/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 31, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 59 Headlines 3821 BROADWAY: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 5905 AHK: Panosian Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Technicians 68-444 PEREZ: Silva Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage, OT for Dancers ADIDAS AMERICA: Zarnesky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida AEQUOR HEALTHCARE: Jurado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California AGORA TURKISH: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff AGROMART & SOLLIO: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Denied ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ALPHA MART: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Monopoly of Print Trade Book Market AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Denying Job Because of Marijuana Drug Test APACHE CORP: Faces Schwege Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop APACHE CORPORATION: Klein Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline ARCHER CARE: Shaw et al. Seek Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline ATOM FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AURATE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Blain Sues Over Failure to Protect Drivers' Info AVMC LLC: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit AXOGEN INC: RSCD's 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed BANCO SANTANDER: Condemnatory Decision Momentarily Suspended BARKMAN HONEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BAY CLUB: Court Denies Scott's Bid to Intervene in EEOC Class Suit BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Burke Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs Price Fixing BELLUS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline BELLUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline BELLUS HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline BELLUS HEALTH: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline BERRY'S RELIABLE: Deducts Insurance Cost from Pay, Dixon Suit Says BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Dismisses Individual and Class Action Claims BNSF RAILWAY: Bids to Mediate and to Amend in Macias Suit Denied BRICKELL BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRITISH AIRWAYS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coronavirus Refund Lawsuit BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving CALIFORNIA: Bid to Reconsider Montecastro Class Action Status Nixed CARGURUS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms 2 Decisions in Birchmeier Suit CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in New York Over IPO CASPER SLEEP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline CATERPILLAR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Texas Hill's 1st Amended Suit CELGENE CORPORATION: BCBSM Antitrust Suit Transferred to D.N.J. CENLAR FSB: Faces Read RESPA Suit Over Failure to Respond to RFI CENTRA TECH: Investors in Cryptocurrency Scam Ask to Revive Suit CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info CHANGE-N-EFFECT: Eberhart Balks at Unreimbursed Automobile Expenses CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Chicago Educators Appeal Class-Action Suit CHOICE HOTELS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jai Sai Class Suit CLOVER HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Merger Litigation CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beyers Suit CRATEJOY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Action in Canada Underway CYTODYN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline CYTODYN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action DILLARD'S INC: Liberto Suit Removed to N.D. Florida DISNEY STORE: Vicario Files Suit in S.D. Florida DON & TOD: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions DOUBLE DOWN: Loses Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Claims in Benson DOUBLE ROBOTICS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York DPI INC: Williams Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users E. MISHAN: Nisbett Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks Unpaid Reporting Time for Route Managers ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Seresto Flea and Tick Collars ELEVATE CREDIT: Bid to Nix Suit Related to TFI Operations Pending ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Sopheary Sanh Class Action ENDEAVOR LEADS: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Wiley Suit Claims ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Albiges Putative Class Suit Pending ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation ENDO INT'L: Dismissal of Ranitidine Related Suit Under Appeal ETORO USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says EVENING EVENTS: Yong Sues Over Absconding Tips & Illegal Kickbacks EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending EVOLENT HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Ryan Suit Says FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Suit Removed to N.D. California FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Remand of Dernoshek to State Court Denied FIVEFOUR GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FLINT, MI: Rogers' Claims v. LAN & LAD in Flint Water Cases Trimmed FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California FUBOTV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline FULLY LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GC SERVICES: Blumenfeld Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Bryan Alleges GILLENWATER FLOORING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GOOGLE LLC: Conspires With Social Casino App Makers, Andrews Claims GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit as Conspirator With Slot Machine Makers GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit in California Ongoing GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Charging Commissions on Orders HELIX ENERGY: Paul Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Suit Still Stayed HP INC: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit With Leave to Amend HUMAN BEES: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. HURRICANE GROUP: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HYPER STRUCTURE: Underpays Construction Workers, Castro et al. Say INFINITY Q: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline INSPIRE UPLIFT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Facing GameStop-Related Class Suits INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff Bid for Class Status Due August 16 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Putative Class Suit in California JHW SERVICES: Underpays Safety Managers, Girling Suit Claims JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth LEIDOS HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline LIBERTY BROADBAND: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Fund Suit LIBERTY MEDIA: 9th Cir. Stays Flo & Eddie Class Suit LIFESPIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckles Suit Alleges LLOYD JONES: Ramirez Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Maintenance Staff LOMPOC, CA: Trial Date Approved in Prison COVID-19 Class Lawsuit LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline LYONS DOUGHTY: Seo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey M & J TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MASTERCARD INC: Court Will Decide if Class Action Moves Forward MASTERCARD INC: Resists Compound Interest on $19BB UK Class Action MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Georgia Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Tenn. Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing MDL 2921: Court Narrows Claims in Allergan BIOCELL Implants Suit MEISNER'S GOURMET: Palacios et al. Seek Proper OT and Minimum Wages MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Underpays Production Employees, Solis Claims MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies McGinnis' Bid to Strike Offer MIRAJ COMMUNICATIONS: Rasheed Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MISSISSIPPI: Supplemental Bid for Injunctive Relief in Amos Denied MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Salim Suit MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Reed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls MOWI ASA: Faces Farmed Salmon Price-Fixing Class-Action Lawsuit NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in BCERF Suit Set for April 7 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Goode Files Suit in M.D. Georgia NAVIENT CORP: Discovery in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit Ongoing NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline NEW HAMPSHIRE: Twyman Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California NEW YORK CITY: Miller Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Underway OAK VIEW GROUP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York OHIO: Dismissal of Entire Claims in Jones v. ODRC in Recommended ONTRAK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ONTRAK INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California PACIFIC TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bid to Dismiss/Strike McClellan FDCPA Suit Nixed PERSONAL TOUCH: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit PLUG POWER: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline RANGE RESOURCES: Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline REAL WATER: Milberg Coleman Files Lawsuit Over Defective Product RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Nix Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 3 Deadline REPRO MED: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit REPRO MED: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Granted Final Approval RIO TINTO: Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Mine Expansion Escalates ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions ROBO CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Shop Staff, Amaya Suit Says ROOT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 18 Deadline SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Montoya SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Conti Suit Over Housing Market Manipulation SANDHU PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Time to Appeal Judgment in Anderson Passed SENIOR RIDE: Paramedics Sue Time-Shaving & Rounding Violations SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline SERENE TEFFAHA: Under Investigation by Board Over COVID Lockdown SONY ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective a7 III Camera Shutters SQUARE GROVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STAKE CENTER: Walker Files FLSA Suit in Utah STANDARD CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUPER7 RETAIL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TAFFY TOWN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Holbrook Class Suit TEXAS: Appeals Court Panel Rejects Inmates' COVID-19 Lawsuit THANG HOLT: Sundermann Sues Over Unsolicited ATDS-Generated Calls TICKETSONSALE.COM LLC: Shankula Sues Over Denied Refund Request TRACE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Gouldie Suit Claims TRICIDA INC: Facing Pardi Putative Class Suit in California TS TECH USA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages UKG INC: W.D. Washington Denies Bid to Dismiss/Transfer REI Suit ULTA BEAUTY: Katavitch Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania UNISEA INC: Ohring Seeks Seafood Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discusses Class Suit Settlement USG CORP: Stockholder's Bid to File 2nd Amended Class Suit Denied VELODYNE LIDAR: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline VROOM INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline VROOM INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline VROOM INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline VROOM INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline W.P. PRODUCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WAKE COUNTY, NC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gorrell Suit Claims WAKPAMNI LAKE: Marquez Files Suit in S.D. California WAL-MART STORES: $2.9MM Class Settlement in Neal Suit Wins Final OK WALDEN LOCAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WATERMAN VENTURES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WATFORD HOLDINGS: Facing Canh Putative Class Suit in New York WELCOME SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Orantes Affirmed WILLIAM E. NEWMAN: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WINE.COM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York WORKHORSE GROUP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Partially Stays Yeomans' Amended Complaint YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California ZUM SERVICES: Order Allowing Arbitration in Contreras Suit Flipped ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit ZYNGA INC: Bid for Initial Arbitration in Chaudhri Suit Granted ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit ZYNGA INC: Court Grants Initial Arbitration in Johnson Class Suit ZYNGA INC: Court OK's Initial Arbitration in Martinez Class Suit [*] Poultry Companies to Pay $104MM to Settle Class Action Lawsuit ********* 3821 BROADWAY: Gonzalez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- MANUEL GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff v. 3821 BROADWAY CAFE, LLC d/b/a HILLTOP PARK ALEHOUSE, TARA WHOLLEY and LEIGH CORCORAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02243 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on or around May 15, 2021 to work as a cook for the Defendants' Hilltop Park Alehouse until his employment with the Defendants was terminated on October 15, 2020. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendants, he was only paid at a straight time hourly rate of $18.00 per hour despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants willfully failed to pay him his lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover, the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with wage notices and with proper wage statements at all relevant times, the suit says. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees respectfully requesting that the Court grant a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the Defendants and their officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives and any and all persons acting in concert with them as provided by law, as well as an award of unpaid overtime compensation, spread of hours penalties, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses of the litigation, together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems juts and proper. 3821 Broadway Cafe, LLC d/b/a Hilltop Park Alehouse operates a restaurant. The Individuals Defendants are the owners and principals of the restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 5905 AHK: Panosian Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Auto Technicians -------------------------------------------------------------- JORA PANOSIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 5905 AHK, LLC, KEYES MOTORS, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21VECV00401 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a technician on or about April 21, 2014 until on or about March 30, 2020. 5905 AHK, LLC is an automobile dealer based in California. Keyes Motors, Inc. is an automobile dealer based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. Kevin Crough, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com kevin@hbklawyers.com 68-444 PEREZ: Silva Seeks to Recover Minimum Wage, OT for Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARLENE SILVA, an individual; MIKAYLA BELLAMY, an individual; and CHELLSEE LLOYD, an individual v. 68-444 PEREZ, INC. dba SHOWGIRLS, a California Corporation; ABDUL WAHAB SHAWKAT, an individual; SAHAR SHAWKAT, an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00397 (C.D. Calif. March 4, 2021) alleges causes of action against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips. As a result of the Defendants' alleged violations, the Plaintiffs seek to recover all tips kept by the Defendants and their employees, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiffs contend that during their time being employed by Defendants, they were denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify them and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq. Alejandro Marin, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com jesenia@kristensenlaw.com alejandro@kristensenlaw.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, Texas 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com ADIDAS AMERICA: Zarnesky Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Claudia Zarnesky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adidas America, Inc., Case No. 2021-30201-CICI was removed from the Volusia County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 25, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:21-cv-00540-GAP-GJK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. Adidas America Inc. -- https://www.adidas.com/us -- designs and markets apparel products. The Company provides shoes, apparel, and accessories for men, women, boys, girls, and infants and toddlers, as well as offers sports collections including basketball, football, and training shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Johanna Elizabeth Sheehe, Esq. SHEEHE & ASSOCIATES, PA 9830 Southwest 77th Avenue, Suite 215 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 379-3515 Fax: (305) 379-5404 Email: jsheehe@sheeheandassociates.com - and - Phillip J. Sheehe, Esq. SHEEHE & ASSOCIATES, PA One Biscayne Tower 2 S Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2650 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 379-3515 Fax: (305) 379-5404 Email: psheehe@sheeheandassociates.com AEQUOR HEALTHCARE: Jurado Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled YOXY JURADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AEQUOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, AEQUOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., THERAPY STAFF, LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV06001, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 25, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02633 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay off-the-clock work, failure to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods or provide premium in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, failure to pay reporting wages, failure to pay final wages owed upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide complete or accurate wage statements, and failure to keep complete or accurate payroll records. Aequor Healthcare Services, LLC is a healthcare services provider headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey. Aequor Healthcare Services, Inc. is a healthcare services provider headquartered in Piscataway, New Jersey. Therapy Staff, LLC is a therapist recruiting and staffing company doing business in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michael G. King, Esq. Thomas H. Case, Esq. HENNELLY & GROSSFELD LLP 4640 Admiralty Way, Suite 850 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (310) 305-2100 Facsimile: (310) 305-2116 E-mail: mking@hgla.com tcase@hgla.com AGORA TURKISH: Franco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ENEDINO BASURTO FRANCO, HUMBERTO GALINDO OLIVERA, WILVER BASURTO FRANCO, and FIDEL GASPAR AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AGORA TURKISH RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A AGORA), MUSTAFA SELCUK OZEN A.K.A. SERCHU A.K.A. CACHANDO, and SEMA OZASLAN OZEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02544 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, failure to maintain recordkeeping, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, unlawful tip deductions, and failure to pay wages on a timely basis. The Plaintiffs were employed as dishwashers, delivery workers, food preparers and a cook at the Agora restaurant located at 1565 2nd Ave., New York, New York at any time between 2014 and 2020. Agora Turkish Restaurant Inc., doing business as Agora, is a company that owns and operates a Turkish restaurant located at 1565 2nd Ave., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 AGROMART & SOLLIO: Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Sollio Agriculture L.P. ("Sollio") and Agronomy Company of Canada ("Agromart") following a cyber-attack on or about May 27, 2020 (the "Breach"). The claim is brought on behalf of residents of Canada whose personal information was collected and stored on the defendants' computer systems, and that was compromised or accessed in the Breach. Following the breach, the bank accounts of the plaintiff were compromised. The claim alleges that hackers were able to penetrate Agromart and Sollio's computer systems because their cyber security systems were substandard. The hackers then extracted the confidential and sensitive personal information of thousands of Canadian farmers, and made it accessible to malevolent actors on the deep or dark web. The claim alleges that the amount of personal information that the defendants acquired from their customers, and then carelessly stored, exceeds the amount of information that was reasonably necessary for their operations. The claim alleges that Sollio and Agromart were negligent, invaded the proposed class members' privacy, and breached various statutory duties, all of which lead to the Breach. As a result of the Breach, the claim alleges that the class members' personal information has been compromised and that they have suffered damages. This class action seeks to obtain compensation for the losses the proposed class members have suffered from the Breach. The proposed class is represented by Foreman & Company Professional Corporation and Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation. Although there is no action required at this time from proposed class members, anyone seeking more information, or who wishes to receive direct updates or any court-approved notices can request to be added to a list of potential claimants by emailing classactions@foremancompany.com. Contacts: Jonathan Foreman, Foreman & Company Professional Corporation 519-914-1175 jforeman@foremancompany.com Margaret Waddell, Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation 1-800-430-3107 marg@waddellphillips.ca [GN] ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez's Bid for Prelim. Injunction Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in the lawsuit styled DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07423-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Gregory J. Ahern is the Alameda County Sheriff-Coroner in California. In the putative class action, the Plaintiffs--current and former inmates of Santa Rita Jail--bring numerous Section 1983 conditions of confinement claims against Alameda County, Wellpath Management, Inc., and Aramark Correctional Services LLC. