt she did not owe" and that "the plaintiff's allegations amount to cherry-picking various portions of the letter, presenting them in a complaint deprived of context, and hoping something will stick." The Judge has considered the Plaintiffs' arguments as to why the Court should not adopt the reasoning in Judge Matsumoto's decision in Dillard and finds them to be without merit. For these reasons, Judge Carter granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ww8yfu23 from Leagle.com. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Burkhart Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (GFIH) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth Canada from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief from their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss and plaintiffs' motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs' motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part the company's motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs' claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, the company filed its answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action." Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Discloses Final Approval of Skochin Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company, became final on December 14, 2020, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. In January 2019, Genworth Financial and Genworth Life were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages (including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in excess of $5 million. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral arguments on the company's motion to dismiss. On August 29, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss the claim with regard to breach of contract, but denied its motion with regard to fraudulent omission, fraudulent inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their causes of action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by omission and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents). The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22, 2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis. On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (GLICNY) as a defendant and expanding the class to all fifty states and the District of Columbia. On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Leave to Amend certain aspects of the settlement, which was approved by the Court on March 31, 2020. On April 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Insurance filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay, seeking to stay the current schedule for class settlement and delay the date of the final approval hearing in light of disruptions caused by COVID-19. On April 14, 2020, the class administrator sent out class notices to potential settlement class members. On April 17, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Indiana Department of Insurance's motion to stay. The Court conducted final approval hearings on July 10, 2020, July 14, 2020 and September 11, 2020. In November 2020, the Court issued various opinions and orders, including denying various individual objections to the settlement agreement, approving the plaintiffs' motion for class counsel attorney's fees, with certain modifications and granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement became final on December 14, 2020, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. Genworth said, "We began implementation of the special election letters in accordance with the approved settlement terms on January 4, 2021. Based on the Court's final approval of the settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position." Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Facing McMillan Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (GLAIC) is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. In January 2021, GLAIC, a company indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be higher than that permitted by her policy. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Genworth said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action." Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: TVPX ARX Class Suit in Virginia Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company ("GLAIC") continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit entitled, TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. In September 2018, GLAIC, the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the "McBride settlement") that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the company's motion to enjoin and denied its motion for leave to file its counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. The company filed its response to plaintiff's appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff's appeal and the company's cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia's order enjoining Plaintiff's class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth's counterclaim. Genworth said, "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the dismissal of this action." Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Units Face Halcom Putative Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC) and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (GLICNY) are facing a putative class action suit entitled, Udy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York. In January 2021, GLIC and GLICNY were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York. Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Our responsive pleading is due on March 15, 2021. Genworth said, "We intend to vigorously defend this action." Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. GILEAD SCIENCES: HIV Meds-Related Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination with antiretroviral therapy. The company (along with Japan Tobacco, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Johnson & Johnson, Inc.) have been named as defendants in class action lawsuits filed in 2019 and 2020 related to various drugs used to treat HIV, including drugs used in combination antiretroviral therapy. Japan Tobacco was dismissed from the lawsuit after a favorable court ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that the company (and the other remaining defendants) engaged in various conduct to restrain competition in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The lawsuits, which have been or may be consolidated, are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek to bring claims on behalf of two nationwide classes -- one of direct purchasers consisting largely of wholesales, and another of end-payor purchasers, including health insurers and individual patients. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987, is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The company is based in Foster City, California. GILEAD SCIENCES: Jacksonville Police Trust Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust on behalf of end-payor purchasers. In September 2020, the company along with generic manufacturers Cipla Ltd. and Cipla USA Inc. were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust on behalf of end-payor purchasers. Jacksonville Trust claims that the 2014 settlement agreement between the company and Cipla, which settled a patent dispute relating to patents covering the company's Emtriva, Truvada, and Atripla products and permitted generic entry prior to patent expiry, violates certain federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek damages, permanent injunctive relief and other relief. Gilead said, "While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages or could be subject to permanent injunctive relief awarded in favor of plaintiffs." Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987, is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The company is based in Foster City, California. GILEAD SCIENCES: Product Liability Suits Over HIV Drugs Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit related to the side effects of its HIV drugs, namely, Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild. The company had been named as a defendant in two class action lawsuits and various product liability lawsuits related to Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and Stribild. Plaintiffs allege that Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera and/or Stribild caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey and Missouri, involve more than 21,000 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. Gilead said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in these actions. While we believe these cases are without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987, is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The company is based in Foster City, California. GILEAD SCIENCES: Putative Class Suit vs Immunomedics Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Immunomedics, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit related to its Biologics License Application for Trodelvy. Immunomedics, Inc. and several of its former officers and directors have been named as defendants in putative class actions filed in 2018 and 2019. The lawsuits were consolidated in September 2019, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in November 2019. Plaintiffs allege that Immunomedics and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with Immunomedics' Biologics License Application for Trodelvy, and seek certification of a class of shareholders, damages and other relief. The consolidated lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In January 2020, Immunomedics filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which was denied in July 2020. Gilead said, "While we believe this case is without merit, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome. If plaintiffs are successful in their claims, we could be required to pay significant monetary damages." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Gilead Sciences, Inc., incorporated in Delaware on June 22, 1987, is a research-based biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. With each new discovery and investigational drug candidate, the company strives to transform and simplify care for people with life-threatening illnesses around the world. The company is based in Foster City, California. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Layne Merger-Related Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Granite Construction Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its merger with Layne Christensen Company. On June 14, 2018, the company completed the $349.8 million acquisition of Layne Christensen Company, a U.S.-based global water management, infrastructure services and drilling company in a stock-for-stock merger which was comprised of $321.0 million in Company common stock, $28.8 million in cash to settle all outstanding stock options, restricted stock awards and unvested Layne performance shares and the company assumed $191.5 million in convertible notes at fair value. On October 23, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Cruz against the Company, James H. Roberts, the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer; Laurel Krzeminski, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the then-serving Board of Directors on behalf of persons who acquired shares of Company common stock in the Company's June 2018 merger with Layne. The complaint asserts causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that the registration statement and prospectus were negligently prepared and included materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose facts required to be disclosed. On August 10, 2020, the Court sustained the company's demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. On September 16, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Granite said, "We have filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss the amended complaint. We are in the preliminary stages of the litigation and, as a result, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of the case, which we intend to defend vigorously." Granite Construction Incorporated is one of the largest diversified infrastructure companies in the United States, engaged in heavy-civil infrastructure projects including the construction of streets, roads, highways, mass transit facilities, airport infrastructure, bridges, trenchless and underground utilities, power-related facilities, water-related facilities, well drilling, utilities, tunnels, dams and other infrastructure-related projects, site preparation, mining services, and infrastructure services for residential development, energy development, commercial and industrial sites, and other facilities, as well as construction management professional services. The company had four reportable business segments: Transportation, Water, Specialty and Materials. The company is based in Watsonville, California. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ Granite Construction Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court granted the plaintiffs motion for class certification in the securities suit pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 13, 2019, a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, James H. Roberts, the company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Jigisha Desai, the company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and current Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer. An Amended Complaint was filed on February 20, 2020 that, among other things, added Laurel Krzeminski, the company's former Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant. The amended complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or entities that acquired the company's common stock between April 30, 2018 and October 24, 2019, and alleges claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Amended Complaint seeks damages based on allegations that in the Company's SEC filings the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. On May 20, 2020, the Court denied, in part, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. On January 21, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Granite said, "We are in the pretrial stages of the litigation, and we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend to defend vigorously." Granite Construction Incorporated is one of the largest diversified infrastructure companies in the United States, engaged in heavy-civil infrastructure projects including the construction of streets, roads, highways, mass transit facilities, airport infrastructure, bridges, trenchless and underground utilities, power-related facilities, water-related facilities, well drilling, utilities, tunnels, dams and other infrastructure-related projects, site preparation, mining services, and infrastructure services for residential development, energy development, commercial and industrial sites, and other facilities, as well as construction management professional services. The company had four reportable business segments: Transportation, Water, Specialty and Materials. The company is based in Watsonville, California. HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Healthcare Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative shareholder class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The initial complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between April 11, 2017 and March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the matters related to the Company's earnings per share (EPS) calculation practices. On September 17, 2019, the complaint was amended to, among other things, extend the Class Period to cover the period between April 8, 2014 and March 4, 2019, and to name additional individuals affiliated with the Company as defendants. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of the plaintiff class. Healthcare Services said, "While the Company is vigorously defending against all litigation claims asserted, this litigation—along with the ongoing SEC investigation—could result in substantial costs to the Company and a diversion of the Company's management's attention and resources, which could harm its business. In addition, the uncertainty of the pending lawsuit or potential filing of additional lawsuits could lead to more volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock price. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote. It is not currently possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings may have a material adverse effect on the Company." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976, provides management, administrative and operating services to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals located throughout the United States. The Company operates through two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services (Housekeeping), and dietary department services. The company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. IBERIA LINEAS AEREAS: Cherkashin Sues Over Flight Cancelation ------------------------------------------------------------- Pavel Cherkashin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated members of proposed classes of passengers, Plaintiff, v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana S.A., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00924, (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2021), seeks compensable economic actual, general, punitive, statutory, incidental and consequential damages for violation of the Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased international airfare transportation on February 23, 2020 from Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain to Madrid, Spain to Chicago, Illinois, USA, Chicago, scheduled to depart on February 23, 2020. Said flight was canceled due to a sand storm, leaving its passengers confined at departure area of Tenerife North Santa Cruz de Tenerife International Airport operated by Iberia Airline without access to food, refreshments and lavatories. While being estranged at Tenerife International Airport the Plaintiffs experienced open hostility and willful indifference on the part of employees of Iberia, who were not willing to provide any care and assistance to estranged passengers, and who were not advising their passengers as to particular cause, nature, extent, duration of delay of departing flights operated by Iberia Airlines. Plaintiffs also incurred compensable economic per diem, local accommodation, food and transportation expenses. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Vladimir Gorokhovsky, Esq. GOROKHOVSKY LAW OFFICE, LLC 10919 North Hedgewood Lane, Suite 2A Mequon, WI 53092 Telephone: (414)-581-1582 Email: gorlawoffice@yahoo.com IROBOT CORP: Court Dismisses Consolidated Amended Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE IROBOT CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 19-cv-12536-DJC (D. Mass.), Judge Denise J. Casper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows the Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs Carpenters Annuity Trust Fund for Northern California and Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California have filed the lawsuit upon behalf of themselves and a proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 against iRobot and its CEO Colin Angle, CFO Alison Dea, and COO Christian Cerda, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, between Sept. 13, 2017 and Oct. 22, 2019. The Plaintiffs are shareholders of iRobot Corporation, a "global consumer robot company that primarily designs and builds robot vacuum cleaners ("RVCs") and other related products that autonomously clean consumers' homes." They have brought the class action on behalf of "all persons and entities who purchased publicly traded common stock of iRobot during the Class Period and were damaged thereby." iRobot's flagship product is the Roomba, launched in 2002 and was the first RVC "to succeed commercially." Two years after its launch, in 2004, Roomba sales "surpassed one million units" and by 2016 "over 14 million, with iRobot holding 70% market share of the global RVC market at that time." At the start of the Class Period, in Sept. 2017, Roomba held an approximate 85% share of the U.S. RVC market. The Roomba accounted for 90% of iRobot's revenue during the Class Period, deeming it "by far iRobot's most important product." The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants iRobot and the Individual Defendants consistently and misleadingly reassured the market that the new competition did not threaten iRobot's market share advantage or impact iRobot's revenues and gross margins because Roombas were equipped with superior technology and features that differentiated them from the competition. They further allege that analysts "were encouraged" by the Defendant's false and misleading statements, "remaining confident of iRobot's continued dominance in the RVC market despite the increased competitive market. As the market became increasingly saturated with greater competition, the Plaintiffs allege that iRobot and the Individual Defendants had knowledge that the rising competition has begun to "significantly erode" iRobot's market share by early 2018, but failed to disclose to investors these "material, adverse competitive trends" regarding iRobot's performance. The class action was initiated on Oct. 24, 2019 in the Southern District of New York. The case was transferred to the Court. The Court consolidated related actions, appointed the Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Counsel. The Plaintiffs filed the consolidated amended complaint on April 3, 2020. The Defendants have now moved to dismiss. To state a Section 10(b)-5 claim, the Plaintiffs must plead: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission; (2) scienter, or a wrongful state of mind; (3) a connection with the purchase or sale of a security; (4) reliance; (5) economic loss; and (6) loss causation. The Defendants challenge the adequacy of the complaint as to any actionable misstatements or omissions as well as scienter. Judge Casper notes that the complaint challenges some 39 statements as materially false or misleading at the time made. These statements, she says, fall within a few categories: statements regarding consumer demand, statements regarding market share, statements regarding competition and statements of corporate optimism or opinion. She agrees with the Defendants that "at least 17 of the challenged statements are not adequately alleged to be false or misleading and thus are not actionable as a matter of law." She therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plead any material misrepresentations or omissions. Even assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs have alleged any actionable statements, Judge Casper holds that dismissal is still warranted for the failure to allege scienter. In a securities fraud case, the plaintiffs must "state with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that the defendants acted with the required state of mind. First, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently plead actionable false or misleading statements and accordingly, in the absence of such a showing, it may be difficult for the Court to find that Defendants acted with the necessary "state of mind" as to same. Second, the Individual Defendants' positions alone are not sufficient to support a strong inference of scienter. Third, although the Plaintiffs point to the Defendants' access and monitoring of Roomba market research, competition trends as well as the Reports, they also fail to allege particularized facts as to such plus factor. Fourth, while the CWs' access to some of the same Reports as Defendant Angle or other iRobot information provides some basis of knowledge about the company, absent any further indicia of scienter or any "plus factor" as mentioned above, such allegations fail to establish a strong inference of scienter. Lastly, the allegations that are made simply do not amount to a strong inference of scienter. Given absence of pleading of actionable statements and scienter, Judge Casper allows the motion to dismiss as to Count I. Finally, Count II, alleging control person liability, rises and falls with the derivative claim, Count I. Accordingly, because Count I under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 fails, so too must Count II. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Casper allows the Defendants' motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/37k4hy3z from Leagle.com. J.M. SMUCKER: Packaging of Folgers Coffee Related Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- The J. M. Smucker Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company defends nine putative class action suits related to packaging of Folgers coffee. The company is a defendant in nine pending putative class action lawsuits filed in federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, Texas, Washington, and Washington D.C. The plaintiffs in those actions assert claims arising under various state laws for false advertising, consumer protection, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and similar statutes. Their claims are premised on allegations that the company had misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from various canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those products. Similar claims have been asserted against certain retailers of the company's Folgers coffee products, and indemnity claims have been asserted by such retailers against the company. Various other potential plaintiffs have threatened to assert similar claims against the company. The J. M. Smucker Company manufactures and markets branded food and beverage products worldwide. The Company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered in Orrville, Ohio. JOHN HANCOCK: Court Denies Bid to Strike Romano's Jury Trial Demand ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ERIC ROMANO, et al., Plaintiffs v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INS. CO. (USA), Defendant, Case No. 19-21147-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, denies John Hancock's motion to strike the jury trial demand. Plaintiffs Eric Romano and Todd Romano are trustees of the Romano Law, PL 401k Plan, a Group Variable Annuity Contract. The Plan is a defined contribution plan under ERISA, which allows participating employees to invest in options made available by the plan trustees. Through their financial advisor, the Plaintiffs purchased a group variable annuity contract from John Hancock to make recordkeeping services and investments available for Plan participants. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts two claims against John Hancock relating to tax credits attendant to investments that they chose for their Plan under the Contract that "invest in stocks and securities of foreign companies." In Count I, they allege John Hancock breached the ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty by receiving and retaining "Plan Foreign Tax Credits" with respect to the International Investment Options, resulting in alleged reduction in the value of the Plan's assets. In Count II, they allege that John Hancock caused the Plan to enter into an ERISA prohibited transaction by not crediting their Plan with the value of Foreign Tax Credits. The Plaintiffs have sued on behalf of a putative class of "all trustees, sponsors and administrators of all 'employee benefit plans' under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(1), that owned variable annuity contracts from" John Hancock. Under both Count I and Count II, the Plaintiffs seek equitable relief under ERISA against John Hancock. In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege John Hancock is "liable to personally make good to the Plan any losses to the Plan resulting from each breach under 29 U.S.C. Section 502(a)(2)." Similarly, in Count II, they seek the same relief in alleging John Hancock is "liable to personally make good to the Plan any losses to the Plan resulting from these prohibited transactions under 29 U.S.C. Section 502 (a)(2)." The Plaintiffs further allege in both Count I and Count II that "pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3), the Court should award equitable relief to the Class. They also seek relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that John Hancock breached fiduciary duties and violated ERISA; a constructive trust on amounts that result from the alleged breaches; an injunction against further breaches and violations; and equitable restitution and other equitable relief. The Plaintiffs further "demand a jury trial as to all issues triable by a jury." John Hancock filed a motion to strike the jury trial demand, along with a supporting memorandum. The Plaintiffs filed a response, John Hancock filed a reply, the Court held a two-hour hearing, and the Parties filed post-hearing memoranda. Magistrate Judge Goodman denies John Hancock's motion to strike the jury trial demand. He explains that although some courts say that there is no jury trial right at all for ERISA claims, that bold proclamation sweeps too broadly. ERISA claims frequently do not permit a jury trial, but that is not always the status. Jury trials are permitted in appropriate circumstances. Determining whether there is a jury trial right in an ERISA claim requires a court to (1) compare the claim to actions brought in the courts of England before the merger of the courts of law and equity and (2) examine the remedy to see if it is legal (which favors a jury trial) or equitable (which militates against a jury trial). The second prong is the more important one, and courts sometimes conclude that a jury trial right exists even if the first element weighs against a jury trial. The Plaintiffs do in fact seek equitable relief, and they admit that they are not entitled to a jury trial for those equitable remedies. But they also seek non-equitable remedies under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, such as "actual damages paid to the Plan in the amount of any losses the Plan suffered." They are entitled to a jury trial for those under the Seventh Amendment. The mere fact that the Plaintiffs are seeking equitable remedies does not deprive them of their jury trial right for the legal remedies. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pk6z2kdc from Leagle.com. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss AMCA-Related Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to a data security incident involving Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) is pending. On May 14, 2019, AMCA, an external collection agency, notified the Company about a security incident AMCA experienced that may have involved certain personal information about some of the Company's patients (the AMCA Incident). The Company referred patient balances to AMCA only when direct collection efforts were unsuccessful. The Company's systems were not impacted by the AMCA Incident. Upon learning of the AMCA Incident, the Company promptly stopped sending new collection requests to AMCA and stopped AMCA from continuing to work on any pending collection requests from the Company. AMCA informed the Company that it appeared that an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019, and that AMCA could not rule out the possibility that personal information on AMCA's system was at risk during that time period. Information on AMCA's affected system from the Company may have included name, address, and balance information for the patient and person responsible for payment, along with the patient's phone number, date of birth, referring physician, and date of service. The Company was later informed by AMCA that health insurance information may have been included for some individuals, and because some insurance carriers utilize the Social Security Number as a subscriber identification number, the Social Security Number for some individuals may also have been affected. No ordered tests, laboratory test results, or diagnostic information from the Company were in the AMCA affected system. The Company notified individuals for whom it had a valid mailing address. For the individuals whose Social Security Number was affected, the notice included an offer to enroll in credit monitoring and identity protection services that will be provided free of charge for 24 months. Twenty-three putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company related to the AMCA Incident in various U.S. District Courts. Numerous similar lawsuits have been filed against other health care providers who used AMCA. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey. On November 15, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. On January 22, 2020, the Company filed Motions to Dismiss all claims. The consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the Company did not adequately protect its patients' data and failed to timely notify those patients of the AMCA Incident. The Complaint asserts various causes of action, including but not limited to negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and the violation of state data protection statutes. The Complaint seeks damages on behalf of a class of all affected Company customers. The Company will vigorously defend the multi-district litigation. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Consolidated Bouffard and Anderson Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend the Bouffard and Anderson actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Bermejo Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America. On May 14, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain non-exempt California-based employees were not properly compensated for driving time or properly paid wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various California Labor Code provisions and Section 17200 of the Business and Professional Code. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On June 15, 2020, the lawsuit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 16, 2020, the Company was served with a Private Attorney General Act lawsuit by the same plaintiff in Jose Bermejo v. Laboratory Corporation of America (Bermejo II), filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles Central District, alleging that certain Company practices violated California Labor Code penalty provisions related to unpaid and minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid mean and rest break premiums, untimely payment of wages following separation of employment, failure to maintain accurate pay records, and non-reimbursement of business expenses. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 28, 2020, the court issued an order staying proceedings in Bermejo II pending resolution of Bermejo I. The second lawsuit seeks to recover civil penalties and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend both lawsuits. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Davis Class Suit in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. On January 31, 2020, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Luke Davis and Julian Vargas, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that visually impaired patients are unable to use the Company's touchscreen kiosks at Company patient service centers in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar California statutes. The lawsuit seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. On March 20, 2020, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations. In August 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Davis Putative Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Court held oral arguments on December 9, 2020. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LEXMARK INT'L: A.B. to Distribute Settlement Funds in OFPRS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., PAUL A. ROOKE, DAVID REEDER, and GARY STROMQUIST, Defendants, Case No. 17cv5543 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge William H. Pauley, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order regarding distribution of settlement funds. On Jan. 7, 2021, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement, awarding attorneys' fees and expenses to the Lead Counsel, and awarding a reimbursement to the Lead Plaintiff. It then entered its Final Judgment Approving Class Action Settlement. Judge Pauley has reviewed and considered the Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Disbursement of Funds, dated March 4, 2021; and the Status Report and Declaration of Eric A. Nordskog, dated March 11, 2021, as well as the accompanying exhibits. Judge Pauley approved the Claims Administrator's and the Lead Counsel's determinations concerning the acceptance and rejection of claims. Hence, he directed the Clerk of Court is directed to pay the Settlement Fund from the CRIS account, plus any accrued interest on that amount (less a deduction from the interest income on the CRIS investment, as authorized by the Judicial Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office), to Eric Nordskog, Project Manager, A.B. Data, Ltd., 600 A.B. Data Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53217, to be deposited into a bank account established by the Claims Administrator. From the Claims Administrator's account, A.B. Data is directed to (i) distribute the amounts determined by the Claims Administrator and Lead Counsel, plus the remaining interest, to Authorized Claimants; (ii) disburse its incurred fees and expenses as Claims Administrator; and (iii) distribute attorneys' fees, expenses, and reimbursements, as determined in the Court's Jan. 7, 2021 Memorandum and Order and Final Judgment once 75% of the net settlement fund has been distributed. The Lead Counsel and A.B. Data are directed to file a status report regarding the distribution of the Settlement Fund by May 20, 2021. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at ECF No. 161. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4tvudajp from Leagle.com. MANNKIND CORP: Plaintiff Appeals Denial of Bid to Amend Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the plaintiff in the putative class action suit in Israel has taken an appeal from a court decision that denied his motion to amend his claim to the Supreme Court of Israel. Following the public announcement in January 2016 of the election by sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC to terminate a license and collaboration agreement between the Company and Sanofi and the subsequent decline in the Company's stock price, two motions were submitted to the district court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a class action against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. In November 2016, the district court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice. In the remaining action, the district court ruled in October 2017 that U.S. law will apply to this case. The plaintiff appealed this ruling, and following an oral hearing before the Supreme Court of Israel, decided to withdraw his appeal. Subsequently, in November 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the certification motion. In September 2019, the plaintiff brought a motion to amend his claim, which the court denied in January 2020. The plaintiff has appealed this denial to the Supreme Court of Israel. The Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims advanced. MannKind Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of inhaled therapeutic products for diabetes and pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. MannKind Corporation was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Westlake Village, California. MARCUS & MILLICHAP: 11th Cir. Flips Remand of Smith to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, BETTY M. SMITH, as personal representative of the estate of Shirley T. Cox, JUDITH A. BALLEW, Attorney-in-Fact of John E. Ballew, MARK F. LAPP, as personal representative of the estate of Roger J. Lapp, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. MARCUS & MILLICHAP, INCORPORATED, Defendant, MICHAEL BOKOR, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 18-14797 (11th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's Nov. 15, 2018 order remanding the case to Florida state court. Three named Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a putative class of 3,000 nursing facility residents, filed a class action complaint against Marcus & Millichap ("MMI"), a real estate brokerage firm that marketed the relevant nursing facilities, and Michael Bokor, the president of the company responsible for managing the nursing facilities' operations, in Florida state court. On Jan. 5, 2018, Shirley Cox, John Ballew, and Mark Lapp (through their estates and personal representatives), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Bokor and MMI in Florida state court. Bokor is an individual Florida citizen and MMI is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. The complaint defined the class as "persons who resided in any of the Facilities at any time during the period Jan. 5, 2014 through Jan. 5, 2018. In turn, the complaint defined the "Facilities" to include the 22 "skilled nursing facilities located throughout Florida," which MMI marketed and sold. To be eligible for admission to a skilled nursing facility in Florida, an individual must either (1) require long-term care because he cannot safely live alone in the home setting; or (2) require intensive rehabilitation before he can be safely discharged from the hospital. The Plaintiffs alleged that the facilities, including those where plaintiffs received care, improperly obtained licenses from the State of Florida by withholding critical information required by state regulations regarding their common ownership and management. They did not name the facility owners as defendants but contended that Bokor, who was the president of the company that operated the facilities and who personally submitted the facilities' license applications, "used fraud and deception" to obtain the state licenses. They further alleged that, although MMI knew the licenses were invalid, the company endeavored to market and sell the facilities. As to harm that these alleged acts caused, the complaint alleged that "all of the residents at the Facilities during the relevant times were injured by being deceived into suffering substandard levels of care on a daily basis, which placed their health and well-being in jeopardy," and that "each of the licensees of all the Facilities shielded the operators of the facilities from liability to future creditors, including Plaintiffs and the Class members." The Plaintiffs brought five claims against Bokor and MMI: aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties (Counts I & II), civil conspiracy (Count III), and claims for civil remedies for criminal practices (Counts IV & V). They also sought actual damages for the class in the amount of $900 million, as well as treble damages, expenses, attorneys' fees, and costs. The complaint estimated that the proposed class of individuals "who resided in any of the Facilities at any time during the period Jan. 5, 2014 through the date of the Complaint" exceeded 3,000 people. On Feb. 14, 2018, Bokor removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to CAFA. Two days later, MMI joined Bokor's notice of removal. Once in federal court, Bokor and MMI filed separate motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs did not respond to either motion. Instead, they moved to remand to Florida state court pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA")'s local controversy and discretionary exceptions. For either exception to apply, a certain percentage of the Plaintiff class must be citizens of the state to which the case will be remanded. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs attached 12 items to their remand motion as proof that more than two-thirds (or, in the alternative, at least one-third) of the class were Florida citizens. These documents fell into three categories: (1) data generated by federal agencies, (2) economic studies concerning nursing facility markets, and (3) population migration surveys and reports. After finding the other aspect of the exception satisfied -- namely that Bokor was a significant defendant -- the district court concluded that remand is warranted under the local controversy exception. Bokor immediately filed a motion to stay the remand order pending appeal, which the court granted. Bokor then filed a notice of appeal of the district court's remand order on Nov. 15, 2018. The Eleventh Circuit determines whether the Plaintiffs met the citizenship requirement under CAFA's local controversy exception. That exception requires a district court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when three requirements are met: (1) greater than two-thirds of the proposed plaintiff class are citizens of the state of filing; (2) at least one "significant defendant" is a citizen of the state of filing; and (3) the principal injuries were incurred in the state of filing. Bokor claims that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden as to the first two prongs of the local controversy exception and so the district court should not have remanded the case to state court. First, he claims that the Plaintiffs did not prove that at least two-thirds of the putative class were Florida citizens at the time they filed the claim in state court. Second, Bokor argues that the district court could not have found that he is a significant defendant because plaintiffs did not present any evidence that Bokor could pay the judgment if he were to lose this case. Addressing each argument in turn, the Eleventh Circuit holds that every statute has its exceptions. In the instant case, the named Plaintiffs sought remand to state court by invoking CAFA's local controversy and discretionary exceptions. Those exceptions permit remand where a certain percentage of the putative class members are citizens of the same state. To show that the proposed class met the exceptions' citizenship requirements, the Plaintiffs provided the district court with 12 documents, including economic studies, statistics, and United States Census Bureau reports. They did not produce any evidence relating directly to the putative class, such as declarations of the class members' intent to remain in Florida, property records, or tax records. In the appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considers whether these studies, surveys, and census data -- which do not directly involve the Plaintiffs in the case -- are sufficient to establish that a certain percentage of the plaintiff class are citizens of a particular state for the purposes of CAFA's local controversy and discretionary exceptions. It holds that they are not. First, the Appellate Court finds that none of the cited documents specifically addresses the citizenship (residency and intent to remain) of people admitted to Florida nursing facilities. Moreover, even assuming that the plaintiffs had put forth sufficient evidence to show that two-thirds of the class members were Florida residents, none of the generalized data submitted was sufficient to establish the class members' intent to remain in the state. Additionally, as the Plaintiffs' evidence fails to prove citizenship of any member of the class, it fails to establish more than two-thirds of the class are Florida citizens. It therefore concludes that the district court clearly erred in its determination of state citizenship necessary for remand under the local controversy exception. Because it finds that that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the local controversy exception's state citizenship requirement, however, the district court erred in remanding the matter to state court. To the extent that the district court also determined that CAFA's discretionary exception applied, the Eleventh Circuit examines this exception. As its name implies, the discretionary exception, unlike the local controversy exception, leaves the decision to remand largely up to the discretion of the district court. However, in order to exercise that discretion, the district court must find two preliminary conditions are met: (1) greater than one-third but less than two-thirds of the aggregate members are citizens of the state in which the class action was originally filed; and (2) the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the class action was originally filed. Bokor argues that neither threshold requirement was met in the case. The Eleventh Circuit agrees. First, the Plaintiffs' evidence failed to prove the citizenship of any member of the class. Thus, that same evidence failed to establish that greater than one-third of the class are Florida citizens for purposes of the discretionary exception. And second, MMI clearly is a primary defendant. Thus, to the extent that the remand order was based on the discretionary exception, the district court erred in failing to find that MMI is a primary defendant and not a Florida citizen. Based on the foregoing, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5zef9u3k from Leagle.com. MASONITE INT'L: Final OK of Settlements Set for June and July ------------------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that final Court approval hearing date for the direct purchaser settlement has been set for June 1, 2021, and the final approval hearing date for the indirect purchaser settlement has been set for July 13, 2021. On October 19, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filed against us and JELD-WEN, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, purporting to represent a class of direct purchasers of interior molded doors alleging, among other things, that defendants conspired to fix prices on, and to eliminate competition with respect to, interior molded doors. The complaint asserts violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeks treble damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. On December 11, 2018, a purported class action complaint with substantially similar allegations under various state antitrust or unfair competition laws and the Sherman Act was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, by several individuals and companies purporting to represent classes of certain indirect purchasers of interior molded doors. The complaint seeks damages (including statutory minimum, multiple, or exemplary damages, where available), reasonable attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and injunctive relief. Several other complaints with substantially similar allegations were subsequently filed in the same court by additional plaintiffs who also sought to represent purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers seeking similar damages and relief. These multiple complaints have been consolidated into two proceedings-one for direct purchasers and another for indirect purchasers-both before the same judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. On August 31, 2020, the Company, and its co-defendant JELD-WEN, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiffs representing a class of direct purchasers of interior molded and pre-hung doors included in In re: Interior Molded Doors Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, a consolidated antitrust class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As part of the direct purchaser settlement, each defendant agreed to make a payment of $28.0 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the date of preliminary Court approval. Also, on September 4, 2020, the Company and its co-defendant, JELD-WEN, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiffs representing a class of indirect purchasers of interior molded and pre-hung doors included in In re: Interior Molded Doors Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation. As part of the indirect purchaser settlement, each defendant agreed to make a payment of $9.75 million to the named plaintiffs and the settlement class in exchange for a full release of claims through the date of execution of the settlement agreement. In the settlement agreements the Company denied any wrongdoing. At a hearing held on October 8, 2020, the Court verbally advised the parties of its intent to grant preliminary approval of the settlements which under local court rules remained subject to the Court entering a written order granting formal preliminary approval. On December 10, 2020, the Court indicated it would grant formal preliminary approval subject to the parties making certain expert reports public. Thereafter the defendants and the lawyers representing the class of direct purchaser plaintiffs engaged in further negotiations regarding their settlement which resulted in the amount to be paid by each defendant being increased to $30.8 million. Both settlements have received formal preliminary Court approval and are subject to final Court approval and other conditions set forth in the respective settlement agreements. The final Court approval hearing date for the direct purchaser settlement has been set for June 1, 2021, and the final approval hearing date for the indirect purchaser settlement has been set for July 13, 2021. Masonite said, "During the year ended January 3, 2021, we recorded a legal reserve of $40.55 million in selling, general and administration expenses within the condensed consolidated statements of comprehensive income." Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MASONITE INT'L: Price Fixing Related Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit in the Federal Court of Canada relating to the alleged price-fixing involving interior molded doors. On October 2, 2020, an intended class proceeding was commenced in the Federal Court of Canada naming as defendants Masonite International Corporation, Masonite Corporation, JELD-WEN, Inc., JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. and JELD-WEN of Canada, Ltd. The intended class proceeding seeks damages, punitive damages, and other relief. The plaintiff alleges that the Masonite and JELD-WEN defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing involving interior molded doors. On January 15, 2021, the plaintiff advised that they would be filing a motion to amend the complaint seeking to replace the named representative plaintiff and to amend the alleged conspiracy period. This proceeding is at an early stage. The plaintiff will serve its certification record by March 21, 2021, and the parties will then confer to prepare a mutually agreeable timeline for the steps leading up to the plaintiff's certification motion and will update the court by way of a case conference on or before May 31, 2021. Masonite said, "We have not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because, although an adverse outcome is reasonably possible, the amount or range of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated." Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MASONITE INT'L: Stay of Price Fixing Related Suit Sought -------------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the putative class action suit related to interior molded doors price fixing, filed a motion with the court seeking to stay the proceeding. On May 19, 2020, an intended class proceeding was commenced in the Province of Québec, Canada naming as defendants Masonite Corporation, Corporation Internationale Masonite, JELD-WEN, Inc., JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. and JELD-WEN of Canada, Ltd. The intended class proceeding seeks damages, punitive damages, and other relief. The plaintiff alleges that the Masonite and JELD-WEN defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including price-fixing involving interior molded doors. On December 22, 2020, the parties filed a motion with the court seeking to stay the proceeding. Masonite International Corporation designs, manufactures, and distributes interior and exterior doors for the new construction and repair, renovation, and remodeling sectors of the residential and non-residential building construction markets worldwide. Masonite International Corporation was founded in 1925 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. MATCH GROUP: Candelore Class Suit Still Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162, is still stsyed. On May 28, 2015, a putative statewide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleged that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users age 30 and over a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. The complaint sought certification of a class of California Tinder Plus subscribers age 30 and over and damages in an unspecified amount. On December 29, 2015, in accordance with a prior ruling sustaining Tinder's demurrer, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District, Division Three) issued an opinion reversing the judgment of dismissal. On May 9, 2018, the California Supreme Court denied Tinder's petition seeking interlocutory review of the Court of Appeal's decision and the case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings. In a related development, on June 21, 2019, in a substantially similar putative class action asserting the same substantive claims and pending in federal district court in California, the court entered judgment granting final approval of a class-wide settlement, the terms of which are not material to the Company. Lisa Kim v. Tinder, Inc., No. 18-cv-3093 (Central District of California). Because the approved settlement class in Kim subsumes the proposed settlement class in Candelore, the judgment in Kim would effectively render Candelore a single-plaintiff lawsuit. Accordingly, on July 11, 2019, two objectors to the Kim settlement, represented by the plaintiff's counsel in Candelore, filed a notice of appeal from the Kim judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal occurred on January 15, 2021. On November 13, 2019, the trial court in Candelore issued an order staying the class claims in the case pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Kim appeal. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against it." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Continues to Defend Newman Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that IAC/Interactive Corp., continues to defend a derivative and class action suit entitled, David Newman et al. v. IAC/Interactive Corp. et al. On June 24, 2020, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Former Match Group and its board of directors, as well as Match Group, IAC Holdings, Inc., and Barry Diller seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the Company and directly as a result of his ownership of Former Match Group stock in relation to the separation of Former Match Group from its former majority shareholder, Match Group. David Newman et al. v. IAC/Interactive Corp. et al., C.A. No. 2020-0505-MTZ (Delaware Court of Chancery). The complaint alleges that the special committee established by Former Match Group's board of directors to negotiate with Match Group regarding the separation transaction was not sufficiently independent of control from Match Group and Mr. Diller and that Former Match Group board members failed to adequately protect Former Match Group's interest in negotiating the separation transaction, which resulted in a transaction that was unfair to Former Match Group and its shareholders. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against it." Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATCH GROUP: Crutchfield Securities Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a shareholder securities class action suit entitled, Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against Former Match Group. FTC v. Match Group, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02281-K (N.D. Tex.). On October 3, 2019, a Former Match Group shareholder filed a securities class action lawsuit in federal district court in Texas against Former Match Group, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer, on behalf of a class of acquirers of Former Match Group securities between August 6, 2019 and September 25, 2019. Phillip R. Crutchfield v. Match Group, Inc., Amanda W. Ginsberg, and Gary Swidler, No. 3:19-cv-02356-C (Northern District of Texas). Invoking the allegations in the FTC lawsuit described above, the complaint alleges (i) that defendants failed to disclose to investors that Former Match Group induced customers to buy and upgrade subscriptions using misleading advertisements, that Former Match Group made it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions, and that, as a result, Former Match Group was likely to be subject to regulatory scrutiny; (ii) that Former Match Group lacked adequate disclosure controls and procedures; and (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Former Match Group's business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Match Group said, "We believe that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will defend vigorously against them." Match Group, Inc. provides dating products worldwide. It operates a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs, and Hinge, as well as other brands. Match Group, Inc. offers its dating products through its applications and Websites in approximately 40 languages. The company was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of IAC/InterActiveCorp. MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Sues Over Denied Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Erica Heckle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Matrix Absence Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01463 (S.D. N.Y., February 18, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Matrix Absence Management is a third-party administrator of disability and leave of absence claims, partnering with its customers to administer and process disability and leave of absence claims filed by insurance plan enrollees. Its core functions include processing disability and leave of absence claims within contractual timeframes. Matrix employed Heckle to process disability and leave of absence claims. She claims to have worked over 40 hours in individual workweeks without overtime when she worked over 40 hours. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Molly A. Elkin, Esq. Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq. MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 833-8855 Fax: (202) 452-1090 Email: mae@mselaborlaw.com hdl@mselaborlaw.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214) 790-4454 Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz stacy@siegellawgroup.biz - and - Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (281) 572-0727 Facsimile: (281) 572-0728 Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com MATTEL INC: Still Defends Class Suits Over Fisher-Price Sleeper --------------------------------------------------------------- Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper. A number of putative class action lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper. In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight sleep for infants. The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 15 statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep. The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the federal courts' Multi-District Litigation program. Forty-eight additional lawsuits are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. alleging that a product defect in the Sleeper caused the fatalities of or injuries to fifty-two children. Additionally, Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or Mattel, Inc. have also received letters from lawyers purporting to represent additional plaintiffs who are threatening to assert similar claims. In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Kumar v. Bradley, et al., filed July 7, 2020) alleging breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment related to the development, marketing, and sale of the Sleeper. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's current and former officers and directors. In August 2020, the derivative action was stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, declaratory relief, and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates through North America, International, and American Girl segments. The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California. MATTEL INC: Whistleblower Related Class Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend suits, including class action suits related to the whistleblower letter and claim that the company misled the market in several of its financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. In December 2019 and January 2020, two stockholders filed separate complaints styled as class actions against Mattel, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaints rely on the results of an investigation announced by Mattel in October 2019 regarding allegations in a whistleblower letter and claim that Mattel misled the market in several of its financial statements beginning in the third quarter of 2017. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiff and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices. In addition, a stockholder has filed a derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Moher v. Kreiz, et al., filed April 9, 2020) making allegations that are substantially identical to, or are based upon, the allegations of the class action lawsuits. The defendants in the derivative action are certain of Mattel's current and former officers and directors, Mattel, Inc., and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Subsequently, a nearly identical derivative action was filed by a different stockholder against the same defendants. The second lawsuit is styled as an amended complaint and replaces a complaint making unrelated allegations in a previously filed lawsuit already pending in Delaware federal court (Lombardi v. Kreiz, et al., amended complaint filed April 16, 2020). In May 2020, the derivative actions were consolidated and stayed pending further developments in the class action lawsuits. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs and/or injunctive relief. Mattel believes that the allegations in the lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Mattel said, "A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." Mattel, Inc., a children's entertainment company, designs and produces toys and consumer products worldwide. The company operates through North America, International, and American Girl segments. The company was founded in 1945 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California. MDL 2885: TCA Must Comply With Discovery Subpoena in Earplug Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:19-md-2885 (N.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, granted the MDL Defendants' motion to compel compliance with a discovery subpoena served on non-party Top Class Actions, LLC, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The document relates to: 3M Company, et al. v. Top Class Actions, LLC, Case No. 3:20-mc-74. TCA runs a website (http://www.topclassactions.com)that provides information, among other things, about class actions, class action settlements, and class action investigations. Its website contains two categories of content for its viewers -- attorney advertising and articles or news alerts (written by TCA) concerning particular class actions (or, obviously, other mass tort cases). The "attorney advertising" on TCA's website principally consists of articles paid for by attorneys looking for potential plaintiffs or putative class members (and identified as such). TCA works with the advertising attorney to determine the content for the article(s), during which the attorney shares his or her thoughts about what information a potential plaintiff might need and his or her thoughts, opinions, and mental impressions about the content. TCA exchanges drafts of the advertisements with the attorney, and TCA holds in confidence any feedback from the attorney. Relevant in the case, TCA was engaged by attorneys to publish articles about the claims in the MDL. Each published article was accompanied by a form, viewable on the sidebar of the browser, soliciting viewers to "join a free 3M Ear Plugs class action lawsuit investigation" by providing their contact information, relevant military history, and supposed injuries. When these articles were published, and at all relevant times, TCA maintained a "Legal Notice" on its website. On Feb. 7, 2020, the MDL Defendants served a Rule 45 discovery subpoena on TCA seeking the production of various categories of documents and communications seemingly related to the litigation, including (1) all documents relating to any Claimant; (2) all documents relating to any analysis done by you or sent to you by any Person; and (3) all documents relating to the referral of any Claimant(s) to a lawyer; (4) all documents relating to marketing or advertising directed to actual or potential Claimants, or the solicitation of Claimants to join the CAE MDL or any Related Action; (5) all documents relating to agreements with any Plaintiffs' Law Firm or other lawyers regarding the CAE MDL or Related Actions; (6) all communications between you and any Plaintiffs' Law Firm or other lawyers related to the Claimants and any of their Claims; (7) all documents regarding any financial interest that any other Person, including any Plaintiffs' Law Firm, has in TCA; and (8) all documents relating to your ownership by any other Person, including any Plaintiffs' Law Firm. TCA objected to the subpoena in a written letter to the MDL Defendants, but it eventually agreed to produce select documents responsive to Request Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. TCA objected to Request Nos. 1 and 6 to the extent any responsive documents contained "confidential, attorney-client privileged, or attorney work product," to Request No. 2 to the extent any responsive documents "were prepared in anticipation of litigation of contain attorney mental impressions or opinions about the case," and to Request Nos. 7 and 8 as "intrusive and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." TCA and the MDL Defendants continued to meet-and-confer on the scope of the subpoena and TCA's objections thereto, including the detail provided in TCA's initial privilege log, which resulted in the production of additional documents. On June 9, however, TCA maintained its privilege, work product protection, and relevance objections to Request Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8,, and provided the MDL Defendants an updated privilege log of the documents being withheld. Each of the documents on TCA's privilege log is an individual email or email thread regarding the contact information for "a client," "strategy relating to pursuing MDL cases," or an attorney's "rationale," "impressions," "opinion," or "questions" about a "client" or "potential client." The MDL Defendants contend that the assertions of attorney-client privilege and work product protection stemming from a potential plaintiff's response to TCA's advertising articles are untenable4 and, thus, seek to compel production of the documents listed in TCA's privilege log. Because the party invoking the privilege bears the burden of proving its existence, and the inquiry into whether documents are subject to a privilege is a highly fact-specific one, Magistrate Judge Jones examines in turn the parties' arguments as to attorney-client privilege and work product protection. As an initial matter, the Arizona district court directed TCA and the MDL Defendants to submit supplemental briefs addressing the issue of whether TCA has standing to resist production in response to the MDL Defendants' subpoena based on assertions of attorney-client privilege or work product protection. TCA, citing the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, argues it has standing to object because it acts as a lawyer's agent, which "must invoke the privilege when doing so appears reasonably appropriate." The MDL Defendants insist that TCA does not have standing because it does not represent either the client or the attorney. Magistrate Judge Jones agrees with the MDL Defendants, and the Arizona district court, that these privileges are typically raised by the party or the party's attorney. Moreover, TCA fails to provide the Court with any controlling or persuasive authority holding that an "agent" of a party's lawyer may litigate the issue of attorney-client privilege or work product protection in opposition to a motion to compel. The Defendants point out that numerous federal courts have held to the contrary. The Magistrate Judge, however, need not resolve definitively the question of whether TCA has standing because the MDL Plaintiffs have since intervened in this discovery dispute, asserted attorney-client privilege and work product protection over the communications in issue, and adopted by incorporation TCA's arguments in support thereof. Therefore, he only addresses the merits of the MDL parties' arguments as to these objections. The MDL Plaintiffs' claim of attorney-client privilege fails because they cannot show that the information a prospective plaintiff (or "Claimant") submitted in the form accompanying TCA's advertising articles was made in confidence or treated as confidential. The Magistrate Judge holds that the information a prospective plaintiff submitted to a lawyer through TCA's website is not subject to the attorney-client privilege because it was not made in confidence or expected to be treated as confidential. TCA's website expressly disclaimed any such intentions when it warned viewers that it could not "guarantee that the information viewers submitted would not end up in" the MDL Defendants' hands. Therefore, TCA may not resist compliance with the MDL Defendants' Rule 45 subpoena based on the attorney-client privilege. Similar to the attorney-client privilege, the purpose of the work product protection "is to protect the integrity of the adversary process by allowing a lawyer to work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." The MDL Plaintiffs' claim of work product protection is fraught with peril, the Magistrate Judge finds. First, he is not persuaded that the information being withheld qualifies as work product. Second, the MDL Plaintiffs' assertion of any "common interest" exception to waiver misses the mark. In sum, the communications between TCA and advertising attorneys described above do not enjoy work product protection and must be disclosed to the MDL Defendants. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Jones granted the MDL Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery from Top Class Actions. He overruled the Objections to the MDL Defendants' Rule 45 subpoena based on attorney-client privilege and work product protection. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/k9puc8xm from Leagle.com. MGP INGREDIENTS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Sales of Aged Whiskey Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- MGP Ingredients Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation and the file is maintained under Master File No. 2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO, is pending. In 2020, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for District of Kansas, naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants, asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to pursue claims on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's Common Stock during certain specified periods. On May 28, 2020, the two lawsuits were consolidated and the Court appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust as lead plaintiff. The consolidated action is captioned In re MGP Ingredients, Inc. Securities Litigation and the file is maintained under Master File No. 2:20-cv-2090-DDCJPO. On July 22, 2020, the Retirement Trust filed a consolidated Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's forecasts of sales of aged whiskey, and that, as a result the Company's Common Stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Periods. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and unspecified equitable relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought. On September 8, 2020, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Motion has been fully briefed and remains pending. Discovery is stayed while the motion is pending. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this action. MGP Ingredients Inc. develops and produces natural grain-based products in the United States. The Company is based in Atchison, Kansas. NATIONAL SPINE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Scoma TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL SPINE AND PAIN CENTERS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, SPINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, LLC, and PAIN MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, P.L., Florida limited liability companies, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-430-JLB-MRM (M.D. Fla.), Judge John L. Badalamenti of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. Plaintiff Scoma no longer wishes to be part of the captive audience. In the latest of its many similar lawsuits, Scoma claims that Defendants National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC; Spine Center of Florida, LLC; and Pain Management Consultants of Southwest Florida, P.L., violated the so-called junk-fax provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C), by sending Scoma an unsolicited fax advertisement. Accordingly, Scoma brings a TCPA claim on behalf of itself and a putative class of its fellow captive audience members. Sometime in April 2020, Scoma received a fax with a bold header that reads, "In-Office Telemedicine Appointments for Pain Available!" The fax was apparently sent by Pain Management Consultants, P.L., but smaller text toward the bottom clarifies that this entity is an "affiliate" of National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC, and that any corresponding medical services are "provided" by Spine Center of Florida, LLC. Scoma took exception to the fax and filed a class action complaint against the Defendants for violating the TCPA. The Defendants move to dismiss because they believe their fax is not an advertisement as a matter of law, and because the TCPA's junk-fax ban violates the First Amendment. Due to the weight of the questions presented, the Court permitted not only an opposition brief by Scoma, but a reply and a sur-reply. Due to the constitutional question, the Government has intervened and filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the TCPA's junk-fax provision. The Defendants first argue that Scoma's complaint must be dismissed because the fax is not an advertisement as a matter of law. Judge Badalamenti disagrees. Viewing the facts in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences in favor of Scoma, he finds that a reasonable trier of fact may conclude that the fax is an advertisement because the language quoted above draws attention to the Defendants' in-office and telemedicine services in order to persuade "affiliated providers" to schedule appointments for "their patients who are seeking treatment of acute and chronic pain." Although the fax may not be geared toward the ultimate consumers of Defendants' services (i.e., patients), the detail is not dispositive. The Defendants offer two counterarguments: (1) the fax is not an advertisement under the reasoning of a recent FCC ruling regarding emergency communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) the fax was merely informational and does not promote the sale of any product or service. The Judge again disagrees. First, the FCC ruling that the Defendants rely on is irrelevant. Besides the junk-fax ban, the TCPA contains another provision that generally bans calls "using any automatic telephone dialing system or any artificial or prerecorded voice," unless they are "made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party." None of this information bears on the case at hand because the TCPA's junk-fax provision does not have an "emergency purposes" exception. Second, as he has already explained, after viewing the facts in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences from those facts in favor of Scoma, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the fax was intended to be an advertisement, not an informational communication. Accordingly, Scoma has done enough to state a claim capable of advancing past the pleading stage. The fax received by Scoma could be an unsolicited "advertisement" under the TCPA. The Defendants' constitutional challenge to the junk-fax ban asks the Court to thread the needle between two such categories. On one hand, content-based restrictions "are presumptively unconstitutional" and subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the restrictions be "narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests." On the other hand, restrictions on commercial speech that concerns "lawful activity" and is not "misleading" must satisfy a three-prong test: (1) the government interest must be "substantial"; (2) the regulation must "directly advance the governmental interest asserted," and (3) the regulation cannot be "more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest." The Supreme Court describes this as a form of intermediate scrutiny. Given the unaddressed issues in the parties' briefing, the Judge finds it prudent to defer deciding the constitutional issue at this time. Accordingly, he denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to reassert their constitutional argument at the summary judgment phase. If the parties wish to revisit the constitutionality of the junk-fax ban, the Judge would find it helpful to address all the issues identified above and provide the Court with any extrinsic evidence that they deem relevant to the interests served by the junk-fax ban. Based on the foregoing, Judge Badalamenti denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to their ability to re-raise their constitutional argument at the summary judgment stage. No later than March 26, 2021, the Defendants will answer Scoma's complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8hhsxftx from Leagle.com. NCL CORP: Class Suit Over Misleading COVID-19 Statements Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NCL Corporation Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action related to alleged false and misleading statements of the Company to the market and customers about COVID-19. On March 12, 2020, a class action complaint, Eric Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, Frank J. Del Rio and Mark A. Kempa, Case No. 1:20-CV-21107, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, Frank J. Del Rio, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark A. Kempa, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. Subsequently, two similar class action complaints were also filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming the same defendants. On July 31, 2020, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed by lead plaintiff's counsel. The complaint asserts claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a class of shareholders, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and allege that the Company made false and misleading statements to the market and customers about COVID-19. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our ordinary shares between February 20, 2020 and March 10, 2020. NCL said, "We believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the complaint vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom." In addition, in March 2020 the Florida Attorney General announced an investigation related to the Company's marketing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the announcement of the investigation by the Florida Attorney General, we received notifications from other attorneys general and governmental agencies that they are conducting similar investigations. The Company is cooperating with these ongoing investigations, the outcomes of which cannot be predicted at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NCL Corporation Ltd. is a global cruise company operating the Norwegian Cruise Line, Oceania Cruises and Regent Seven Seas Cruises brands. The Company is based in Miami, Florida. NVIDIA CORP: Bid to Nix Putative Securities Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative securities class action suit entitled, In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, is pending. The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit, captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended complaint asserts that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements related to channel inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018. Plaintiffs also allege that the NVIDIA executives who they named as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On June 29, 2020, NVIDIA moved to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state any claims for violations of the securities laws by NVIDIA or the individual defendants. As of September 14, 2020, the motion was fully briefed but the Court has not yet issued a decision. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NVIDIA Corporation operates as a visual computing company worldwide. It operates in two segments, GPU and Tegra Processor. The company was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. OREGON: District Court Lets Parkerson to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, WILLIAM J. PARKERSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. KATE BROWN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00214-SB (D. Or.), Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon grants Parkerson's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff Parkerson, a self-represented litigant in custody at the Two Rivers Correctional Institution ("TRCI"), filed the civil rights action on behalf of himself and six other adults in custody ("AIC"). Now before the Court are Parkerson's IFP Application, motion for appointment of counsel, motion to move on an emergency basis, and motion to defer ruling in Maney, et al. v. Brown, et al. Mr. Parkerson moves to proceed in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Beckerman's examination of the application reveals that Parkerson is unable to afford the filing fee. Accordingly, she grants Parkerson's IFP Application. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(b)(1), an individual in custody proceeding in forma pauperis is required to pay the full filing fee of $350 when funds exist. Parkerson has authorized the agency having custody of him to collect the filing fee. Accordingly, the Order assesses an initial partial filing fee of $37.20. Upon payment of the initial filing fee, Parkerson will be obligated to make monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month's income credited to his trust account. The agency having custody of Parkerson will collect and forward payments to the Clerk of Court each time the amount in Parkerson's trust account exceeds $10, until the filing fee is paid in full. To date, none of the other six named Plaintiffs have paid the required filing fee or filed an IFP application. Thus, each of the named plaintiffs in the case must either pay the filing fee, or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, to remain in the case. Parkerson's six named co-plaintiffs must either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the Order, or the Court will dismiss them from the action with leave to refile their claims in a separate civil action. Mr. Parkerson also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Although it is unclear at this stage whether Parkerson is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, the Magistrate Judge finds that Parkerson has demonstrated an ability to articulate his individual claims without the assistance of counsel. At this juncture, Parkerson's case does not present exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel, and therefore she denies Parkerson's motion for appointment of counsel. Mr. Parkerson also filed a motion "to make an emergency complaint for purposes of administrative remedies." He appears to ask the Court to waive the requirement that an AIC exhaust his administrative remedies before filing an action. The Magistrate Judge finds that it is premature to evaluate whether Parkerson has exhausted his administrative remedies, or if those remedies were available to Parkerson, because the Defendants have not yet been served, appeared, nor raised failure to exhaust as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, she denies Parkerson's Motion to Move on Emergency Complaint, with leave to address the issue of exhaustion at a later stage of the litigation. Mr. Parkerson asks the Court to defer any rulings regarding class certification in the Maney case (No. 6:20-cv-00570-SB), because certification may have a negative impact on class certification in the case. The Magistrate Judge denies the motion. She finds that the Maney litigation has been pending for several months, and has already progressed to the class certification stage. If the Court grants the motion for class certification in Maney and Parkerson is a member of a certified class, he will have the option to proceed as a member of that class action or opt out of the class action and continue to pursue his own claims. If the Court denies the motion for class certification in Maney, the denial will have no impact on Parkerson's claims in his complaint. Mr. Parkerson has also filed a motion for class certification. The Magistrate Judge defers ruling on that motion until after the Defendants are served and respond to the complaint. However, she cautions Parkerson that a pro se plaintiff may not represent other plaintiffs in litigation. In addition, it is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. This rule becomes almost absolute when, as in the case, the putative class representative is incarcerated and proceeding pro se. For the reasons she stated, Magistrate Judge Beckerman grants Parkerson's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and denies Parkerson's Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion to Move on an Emergency Basis, and Motion to Defer Ruling in Maney. The Oregon Department of Corrections will collect from Parkerson's trust account an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $37.20 and forward the funds to the Clerk of Court. ODOC will collect the balance of the filing fee and forward the funds to the Clerk of Court, in accordance with the formula set forth above, until a total of $350 has been collected and forwarded to the Court. The payments will be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to the action. The Magistrate Judge directs the Clerk of Court to send a copy of her Order to Oregon Department of Corrections, Central Trust Unit, P.O. Box 14400, Salem, Oregon 97309. Mr. Parkerson's six named co-plaintiffs must either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days of the Order, or the Court will dismiss them from the action. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xxzx2km from Leagle.com. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Approval of Proposed Allocation Plan Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the approval on plaintiff's revised motion requesting the court to approve plaintiff's proposed allocation in Riche v. Pappas, et al., is pending. Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S. Geothermal Inc. ("USG"), a number of putative shareholder class action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG and the individual members of the USG board of directors. All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018). An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing damages. On March 27, 2020, pursuant to out-of-court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action, without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties. On June 3, 2020, a comprehensive settlement package and stipulation of settlement was filed with the court for approval, and on September 16, 2020 the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement. Plaintiff's revised motion requesting the court to approve Plaintiff's proposed allocation plan was filed on October 6, 2020. The sum the Company will bear in this context is not material. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Joint Motion for Withdrawal of Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Tel Aviv District Court approved the parties' joint motion for withdrawal and dismissal of the plaintiff's July 2, 2020 motion for an Anti-Suit Injunction. On May 21, 2018, a motion to certify a class action was filed in Tel Aviv District Court against Ormat Technologies, Inc. and 11 officers and directors. The alleged class is defined as "All persons who purchased Ormat shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between August 3, 2017 and May 13, 2018". The motion alleges that the Company and other respondents violated Sections 31(a)(1) and 38C of the Israeli Securities Law, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, because they allegedly: (1) misled investors by stating in the Company's financial statements that it maintains effective internal controls over its accounting policies and procedures, even though the Company's internal controls had material weaknesses which led to erroneous accounting in its 2017 unaudited quarterly reports that had to be restated, including adjustments to the Company's net income and shareholders' equity; and (2) failed to issue an immediate report in Israel until May 16, 2018, analogous to the report that was released in the United States on May 11, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the errors in its financial reports affected its balance sheet and would be remedied in its 2017 annual report. Agreed motions were filed from time to time with, and granted by, the Tel Aviv District Court to stay the proceedings in Israel in light of the United States case (Mac Costas). On June 30, 2020, pursuant to the execution and submission of a settlement agreement to the United States court for approval, which resolves the matters raised with respect to the entire class of shareholders (whether traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange or U.S. stock exchange), the Company filed a motion informing the Tel Aviv court of the settlement. On January 4, 2021, the Tel Aviv District Court approved the parties' joint motion for withdrawal and dismissal of the plaintiff's July 2, 2020 motion for an Anti-Suit Injunction. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya, Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Costas Granted Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that settlement in the putative class action suit initiated by Mac Costas, has been granted final approval. On June 11, 2018, a putative class action filed by Mac Costas on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018 was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance on May 13, 2019. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs suffered damages. On December 6, 2019 the Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the court. On March 23, 2020, pursuant to out of court mediation, a term sheet for a proposed settlement of the action without admission of liability or wrongdoing, was signed between the parties and on June 10, 2020, a joint stipulation and motion for preliminary approval of the comprehensive executed settlement documentation was filed for the court for approval. On January 21, 2020, the Court issued its Order and Final Judgement certifying the Class, approving the method of notification of the settlement pursued, and approving the final settlement and proposed Plan of Allocation as well as the plaintiff attornies' and plaintiff's awards. The final settlement was concluded with an immaterial amount for the Company. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya, Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. OVERSTOCK.COM: Bid to Amend Complaint in Mangrove Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint in the purported securities class suit headed by The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. On September 27, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer in the United States District Court of Utah, alleging violations under Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(a), Section 20(A) of the Exchange Act. On October 8, 2019, October 17, 2019, October 31, 2019, and November 20, 2019, four similar lawsuits were filed in the same court also naming the Company and the above referenced former executives as defendants, bringing similar claims under the Exchange Act, and seeking similar relief. These cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit in December 2019. The Court appointed The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. as lead plaintiff in January 2020. In March 2020, an amended consolidated complaint was filed against the company, its president of Retail, its former chief executive officer, and its former chief financial officer. The company filed a motion to dismiss and on September 28, 2020, the court granted the company's motion and entered a judgment in its favor. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint on October 23, 2020 and filed a notice of appeal on October 26, 2020. The United States District Court of Utah granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint on January 6, 2021 and the Tenth Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal on January 8, 2021. Overstock.com said, "No estimates of the possible losses or range of losses can be made at this time. We intend to vigorously defend this consolidated action." Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Midvale, Utah. OVERSTOCK.COM: Missouri Putative Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class suit against the company in Missouri has been dismissed. On April 23, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that the company over-collected taxes on products sold into the state of Missouri. The company removed the case to United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri on May 22, 2020, and on February 9, 2021, the case against the company was dismissed. Overstock.com, Inc. operates as an online retailer in the United States and internationally. The Company was formerly known as D2-Discounts Direct and changed its name to Overstock.com, Inc. in October 1999. Overstock.com, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Midvale, Utah. PAPA JOHN'S: Court Dismisses Danker Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, Danker v. Papa John's International, Inc. et al., has been granted. On August 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or acquired stock in Papa John's through a period up to and including July 19, 2018. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The District Court appointed the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System to lead the case. An amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2019, which the Company moved to dismiss. On March 16, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint failed to state any viable cause of action. The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on April 30, 2020, which the Company moved to dismiss. The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses to the second amended complaint and intends to vigorously defend against the case. The Company has not recorded any liability related to this lawsuit as of December 27, 2020 as it does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. Subsequent to December 27, 2020, on February 3, 2021, the Company's motion to dismiss the case was granted with prejudice. Papa John's International, Inc. operates and franchises pizza delivery and carryout restaurants under the Papa John's trademark in the United States and internationally. It operates through four segments: Domestic Company-Owned Restaurants, North America Commissaries, North America Franchising, and International Operations. The company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. PDC ENERGY: Facing Royalty Owner Purported Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- PDC Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a purported class action suit initiated by a royalty owner. On January 18, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company by a royalty owner alleging the company had been improperly deducting certain post-production costs from the owner’s oil royalty payments. While the company intends to vigorously defend this suit, the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain. PDC Energy said, "Regardless of the outcome, such proceedings could have an adverse impact on us because of legal costs, diversion of management attention and other factors. In addition, the resolution of such a proceeding could result in penalties or sanctions, settlement costs and/or judgments, consent decrees or orders requiring a change in our business practices, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition." PDC Energy, Inc., an independent exploration and production company, acquires, explores for, develops, and produces crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids in the United States. The company's operations are primarily located in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado and the Delaware Basin in Texas. The company was formerly known as Petroleum Development Corporation and changed its name to PDC Energy, Inc. in June 2012. PDC Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. PFIZER INC: Class Suits Related to Zantac Underway -------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to Zantac. A number of lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer in various federal and state courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancer, or face an increased risk of developing cancer, purportedly as a result of the ingestion of Zantac. The significant majority of these cases also name other defendants that have historically manufactured and/or sold Zantac. Pfizer has not sold Zantac since 2006, and only sold an OTC version of the product. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In February 2020, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation, MDL-2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. From June to December 2020: (i) plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation filed against Pfizer and many other defendants a consolidated consumer class action complaint alleging, among other things, violations of the The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute and consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and a consolidated third-party payor class action complaint alleging violation of the RICO statute and seeking reimbursement for payments made for the prescription version of Zantac; (ii) Pfizer received service of two Canadian class action complaints naming Pfizer and other defendants, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages for personal injury and economic loss, allegedly arising from the defendants' sale of Zantac in Canada; (iii) the State of New Mexico filed a civil action against Pfizer and many other defendants, alleging various state statutory and common law claims in connection with the defendants' alleged sale of Zantac in New Mexico; and (iv) Pfizer received service of a suit filed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore naming Pfizer and other defendants alleging various claims under Maryland law. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen Antitrust Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend antitrust class suits related to EpiPen. Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. In February 2020, a similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Pfizer, King, Meridian and the Mylan entities on behalf of a purported U.S. nationwide class of direct purchaser plaintiffs who purchased EpiPen devices directly from the defendants (the 2020 Lawsuit). Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs in these actions generally allege that Pfizer's and/or its affiliates' settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Plaintiffs also filed various federal antitrust, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2011. In August 2017, all of these actions, except for the 2020 Lawsuit, were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties. In July 2020, a new lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiff represents a putative U.S. nationwide class of persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of certain refill or replacement EpiPens since 2010. Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer and Meridian misrepresented the shelf-life and expiration date of EpiPen, in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). statute. Plaintiff seeks treble damages for alleged unnecessary replacement or refill purchases of EpiPens by members of the putative class. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Lipitor-Related Antitrust Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend itself from purported class action suits over sales of Lipitor. Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain Pfizer affiliates, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy and certain Ranbaxy affiliates. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the Court of Appeals. In August 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. Also, in January 2013, the State of West Virginia filed an action in West Virginia state court against Pfizer and Ranbaxy, among others, that asserts claims and seeks relief on behalf of the State of West Virginia and residents of that state that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Suit Over Array BioPharma's NRAS Trials Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit related to Array BioPharma's NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In November 2017, two purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that Array, which the company acquired in July 2019 and is the company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain of its former officers violated federal securities laws in connection with certain disclosures made, or omitted, by Array regarding the NRAS-mutant melanoma program. In March 2018, the actions were consolidated into a single proceeding. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PFIZER INC: Wyeth Still Defends Class Suit Over Effexor XR Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Wyeth Holdings Corporation and its affiliates continue to defend a class action lawsuit related to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court's decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Pfizer Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sells healthcare products worldwide. It offers medicines and vaccines in various therapeutic areas, including internal medicine, vaccines, oncology, inflammation and immunology, and rare diseases under the Lyrica, Chantix/Champix, Eliquis, Ibrance, Sutent, Xalkori, Inlyta, Xtandi, Enbrel, Xeljanz, Eucrisa, BeneFix, Genotropin, and Refacto AF/Xyntha brands. Pfizer Inc. was founded in 1849 and is headquartered in New York, New York. PROASSURANCE CORP: Alabama Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- ProAssurance Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit related to its false and misleading statements it made regarding its Specialty Property and Casualty segment. In June 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleging that the Company made false and misleading statements regarding its Specialty Property and Casualty segment. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ProAssurance Corporation is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, and through its subsidiaries provides professional liability insurance products primarily to physicians, other healthcare providers, and healthcare facilities in the United States. It also writes medical technology and life sciences product liability, legal professional liability business, as well as workers' compensation through its Eastern subsidiary. The company markets its products through both specialized independent agents and direct marketing. For the first nine months of 2019, ProAssurance reported net earned premiums of $633.1 million and net income of $60.4 million. As of September 30, 2019, shareholders' equity was $1.6 billion. QUICKEN LOANS: 2nd Amended Winters Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Richard Winters, Jr., Plaintiff v. Quicken Loans Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00112-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz.), Judge Michael T. Liburdi of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismisses the Plaintiff's second amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to the first-to-file rule. Two lawsuits are relevant to the Order. On Nov. 12, 2019, Christian Lopez filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging Quicken Loans negligently and knowingly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b) -- Lopez v. Quicken Loans Inc., No. 2:19-CV-13340 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 12, 2019). Stephen Lawlor subsequently joined the Michigan case as a plaintiff. The Michigan plaintiffs seek to represent the following class: All persons within the United States to whom: (a) Defendant and/or a third party acting on its behalf made one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) to their cellular telephone number; (c) using the telephone system(s) used in calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone number; and (d) at any time in the period that begins four years before the date of the filing of this Complaint to trial. The Michigan plaintiffs request injunctive relief and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation. On Jan. 15, 2020, Plaintiff Winters initiated the instant action. In the SAC, Mr. Winters alleges Quicken Loans "negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted him on his cellular telephone in violation of the TCPA. Mr. Winters seeks to represent the following two classes: a. All persons within the United States who received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint; and b. All persons within the United States who received any solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had revoked any prior express consent to receive such calls prior to the calls within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. Mr. Winters requests statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 for each alleged violation. Before the Court are two motions from Quicken Loans, seeking dismissal or stay on the following grounds: failure to state a claim, the first-to-file rule, and pending litigation in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, No. 19-511 (U.S. argued Dec. 8, 2020). Mr. Winters opposes both requests. In determining whether the first-to-file rule applies, Judge Liburdi explains that the Court considers three threshold factors: (1) "chronology of the lawsuits;" (2) "similarity of the issues;" and (3) "similarity of the parties." If the rule is applicable, the Court has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss the later-filed lawsuit. Quicken Loans argues the first-to-file rule applies because the suit is "duplicative of and overlapping with the earlier-filed Michigan case. Judge Liburdi holds that each threshold factor is satisfied. The chronology factor is clearly met. Mr. Winters filed the present action after Mr. Lopez initiated the Michigan case. The second factor, similarity of issues, is also satisfied. The issues need not be identical, only substantially similar. Like Mr. Winters, the Michigan plaintiffs allege that Quicken Loans negligently and knowingly or willfully violated the TCPA by making autodialed telemarketing calls and sending automated text messages to the plaintiffs' cellular telephones. The parties dispute whether the third factor, similarity of the parties, is met. The first-to-file rule does not require exact identity of the parties," only "substantial similarity" is needed. Quicken Loans is a party to the Michigan case and the instant action. The Plaintiffs in the two cases differ. Though the proposed class periods are not identical, the difference between the class periods does not preclude application of the first-to-file rule because the "classes seek to represent at least some of the same individuals." The Judge then holds that there are no allegations of bad faith, anticipatory suit, or forum shopping. Similarly, neither party contends that the balance of convenience weighs in favor of this later-filed action. Mr. Winters argues "a stay would severely prejudice him." But that argument goes to whether a stay is the proper course of action under the first-to-file rule, not the rule's applicability. Accordingly, the Judge finds no reason to depart from the first-to-file rule. Because the first-to-file rule applies, the Judge must determine the proper course of action. Quicken Loans urges the Court to stay the matter pending the outcome of class certification in the Michigan case. Having considered the available alternatives, the Judge concludes that dismissing the action without prejudice is most efficient. Considering "the general policy favoring stays of short, or at least reasonable, duration," the Judge, in his discretion, finds that staying the case under the first-to-file rule is not the most efficient course of action available. He is mindful that "where the first-filed action presents a likelihood of dismissal, the second-filed suit should be stayed, rather than dismissed." Because the Eastern District of Michigan denied Quicken Loans' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Michigan case does not present a likelihood of dismissal. Accordingly, to maximize efficiency, the Judge will dismiss the SAC without prejudice to Mr. Winters amending to allege a proposed class or classes that are not substantially similar to the proposed class in the Michigan case. Accordingly, Judge Liburdi dismissed the SAC pursuant to the first-to-file rule without prejudice. He allowed the Plaintiff 14 days from the issuance of the Order to file a Third Amended Complaint that alleges a non-overlapping class as described. If the Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint as specified within 14 days, the Clerk of the Court will enter judgment dismissing the case as stated in the Order. The Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as moot. He also denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings without prejudice to the Defendant seeking a stay if the Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint and the Supreme Court has not resolved Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid by the time a response to any to-be-filed amended complaint is due. Finally, the Judge denied oral argument on the present motions. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3c5cv56p from Leagle.com. SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Toss Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated putative class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland remains pending. On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. ("WMS"), were named in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed. The complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present. The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways: (1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS; and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated complaint on or before November 14, 2019. Defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed on November 22, 2019. Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or before February 28, 2020; however, after the defendants filed their motions to dismiss, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified defendants that they intended to file an amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20, 2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS. Plaintiffs bring their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and depress the compensation paid to them. On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit. On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the Company. Plaintiffs' oppositions were originally due on April 24, 2020 and defendants' replies were due on May 21, 2020. However, on March 20, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Second Amended Standing Order 2020-02, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020 by 42 days. On April 10, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2020-07, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March 16, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by 84 days. On May 22, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order 2020-11, which affirmed the prior Order's 84-day extension but did not extend deadlines further. Pursuant to Standing Order 2020-07, plaintiffs' filed their omnibus opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. Defendants filed replies on August 13, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion without prejudice, finding that plaintiffs' allegations against certain defendant corporate families, including the Company, were deficient. On October 16, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. Sanderson Farms moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 18, 2020. Briefing on motions to dismiss the second amended complaint will be complete by February 25, 2021. No discovery has taken place to date. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend the class action lawsuit entitled, In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13 other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens, thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and also allege certain related state-law claims. The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer plaintiffs. The cases are part of a coordinated proceeding captioned In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended complaints. On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017, the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats, Inc. On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint, adding three additional poultry producers as defendants. On November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint. Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats, Inc. On August 6, 2020, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. The Court granted the end-user consumer plaintiffs' motion on September 22, 2020 and deemed the version of the complaint filed on August 7, 2020 operative on October 19, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint and the commercial and institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their seventh amended complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Broiler Chicken Grower Litigations Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend putative class suits related to the sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were providing services to other defendants. The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its subsidiaries and another poultry producer. The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support thereof. That motion was denied. On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 6, 2020, the Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2020, plaintiffs in the Oklahoma case moved for leave to amend their complaint. The Court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 21, 2020. The Oklahoma case is ongoing. On May 27, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the action in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the first-to-file rule. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 17, 2020, and the Company filed its reply on July 1, 2020. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. On September 11, 2020, additional named grower plaintiffs filed an identical putative class action in the District Court of Colorado against Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods, Production, and Processing Divisions, as well as the other poultry producer defendants in the Oklahoma action. On October 14, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in Oklahoma and North Carolina. Briefing on that motion was completed on December 16, 2020. On September 18, 2020, another named grower plaintiff filed another duplicate class action in the District Court of Kansas against the same defendants as the Colorado action. On October 13, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Colorado. Briefing on that motion was completed on December 15, 2020. On October 8, 2020, new named grower plaintiffs filed another duplicate class action in the Northern District of California against the same defendants as the Colorado and Kansas actions. The Company waived service of the Complaint on December 11, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the District Court of Kansas stayed proceedings in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the multi-district litigation ("MDL") consolidation motion discussed below. On November 12, 2020, the District Court of Colorado stayed proceeding in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL consolidation motion discussed below. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action moved to consolidate all of these duplicative cases into a MDL before the judge presiding over the Oklahoma case. Briefing on that motion was completed on November 6, 2020, and oral argument on the motion occurred on December 3, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the panel ordered that all actions be consolidated in the Eastern District of Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings. On February 16, 2021, the first-to-file motions in the various actions described above were denied without prejudice. Discovery in the case is underway. Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to defend these cases vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Consumer Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in the consumer class action suit in California. On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs (Daniel Lentz, Pam La Fosse, and Marybeth Norman) filed, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class action against the Company on behalf of a putative class of all individuals and businesses throughout the United States who purchased one or more of the Company's chicken products in the prior four years. The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class members purchased the Company's chicken products based on misleading representations in the Company's advertising. Specifically, the plaintiffs, in this case, allege that the Company's advertising (including, but not limited to, on its website, television commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into believing that (i) the Company's chickens were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised in a "natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chicken products do not contain antibiotic or pharmaceutical residues. Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Company "routinely" feeds antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) the Company raises its chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions amounting to "intensive confinement" and without natural light (iii) there is "extensive" reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue. The original Complaint asserted five causes of action under California and North Carolina law. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide. The plaintiffs also sought monetary damages, as well as fees and costs. On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part, denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint. On March 23, 2020, two of the three original plaintiffs (Pam La Fosse and Marybeth Norman) filed a First Amended Complaint in which they were joined by five additional named plaintiffs purporting to assert claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers and businesses who purchased the Company's chicken products in the prior four years. The core allegations and theories set forth in the First Amended Complaint are the same as in the original complaint. The First Amended Complaint asserted one cause of action under federal law and sixteen causes of action under the laws of various states. The plaintiffs again sought injunctive relief directing the Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws nationwide, as well as monetary damages, fees and costs. On May 6, 2020, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which the Court granted on July 2, 2020 with leave to amend. On July 23, 2020, plaintiffs Pam La Fosse and Sharon Manier filed a Second Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased the Company's chicken in California in the prior four years. Like the earlier iterations of the complaint, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the remaining plaintiffs and other class members purchased the Company's chicken products based on misleading representations in the Company's advertising, including for the reasons set forth in their prior complaints. The plaintiffs again seek injunctive relief, monetary damages, fees and costs. On August 6, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in part, requesting dismissal of plaintiffs' new implied warranty of merchantability claim. On August 20, 2020, plaintiffs voluntarily agreed to withdraw their new implied warranty claim. Discovery commenced in October 2020 and is ongoing. Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. We intend to defend this case vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations." Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company, produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel, Mississippi. SHERLOQ REVENUE: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Weiss FDCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IGNATZ WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHERLOQ REVENUE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, No. 19-cv-7103 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff Weiss commenced the instant putative class action against Defendant Sherloq Revenue alleging claims arising under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. ("FDCPA"). The Plaintiff, a resident of Orange County, New York, is alleged to owe a debt arising out of an unspecified transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. He does not otherwise provide any detail regarding the source of the alleged debt obligation and appears to contend that this information resides with Defendant. The Plaintiff states that he does not know when the debt was assigned to the Defendant or transferred to the Defendant for collection, and states that the debt is alleged by the Defendant to be in default. On Dec. 4, 2018, the Plaintiff received a letter, which he attached to the Complaint. The December Letter contains a prominent letterhead stating "SHERLOQ Financial" on the upper left hand portion of the document and is addressed to Ignatz Weiss. In relevant part, it states "Dear Ignatz Weiss," identifies a balance of "$193.74," identifies "Orange Regional Medical Center" as a creditor, states that "the balance of $193.74 has been placed for collection with us." The December Letter also includes multiple addresses: (1) an address that appears to be a portion of the letterhead stating 134 S. Tampa Street, Tampa, FL 33602, (2) an address reflecting a P.O. Box in Pennsylvania, and (3) an address reflecting a P.O. Box in Tampa, Florida. The December Letter also avers that it is a communication from a debt collector in an attempt to collect debt and identifies payment methods available to the debtor. On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiff received a letter which he also attached to the Complaint. The January Letter also contains a prominent letterhead stating "SHERLOQ Financial" on the upper left hand portion of the document and is also addressed to Ignatz Weiss. It also states "Dear Ignatz Weiss," identifies a balance of "$193.74," identifies the creditor as "Orange Regional Medical Center," states that "the balance of $193.74 has been placed for collection with us." The January Letter likewise contains the same three addresses identified in the December Letter, avers that it is a communication from a debt collector in an attempt to collect debt, and identifies payment methods available to the debtor. The Plaintiff alleges that the letters were sent by Defendant Sherloq Revenue. However, the December Letter and January Letter both prominently reflect that the sender is Sherloq Financial. As the Court gleaned from public records that are subject to judicial notice, Sherloq Financial and Sherloq Revenue are separately incorporated entities. The Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by (1) sending the December and January letters containing multiple addresses which overshadow the disclosure of the consumer's right to dispute the debt, right to receive verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer, right to request the name and address of the original creditor; (2) sending the December and January Letters, which are reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer due to the multiple addresses provided; (3) sending the January Letter, which is susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer due to uncertainty with respect to whether the settlement offer required payment by the Defendant before the stated deadline or receipt of payment by Defendant by the stated deadline. The Plaintiff brings the foregoing claims on behalf of himself and a purported class of "consumers to whom Defendant sent a collection letter substantially and materially similar to the Letter sent to Plaintiff." Before the Court is the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. It argues that it is wrongly named as a defendant in the action because a separate entity, Sherloq Financial, was the actual entity that sent the communications at issue in the litigation. The Plaintiff primarily responds by attacking whether or not Sherloq Revenue and Sherloq Financial should be treated as distinct entities. Though not well-developed, the Plaintiff appears to assert that Sherloq Revenue and Sherloq Financial are alter egos based on additional extrinsic evidence, i.e., he asserts that Defendant's website describes Sherloq Financial as a "collection division" of Sherloq. He further contends that he should be permitted to take discovery in order to develop record that the Sherloq Financial and Sherloq Revenue are alter egos. In addressing the issue, Judge Roman must first address whether sending a letter is a requirement to pleading a prima facie FDCPA claim. Second, he must address whether, from the four corners of the complaint, the Plaintiff plausibly alleged that Sherloq Revenue sent the subject letter to the Plaintiff. Finally, he must assess whether, if Sherloq Revenue did not send the letter, can that conduct nonetheless be imputed to it for the purposes of establishing liability under the FDCPA. Judge Roman finds that the Plaintiff alleges violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g and 1692e. The factual predicate for each of these claims is that the Defendant sent two letters which, based on purported misrepresentations or misleading communication contained therein, allegedly gives rise to liability. Accordingly, inasmuch as the Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that the Defendant sent the December or January Letter, acted jointly with the entity that did so, or is an alter ego of the entity that sent the letters, then the Plaintiff's theory of liability fails. Next, the Judge concludes that the Complaint fails to plausibly plead that Sherloq Revenue sent the at-issue letters as the Complaint clearly demonstrates that a distinctly incorporated entity sent the December Letter and January Letter and there is no allegation concerning joint action on behalf of these two distinctly incorporated entities. The Plaintiff makes no allegation in the Complaint that Sherloq Financial is a division of Sherloq Revenue and, in his opposition papers, appears to concede that Sherloq Financial and Sherloq Revenue are separately incorporated. Finally, the Judge holds that the Complaint fails to plead alter ego liability. Among other things, the Complaint does not mention Sherloq Financial, describe whether it shares overlapping management with the Defendant, detail whether they share the same corporate offices, or employ any shared services. For the first time in his opposition papers, the Plaintiff notes that there is some reason to think that Sherloq Financial and Sherloq Revenue are treated as a single entity based on statements on the Defendant's website. But this does not appear in the Complaint and is insufficient as a matter of law to plead alter ego liability. Judge Roman concludes that as the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that Sherloq Revenue either sent the letter, acted jointly with Sherloq Financial in sending the letter, or that Sherloq Financial should be treated as an alter ego of Sherloq Revenue, the Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege any claims against Sherloq Revenue, and the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted leave to Amend his Complaint with an eye towards addressing the pleading deficiencies described within 30 days. If no amendment is made by April 12, 2021, or the Plaintiff fails to move for an extension to that deadline, the Complaint will be dismissed with prejudice and the action terminated without further notice. The Clerk of the Court is kindly directed to terminate the Motion at ECF No. 13. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nuuncnr6 from Leagle.com. SIMMONS FIRST: Continues to Defend Pace Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Simmons Bank continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Susanne Pace. On January 14, 2020, Susanne Pace filed a putative class action complaint against Landmark Bank, to which Simmons Bank is a successor by merger, in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. The complaint alleges that Landmark Bank improperly charged overdraft fees where a transaction was initially authorized on sufficient funds but later settled negative due to intervening transactions. The complaint asserts a claim for breach of contract, which incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all Landmark Bank checking account customers from Missouri who were allegedly charged overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking account. Plaintiff seeks unspecified actual, statutory, and punitive damages as well as costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. SIMMONS FIRST: Walkingstick and Fort Putative Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Simmons Bank continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort. On May 22, 2019, Danny Walkingstick and Whitnye Fort filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The operative complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges overdraft fees on transactions that did not actually overdraw customers' accounts by utilizing the checking account's "available balance" to assess overdraft fees instead of the "ledger balance." Plaintiffs' claims include breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and they seek to represent a proposed class of all Simmons Bank checking account customers who were assessed an overdraft fee on a transaction that purportedly did not overdraw the account. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems proper for themselves and the putative class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. SIMMONS FIRST: Wilkins Putative Class Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- Simmons First National Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Simmons Bank continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Shunda Wilkins, Diann Graham, and David Watson. On June 29, 2020, Shunda Wilkins, Diann Graham, and David Watson filed a putative class action complaint against Simmons Bank in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The complaint alleges that Simmons Bank improperly charges multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant resubmits a rejected payment request. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all Simmons Bank checking account customers who were charged multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted payment requests. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs, attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the Court deems proper for themselves and the purported class. Simmons Bank denies the allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. Simmons First National Corporation, an Arkansas corporation organized in 1968, is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. SIX FLAGS: Bid to Nix Electrical Workers Pension Fund Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., is pending. In February 2020, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Holdings and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 2, 2020, the two cases were consolidated in an action captioned Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.), and an amended complaint was filed on March 20, 2020. On May 8, 2020, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W. were appointed as lead plaintiffs, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP was appointed as lead counsel, and McKool Smith PC was appointed as liaison counsel. On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and growth prospects, specifically with respect to the development of its Six Flags branded parks in China and the financial health of its partner, Riverside Investment Group Co. Ltd., in violation of the federal securities laws. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Holdings' publicly traded common stock during the period between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020. On August 3, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of September 16, 2020 and remains pending. Six Flags said, "We believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend this litigation vigorously. However, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit." Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Discovery Kingdom Employees' Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Magic Mountain LLC, continues to defend purported class action suits in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On September 18, 2019, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2019. On May 27, 2020, a copycat complaint was filed by the same law firm on behalf of a different named plaintiff alleging identical causes of action. The complaints allege violations of California law governing payment of wages, wage statements, and background checks, and seeks statutory damages under California law as well as under the Private Attorneys General Act, and attorneys' fees costs. Six Flags said, "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation. Since this litigation is in an early stage, the outcome is currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or range of loss cannot be made." Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Settlement in Suit vs SFNE Granted Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted preliminary approval of settlement in the wage and hour related putative class suit filed against Six Flags New England. On March 8, 2016, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint against one of the company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags New England. The complaint alleges violations of Massachusetts law governing employee overtime and rest breaks, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages for overtime and meal breaks and related penalties. On November 12, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount, and preliminary approval was granted by the court on December 3, 2020. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Magic Mountain Employees' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the purported class action suit initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain. On February 14, 2020, a complaint was filed against Magic Mountain, LLC in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Magic Mountain. The complaint alleges one cause of action for failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California labor law, and seeks all applicable statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and costs. Following mediation on January 13, 2021, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SIX FLAGS: Settlement Reached in Suit Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the purported class action suit initiated by current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On April 20, 2018, a complaint was filed against Holdings and Six Flags Concord, LLC in the Superior Court of Solano County, California, on behalf of a purported class of current and former employees of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. On June 15, 2018, an amended complaint was filed adding Park Management Corp. as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges violations of California law governing, among other things, employee overtime, meal and rest breaks, wage statements, and seeks damages in the form of unpaid wages, and related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Following mediation on November 30, 2020, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to resolve the lawsuit, for an immaterial amount. The settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, incorporated on December 9, 1997, is a regional theme park operator. The Company operates in the theme parks segment. The Company operates approximately 19 regional theme and water parks. Its parks occupy approximately 4,500 acres of land. Its parks are located in geographically diverse markets across North America. The company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas. SKECHERS USA: Settlement in Principle Reached in Wilk Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the case, Ealeen Wilk v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., have reached a settlement in principle. On September 10, 2018, Ealeen Wilk filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 5:18-cv-01921, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, including unpaid overtime, unpaid wages due upon termination and unfair business practices. The complaint seeks actual, compensatory, special and general damages; penalties and liquidated damages; restitutionary and injunctive relief; attorneys' fees and costs; and interest as permitted by law. On July 5, 2019, the court granted, in part, plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. On July 22, 2019, the parties submitted to the court an agreed upon notice to be sent to members of the collective. The parties are delaying the mailing of the Belaire-West privacy opt out notice until after mediation. The parties have agreed to an informal stay of discovery and have stipulated to continue all relevant discovery and motion deadlines accordingly. The parties reached a settlement in principle as a result of a January 27, 2020 mediation but the details of the settlement still need to be worked out and the settlement has to be documented. Skechers said, "In the event the settlement is not concluded successfully, it is too early to predict the outcome of the litigation or a reasonable range of potential losses and whether an adverse result would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position, we believe that we have meritorious defenses, vehemently deny the allegations, and intend to defend the case vigorously." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes footwear for men, women, and children; and performance footwear for men and women under the Skechers GO brand worldwide. It operates through three segments: Domestic Wholesale Sales, International Wholesale Sales, and Retail Sales. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. was founded in 1992 and is headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California. STAMPS.COM: Fact Discovery in Karinski Class Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- Stamps.com Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that fact discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828. On February 28, 2019 and March 13, 2019, two putative class action complaints were filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. One of the two putative class actions was dismissed without prejudice, and in the other case, styled as Karinski v. Stamps.com, Inc. et al, Case 2:19-cv-01828, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in August 2019, purportedly on behalf of all those who purchased, or otherwise acquired, Stamps.com common stock between May 3, 2017 and May 8, 2019, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on public disclosures that were purportedly rendered misleading based on certain uses of reseller rates. The company filed a motion to dismiss in October 2019, and its motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in January 2020. The Court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on November 9, 2020, and the company had requested that the Court of Appeals permit an appeal from that order. The parties are currently engaged in fact discovery with trial scheduled for March 2022. Stamps.com said, "We believe that the case is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. Due to the early stage of the case, neither the likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined." Stamps.com Inc. provides Internet-based mailing and shipping solutions in the United States and Europe. The company offers mailing and shipping solutions to mail and ship various mail pieces and packages through the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Stamps.com and Endicia brands. The company was formerly known as StampMaster, Inc. and changed its name to Stamps.com Inc. in December 1998. Stamps.com Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in El Segundo, California. STARWOOD HOTELS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Hart Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, enters Final Judgment in the case, EMMA HART, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC, SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-02021-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.). The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on June 17, 2019. Notice of the hearing have been duly provided in accordance with the Court's Feb. 21, 2019 Order Regarding Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement. The Court has issued its Order Regarding Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Award, and has retained jurisdiction for settlement administration. Having considered all matters submitted to the Court in the resolution and administration of the matter, Judge Selna finds that the settlement administration is now complete. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), there is no reason for further delay in entering judgment. Therefore, the Judge enters judgment according to the terms and conditions of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and General Release, whereby the Plaintiff and all the "Participating Settlement Class Members" are permanently enjoined from prosecuting the claims released therein and from initiating or continuing other proceedings regarding the "Released Claims," as defined therein. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Final Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/tsr28ppx from Leagle.com. REED E. SCHAPER -- rschaper@HKemploymentlaw.com -- KIRSTIN E. MULLER -- kmuller@HKemploymentlaw.com -- ALISON M. HAMER -- ahamer@HKemploymentlaw.com -- HIRSCHFELD KRAEMER LLP, in Santa Monica, California, Attorneys for Defendants SHERATON OPERATING CORPORATION and STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, LLC (formerly known as STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC. STELLA ORTON: N.Y. Sup. Certifies Class in Troshin Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IHOR TROSHIN and OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED WHO WERE EMPLOYED BY THE STELLA ORTON HOME CARE AGENCY, INC., Plaintiffs v. THE STELLA ORTON HOME CARE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Docket No. 159312/2016, (N.Y. Sup.), Judge Gerald Lebovits of the Supreme Court of New York County: (i) granted Troshin's motion for class certification; and (ii) denied Stella Orton's requests by letter dated Feb. 19, 2021, that the Court grants renewal of its prior decision and order denying Stella Orton's motion to compel arbitration. The case is a wage-and-hour action brought by a former home health aide, Plaintiff Troshin, on behalf of himself and a prospective class, against Troshin's former employer, Defendant Stella Orton. Named Plaintiff Troshin is a home health aide. The Defendant provides residential nursing and home health aide services. Troshin worked for Stella Orton from some time in 2004 until January 2015. In November 2016, Troshin brought the action on behalf of himself and a prospective class of other home health care employees who were employed by Stella Orton at the time of filing or who previously had been so employed during the class period. The complaint alleges, in brief, that beginning in 2010, and continuing through the time of filing, the class members had been repeatedly forced to work extremely long hours without receiving wages and benefits to which they were statutorily and contractually entitled. The Complaint asserted (i) claims for violations of various wage and overtime provisions of the Labor Law and its implementing regulations, and (ii) third-party-beneficiary claims for breach of the contract(s) between Stella Orton and various New York State and New York City agencies to pay wages consistent with the terms of the Health Care Worker Wage Parity Law and certain City ordinances. Troshin's motion papers in support of class certification amplify these allegations. Mr. Troshin now moves to certify the action as a class action under CPLR article 9 (mot seq 002). The proposed class is to consist of "all individuals who performed work on behalf of Stella Orton as non-residential home health aides and/or personal care assistants in the State of New York from Nov. 4, 2010." The motion also seeks designation of Troshin's counsel, the law firm of Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, as the Class Counsel; and approval for publication of a proposed class notice submitted by Troshin. Separately, Stella Orton has filed a letter requesting renewal of the Court's prior denial of its motion to compel arbitration, in light of a recent, related decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Stella Orton's Threshold Challenges to Class Certification A motion for class certification will be granted only if the movant satisfies the criteria of CPLR 901 and 902. Before considering whether Troshin's submissions in support of class certification meet this burden, Judge Lebovit court must consider two threshold objections raised by Stella Orton: that (i) Troshin's claims (and thus class certification) fail because the claims are subject to mandatory arbitration rather than litigation; and (ii) the claims fail to state a cause of action and thus should not be afforded class-action status. He concludes that these threshold objections are without merit. First, Troshin has conceded, and the Court has held, that the claims of home health aides or personal care assistants who were employed by Stella Orton on or after Dec. 16, 2015, are subject to mandatory arbitration. The scope of the prospective class must therefore be limited to individuals who worked for Stella Orton on or after the starting date of the proposed class period (Nov. 4, 2010), and who stopped working for Stella Orton on or before Dec. 15, 2015. But the 2015 MOA's arbitration provision does not otherwise foreclose the current class-certification motion. Second, the Judge concludes that renewal is unwarranted. The Court enjoined arbitration of the claims of Troshin (and of a subset of the proposed class) not only before the district court's decision confirming Arbitrator Scheinman's arbitrability determination, but before oral argument on the petition to confirm. The fact that Stella Orton continued to seek a district-court ruling confirming arbitrability of those claims is thus in some tension with the requirements of the Court's injunction. And to the extent the district court's decision requires arbitration of the claims (as Stella Orton now contends), that decision conflicts squarely with the Court's injunction. The Judge declines to grant Stella Orton's request for renewal, and thereby vacates the Court's injunction, in light of a district-court decision that Stella Orton sought and obtained months after the injunction had been entered. Third, Stella Orton has not persuaded the Court that Troshin's claims (and those of the prospective class) are so insubstantial as to be a sham warranting denial of Troshin's motion to certify a class. Judge Lebovitz concludes that Troshin's request for class certification should be granted. That conclusion does not entirely resolve the motion, however, he says. Troshin also seeks approval of a proposed class-action notice to be mailed to members of the class. Certain aspects of the proposed notice (particularly the scope of the class) are no longer accurate given the Judge's decision now and on the motion to enjoin arbitration. More significantly, Stella Orton has notified the Court that it objects to several (unspecified) aspects of the proposed notice. Those objections should be fully heard and addressed (either between the parties or by the Court) before any notice is approved or mailed. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Lebovitz granted the branch of Troshin's motion seeking certification of the action as a class action, but the scope of the class is limited as set forth. He denied Stella Orton's letter application to renew its motion to compel arbitration. The Judge granted the branch of Troshin's motion seeking designation of Virginia & Ambinder, LLP as the Class Counsel is granted. Finally, the Judge granted the branch of Troshin's motion seeking approval for publication of the proposed class-action notice and publication order only to the extent that the parties are directed to meet and confer on the contents of the class-action notice and publication order. He directed th parties to submit to the Court within 30 days (by e-filing and email to mhshawha@nycourts.gov) either an agreed-upon joint proposed notice and publication order (if possible), or alternative proposed notices and publication orders for the Court's selection. If the parties submit alternative proposed notices/orders, they should provide both clean and redline versions of their submissions to facilitate the Court's review of their proposals. A full-text copy of the Court's March 12, 2021 Decision + Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvy74mc8 from Leagle.com. Virginia & Ambinder LLP, in New York City (LaDonna Lusher -- llusher@vandallp.com -- Michele A. Moreno, and Joel L. Goldenberg of counsel), for the Plaintiffs. FordHarrison LLP, in New York City (Philip K. Davidoff -- pdavidoff@fordharrison.com -- and Jeffrey A. Shooman -- jshooman@fordharrison.com -- of counsel), for the Defendant. STERICYCLE INC: Settles Opt-Out Plaintiffs' Suits ------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the lawsuits initiated by the opt-plaintiffs have been concluded after the parties reached a settlement of which the company had paid. On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which was subsequently amended. As amended, the complaint purported to assert claims on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and February 21, 2018, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in the Company's public offering of depository shares on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering. The complaint purported to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Before the court had ruled on the pending motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached a settlement agreement as previously disclosed (the "Securities Class Action Settlement"). The court held a final fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it granted final approval of the Securities Class Action Settlement and took under advisement the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel from the settlement fund. Under the terms of the Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Securities Class Action Settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation. Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Securities Class Action Settlement filed lawsuits against the Company. On March 6, 2020, the Company filed motions to dismiss these actions. Before the courts had ruled on the pending motions to dismiss, the parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a mediator and reached a settlement, which is not material, and which was fully paid in December 2020. Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial businesses in the United States and internationally. Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest, Illinois. TRANS UNION LLC: Choi Sues Over Erroneous Credit Report ------------------------------------------------------- Moon Choi, on behalf of herself and all individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans Union, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00181 (E.D. Va., February 18, 2021), seeks statutory and punitive damages, as well as her attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as required by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Driver Privacy Protection Act of 1994. TransUnion is a consumer reporting agency authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia through its registered offices in Richmond, Virginia. It engages in the business of assembling, evaluating, and publishing consumer information to furnish consumer reports to third parties. Choi filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on November 13, 2009 and received a discharge on March 1, 2010. His Citibank account was one of the accounts included within the discharge. TransUnion reported that the Citibank account had become subject to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy only in 2017, with an update in 2018, such that the account would remain reported in this manner until December 2024. When Choi sought to obtain a new mortgage loan via a third-party lender, mortgage loan application was denied over a credit report provided by Trans Union. Trans Union allegedly ignored inconsistent information it received regarding consumer bankruptcy cases and deferred instead to contradictory information from its paying subscribers. Choi also alleges failure of Trans Union to properly investigate his disputes. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Tel: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Ste. 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 424-7571 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: BCBSA Settlement Granted Initial Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued its Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Order approving settlement terms. Triple-S Salud, Inc. (TSS) is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a multi-district class action litigation filed by a group of providers and subscribers on July 24, 2012 and October 1, 2012, respectively, that has since been consolidated by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, in the case captioned In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Antitrust Litigation. Essentially, provider plaintiffs allege that the exclusive service area requirements of the Primary License Agreements with the Blue Plans constitute an illegal horizontal market allocation under federal antitrust laws. As per provider plaintiffs, the quid pro quo for said "market allocation" is a horizontal price-fixing and boycott conspiracy implemented through BCBSA and whose benefits are allegedly derived through the BCBSA's BlueCard/National Accounts Program. Among the remedies sought, provider plaintiffs seek increased compensation rates and operational changes. In turn, subscriber plaintiffs allege that the alleged conspiracy to allocate markets have prevented subscribers from being offered competitive prices and resulted in higher premiums for Blue Plan subscribers. Subscribers seek damages for the amounts that the Blue Plan premiums allegedly have been artificially inflated as a result of the alleged antitrust violations. Both actions seek injunctive relief. Prior to consolidation, motions to dismiss were filed by several plans, including TSS, whose request was ultimately denied by the court without prejudice. On April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico against TSS. Said complaint, nonetheless, is believed not to preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. Since inception, the Company has joined BCBSA and other Blue Plans in vigorously contesting these claims. On April 5, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, issued its ruling on the parties' respective motions for partial summary judgment on the standard of review applicable to plaintiffs' claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and subscriber plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Blue Plan's single entity defense. After considering the "undisputed" facts (for summary judgment purposes only) and evidence currently on record in the light most favorable to defendants, the court essentially found that: (a) the combination of Exclusive Service Areas and the National Best Efforts Rule are subject to the Per Se standard of review; (b) there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' conduct can be shielded by the "single entity" defense; and (c) claims concerning the BlueCard Program and uncoupling rules are due to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason standard. On April 16, 2018 Defendants moved the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the Court's April 5, 2018 Standard of Review Ruling. On June 12, 2018 Hon. Judge Proctor agreed to grant Defendant's motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal on July 12, 2018. On December 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied Defendants' petition to appeal the District Court's Standard of Review Ruling. The parties re-commenced mediation with subscribers in April 2019 and with providers in September 2019. On July 29, 2020, the Defendants reached a settlement agreement with subscribers, which was subject to approval by the BCBSA and Member Plans boards, as well as from the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Following the BCBSA Board of Directors and Members Plans' August 14th, 2020 approval, on September 30, 2020, the Company's Board of Directors voted to approve the Settlement Agreement. On November 30, 2020, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued its Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Order approving settlement terms. The Settlement Agreement requires a monetary settlement payment from defendants. Triple-S said, "The Company's portion of the monetary settlement payment is estimated at $32,000, which was accrued during the year ended December 31, 2020 and is presented within Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities in the Consolidated Balance Sheets." Triple-S Management Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a portfolio of managed care and related products in the commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid markets in Puerto Rico, the United States. The company operates through three segments: Managed Care, Life Insurance, and Property and Casualty Insurance. Triple-S Management Corporation was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico. US OIL FUND: Bid to Dismiss Lucas Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the purported stockholder class action suit initiated by Robert Lucas remains pending. On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC (USCF), USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F. Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and move for their dismissal. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). USCB AMERICA: Wheeler Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USCB America. The case is styled as Kelly Wheeler, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USCB America, Case No. 2:21-cv-02344 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. USCB America -- https://uscbamerica.com/ -- provides revenue cycle solutions to health care systems, hospitals, physician groups, and teaching institutions across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS M. WAJDA 6167 Bristol Parkway Suite 200 Culver City, CA 90230 Phone: (310) 997-0471 Fax: (866) 286-8433 Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com VAXART INC: Bid to Dismiss Stockholder Suit in Delaware Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in the suit entitled, In re Vaxart, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, is pending. On September 8, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Chancery Court in the State of Delaware, entitled Galjour v. Floroiu, et al. On October 20, 2020, a purported shareholder derivative and class action complaint, entitled Jaquith v. Vaxart, Inc., was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints name as defendants certain of Vaxart's current and former directors, asserting claims against them for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste and seeking, among other things, an award of unspecified damages, certain equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaints also assert claims against Armistice. The complaints challenge certain stock options granted to certain of the Company's officers and directors between March 24, 2020 and June 15, 2020 and certain amendments made to two warrants held by Armistice, as disclosed on June 8, 2020. Both complaints purport to bring suit derivatively on behalf of and for the benefit of the Company, and the Jaquith complaint also purports to assert a direct claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a class of Vaxart stockholders. Both complaints name the Company as a "nominal defendant" against which no claims are asserted and no damages are sought. On October 9, 2020, all defendants moved to dismiss the Galjour complaint and to stay the action pending disposition of the Ennis action in California. On November 12, 2020, the Galjour and Jaquith actions were consolidated under the caption In re Vaxart, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and the complaint filed in the Jaquith v. Latour action was deemed the operative pleading. On January 4, 2021, all defendants filed motions to dismiss, seeking to have the case dismissed. Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its proprietary oral vaccine platform. The company's product pipeline includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus. The company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco, California. VAXART INC: Consolidated Himmelberg and Hovhannisyan Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vaxart, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated securities class action suit in California. Two substantially similar securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the first, titled Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on August 24, 2020, and the second action, titled Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc. et al. was filed on September 1, 2020. On September 17, 2020, the court issued an order that the Putative Class Actions were related and would proceed as one consolidated action. On December 9, 2020, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel and on January 29, 2021, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants certain of Vaxart's current and former executive officers and directors, and Armistice. It claims two violations of federal civil securities laws, violation of SEC Rule 10b-5, as against all defendants; violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as against all defendants except for Vaxart; and violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Armistice. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated securities laws by misstating and omitting information regarding the Company's development of a norovirus vaccine, the vaccine manufacturing capabilities of a business counterparty, as well as the Company's Operation Warp Speed ("OWS") involvement to deceive the investing public and inflate Vaxart's stock price. The consolidated amended complaint seeks to be certified as a class action for similarly situated shareholders and seek, among other things, an uncertain amount of damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Vaxart, Inc., a clinical-stage company, engages in the discovery and development of oral recombinant protein vaccines based on its proprietary oral vaccine platform. The company's product pipeline includes tablet vaccines that are designed to protect against norovirus, seasonal influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus. It is also developing therapeutic immune-oncology vaccines for cervical cancer and dysplasia caused by human papillomavirus. The company was formerly known as Vaxart Biosciences, Inc. and changed its name to Vaxart, Inc. in July 2007. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in South San Francisco, California. WESTROCK COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Westrock Coffee Company, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Westrock Coffee Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02352 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Westrock Coffee Company, LLC -- https://westrockcoffee.com/ -- provides integrated coffee, tea, and extracts. The Company offers coffee sourcing and financing, supply chain management, roasting, packaging, and distribution services to retailers, restaurants, convenience stores, commercial accounts, and hospitality customers.[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 WYNN RESORTS: Bid to Junk Ferris Putative Class Action Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Wynn Resorts Limited said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative securities class action suit initiated by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris, is pending. On February 20, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York (which was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court, District of Nevada) by John V. Ferris and Joann M. Ferris on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 28, 2014 and January 25, 2018. The complaint alleges, among other things, certain violations of federal securities laws and seeks to recover unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, costs and related expenses for the plaintiffs. On April 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted on May 27, 2020, with leave to amend. On July 1, 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which is pending decision from the court. Wynn Resorts said, "The defendants in these actions will vigorously defend against the claims pleaded against them. These actions are in preliminary stages and management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of these actions or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Wynn Resorts Limited owns and operates destination casino resorts. The company was founded in 2002 and is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. ********* 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 ***