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction seeking redress regarding the prison's allegedly inadequate and unsanitary food is now pending before the Court. Alameda County contracts with Aramark to provide food services at the Jail and other jail facilities (Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")). The kitchen at the Jail is staffed primarily by prisoners that work under the supervision of Aramark. In recent years, Alameda County and Aramark have overseen a prisoner food budget reduction of 25%--$1.65 million. These budget reductions have had a devastating effect on the quality and quantity of food at the prison. Additionally, kitchen workers are not consistently tested for communicable diseases prior to beginning work in the kitchen. The Plaintiffs challenge the poor kitchen sanitation and food contamination at the Jail. They allege that there are numerous other instances where prisoners have found dead animals, foreign objects, or animal droppings in their food. They also allege that grievances regarding food issues have been denied and the Defendants have not changed their procedures or improved sanitation practices. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that Alameda County and Aramark were placed on notice of the rat infestation and food sanitation issues because the female prisoners at the Jail filed a lawsuit that mirrors many of their claims, Mohrbacher, et al. v. Alameda County Sheriff's Office, et al., 3:18-00050JD (filed January 4, 2018). On August 26, 2020, there was an inspection of the kitchen, but the Plaintiffs say the prison officials purposefully steered inspectors away from the scullery and the kitchen sanitation procedures were not appropriately inspected. The Defendants have allegedly failed to fix, correct, or take affirmative action to remedy the problem of animals in the kitchen. The Plaintiffs initially filed the putative class action on November 12, 2019, but did not serve the Defendants until after filing their amended complaint on May 7, 2020. On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, they filed a motion for a temporary restraining order that the Court subsequently denied. While the motion for a temporary restraining order was pending, the County Defendants, Wellpath, and Aramark each filed separate motions to dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part. The Court denied the motion as to the Defendants' exhaustion argument but found that the Plaintiffs had failed to adequately allege their myriad constitutional claims challenging 20 separate conditions of confinement at the Jail. The Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend (except with respect to their Fifth Amendment claim). The Plaintiffs, thereafter, filed a second amended complaint repleading all of their conditions of confinement claims (except for the Fifth Amendment claim) and the Defendants again moved to dismiss. While the motion to dismiss was pending, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Alameda County and Aramark regarding the food issues at the Jail. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court requires the Defendants to: (1) Implement and maintain a jail kitchen that is constructed, equipped and operated in a clean and sanitary manner and is free of animals, birds, rodents, insects and vermin; (2) All dishware and trays will have residual food scrapped off, washed, rinsed and sanitized per California Code and no dishware and tray will be reused unless said dishware and tray is free of food residue and has been washed, rinsed and sanitized; (3) Institute procedures and quality control processes to ensure that all food served is edible, including: a. No spoiled food; b. No food with foreign objects--particularly non-food objects; c. No food which has been contaminated by animals, birds, rodents, insects and vermin; and d. All food is properly handled, refrigerated and heated, without excessive heating; (4) Quality controls are implemented to insure that trays meet portion size and has all items called for in the menu; (5) Food production adheres to menus; and (6) Special diet needs are met. The motion for preliminary injunction is now fully briefed and Alameda County has raised an objection to the Plaintiffs' reply. Two days after the preliminary injunction motion was filed, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. As relevant in the matter, the motion was denied as to the Plaintiffs' claims regarding the unsanitary and contaminated condition of the food, but was granted as to complaints about the food's nutritional content with leave to amend. The Plaintiffs filed the now operative Third-Amended Complaint after the motion for a preliminary injunction was fully briefed. They did not plead any new food-related claims, including any claims about the food's nutritional content. As a threshold matter, the County argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Under the PLRA, "no action will be brought with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." The Plaintiffs' TAC alleges that prisoners have attempted, but were thwarted, from exhausting their claims regarding the food sanitation issues, and provides specific examples where the Defendants failed to accept grievances, respond to grievances, and properly document issues raised by prisoners. Given the Plaintiffs' allegations that they attempted to exhaust, but were thwarted, and the County's failure to identify administrative remedies that the prisoners did not exhaust, the County has not met its burden of demonstrating that the Plaintiffs' claims are barred for failure to exhaust under the PLRA, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley opines. The Plaintiffs' motion raises three primary concerns: inadequate kitchen cleanliness, contaminated food, and food that lacks sufficient nutritional value. Judge Corley notes that there is no dispute that the County--not Aramark--is the party responsible for kitchen pest control. The County offers evidence that it has taken numerous steps to ensure that the kitchen remains free of vermin and outside animals. In August 2020, the kitchen and bakery passed its Environmental Health Inspection. The County Department of Environmental Health verified that the Jail has a pest control service, and the facility was overall clean and well run--it passed inspection without further remedy required. In light of the County's evidence, Judge Corley finds that the Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood to succeed on the merits. While there clearly was a pest problem, at a minimum, under prong three of the deliberate indifference standard and on this record the Court cannot conclude that the Defendants have not put sufficient measures in place. Indeed, in light of these measures, at oral argument the Plaintiffs confirmed that they have narrowed the preliminary injunctive relief they seek on this issue to construction of a solid door to the kitchen. Given that the Jail kitchen passed inspection, and the record evidence, the Court cannot conclude that the Jail door violates state law. As with the vermin/pest issue, given the state of record the Court does not find that Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that Aramark's handling of food trays cleanliness is constitutionally deficient. The County has also responded that it has instituted several policies and procedures to ensure that the food service meets all the required health and safety regulations. Given the procedures that Aramark and the County have put in place, the Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to their health and safety needs because of food contamination at the Jail, Judge Corley holds. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of constitutional harm due to the inadequate nutritional value of the food, but granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend to the extent that the Plaintiffs can allege specific facts suggesting that the nutritional content of the food is constitutionally deficient. The Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint to allege that the nutritional content of the prison's food was constitutionally deficient. Furthermore, at oral argument, the Plaintiffs confirmed that they were no longer seeking a preliminary injunction on this ground. Given the Defendants' evidence--which has not been tested through discovery--the Plaintiffs have not satisfied all of the elements of the deliberate indifference test required by the Fourteenth Amendment on any of their claims; therefore, the Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and have not raised "serious questions" about their success on the merits, Judge Corley opines. Shortly after oral argument on the preliminary injunction motion, the Plaintiffs filed a request for an evidentiary hearing. The Court agrees that resolution of the issues raised by the motion will require resolution of disputes of fact; however, such disputes cannot be adequately resolved without the benefit of discovery and testing of each party's evidence. Further, it may be a circumstance where consolidation of a preliminary injunction motion with a trial on the merits is required. As discussed at oral argument, written discovery can commence on claims that survived the motion to dismiss, as well as any agreed-to inspections of the premises. For the reasons explained in the Order, the motions for a preliminary injunction and an evidentiary hearing are denied. The Order disposes of Docket Nos. 71, 92, 94. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2veestwt from Leagle.com. ALLEN GWYNN: Faces Estrada Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLEN GWYNN CHEVROLET, INC., STEVE W. BACON, JAMES V. BACON SR., NANCY REYNOLDS, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11667 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, breach of contract, and failure to provide pay and personnel records. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Internet manager. Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc. is a Chevrolet dealer based in Glendale, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com ALPHA MART: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Mart Holdings LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpha Mart Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02595 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Alpha Mart -- https://www.alphamarts.com/ -- is an online shopping store for camping, outdoor, patio, home and kitchen and other products.[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 AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Monopoly of Print Trade Book Market ------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOKENDS & BEGINNINGS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; HACHETTE BOOK GROUP, INC.; HARPERCOLLINS PUBLISHERS L.L.C.; MACMILLAN PUBLISHING GROUP, LLC; PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE LLC; SIMON & SCHUSTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02584 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly restrain competition in the sale of print trade books through highly restrictive most favored nation clauses (MFNs) in their distribution agreements. These anticompetitive provisions ensure that no rival bookseller can differentiate itself from, or otherwise compete with, Amazon on price or product availability in the sale of print trade books. The anticompetitive MFNs allegedly allow the Defendants to fix wholesale prices, create a barrier to market entry for new competitors, and hinder the expansion of existing competitors in the retail market for the sale of print trade books. Bookends & Beginnings LLC is a company that operates a bookstore in Evanston, Illinois. Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retailer with its principal headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Hachette Book Group, Inc. is a trade publisher with its principal place of business in New York, New York. HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. is a trade publisher with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Macmillan Publishing Group, LLC is a trade publisher with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Penguin Random House LLC is a trade publisher with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Simon & Schuster, Inc. is a trade publisher with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel Tarnor, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 322 8th Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 752-5455 Facsimile: (917) 210-3980 E-mail: Nathant@hbsslaw.com - and – Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com - and – Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. Paul E. Slater, Esq. Alberto Rodriguez, Esq. Jeffery Bergman, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: ekelly@sperling-law.com jvanek@sperling-law.com pes@sperling-law.com arodriguez@sperling-law.com jbergman@sperling-law.com AMAZON.COM INC: Sued for Denying Job Because of Marijuana Drug Test ------------------------------------------------------------------- pre-employ.com reports that a resident of New York City is suing Amazon for allegedly rescinding a job offer due to testing positive for marijuana on a drug test. The person filing the lawsuit claims that he was offered a position as a package sorter in November 2020 and rejected due to a positive drug test. According to the lawsuit, the employee took a drug test as a condition of employment with Amazon. After completing the test, he was not contacted back for a month until he called them and was told he had tested positive for marijuana, and as a result, they were no longer interested in hiring him. The lawsuit was filed with the Brooklyn Federal Court claiming that Amazon had violated the New York City Human Rights Law. This law forbids employers from conducting pre-employment drug testing, except under exceptional cases such as when employees will operate heavy machinery. The applicant's lawyer claims that Amazon has rejected more than 100 prospective employees due to their testing policies. As a result, he has filed the lawsuit as a possible class action. [GN] APACHE CORP: Faces Schwege Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN SCHWEGEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. APACHE CORPORATION, JOHN J. CHRISTMANN IV, TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN, STEPHEN J. RINEY, and STEVEN KEENAN, Case No. 4:21-cv-00722 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) is a federal securities class action against Apache and certain of its officers for violations of the federal securities laws alleging that Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Apache common stock from September 7, 2016 through March 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations and financial health, including the viability and profitability of a purported large oil-and-gas resource play in the Permian Basin called Alpine High. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High. On April 23, 2019, before financial markets opened, Apache announced that it had begun a "[t]emporary" deferral of natural gas production at Alpine High. In response to this news, Apache's stock price fell $4.03 per share, or nearly 11% over the next four trading days, from a close of $37.09 per share on April 22, 2019, to close at $33.06 per share on April 26, 2019. Then, on October 25, 2019, Apache's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Exploration, Steven Keenan, abruptly resigned from the Company. In response to this announcement, Apache's stock price dropped $1.16 per share, or approximately 5%, from a close of $23.23 per share on October 24, 2019, to close at $22.07 per share on October 25, 2019. Apache's stock traded as low as $20.57 per share on October 25, 2019, an intra-day drop of approximately 11.5%, prompting Bloomberg to issue a story titled "Apache Executive's Departure Sparks Worst Rout Since 2016." A few months later, on February 26, 2020, after the close of the markets, Apache announced that it was completely de-valuing Alpine High after taking a $3 billion write down on the project. Two weeks later, on March 12, 2020, Apache announced that it had slashed its quarterly dividend by 90% (from $0.25 per share to just $0.025 per share) and was significantly reducing planned capital expenditures for the rest of 2020. On this news, the price of Apache common stock fell $0.49 per share, or approximately 6%, from a close of $8.25 per share on March 11, 2020, to close at $7.76 per share on March 12, 2020, added the suit. A few days later, on March 16, 2020, Seeking Alpha published an article pre-market noting that Apache was particularly challenged amongst its peers, carrying "the highest debt-to-equity ratio among large-cap independent [exploration and production companies]," and that "[t]he company doesn't have a strong balance sheet" and its "financial health isn't great." The article observed that low gas prices had "forced Apache to shift capital away from the wet-gas rich Alpine High play which has been driving the company's production growth." The article noted that "Apache also reduced Alpine High's value by $1.4 billion." In response to this news and other investment research downgrades, Apache's stock price fell $3.61 per share, or approximately 45%, over two trading days, from a close of $8.07 per share on Friday, March 13, 2020, to close at $4.46 per share on March 17, 2020. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions and the decline in the Company's share price, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered significant damages.[BN] The Plaintiff purchased Apache common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and misleading statements and/or material omissions. Apache is an independent energy company that explores for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas liquids. Apache currently has exploration and production operations in three geographic areas: the U.S., Egypt, and offshore United Kingdom in the North Sea, and is developing a purported new find in offshore Suriname. Historically, the U.S. has represented nearly 60% of the Company's production and 70% of its estimated year-end proved reserves. At all relevant times, one of the Company's purported key "core growth areas" was the Permian region in West Texas and New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Fl. New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com APACHE CORPORATION: Klein Law Reminds of April 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: September 7, 2016 and March 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in APA: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/apache-corporation-loss-submission-form?id=14183&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Apache Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (ii) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (iii) these misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the Permian Basin; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders have until April 26, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the APA lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 30, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Aquestive securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aquestive class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) data included in the Libervant Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters ("Libervant") New Drug Application ("NDA") submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (2) the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Aquestive class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ARCHER CARE: Shaw et al. Seek Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- TINA SHAW and BRANDY NICOLE DAY, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARCHER CARE HOMES, L.L.C., and SHARON ARCHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00221 (M.D. Tenn., March 15, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime compensation in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as caregivers, alleges that the Defendants denied them and other similarly situated caregivers of overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, they were only paid straight time up to 40 hours of work using ACH's payroll account, and even deducted taxes on these payments. For the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, they were paid separately using a different ACH account, and no taxes withheld from these payments, says the suit. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants have violated the provisions of Section 7 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and 215(a)(2), by not paying its workers' overtime. On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated caregivers, the Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, litigations costs, reasonable attorney' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Archer Care Homes, L.L.C. is a provider established in Lebanon, Tennessee specializing in residential treatment facility, mental retardation and/or development disabilities. Sharon Archer was an owner, manager and/or executive officer of ACH. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rachel Rustman, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: rrustman@mybackwages.com - and – Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Tel: (225) 925-5297 Fax: (225) 231-7000 E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com ASTRAZENECA PLC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of March 29 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AstraZeneca PLC ("AstraZeneca" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: AZN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired AstraZeneca securities between May 21, 2020 and November 20, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/azn. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose to investors that: (1) initial clinical trials for AZD1222, the Company's coronavirus vaccine hopeful, had suffered from a critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (2) clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (3) certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled to be delivered according to the original trial design; (4) AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the drug; (5) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory authorities and the general public; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the clinical trials was of limited utility; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest potential markets for the drug. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/azn or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in AstraZeneca you have until March 29, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz 212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN] ATOM FINANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atom Finance, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Atom Finance, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02599 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Atom Finance -- https://atom.finance/ -- is a fintech that provides stock market and portfolio analysis.[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 AURATE LLC: Blind Can't Access Website, Fischler Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN FISCHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AURATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02547-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://auratenewyork.com/ allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text); (2) links are not properly labeled and are not tagged; (3) form controls have no label; (4) tables are not labeled with row and column headers; (5) frames do not have a title; (6) button elements are empty and have no programmatically determined name; (7) form controls have no label and no programmatically determined name; (8) forms have fields without label elements or title attributes; (9) webpages have duplicate IDs, which cause problems with screen readers; (10) radio button groups are not contained in a fieldset element; (11) form field labels are not unique on a page or enclosed in a fieldset with a legend that makes the label unique; (12) headings are not nested correctly and at least twenty; (13) headings are empty; and (14) webpages have markup errors. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. Aurate, LLC is an online jewelry retailer headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com AUTOMATIC FUNDS: Blain Sues Over Failure to Protect Drivers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCINE BLAIN, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02596 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for invasion of privacy, negligence, and violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and California's Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the vehicle registration records that contain personal information of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated drivers in California following a data breach and ransomware attack on its systems in February 2021. The Defendant's failure to maintain and comply with security standards allowed their customers' personal information to be compromised. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered harm and loss of privacy, and will continue to suffer future harm, resulting from the data breach, the suit alleges. Automatic Funds Transfer Services, Inc. is a payment and data processing company with a principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. ROBERT AHDOOT, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500 Burbank, CA 91505-4521 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and – Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Melissa R. Emert, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-0186 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com memert@kgglaw.com AVMC LLC: Zakay Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against AVMC, LLC dba Toyota of Lancaster ("Toyota of Lancaster") for failure to provide compensation for all hours worked. The Toyota of Lancaster class action lawsuit, Case No. 21STCV07885, is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals who are or previously were employed by Toyota of Lancaster as commission-based and/or piece-rate employees in California from February 25, 2017 to the present. These Toyota of Lancaster employees were entitled to separate hourly compensation for time spent performing all non-sales related tasks directed by Defendant during their work shifts, including, but not limited to, weekly sales meetings, and are entitled to one hour of pay for their rest periods. According to the lawsuit, Toyota of Lancaster allegedly engaged in unfair competition in violation of California Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 210, 226.7, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198 & 2802 by failing to: (1) provide meal and rest periods; (2) pay minimum wages; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; (5) reimburse employees for required expenses; and (6) provide wages when due. If you would like to know more about the Toyota of Lancaster lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment and labor law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to helping employees and consumers fight back against employers and corporations for unfair employment practices. If you need help with collecting unpaid wages, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and other unlawful workplace conduct, contact one of their attorneys. [GN] AXOGEN INC: RSCD's 2nd Amended Class Action Complaint Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. AXOGEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-69-TPB-AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Tom Barber of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Axogen develops and markets surgical products used to treat peripheral nerve injuries. Beginning in November 2017, Axogen sought to raise capital from investors by conducting a secondary public offering of its common stock. In Axogen's offering materials and in other statements to investors, Axogen provided estimates of the size of the market for its products, which it stated were based on information in a United States Department of Health and Human Services report, an article by Kurt Brattain, M.D., and an article by James Noble. On Dec. 18, 2018, Seligman Investments, a "short seller," which stood to gain by a drop in the price of Axogen stock, released a report criticizing Axogen's statements and concluding that the market for Axogen's products was a fraction of what Axogen estimated. Following release of the Seligman report, Axogen's stock price declined more than 38 percent over a short period of trading. The Plaintiff, a retirement system with over $3 billion in assets under management, brought the putative class action on behalf of itself and other purchasers against Axogen, certain of its officers, and other Defendants, alleging that the Defendants' statements violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff pointed to the Seligman analysis, an analysis by an expert consulting firm, and statements of a confidential witness, identified as "CW1," as demonstrating that Defendants' representations relating to the size of the market were false. In its claims under the 1934 Act, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants acted with actual knowledge of the representations' falsity or recklessly. On April 21, 2020, the Court entered a detailed order dismissing the first amended complaint, primarily on the ground that the challenged statements were "forward-looking statements" under the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Because the statements were accompanied by sufficient cautionary language and the complaint lacked allegations that the Defendants knew the statements were false, they were protected by the safe harbor provided by the PSLRA. The Court also ruled that the allegations were insufficient to support a strong inference of the scienter required for claims under the 1934 Act. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to amend, and the Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint on June 22, 2020. The Defendants once again have moved to dismiss. The Court's prior Order discussed the application of these standards to each representation challenged by the Plaintiff and concluded that dismissal was required. Judge Barber holds that the same holds true for the second amended complaint. The prior Order, for example, concluded that the challenged statements were forward-looking and fell within the PSLRA safe harbor. The second amended complaint does not allege any new or different representations by the Defendants. Nor does the Plaintiff point to any new controlling authority with respect to the PSLRA issues the Court found dispositive. The Court also previously concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to allege facts supporting the "strong inference" of scienter required by the PSLRA. The Plaintiff's second amended complaint includes additional allegations potentially relating to the Defendants' scienter. The complaint, for example, sets forth opinions by four additional former Axogen employees identified as confidential witnesses that Axogen's market estimates were inflated. But there is no allegation of fact suggesting that these opinions or other information casting doubt on the Defendants' estimates were communicated to the individuals responsible for issuing the challenged statements prior to their release. Under the principles and authorities discussed in the prior Order, Judge Barber concludes that the second amended complaint's allegations fail to support the "strong inference" of scienter required to avoid dismissal. As a separate basis for dismissal the Defendants argue that the second amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Omnicare, Inc. v Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015). For a statement of opinion to be actionable due to a material omission, Omnicare requires a plaintiff to allege specific facts about the speaker's knowledge or the nature of the speaker's inquiry the omission of which renders the statement misleading, based on what a reasonable investor would infer about the speaker's knowledge or inquiry. Whether statements are misleading by omission is determined under an objective standard that takes into account the context in which the statements appear, including accompanying cautionary statements, as well as any customs and practices in the industry. Judge Barber holds that the allegations in the second amended complaint fail to meet the Omnicare standard. There is no allegation that the Defendants, at the time they issued the challenged estimates, possessed the data or analyses that the Plaintiff now argues show the Defendants' estimates were incorrect. Nor does the Plaintiff allege omitted facts regarding the nature of the inquiry conducted by Defendants in creating the estimates that would render the statements misleading to reasonable investors. As such, the second amended complaint is also due to be dismissed pursuant to Omnicare. The Plaintiff confirmed at the Feb. 25, 2021, hearing that it did not seek leave to further amend the complaint and that, in the event of dismissal, it would stand on the complaint as pled for purposes of appeal. Judge Barber therefore granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. He dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6esctp3b from Leagle.com. BANCO SANTANDER: Condemnatory Decision Momentarily Suspended ------------------------------------------------------------ Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. said in its Form 20-F 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 obtained a momentary suspension of the condemnatory decision. The labor Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal do Trabalho) filed a class action against Santander Brasil alleging that the company's management of its employees is inappropriate. Specifically, the class action alleges that the company apply constant pressure to meet abusive, excessive and continuously increased goals, make excessive and inappropriate demands, impose excessive workloads resulting in physical and psychological strain, make constant threats of dismissal for failure to meet targets, have a staff too small to deal with the existing workload, run an organizational model based on stress and humiliation, and that, as a result, the company had allegedly caused irreparable damage to employees' physical and mental health as a result of which the public social security system has suffered losses of more than R$90 million due to the 7,677 accident-related and social security benefits granted to employees from 2010 to 2015. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office's claim demands that the company refrain from subjecting employees to abusive targets, to reduce the target levels, refrain from increasing targets by more than 10% per year, institute a quarterly targeting system, and refrain from adopting targets for operational areas. There is also a claim for the payment of indemnity for collective moral damages in an amount not less than R$460 million and that the company be prohibited from contracting with the government for 10 years. The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office is also demanding that a fine of R$500 thousand be set for any breach by the company of the obligations imposed on us following the judgment. The lower court ruling prohibited submitting employees to abusive targets. It also determined that the targets should only be reviewed annually and that their annual variation should be subject to collective bargaining between Santander Brasil and the unions. The ruling also prohibited setting targets for employees in the back office and control departments and required payment of indemnity for collective moral damages in the amount of R$274.4 million, in addition to imposition of certain daily fines. Finally, the ruling determined that the company is required to implement a new experimental target program under the terms provided for in the decision from January 1, 2020. The company appealed this decision and obtained a momentary suspension of the condemnatory decision. Banco Santander said, "We estimate the risk of loss as remote." Headquartered in Sao Paolo, Banco Santander (Brasil) S.A. provides banking products and services in Brazil and internationally. BARKMAN HONEY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barkman Honey, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barkman Honey, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02593 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Barkman Honey -- http://www.barkmanhoney.com/-- is a certified honey distributor.[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 BAY CLUB: Court Denies Scott's Bid to Intervene in EEOC Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff v. BAY CLUB FAIRBANKS RANCH, LLC d/b/a FAIRBANKS RANCH COUNTRY CLUB; FAIRBANKS RANCH COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-CV-1853 W (AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Thomas J. Whelan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the motion to intervene or, alternatively, for mediation, filed by Charging Party Sidney Scott, acting in pro per. The lawsuit stems from a charge of discrimination filed by Scott in August 2016. After investigating her charge and efforts at conciliation failed, on Aug. 8, 2018, Plaintiff EEOC filed the lawsuit to correct unlawful employment practices based on sex and to provide relief to Scott and a class of individuals who were adversely affected by such practices. The Complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by unlawfully subjecting Scott and the class of similarly aggrieved individuals to sexual harassment, including a hostile work environment and quid pro quo harassment, because of their sex (female). The Complaint further alleged Defendants violated Title VII by unlawfully subjecting some Claimants to constructive discharge and retaliation. The employment practices at issue occurred at the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club facility, located in Rancho Santa Fe, California. The original Complaint named Defendants Fairbanks Ranch, which operated the facility before July 2016, and Bay Club, which acquired the facility in approximately July 2016. The EEOC subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint to add The Bay Clubs Company, LLC, which owns Defendant Bay Club and owns or operates at least 20 other premier resort-style facilities/clubs. On Feb. 10, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a consent decree, which would resolve the litigation. The same day, Scott filed the pending motion to intervene. Ms. Scott seeks to intervene because she contends the EEOC "committed fraud upon the Court by prosecuting and portraying a narrative that is false" because "important aspects of the complaint that she made were omitted from litigation. The "important aspects" omitted from the litigation involve her allegations that she was also subjected to racial discrimination, paid the least amount of the employees, forced to drink alcohol as an "underage" as part of her job, and sexually attacked and harassed by the general manager. Scott also seeks to prevent the EEOC from paying her less than 60% of any monetary compensation from the pending settlement, and belatedly raises "concerns" with a Consent Decree approved on Dec. 2, 2019. Judge Whelan notes that though Title VII expressly provides an aggrieved employee with a right to intervene, the intervention request must still be timely. The Ninth Circuit considers three criteria in determining whether a motion to intervene is timely: "(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for and the length of the delay." In considering these factors, however, the court must bear in mind that any substantial lapse of time weighs heavily against intervention. Because timeliness is the threshold requirement, the court need not reach any other issue if it finds the motion was not timely. Stage of the Proceeding Judge Whelan holds that Scott could not be seeking to intervene at a later stage in the litigation. The lawsuit was filed in August 2018. Since then, the parties have vigorously litigated the matter and are on the eve of settlement. In short, the record confirms that by the time Scott filed her motion, "a lot of water had already passed underneath the litigation bridge." Accordingly, the Judge finds this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding Scott's motion to intervene is untimely. Prejudice to the Parties Ms. Scott contends she should be allowed to intervene because the EEOC omitted from the lawsuit her claims regarding racial discrimination, being forced to drink alcohol as an "underage," and being sexually attacked and harassed by the general manager. The EEOC contends allowing Scott to intervene would prejudice the current parties, Fairbanks Ranch, and the other Claimants. Judge Whelan agrees with the EEOC. He holds that allowing Scott to intervene in order to raise new claims would require reopening discovery, and prolong a case that has been litigated since 2018 and is on the verge of settlement. In addition, Scott's intervention would prejudice the other Claimants. Finally, allowing Scott to intervene in order to object to the Fairbanks Ranch Consent Decree would prejudice Defendant Fairbanks Ranch, who has already been dismissed and ceased litigating. Moreover, the other Claimants who received monetary compensation from the settlement in approximately December 2019 could also suffer prejudice. For all these reasons, the Judge finds this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding Scott's motion to intervene is untimely. Reason for and Length of Delay Ms. Scott contends she moved to intervene as soon as she learned the EEOC did not represent her interests. According to her, the EEOC does not represent her interests because it is "prosecuting and portraying a false narrative" by omitting "important aspects" of her administrative claim from the case, such as the racial discrimination she endured. Judge Whelan finds Scott's argument unpersuasive for a number of reasons. Even before the lawsuit was filed, Scott knew or should have known the EEOC was not pursuing the "important aspects" of her administrative complaint. In addition to the EEOC's Determination letter, the Complaint has been on the public docket since the lawsuit was filed in August 2018, and the First Amended Complaint has been on the docket since Aug. 5, 2020. For all these reasons, the Judge finds this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding Scott's motion to intervene was not timely. Based on the foregoing, Judge Whelan concludes that the evidence establishes Scott either knew or should have known by no later than the Fall of 2019 that the EEOC omitted the "important aspects" of her claim from the lawsuit. Moreover, given the significant amount of litigation that has occurred, allowing Scott to intervene after the parties have agreed to settle the case would prejudice the current parties, dismissed Defendant Fairbanks Ranch and potentially other Claimants. Accordingly, Scott's motion is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a4tbbzd from Leagle.com. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Burke Farm Sues Over Crop Inputs Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- TOM BURKE FARMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-01049 (E.D. Pa., March 4, 2021) arises from an unlawful agreement between the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides (Crop Inputs) used by farmers. The Defendants are manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers of Crop Inputs. The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the "Classes"), seeks to recover injunctive relief, treble damages, and other relief as appropriate, based on the Defendants violation of federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the several States. The Plaintiff seeks to represent classes consisting of persons and entities who purchased Crop Inputs, for their own use and not for resale, in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2014 through the present (the "Class Period") from the Defendants, or through Defendants' authorized retailers. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of their conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and information about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price. The cost of Crop Inputs is increasing at a significantly faster rate than profits from farmers' crop yields. The skyrocketing Crop Inputs prices are causing farmers to take on operating debt and often forcing them into bankruptcy, creating a crisis situation in the agriculture community for American farmers who are critical to the nation's food supply. Neither the cost increases nor the price disparities are attributable to any independent legitimate cause, such as weather or other factors, the suit says. Beginning at least as early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales platforms launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs, increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms, including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became successful with farmers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Howard, Esq. Simon B. Paris, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: phoward@smbb.com sparis@smbb.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Gerard A. Dever, Esq. Jessica D. Khan, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC One South Broad Street, 23 rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 Facsimile: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com gdever@finekaplan.com jkhan@finekaplan.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 Facsimile: (610) 822-0206 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NAST LAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com BELLUS HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found at the link provided. Bellus Health, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU) Class Period: September 5, 2019 to July 5, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 Bellus is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of chronic cough (one that lasts over eight weeks) and other afferent hypersensitization-related disorders. Before markets opened on July 6, 2020, defendants revealed the truth about BLU5937's efficacy. They announced that the drug had failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other treatments had not worked. Specifically, BLU-5937 was not significantly better than a placebo at reducing the frequency at which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a "clinically meaningful and highly statistically significant" effect only on a subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32 per day), so the Company was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on those patients. On this news, indicating that Bellus had fallen even further behind Merck in developing an FDA-approved treatment for refractory chronic cough, the Company's stock price plummeted over 75% to close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020. The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that defendants' scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Bellus's business, operations, drug products, drug product development, competition, and present and future business prospects; (ii) facilitated the Company's September 2019 public offering ("Offering"); (iii) created artificial demand for the Bellus common shares sold in the Offering; (iv) enabled the Company to receive approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of Bellus common stock in the Offering; and (v) caused Plaintiff and the Class to purchase Bellus publicly traded common stock at artificially inflated prices. For more information on the Bellus Health class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/BLU About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] BELLUS HEALTH: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ:BLU) securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Cachia v. BELLUS Health Inc., No. 21-cv-02278, and is assigned to Judge George B. Daniels. The BELLUS Health class action lawsuit charges BELLUS Health and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased BELLUS Health securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 17, 2021. BELLUS Health is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of chronic cough (one that lasts over eight weeks) and other afferent hypersensitization-related disorders. Merck & Co. has been leading the race to develop the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved treatment for chronic cough. In March 2020, Merck announced that its experimental drug, Gefapixant, had met its primary endpoint in two Phase 2 studies. However, side effects of taste alteration or loss of taste were reported in 80% of the patients on Gefapixant. The BELLUS Health class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants touted that because BLU-5937 was more selective than Gefapixant, it would come with a better safety profile and would not have the side effects of taste alteration or loss of taste. As a result, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit alleges that defendants misled investors into believing that the Phase 2 study for BELLUS Health's BLU-5937 would demonstrate the same level of efficacy as, but a higher level of safety than, Merck's Gefapixant. However, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit alleges that defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that BLU-5937 had a much higher risk of failing to demonstrate efficacy for chronic cough. Accordingly, the BELLUS Health class action lawsuit alleges that despite Merck's successful Phase 2 study, BLU-5937 had a high risk of failing its Phase 2 study. The BELLUS Health class action lawsuit further alleges that defendants' scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding BELLUS Health's business, operations, drug products, drug product development, competition, and present and future business prospects; (ii) facilitated BELLUS Health's September 2019 public offering ("Offering"); (iii) created artificial demand for the BELLUS Health common shares sold in the Offering; (iv) enabled BELLUS Health to receive approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of BELLUS Health common stock in the Offering; and (v) caused investors to purchase BELLUS Health publicly traded common stock at artificially inflated prices. Then, on July 6, 2020, defendants announced that BLU-5937 had failed a Phase 2 study of chronic cough patients for whom other treatments had not worked. Specifically, defendants revealed that BLU-5937 was not significantly better than a placebo at reducing the frequency at which patients coughed. The Phase 2 trial showed a "clinically meaningful and highly statistically significant" effect only on a subset of patients who had high cough counts (around 32 per day), so BELLUS Health was planning a Phase 2b trial focused on those patients. On this news, BELLUS Health's stock price fell approximately 75%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900 jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN] BELLUS HEALTH: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ: BLU) between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased BELLUS securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the BELLUS class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2058.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information that resulted in a scheme that: (1) deceived the investing public regarding BELLUS's business, operations, drug products, drug product development, competition, and present and future business prospects; (2) facilitated the Company's September 2019 public offering ("Offering"); (3) created artificial demand for the BELLUS common shares sold in the Offering; (4) enabled the Company to receive approximately $70 million in net proceeds from the sale of BELLUS common stock in the Offering; and (5) caused purchases of BELLUS publicly traded common stock at artificially inflated prices. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the BELLUS class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2058.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] BELLUS HEALTH: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against BELLUS Health Inc. ("BELLUS" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: BLU) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. BELLUS misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that BLU-5937's "high selectivity" contributed to the drug potentially being less efficacious and thus likely unable to meet the primary endpoint of the Company's Phase 2 study. As a result, when Defendants announced before markets opened on July 6, 2020, that BLU-5937 had failed the Phase 2 study, the Company's stock price plummeted over 75% on heavy trading volume. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about BELLUS, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] BERRY'S RELIABLE: Deducts Insurance Cost from Pay, Dixon Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANCINE DIXON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BERRY'S RELIABLE RESOURCES, LLC, RHONDA WILLIAMS, RAEON WILLIAMS, and TYESE BERRY, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00596-WBV-MBN (E.D. La., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana Final Wage Payment Act by illegally deducting the cost of worker's compensation insurance from the Plaintiff's pay. The Plaintiff worked as a direct service worker for Defendants until January 2021. Berry's Reliable Resources, LLC is a home health care service provider in Metairie, Louisiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy 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's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by Elissa Roberts remains pending. In May 2019, Elissa Roberts filed a class action complaint in the federal district court for the Northern District of California against the company, certain members of its senior management team, and certain of its directors alleging violations under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its initial public offering (IPO). On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel. On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the underwriters in our initial public offering, claims under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and extending the class period to September 16, 2019. On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding claims under the Securities Act. The second amended complaint also adds allegations pertaining to the restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends the class period through February 12, 2020. On July 1, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and are waiting for a ruling on that motion. Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously. Because this action is in the early stages, we are unable to predict the outcome of this litigation at this time and accordingly are not able to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Bloom Energy 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 consolidated Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund class action suit remains stayed. In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in its July 25, 2018 initial public offering (IPO) alleging violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO. Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7, 2019. These cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed with the court on September 12, 2019. On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay the lawsuit pending the federal district court action. On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order staying the action through resolution of the parallel federal litigation mentioned below. Bloom said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit and we intend to defend this action vigorously. Given that the case is still in its early stages, we are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Dismisses Individual and Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bloom Energy 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 Francisco Sanchez dismissed the individual and class action claims without prejudice, leaving one cause of action for enforcement of the Private Attorney Generals Act . In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. On November 30, 2020, the company filed a motion to compel arbitration and the motion was to be heard on March 5, 2021. On February 24, 2021, Mr.Sanchez dismissed the individual and class action claims without prejudice, leaving one cause of action for enforcement of the Private Attorney Generals Act . Given that the case is still in its early stages, we are unable to estimate any range of reasonably possible losses. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. BNSF RAILWAY: Bids to Mediate and to Amend in Macias Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Mediation and Motion to Amend in the lawsuit captioned LETICIA MACIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-2305-TC-GEB (D. Kan.). In their Motion for Mediation, the Plaintiffs seek an order requiring the parties to mediate. In the Motion to Amend, the Plaintiffs seek leave to file a Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants BNSF Railway ("BNSF") and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas ("the Unified Government") oppose the motion for mediation, and all the Defendants oppose the motion to amend. On June 13, 2019, Plaintiffs Leticia Macias, Elizabeth Magana Zamora, San Juanita Schneider, Ashley Negrete, and Juan Carlos Vasquez filed a complaint on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated persons against Defendants BNSF, Miles Leasing, LLC, the Unified Government, Terminal Consolidation Company, Amino Bros. Co, LLC, and Jane/John Doe Construction Company. The complaint alleged that the Defendants' conduct contributed to flooding between June and August 2017 in the Argentine neighborhood in Kansas City, Kansas, causing material injury to the Plaintiffs' property through trespass, public and private nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. The complaint also alleged inverse condemnation against BNSF and the Unified Government. The Unified Government filed a motion to dismiss, to which the Plaintiffs responded, and on July 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that named the same Defendants and asserted the same causes of action. On Oct. 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer conducted a Scheduling Conference in the case. Based on discussions with counsel, the Court continued the Scheduling Conference for four weeks to permit the parties time to more thoroughly discuss their respective theories of the case and make amendments to their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. On Nov. 19, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. During the continued Scheduling Conference on November 26, 2019, the Defendants advised they did not oppose the Plaintiffs filing their proposed Second Amended Complaint, and it was deemed filed as of that date. The pleading added a new Defendant, Nickell Properties, LLC, and for the first time distinguished between alleged injuries to property west of the drainage creek from alleged injuries to property east of the creek. On Nov. 27, 2019, the Court issued a Phase I Scheduling Order. The order set January 7, 2020, as the deadline for any motion for leave to join additional parties or to otherwise amend the pleadings, and set June 7, 2020, as the close of discovery related to whether a class should be certified. On Dec. 10, 2019, the Unified Government filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs did not respond to the motion but on January 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to file a Third Amended Complaint, explaining they "would like to amend their Complaint to add in two additional Plaintiffs and add language that better illustrates Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants." BNSF and the Unified Government opposed the motion, but on different grounds. On January 31, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, this time omitting from the proposed amended pleading certain allegations copied from the Second Amended Complaint that BNSF contended were in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. On Feb. 6, 2020, Judge John Lungstrum issued an order for the Plaintiffs to show cause why he should not dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint against all the Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the Plaintiffs' failure to plead that they have satisfied the notice requirements of the Kansas Tort Claims Act and the Plaintiffs' failure to plead sufficient facts from which Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") jurisdiction might be inferred. In his order dated March 3, 2020, that ruled on the issue, Judge Lungstrum found the Plaintiffs' response to the show cause order had sufficiently alleged facts in support of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 18, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint. The Unified Government, BNSF, Terminal Consolidation Company, and Nickell Properties all filed motions to dismiss. On April 3, 2020, the parties filed a joint motion seeking to extend discovery and other deadlines--but not the already-expired deadline to amend pleadings or join parties--due to restrictions resulting from the evolving Covid-19 pandemic. Judge Birzer granted the motion the same day, extending the Phase I discovery period to August 7, 2020, and the class certification motion deadline to October 9, 2020. After responding to the motions to dismiss, on May 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Four Defendants opposed the motion, variously arguing failure to show good cause to seek to amend the Scheduling Order out of time, failure to cure the alleged deficiencies of the Third Amended Complaint, and futility. On June 25, 2020, Judge Lungstrum issued a Memorandum and Order that ruled on the motions to dismiss and thr Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file their Fourth Amended Complaint. Although Judge Lungstrum granted the Plaintiffs leave to amend, he imposed restrictions on the new complaint. He states that the amended complaint must remove Defendants Terminal Consolidation Company and Nickell Properties, LLC as named Defendants in the case. Moreover, the amended complaint must remove all claims that the Court dismisses against the Unified Government and BNSF. He prohibited the Plaintiffs from including any new allegations in the amended complaint. On July 16, 2020, Judge Birzer conducted a telephone conference with the parties and entered the Second Amended Phase I Scheduling Order. The order concludes with the cautionary note that the Court is unlikely to extend these deadlines further absent extraordinary circumstances. On July 17, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint. No Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. Although the Plaintiffs later filed a motion to extend discovery, they withdrew the motion and stated their desire to maintain the deadlines in the Second Amended Phase I Scheduling Order. The Plaintiffs first served discovery in the case in August 2020, 16 months after filing their complaint. They served interrogatories and requests for production of documents on the Unified Government, Amino Bros., BNSF, and Miles Leasing, and served requests for admissions on Miles Leasing. On September 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs served additional document requests on BNSF and the Unified Government. The Plaintiffs noticed nine depositions to be taken between September 29, 2020, and December 8, 2020, with the last two taken by agreement after the close of discovery. The Defendants responded to the Plaintiffs' written discovery. The Plaintiffs filed no motions to compel compliance or otherwise sought the Court's assistance in resolving any dispute regarding the Defendants' discovery responses. Likewise, BNSF noticed and the Defendants took the deposition of each named Plaintiff in July and August 2020, and the Defendants served various types of paper discovery and issued third-party records subpoenas during the period April to October 2020. Again, no Defendant filed a motion to compel or requested the Court's assistance in resolving a discovery dispute. The Plaintiffs filed the instant motions on January 15, 2021, and concomitantly filed their motion for class certification. They seek a substantial revision to their operative class action complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to (1) "switch out" several Plaintiffs, dismissing Ashley Negrete and N.N. (a minor) and adding Michael Schaeffer and Ann Brandau-Murguia; (2) add six new Defendants; (3) expand the class definition geographically and create two subclasses--a "West" subclass and an "East" subclass (with the "East" subclass represented by a new Plaintiff); (4) add several new allegations and theories; (5) add two new causes of action (Count V for breach of contract and Count VI for violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act); and (6) resurrect a claim against BNSF for inverse condemnation that Judge Lungstrum previously dismissed. Motion to Amend Judge Birzer notes that the Plaintiffs' motion makes no mention of good cause, nor does it acknowledge Rule 16 applies. Indeed, during the motion hearing, the Plaintiffs' counsel sidestepped the issue and argued the standard to be applied is simply that leave should be freely given. He further argued if good cause is required, the Plaintiffs met the requirement by demonstrating the proposed Fifth Amended Complaint is a result of new information the Plaintiffs learned through depositions and other discovery. Certainly the discovery of new information may support a finding of good cause to amend a scheduling order, but the Plaintiffs bear the burden to demonstrate good cause, and in their motion the Plaintiffs neither identified the newly learned information nor described when and how they learned of it, Judge Birzer opines. The Plaintiffs' motion contains a single conclusory statement regarding their entitlement to amend their complaint under the requirements of Rule 15: "Neither parties will be prejudiced by the Court granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File their Fifth Amended Complaint, however the Plaintiffs will be substantially prejudiced if leave is not granted." The Defendants argue the motion should be denied on the grounds that it is untimely, the Defendants would suffer undue prejudice if the complaint is amended after class discovery has closed, and it is futile. The Court found the proposed amendment is untimely. It also found the Defendants would be unduly prejudice by the proposed amendment. Class discovery closed on October 30, 2020. On that date, the Plaintiffs moved to extend class discovery. But on November 19, they withdrew the motion and said they wanted to keep the schedule in place and get their class certification motion on file. Now, in the class certification motion they have filed, the Plaintiffs make it clear that they intend to conduct more discovery related to class certification--presumably in addition to merits discovery--and announce they will likely seek to amend the motion to certify. The Plaintiffs increasingly leave the impression that they view this case as one with no firm deadlines, where they can unilaterally decide how and when they will proceed with no regard to the impact of their actions on themselves, Defendants, and the Court, Judge Birzer says. The Defendants also argue the motion should be denied on the basis of futility, including statute of limitations bars, failure to state a claim, and inability to add new Defendants under Rule 15 because theirs was not a case of mistaken identity. The Court says it did not reach the issue of futility, having denied the motion because it is untimely and the Defendants would be unduly prejudiced by its allowance. In their motion, the Plaintiffs asserted without elaboration they would be prejudiced by its denial. Although counsel did not address the issue during the motion hearing, the Court expressed its understanding that counsel has been challenged in trying to articulate who and what the Plaintiffs believe caused the damages the Plaintiffs contend they suffered by flooding on their property. The Court recounted the latitude the Plaintiffs have received through liberal rulings that have repeatedly allowed them additional time to articulate their theory of the case. But this motion for leave to amend has moved the target one too many times, and the Defendants will not be required to set chase from the starting line, Judge Birzer points out. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend is denied. In denying the motion, the Court notes that it does not intend to overlook or negate the Plaintiffs' decision to dismiss Ashley Negrete and N.N. as named Plaintiffs. The Court will afford the Plaintiffs the opportunity to confirm that dismissal of these individuals remains their intention. Motion for Mediation The Plaintiffs also filed a motion for mediation along with their motions for leave to amend and for class certification, stating through discovery they believe they have outlined liability that may encourage the parties to settle. BNSF and the Unified Government oppose the motion. According to the Plaintiffs, mediation at this juncture is called for in the Scheduling Order. That is incorrect, and the Plaintiffs' motion is premature, Judge Birzer opines. As the Scheduling Order states, "[a] status conference to discuss further scheduling will be promptly set upon the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. A mediation date will be discussed and set at that status conference." Until it is determined whether a class is certified and if so, how the class is defined and what claims remain, this case will not be in a posture where mediation would be meaningful, Judge Birzer explains. The Court holds that it will not order the parties to participate in a useless exercise, and the Court denies the motion without prejudice. The Plaintiffs may renew the motion or any other party may bring such motion following the District Judge's ruling on class certification. Conclusion For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum and Order, the Court finds the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the standards for amendment under Rule 15(b), and mediation is not warranted at this time. At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the Unified Government orally moved that any deadline for the Defendants to challenge the Plaintiffs' Amended Designation of Experts and Disclosure of Expert Testimony be held in abeyance pending the District Judge's ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs did not oppose the oral motion. The Court finds it appropriate to suspend the applicable deadlines. Accordingly, the Defendants will serve any objections to the Plaintiffs' Amended Designation of Experts and Disclosure of Expert Testimony (other than objections pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702-705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law), within 14 days of the District Judge's ruling on the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Certify Class. These objections should be confined to technical objections related to the sufficiency of the written expert disclosures (e.g., whether all information required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B) has been provided) and need not extend to the admissibility of the expert's proposed testimony. If such technical objections are served, counsel must confer or make a reasonable effort to confer consistent with D. Kan. Rule 37.2 before filing any motion based on those objections. If a Phase II Scheduling Order is necessary, the Court will address therein the deadline for motions to exclude testimony of expert witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.702-705, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), or similar case law. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint is denied. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Mediation is denied. The Plaintiffs are directed to file an appropriate document dismissing Ashley Negrete and N.N. as parties, or to file a notice stating that Ashley Negrete and N.N. remain as named Plaintiffs. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4vc94pnj from Leagle.com. BRICKELL BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brickell Brands, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Brickell Brands, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02594 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Brickell Brands doing business as Brickell Men's Products -- https://brickellmensproducts.com/ -- offers luxury men's skin care & men's grooming products using natural & organic ingredients - face wash for men, face moisturizer for men, aftershave & more.[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 BRITISH AIRWAYS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Coronavirus Refund Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- paddleyourownkanoo.com reports that a class-action lawsuit that alleges that British Airways withheld cash refunds for cancelled flights as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has been given permission to proceed by a federal judge after BA attempted to have the case dismissed. Like many airlines, British Airways cancelled thousands of flights en masse at the outset of the pandemic last year as travel restrictions took hold and people were ordered into lockdown. The lawsuit alleges that BA broke its own conditions of carriage by coercing customers whose flights had been cancelled to accept a future travel voucher rather than the cash refund that they wanted and were entitled to. Leading the claim, Stephen Ide who had bought roundtrip tickets from Boston to London for $701.46 filed the lawsuit in the state of New York after he initially accepted a future travel voucher only to then realise that the voucher had to be used within the next 12-months. The suit claims British Airways coerced Mr Ide into accepting the voucher over a cash refund when it deliberately changed its website by removing the option to request a refund online and instead directed customers to telephone overburdened call center staff. Mr Ide tried to call the BA call center but got disconnected because the lines were overwhelmed so he looked at BA's website where he found the option to request a future travel voucher. Believing this to be the only option, Mr Ide requested the voucher. Four other attempts to call British Airways went unanswered but when he finally got through to the agent he was told to file a complaint via the airline's website -- a process that was glitchy and ultimately didn't allow Mr Ide to actually submit his complaint. "BA's wrongful practice of denying refunds has deprived consumers like Mr. Ide of the money they paid for cancelled travel during a time of crisis when they need access to those funds," the lawsuit explains. "Very few BA customers succeed in obtaining the refunds for cancelled flights to which they have a contractual right," the suit alleges. "The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable. The Class includes at least thousands of members. BA sells millions of tickets every year, and the recent cancellation of BA flights affected thousands of U.S. travelers." British Airways had sought to have the case dismissed arguing that the lawsuit was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. United States District Judge Jesse Furman rejected that argument but agreed that the claim should be limited to compensatory damages only. British Airways also succeeded in arguing that one of the plaintiffs should have his case dealt with through arbitration because he signed an arbitration clause when he booked his tickets through Expedia. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimated that at the height of the pandemic, airlines collectively owed passengers $35 billion in cancelled flight refunds. IATA had urged consumers to accept future travel vouchers to avoid some airlines from going bust. [GN] BRITTGAB CORP: Peral Seeks Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving ----------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL PERAL, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. BRITTGAB CORP. d/b/a SABA's PIZZA, MOSHGAB CORP. d/b/a SABA's PIZZA, PIZZA 84 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, GABI OPERATING CORP. d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA 26 LLC d/b/a MARINARA, PIZZA 54 INC. d/b/a MARINARA, and GABRIEL WEISER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01892 (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to time shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff additionally alleges for damages under the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. section 7434 for relief, damages, fees and costs in this matter because Defendants willfully filed fraudulent tax information forms with the Internal Revenue Service. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to the Defendants' decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a willful failure and refusal to pay them their proper overtime premium at one and a half times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek due to time shaving. The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx County, New York. The Defendants operate a chain of six restaurants as a single integrated enterprise. Two of the Restaurants share the trade name "SABA'S PIZZA," while the other four share the trade name "MARINARA."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 CALIFORNIA: Bid to Reconsider Montecastro Class Action Status Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HENDRIX M. MONTECASTRO, Plaintiff v. NEWSOME, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01065-NONE-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion for consideration as to class action status of the case. Plaintiff Montecastro is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The action was originally filed jointly by the Plaintiff and Paul Adams, another state prisoner. The complaint stated as follows: "Also the Plaintiffs file suit as a joint action and later may move if appropriate move to classify this action as a class action law suit, so thereby, the Plaintiffs reserve class action status prospect depending on the circumstances of this action; Otherwise the Court should consider classifying this action as a class action herewith in the interests of justice." Because no motion for class certification had yet been filed, on Aug. 14, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge determined that the action should be severed and that each Plaintiff should proceed separately with respect to his own claim. The Plaintiff filed objections on Aug. 28, 2019, a motion for reconsideration as to the case's class action status on Sept. 27, 2019, and further objections to the order to sever the action on Sept. 30, 2019. A petition for writ of mandamus was denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 21, 2019. On Feb. 21, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a motion demanding a ruling on his pending objections to the magistrate judge's orders. A second petition for writ of mandamus was denied by the Ninth Circuit on June 25, 2020. Ultimately, the Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's severance of the case into two separate actions and argues that the action should be certified as a class action, with him acting as the class counsel. Judge Drozd finds the Plaintiff's objection as to the severance of the case unpersuasive. He says, despite the Plaintiff's argument that he did not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over the action, the magistrate judge retained authority to determine non-dispositive matters, such as whether severance of this action was appropriate. To the extent the Plaintiff's objections set forth a request for immediate screening of the complaint and service of summons on the Defendants, the Judge denies that request. The Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due course. As to the Plaintiff's request that the action be granted class action status, the Judge also denies the request. He explains that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (a) provides that a class action may only be brought if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Finally, the Plaintiff is not an attorney and is proceeding without counsel. It is well-established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. A non-attorney proceeding pro se may bring his own claims to court but may not represent others. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Plaintiff to proceed as class counsel, and his request in that regard is denied. Accordingly, Judge Drozd denies the Plaintiff's motion for consideration as to class action status of the case. The Plaintiff's motion for a ruling on his pending objections to the magistrate judge's orders is addressed by the instant order and is rendered moot as a result. The Judge refers the action back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with his Order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx6ude7y from Leagle.com. CARGURUS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarGurus, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CarGurus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02596 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. CarGurus -- https://www.cargurus.com/ -- is a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based automotive research and shopping website that assists users in comparing local listings for used and new cars, and contacting sellers.[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 CARIBBEAN CRUISE: 7th Cir. Affirms 2 Decisions in Birchmeier Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., et al., Defendants. Appeals of: Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.; Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc.; The Berkley Group, Inc.; and Daisy Exum, Case Nos. 20-2672, 20-2676, 20-2698, 20-2699 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the district court's decisions: one handling the principal class-wide issues, and one determining that class member Daisy Exum had received 15 robocalls rather than the 700 she claimed or the 250 the Master found. The first decision in the large-scale class action affirmed the district court's handling of the settlement and award of attorneys' fees. What remained for decision was who had received how many illegal robocalls, each of which was to support an award of $500 (subject to any adjustments necessary to ensure that the total received by class members, fits within the range of $56 million to $76 million established by the settlement). Following the process outlined in the settlement, the district court resolved some open issues and referred others to a claims administrator, whose decisions could be reviewed by Wayne Anderson, serving as a special master. After the Master had made determinations (which the parties call "awarding calls"), the class took exception to some parts of the decision and three of the defendants took exception to others. The district judge asked the Master to hold additional hearings to resolve disputes by some class members who said that their claims had been mishandled. After that had been done, the judge resolved the remaining issues. The appeals contest two of the judge's decisions: One handling the principal class-wide issues, and one determining that class member Exum had received 15 robocalls rather than the 700 she claimed or the 250 the Master found. The class representatives have not appealed, but Exum and three of the original Defendants have done so. Exum contends that the Master's decisions are not reviewable, while the three Defendants assert that appellate review is de novo -- in other words, that the court of appeals decides on its own, without deference to the Master or the district judge. The Seventh Circuit does not agree with either approach. It says a special master, as a judge's delegate, cannot exercise unreviewable authority even if the parties agree to cut out the Article III judiciary. And the Defendants are wrong to label their protests issues of law. They are mixed legal and factual matters. As the Supreme Court explained in U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 960, 966-68 (2018), the standard of appellate review depends on whether the arguments are case-specific, which implies deferential appellate review, or apply to multiple other cases. All of the arguments in all of the appeals before the Seventh Circuit are case-specific, which means that its review is deferential. And the district judge's decisions comfortably survive deferential appellate review Take Exum's contention that she received 700 robocalls. She said that her phone bills prove that 700 calls originated from the defendants or their agents, but she asserted that she had lost the bills. She did not attempt to obtain new copies from the phone company. The district judge observed that there would not have been any reason for the Defendants to call Exum incessantly (Exum estimated twice a day for a year), when they did not call anyone else nearly that often. Drawing on the numbers of calls proved by class members who retained records, the district judge estimated that Exum had been called 15 times. That number is not clearly erroneous, the Seventh Circuit holds. Finally, the Defendants' arguments in support of their own appeals principally concern the administration of the settlement's presumption that the class members who do not prove some different number of calls will be treated as having received three. The settlement calls this a presumption, but the Defendants challenged its application to almost 95% of the class members who availed themselves of it. In their view, only calls registered on the "class list" should count. The claims administrator, however, also looked at calls on lists derived from other sources. The district judge largely endorsed the claims administrator's approach, observing that the class list had been compiled from incomplete records. The Seventh Circuit thinks that the district judge's opinion says all that need be said about the objections that the Defendants have raised on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/u42sw28c from Leagle.com. CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in New York Over IPO --------------------------------------------------------------- Casper Sleep 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 several putative class action suits related to its initial public offering (IPO). Beginning in June 2020, several putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by certain of the company's shareholders against it, its directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters of the company's initial public offering alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the initial public offering. The cases are in preliminary stages. The Company has moved to dismiss the lawsuit filed in New York State Supreme Court, and briefing on that motion is ongoing. The Company has also moved to stay the proceedings in the Eastern District of New York pending disposition of the state court motion to dismiss, and that stay motion is pending. Casper said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them." Casper Sleep Inc. manufactures home furnishing products. The Company designs, produces, and markets range of mattresses, sheets, pillows, duvet, and bed frames. Casper Sleep serves customers worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York. CASPER SLEEP: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issues this Notice, which has been authorized by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, relating to the requested dismissal without prejudice of the putative class action captioned In re Casper Sleep Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 652284/2020 (the "Action"). The Action, which alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, arose out of the February 2020 initial public offering ("IPO") of the common stock of Casper Sleep Inc. ("Casper"). The Action was brought on behalf of a putative class of all those who purchased common stock in or traceable to the IPO. Named as defendants in the Action are Casper, certain of its officers and/or directors, and the underwriters for the IPO. This Notice is being issued to putative class members in accordance with Rule 908 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, which provides, in relevant part, that notice of the dismissal of a class action "shall be given to all members of the class in such manner as the court directs." No class has been certified and plaintiffs will not be seeking to certify a class as part of the dismissal. The Action will be discontinued, without prejudice, as of May 3, 2021. If you believe you are a putative class member, you may wish to contact a lawyer to understand your rights. Counsel for the parties will not provide any recommendations or legal advice about the effect this dismissal will have on you. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210325005228/en/[GN] CATERPILLAR INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Texas Hill's 1st Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the lawsuit entitled Texas Hill Country Landscaping, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs v. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-0227 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Texas Hill Country Landscaping, Inc., doing business as Quality Organic Products of Selma; Morning Star Farms, Inc.; and Northwest Recycling, LLC, seek to represent a national class of purchasers and lessors of certain C-18 and C-32 engines manufactured and sold by Defendant Caterpillar, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege that these engines have a defective component called a cylinder liner. According to the Plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint, when the cylinder liner fails, oil and coolant mix, ultimately leading to engine failure. That failure requires expensive, time-consuming repairs in existing engines. The first amended complaint has six counts: a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of express and implied warranty (counts II and III), negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and negligence. In their first amended complaint, the Plaintiffs propose two nationwide classes comprised of all purchasers or lessors of Caterpillar engines equipped with the allegedly defective cylinder liners. One class would be for the purpose of issuing, or denying, declaratory and injunctive relief, and the other would be a nationwide damages class. The Plaintiffs maintain that Illinois's substantive law would govern the claims of all class members. But if the choice of law analysis ultimately points to the law of one or more other states, the Plaintiffs propose certifying state-specific subclasses. As a further alternative to the damages class, the Plaintiffs would seek certification of one or more issues for class-wide resolution, such as whether the liners are defective. Caterpillar moves to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of standing and in part for failure to state a claim. Caterpillar also asks the court to strike the first amended complaint's class action allegations under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Caterpillar attached the declarations of two of its employees, Gary Mueller and Jesse Quick, to its memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss. The declarations describe in general terms some alleged differences between the design, manufacture, and applications of Caterpillar's C-18 and C-32 engines. For instance, both aver that different Caterpillar divisions design and manufacture its C-18 and C-32 engines. Caterpillar relies on these declarations solely to support its motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Caterpillar does not dispute that the three Named Plaintiffs have standing to press their individual claims. The Court agrees. Rather than attack the Named Plaintiffs' individual standing, Caterpillar challenges, under the heading of Article III standing, their fitness to represent the putative class because their injuries allegedly differ significantly from those of absent class members, who purchased different products. Caterpillar points to Mueller and Quick's averments describing alleged differences between the design, purposes, distribution, and uses of Caterpillar's C-18 and C-32 engines. Caterpillar cites several district court decisions conducting a standing analysis at the pleading stage. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall notes that these cases demonstrate a split among courts in this district. See Liston v. King.com, Ltd., 254 F.Supp.3d 989, 998-99 (N.D. Ill. 2017). In some of the decisions Caterpillar cites, the court held that named plaintiffs have no standing to assert claims based on products they did not purchase, citing Porter v. NBTY, Inc., 2016 WL 6948379, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2016) (Shah, J.), et al. Other district courts have asked broadly whether the product used by the named plaintiff was substantially like products used by members of the proposed class. The Court agrees with district courts in the Seventh Circuit that have concluded that whether the named plaintiffs may assert the rights of absent class members is neither a standing issue nor an Article III case or controversy issue but depends rather on meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23 governing class actions, citing In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig., 162 F.Supp.3d 704, 722 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (Leinenweber, J.). In the case, as in Payton v. Cty. of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 677 (7th Cir. 2002), Caterpillar's arguments about the mismatch between the Named laintiffs' alleged injuries and those of the class members raise Rule 23 issues that logically precede Article III standing, Judge Gottschall opines. As stated, the parties agree that the Named Plaintiffs have individual standing, and the Court concurs. The Court rejects Caterpillar's efforts to inject class certification issues into the standing inquiry, particularly while class certification discovery is ongoing. Reprising and elaborating upon its standing arguments, Caterpillar moves under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the first amended complaint's class action allegations as "facially defective." Caterpillar's argument hinges primarily on its analysis of Illinois choice of law principles as applied to the claims of the proposed class. Caterpillar asserts that the proposed classes described in the first amended complaint could not survive the rigorous class certification scrutiny required by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as the class would fail on key Rule 23 requirements such as typicality, superiority, and predominance. The Plaintiffs dispute Caterpillar's choice of law analysis and argue that it would be premature to conduct a Rule 23 analysis and a choice of law analysis at the pleading stage. As with standing, the parties raise the threshold procedural question of how far, if at all, to delve into class certification issues while class certification discovery is ongoing. Though Caterpillar argues otherwise, the certification issues it raises are enmeshed in factual and legal issues that would benefit from full exploration after certification discovery is complete, Judge Gottschall opines. On choice of law, for instance, Caterpillar relies primarily on Cowen v. Lenny & Larry's, Inc., 2017 WL 4572201, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2017). The Cowen court struck a proposed nationwide consumer class because applying the warranty, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation laws of fifty different states, or even the five states that comprise the multi-state class, is unmanageable on a class-wide basis because those states' laws conflict in material ways. Furthermore, even if Caterpillar is right and the choice of law analysis will point to the laws of up to 50 states, Caterpillar has not shown that the conflicts of law it has identified are material enough to defeat certification at the pleading stage, Judge Gottschall holds. Caterpillar identifies differences between the warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment laws of various states at a high level of generality. How these alleged differences create an actual conflict affecting the specific claims of the Named Plaintiffs and class members has not been explained, however, Judge Gottschall notes. Because a choice of law analysis is premature, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no material conflicts of laws or that, if there are, state-specific subclasses may be a manageable alternative in the event that certifying a national class proves unworkable. For all of these reasons, the class certification issues Caterpillar raises must be resolved following class certification discovery and with the benefit of full briefing, Judge Gottschall holds. This will permit the Court to conduct the rigorous analysis Rule 23 requires. Caterpillar's final set of arguments challenge the sufficiency of the first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Caterpillar contends that the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to plead essential elements of their breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation claims. Caterpillar analyzes each Named Plaintiff's claims under the law of its respective state of incorporation--Texas, Kansas, and Maryland. The Plaintiffs respond that each claim has been adequately alleged under the respective state's law. Although the Plaintiffs defend the first amended complaint's sufficiency under Texas, Kansas, and Maryland law, they also specifically object to Caterpillar's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). Rule 12(d) requires a court to treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment if "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court." The threshold choice of law question complicates the discretionary decision here, Judge Gottschall notes. As discussed and as the parties' briefing makes clear, the choice of law issues raised here require further factual and legal development. The Judge points out that this is not a case in which the parties agree on what law applies. The Plaintiffs address choice of law in the first amended complaint and in their briefing on the pending motion. Caterpillar cites no authority allowing the Court to disregard the first amended complaint's choice of law allegations; nor does Caterpillar point to any factual allegations in the first amended complaint that undermine the Plaintiffs' choice of law contentions, Judge Gottschall finds. Thus, the facts necessary to conduct the choice of law analysis must come from outside the first amended complaint. As discussed, the parties have not had an opportunity to develop the legal and factual record needed to resolve the important choice of law questions raised in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to convert the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to a summary judgment motion. Remaining then is the question of what to do given that the Court cannot reach the contested choice of law issues. Judge Gottschall holds that the answer requires a straightforward application of the well-settled rule that failure to develop a legal argument in an opening brief results in the argument's waiver. Because Caterpillar's choice of law allegations cannot be reached, the Court assumes for purposes of the present motion that, as the first amended complaint alleges, Illinois law governs. Since Caterpillar does not cite or analyze Illinois law in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion, its arguments for dismissing the Named Plaintiffs' claims have been waived. For the reasons stated, Caterpillar's motion to dismiss and to strike portions of the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2b8c7drs from Leagle.com. CELGENE CORPORATION: BCBSM Antitrust Suit Transferred to D.N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BCBSM, INC.; HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION; MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC.; and BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CELGENE CORPORATION and BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CORPORATION, Case No. 0:20-cv-02071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 25, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-06668 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged monopoly of cancer drug market by blocking or delaying the release of potential generic drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, and various regulations issued by the Food & Drug Administration. BCBSM, Inc. is a health insurance company with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Health Care Service Corporation is a health insurance company with its principal place of business in Illinois. Molina Healthcare, Inc. is a managed care company with a principal place of business in Long Beach, California. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. is a health insurance company with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Celgene Corporation is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in Summit, New Jersey. Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation is a global biopharmaceutical company headquartered in New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Andrew M. Luger, Esq. Lisa L. Beane, Esq. JONES DAY 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 217-8800 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: aluger@jonesday.com lbeane@jonesday.com - and – Brian D. Hershman, Esq. JONES DAY 555 S. Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 E-mail: bhershman@jonesday.com - and – Toni-Ann Citera, Esq. Rajeev Muttreja, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3939 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: tcitera@jonesday.com rmuttreja@jonesday.com - and – Benjamin M. Greenblum, Esq. Colette T. Connor, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: bgreenblum@wc.com cconnor@wc.com CENLAR FSB: Faces Read RESPA Suit Over Failure to Respond to RFI ---------------------------------------------------------------- GARY READ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENLAR FSB, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00504 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately respond to the Plaintiff's requests for account information, including producing requested audio recordings. Under RESPA, loan servicers must respond to borrowers' requests for specific account information within 30 days upon receiving a Qualified Written Request (QWR) or a Request for Information (RFI). Cenlar FSB is a loan servicing provider headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and – Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, Utah 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com CENTRA TECH: Investors in Cryptocurrency Scam Ask to Revive Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- courthousenews.com reports that an attorney for a class of investors who claim they were scammed out of over $30 million by defunct cyptocurrency startup Centra Tech asked an 11th Circuit panel to reverse a ruling tossing out a class action lawsuit due to the late filing of a certification document. Seven investors who purchased Centra Tech tokens sued the company in 2017, claiming that the startup marketed an "initial coin offering" to raise money for the creation of "the world's first multi-blockchain debit card with a smart and insured wallet." Unfortunately, the debit card didn't exist. The company's founders were indicted for defrauding investors by selling them unregistered securities backed by digital currencies. Centra Tech co-founder Sohrab "Sam" Sharma was sentenced earlier this month to eight years in prison for his role in the scheme and ordered to forfeit $36 million. Fellow co-founder Robert Farkas was sentenced to a year in prison and ordered to forfeit $347,062. Arguing on behalf of the class, attorney John Carriel of Zelle told a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court that the federal court's analysis of the case was inconsistent with precedents set by other Florida federal courts. Carriel told the panel that U.S. District Judge Robert Scola, Jr. "completely ignored the procedural history of the case" which included "procedural hurdles" that lengthened the time it took for plaintiffs to move for class certification. The class's motion for certification was not filed until 18 months after its initial complaint and six months after its amended complaint. In a September 2019 order, Scola found that the delay was untimely. The judge also ruled that the class failed to show that it could identify potential class members who purchased Centra Tech tokens. Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus, a Bill Clinton appointee, noted that there was a stay in place for an "extended" period of time in the case and asked whether the plaintiffs could have filed a motion seeking class certification while the stay was in effect. "We were operating under the impression that the district court was fully aware of this," Carriel explained. "There was nothing more we could've done. We asked for a schedule. It was out of our hands," Carriel said. "I'd just like to stress that we followed all the rules, we did everything we could. I don't know what we could've done differently." But an attorney for Centra Tech told the panel that the district court was "well within its discretion to find the plaintiffs' motion was not timely." "When would it have been timely for them to seek class certification here? When should they have done it?" Marcus asked. "They sought [certification] in June 2019 and the district court said 'Too late, you lose, not timely.' The case had been pending almost 18 months. During that 18-month period, at least 14 months were consumed with a stay certainly covering discovery. . . . When should they have filed this to make it timely?" "The rule says at an early practicable time. There's no bright line case law on what's an early practicable time," Florida attorney Gennaro Cariglio argued on behalf of Centra Tech. Cariglio told the panel that the class should have raised the issue with the district court and asked for more time due to the stay. But U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, a Donald Trump appointee, asked why it should be the class's job to inform the judge of court procedures. "They could've alerted the court to their need for discovery. . . . but they never alerted the court at all," Cariglio answered. Cariglio also argued that the outcome of the case is ultimately irrelevant since another court has already entered a preliminary order of forfeiture impacting the same funds sought by the class. "All the Ether that they're seeking in this civil class action has been seized by the government," Cariglio said. The FBI seized digital funds raised from victims who purchased Centra Tech tokens in 2018. The U.S. Marshals Service sold the seized Ether units for $33.4 million this year. According to a statement from the Department of Justice, the funds will be available for potential use in a remission program to compensate victims of the fraud after a final order of forfeiture is entered in Sharma's case. "At the end of the day, all of that Ether, everything we're fighting about, everything we're here about today, is property of the government," Cariglio said. Marcus and Lagoa were joined on the panel by Senior U.S. Circuit Judge R. Lanier Anderson II, a Jimmy Carter appointee. The panel did not indicate when it will reach a decision in the case. [GN] CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Bushansky Says Proposed Merger Deal Lacks Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., NEIL E. DE CRESCENZO, HOWARD L. LANCE, NELLA DOMENICI, NICHOLAS L. KUHAR, DIANA MCKENZIE, BANSI NAGJI, PHILIP M. PEAD, PHILLIP W. ROE, NEIL P. SIMPKINS, and ROBERT J. ZOLLARS, Defendants, Case 3:21-cv-01948 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 19, 2020) is an action brought by Plaintiff against Change Healthcare Inc. ("Change Healthcare" or the "Company") and the members of Change Healthcare's Board of Directors (the "Board" or the "Individual Defendants") for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeks to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Change Healthcare will be acquired by Optum, the health services business platform of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated ("UnitedHealth"), through UnitedHealth's subsidiary, Cambridge Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on March 5, 2021, Change Healthcare filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Change Healthcare stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by the Company's financial advisor, Goldman Sachs & Co. ("Goldman"); and (iii) the background of the Proposed Transaction. Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless remedied, Change Healthcare's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. Change Healthcare, Inc. provides healthcare technology solutions. The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication, payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Boulevard #725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com CHANGE-N-EFFECT: Eberhart Balks at Unreimbursed Automobile Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA EBERHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE-N-EFFECT PIZZA LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA, CHANGE-N-EFFECT II PIZZA LLC, and JOHN MEKLER, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00254-D (W.D. Okla., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to reimburse automobile expenses, resulting in wages below the federal minimum wage in some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's store located 201 N. Commerce St. Ste. A, Ardmore, Oklahoma from approximately June 2019 to April 2020. Change-N-Effect Pizza LLC, doing business as Domino's Pizza, is a company that operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores located at 6 NW Millcreek Road Lawton, Oklahoma. Change-N-Effect II Pizza LLC is a company that operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores located at 6 NW Millcreek Road Lawton, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St Paul St. Suite #700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION: Chicago Educators Appeal Class-Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ nrtw.org reports that two Chicago Public Schools (CPS) educators are appealing to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals their class-action civil rights lawsuit charging the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) with illegal dues seizures. The suit challenges a union policy that blocks teachers from exercising their First Amendment right to stop payments to the union outside of the month of August. The lawsuit seeks refunds of all dues seized from dissenting teachers by the Chicago Board of Education under the policy. The Board enforces the arrangement at the behest of the CTU union and is also named as a defendant. The educators, Jones College Prep Tech Coordinator Joanne Troesch and Newberry Math and Science Academy second-grade teacher Ifeoma Nkemdi, are receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The lawsuit contends that the dues scheme perpetrated by CTU officials violates the First Amendment protections laid out in the Foundation-won 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision. The appeal comes shortly after Troesch, Nkemdi, and other public employees submitted an amicus brief in Belgau v. Inslee, which is currently pending on a petition for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court. That class-action suit involves a group of Washington State employees, led by Melissa Belgau, who are fighting similar policies imposed by Washington Federation of State Employees (WFSE) union officials and the State of Washington. In Janus, which was argued by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorney William Messenger, the High Court struck down mandatory union fees as a violation of the First Amendment rights of government employees. The Court ruled that taking any dues without a government worker's affirmative consent violates the First Amendment, and further made it clear that these rights cannot be restricted absent a clear and knowing waiver. Messenger is on Troesch and Nkemdi's legal team. Troesch and Nkemdi's lawsuit explains that they "did not know they had a constitutional right not to financially support" the union hierarchy until the fall of 2019. The pair independently discovered their First Amendment Janus rights while they were researching how to exercise their right to continue working during a strike that CTU bosses ordered in October 2019, the lawsuit notes. They sent letters the same month to CTU officials to exercise their Janus right to resign union membership and cut off all dues deductions. Both educators received no response until November of that year, when CTU officials confirmed receipt of the letters but said that they would continue to seize dues from the teachers' paychecks "until September 1, 2020." CTU bosses relied on the fact that Troesch and Nkemdi had not submitted their letters within a union boss-created "escape period," which limits when teachers can exercise their First Amendment right to end dues deductions. Troesch and Nkemdi contend that CTU officials' attempt to curb employees' right to stop dues deductions with an "escape period" and the Board's continued dues seizures both violate the First Amendment. Their lawsuit seeks to make the CTU union and the Board of Education stop enforcing the "escape period," and notify all bargaining unit employees that they can end the deduction of union dues at any time and "retroactively exercise that right." The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Troesch and Nkemdi's lawsuit on February 25, 2021. The court ruled that CTU officials didn't violate Janus by forbidding the two educators from exercising their First Amendment right to cut off union dues except for one month a year. This prompted Foundation attorneys to appeal the case to the Seventh Circuit for the educators. Foundation staff attorneys in December 2020 filed a similar lawsuit for University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System employee Johnathan Shepard, who is challenging an "escape period" foisted on him and his coworkers by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 73 bosses. Across the country, Foundation staff attorneys represent public servants in at least 14 cases where union officials have tried to confine their First Amendment Janus rights to an "escape period." "Each day that the courts refuse to uphold the clear logic of Janus is another day that union bosses are allowed to hold onto the hard-earned money of dissenting public servants in clear violation of their First Amendment rights," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "The Foundation is proud to stand with Ms. Troesch and Ms. Nkemdi, and will continue to defend all educators who simply want to serve their students and community without being forced to subsidize union activities." [GN] CHOICE HOTELS: Can Compel Arbitration in Jai Sai Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JAI SAI BABA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL INC. and CHOICE HOTEL OWNERS COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02823 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The action involves claims by hotel franchisees against the hotel franchisor and the association of franchisees for violations of federal and state laws. Each Plaintiff signed a Franchise Agreement containing an Arbitration Provision. The Plaintiffs are 90 franchisees that each own and operate one or more hotels that bear a brand mark of Defendant Choice. Choice is a hotel franchisor that owns several well-known national hotel brands, including Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality Inn, Sleep Inn, Clarion, Cambria Suites, MainStay Suites, Suburban Extended Stay Hotels, EconoLodge, Rodeway Inn, and Ascend Hotel Collection. Defendant Choice Hotels Owners' Council ("CHOC") is an association of franchisees. In a 591-paragraph amended complaint, the Plaintiffs bring 21 counts for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c)-(d); the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; breach of contract and fiduciary duty; common law fraud; and various state franchise acts. The Plaintiffs assert the Defendants are liable for requiring them to pay inflated prices to third-party vendors for products necessary to the operation of their hotels, requiring the Plaintiffs to abide by a variety of unconscionable franchise terms and practices, discriminating against franchises owned by hoteliers of Indian-American and South Asian American background, and attempting to obstruct them from leaving the franchise system by imposing onerous liquidated damages provisions and assessing excessive penalties against departing franchises. The Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, Choice "has and continues to engage in unconscionable, fraudulent, unlawful, and anticompetitive business practices in connection with the operation of its hotel franchise system." They allege Choice, which has an ongoing relationship with CHOC, corrupts CHOC "by providing various benefits to members of its board in order to secure their support of Choice's oppressive agenda." The Plaintiffs allege "Choice dictates to CHOC board members what proposed measures they will approve, and in exchange offers substantial kickbacks to those board members, including preferential treatment in CHOC's reservation system." The Amended Complaint states the Defendants intentionally and willfully deprived the Plaintiffs of the same rights enjoyed by white citizens to the creation, performance, enjoyment, and all benefits of their contractual relationships with the Defendants. The Plaintiffs further allege Choice was in individual contractual relationships with each Franchisee through the Franchise Agreements. They acknowledge that the Agreements "require Franchisees to submit to binding arbitration in Choice's Maryland headquarters, regardless of where their franchise is located." They allege, however, that "Choice and CHOC conspired to fraudulently represent to Franchisees that CHOC was a good faith representative of their interests in order to induce them into entering the Agreements and acquire from them a monthly association fee." The Amended Complaint states that Choice uses its superior bargaining power to coerce the Franchisees into accepting onerous, unequal, and unconscionable terms in its Franchise Agreements. The Defendants have filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, arguing that all of the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to valid and binding mandatory arbitration clauses contained within each Plaintiff's Franchise Agreement. In response, the Plaintiffs acknowledge the presence of Arbitration Provisions, but contend that the Provisions should not be enforced. They further assert that the Arbitration Provisions are not enforceable by CHOC and that if arbitration is compelled, all claims should not proceed on an individual basis. The Defendants filed a reply opposing the Plaintiffs' arguments and highlighting that the Plaintiffs do not challenge whether their claims are covered by the binding Arbitration Provision. Upon review of the Motion and responses, as well as the Amended Complaint and the Franchise Agreements that are integral to the claims, Judge Leeson notes as follows: "The parties agree that the Arbitration Clauses in all of the Agreements are identical in substance with regards to the issues in the instant Motion. The parties also agree that a majority of the Franchise Agreements contain a class action waiver provision. The Franchise Agreements also contain varying provisions regarding the franchise association. Many of the Agreements state that it is the Franchisee's duty to "join and maintain membership in" a franchise association designated by Choice. Other Franchise Agreements contain provisions, in addition to or instead of the duty provision above, stating that the Franchisees "acknowledge and agree that Choice will consult with the Franchise Association" on the use of certain fees and/or before making changes to certain policies." Judge Leeson opines that the Franchise Agreements are integral to the Complaint and may be considered when applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standard of review. Although the Plaintiffs assert that it is necessary to allow discovery, they have not responded "with additional facts sufficient to place the agreement to arbitrate in issue." The parties do not dispute that the Franchise Agreements each contain Arbitration Provisions that apply to the claims in the action. Additionally, each of the Plaintiffs' arguments as to why such provisions should not be enforced are rejected. The Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs entered into valid, enforceable arbitration agreements with Choice that they admit apply to the claims in the instant action. Because these claims, as they relate to CHOC, also arise from the Franchise Agreements, both Defendants may enforce the agreements to arbitrate. Accordingly, he grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings. The Plaintiffs must proceed to arbitration on an individual basis and the action is stayed pending the resolution of these proceedings. A separate order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yydh4v3p from Leagle.com. CLOVER HEALTH: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Clover Health Investments, Corp. f/k/a Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III ("SCH", "Clover", or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CLOV)(NASDAQ:CLOVW) (NYSE:IPOC.U)(NYSE:IPOC)(NYSE:IPOC WS), and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and docketed under 21-cv-00138, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities between October 6, 2020 and February 3, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Clover securities during the Class Period, you have until April 6, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. SCH was a publicly-traded blank check company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more businesses. On October 6, 2020, SCH and a private health insurance company, Clover Health Investments, Corp. ("Legacy Clover"), issued a press release announcing their plan to bring Legacy Clover public via a merger between SCH and Legacy Clover (the "Business Combination"). That press release described Legacy Clover as "a next-generation Medicare Advantage insurance company offering best-in-class plans that combine wide access to healthcare and rich supplemental benefits with low out-of-pocket expenses[.]" Legacy Clover's (and following the Business Combination, Clover's) flagship platform, the Clover Assistant, purportedly aggregates millions of relevant health data points-including claims, medical charts, and diagnostics-and uses machine learning to synthesize that data with member-specific information. This purportedly provides physicians with actionable and personalized insights at the point of care, offering suggestions for medications and dosages as well as the need for, among other things, tests or referrals, to ultimately improve health outcomes. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SCH had performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Clover prior to the Business Combination, or else ignored and/or failed to disclose multiple red flags concerning Legacy Clover's business and operations; (ii) since before the Business Combination, Legacy Clover and/or Clover have been under active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") for multiple issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals; (iii) Legacy Clover's and/or Clover's sales were, and/or are, driven in large part by an undisclosed related party deal, misleading marketing targeting the elderly, and other illicit practices; (iv) Defendants overstated the capabilities of the Company's technology; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued a report on Clover entitled "Clover Health: How the 'King of SPACs' Lured Retail Investors Into a Broken Business Facing an Active, Undisclosed DOJ Investigation." Citing "more than a dozen interviews with former employees, competitors, and industry experts, dozens of calls to doctor's offices, and a review of thousands of pages of government reports, insurance filings, regulatory filings, and company marketing materials," Hindenburg claimed that "Clover Health and its Wall Street celebrity promoter, Chamath Palihapitiya, misled investors about critical aspects of Clover's business in the run-up to the company's SPAC go-public transaction last month." Specifically, the Hindenburg report concluded, among other things, that the Company and Clover Assistant "are under active investigation by the [DOJ]" for "at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed third-party deals"; that "Clover's sales are driven by a major undisclosed related party deal and misleading marketing targeting the elderly"; that "Clover's software is primarily a tool to help the company increase coding reimbursement"; that doctors at key Clover providers view Clover Assistant as "embarrassingly rudimentary", "a waste of . . . time", and just another administrative hassle to deal with; and that Clover pays physicians "$200 per visit to use the software, twice the normal reimbursement rate for a Medicare visit." On this news, Clover's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 12.33%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a loss of approximately $700 million in market capitalization. Moreover, shares traded as low as $11.86 per share intraday on February 4, 2021. Additionally, Clover warrants fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5.04%, to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Merger Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the consolidated lawsuit captioned IN RE COLUMBIA PIPELINE GROUP, INC. MERGER LITIGATION, Case No. 2018-0484-JTL (Del. Ch.). The Plaintiffs are former stockholders of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. On May 17, 2016, the Company issued a proxy statement describing a merger and recommending that its stockholders approve it. On July 1, 2016, TransCanada Corp. acquired the Company under an agreement and plan of merger dated March 17, 2016 ("Merger Agreement"). Each share of Columbia common stock was converted into the right to receive $25.50 in cash, subject to each stockholder's right to eschew the consideration and seek appraisal. During the sale process, Robert Skaggs, Jr., served as the Company's CEO and as chairman of its board of directors. Steven Smith served as the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The Plaintiffs contend that Skaggs and Smith wanted to retire in 2016 and engineered a sale of the Company so that they would receive their change-in-control benefits. The Plaintiffs contend that once TransCanada emerged as a committed bidder, Skaggs and Smith persistently favored TransCanada during the sale process. The Plaintiffs detail a series of actions that Skaggs and Smith took which inferably undercut the Company's bargaining leverage with TransCanada and prevented the Company from developing other transactional alternatives. As a result, during the final phases of the negotiations, TransCanada was able to lower its bid below the range it had offered to obtain exclusivity, demand an answer within three days, and threaten to announce publicly that merger negotiations had terminated unless the Company accepted the lowered bid. Faced with the bad situation that Smith and Skaggs had created, the Board entered into the Merger Agreement. The Plaintiffs contend that by taking these actions, Skaggs and Smith breached their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs assert that TransCanada knew that Skaggs and Smith were breaching their duties, in part because their actions were so extreme, and exploited the resulting opportunity, making TransCanada potentially liable for aiding and abetting the breaches. The Defendants point out that this is the fourth lawsuit arising out of the Merger. Immediately after the Merger was announced, a group of traditional stockholder plaintiffs attacked the deal in this Court. The Defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss. Next, a group of hedge funds pursued their appraisal rights ("Appraisal Proceeding"). That case was litigated through trial, resulting in a decision holding that the Company's fair value for purposes of appraisal was equal to the deal price of $25.50 per share ("Appraisal Decision"). While the Appraisal Proceeding was moving forward, the Plaintiffs in this action filed suit, relying on discovery from the Appraisal Proceeding that had become publicly available. The Plaintiffs in this action sought to consolidate this litigation with the Appraisal Proceeding and to have a single trial on all issues, but TransCanada--the real party in interest in the Appraisal Proceeding--successfully opposed that result. This action then lay dormant until after the issuance of the Appraisal Decision. Finally, while the Appraisal Proceeding was moving forward, two other stockholders filed an action in federal court that asserted claims under the federal securities laws (the "Federal Securities Action"). The plaintiffs in the Federal Securities Action also asserted claims under Delaware law for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure. The Defendants prevailed on a motion to dismiss, but the federal court declined to reach the claims for breach of fiduciary duty (the "Federal Securities Decision"). Now, the Plaintiffs in the action wish to proceed with their litigation. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Appraisal Decision and the Federal Securities Decision mandate dismissal under principles of collateral estoppel. The Defendants understandably want those prior rulings to be binding, but the current Plaintiffs do not have a relationship with either the petitioners in the Appraisal Proceeding or the plaintiffs in the Federal Securities Action that would support the application of issue preclusion. As a fallback, the Defendants maintain that dismissal is warranted under the doctrine of stare decisis because the Appraisal Decision and the Federal Securities Decision are persuasive authorities that ruled on the issues presented in this case. Unfortunately for the Defendants, the Appraisal Decision addressed a narrow question: the fair value of the Company as a standalone entity operating as a going concern, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster points out. The Appraisal Decision held that the sale process was sufficiently reliable that the deal price provided a sound indication of the Company's standalone value. The Appraisal Decision did not determine whether Skaggs and Smith breached their fiduciary duties, nor did it address the claim that the Company could have obtained a higher deal price from TransCanada or from a competing bidder if Skaggs and Smith had not acted as they did. The rulings in the Federal Securities Decision likewise do not translate to the current setting, because the district court applied the higher federal pleading standard of plausibility to address claims under the federal securities laws that required the pleading of particularized facts. Judge Laster finds that the allegations of the complaint support a reasonably conceivable inference that Skaggs and Smith breached their duty of loyalty. Although the allegations against TransCanada are weaker, they support a reasonably conceivable inference that TransCanada aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by Skaggs and Smith. Under the circumstances, Judge Laster explains, it is reasonable to infer at this stage that TransCanada knowingly participated in the material omissions in the Proxy that concerned TransCanada's own conduct. The Complaint, therefore, states a claim against TransCanada for aiding and abetting these disclosure violations. Judge Laster concludes that the Complaint pleads claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Skaggs and Smith. It pleads a claim for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty against TransCanada. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2k7atmvy from Leagle.com. Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- Derrick Farrell -- dfarrell@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Stephen E. Jenkins -- SJenkins@ashbygeddes.com -- Marie M. Degnan -- MDegnan@ashbygeddes.com -- ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Jeroen van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Christopher J. Orrico -- christopher.orrico@blbglaw.com -- Alla Zayenchik -- alla.zayenchik@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Martin S. Lessner -- mlessner@ycst.com -- James M. Yoch, Jr. -- jyoch@ycst.com -- Paul J. Loughman -- ploughman@ycst.com -- Kevin P. Rickert -- krickert@ycst.com -- YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Brian J. Massengill -- bmassengill@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew C. Sostrin -- msostrin@mayerbrown.com -- Linda X. Shi -- lshi@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Attorneys for Defendants. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Beyers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, WILLIAM BEYERS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONSOLIDATED INSURANCE COMPANY, and LIBERTY MUTUAL AGENCY CORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01601-TWP-DLP (S.D. Ind.), Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, issues an Order: a. granting (i) the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; (i) the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Randal Adkins; (iii) the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron Poland; and (iv) the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Exhibit H; and b. denying (i) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification; and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply. A hailstorm damaged Beyers' Carmel, Indiana home on April 26, 2017. On Aug. 30, 2017, Beyers filed a claim with Consolidated, his insurer, for the damage. After determining that the home required new shingles and vents on the roof, as well as replacement of some gutters, downspouts, and window screens, Consolidated paid Beyers $11,585.96 for the unrepaired damage on Sept. 7, 2017. This amount was adjudged the actual cash value for the loss, tracking the policy's provision that Consolidated would pay "no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete." If Beyers repaired the damage, certain of the depreciation was recoverable by him. Consolidated also compensated Beyers to replace some gutters and downspouts. In calculating the amount owed to Beyers, Consolidated determined that a general contractor was unnecessary to complete the repairs. And to ascertain the shingle replacement cost, Consolidated relied on pricing verified by the MRP Managed Material Program ("MRP"). Under this program, insureds or their contractors can purchase shingles directly from suppliers nationwide at contractor or discounted rates, and deliver the shingles to the site. After receiving the $11,585.96 payment, Beyers never disputed or inquired about this recompense and, indeed, never contacted Consolidated about the claim at all. Further, he repaired any of the damage to his roof or gutters himself and never hired a contractor or anyone inspect or repair any of the damage. He did speak with a public adjuster, Poland, but Poland never looked at the house. On April 22, 2019, Beyers individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, sued the Defendants for breach of contract on four grounds, alleging that (i) the Defendants also owed payment for general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP"); (ii) the Defendants did not account for the removal of flashing, vents, and gable cornice returns in the estimate; (iii) the Defendants failed to pay for the cost of a starter course of shingles; and (iv) by using the MRP program, the Defendants did not pay him the market price of replacement shingles in Indiana. Eventually, the Defendants moved for summary judgment and Beyers moved for class certification. Defendants' Motions in Limine to Strike Beyers' Expert Witnesses As an initial matter, Judge Pratt addresses the Defendants' Motions in Limine to strike two of Beyers' expert witnesses: Adkins and Poland. Because these expert witnesses provide support for Beyers on summary judgment and class certification, she first examinesthese motions to determine whether their opinions should be excluded, and their testimony and reports stricken. Adkins is the founder and part owner of Rocklane Company General Contractors, LLC, one of the largest residential roof repair general contractors in central Indiana. For over three decades he has been involved in thousands of roof repair/replacement projects in Indiana. Beyers offers Adkins as a purported expert witness to testify in support of class certification regarding: (1) the steps to perform a shingles and gutter repair/replacement project and the standard for determining where general contractor overhead and profit is appropriate to complete the same; (2) the necessity of a starter strip and the proper method to calculate the cost for the same; and (3) the factors considered in selecting a shingles supplier. The Defendants move to strike Adkins' expert opinions in each of these areas. They contend that Adkins' opinion regarding inclusion of GCOP for shingles and gutter repair/replacement jobs is both unreliable and irrelevant. Like Adkins' other opinions, the Defendants argue that "his opinions regarding the benefits to using a local shingles supplier have not been subjected to any testing and thus are inherently unreliable." They point out, "Adkins admits that he has no knowledge regarding the MRP Program." In response, Beyers argues that Adkins' opinion: "GCOP should be included for all Gutter and Shingle Replacement Projects in Indiana because such projects are almost always serviced by general contractors." He contends that the Defendants' demands for exclusion of Mr. Adkins' opinions related to payment of GCOP due to lack of peer review or testing are misguided. Beyers argues that Adkins' opinions do not run afoul of any existing legal standards. Beyers also argues that though Adkins "does not possess any specific information about MRP or its suppliers," he merely opines "that general contractors will not automatically use MRP suppliers because they offer discounted pricing, rather the decision is based on a number of other critical factors." Judge Pratt grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Adkins, striking his testimony and any related evidence, including his expert report. She is persuaded that Adkins' GCOP opinion is unreliable and should be excluded: Industry practices contradict his assertion that GCOP is owed on every gutter and shingle repair job. When an expert's "central underlying premise is not only unsupported, but in fact contrary to the generally accepted standard," a court should exclude his opinion. She also finds that Adkins' opinion on starter strips is unreliable because it failed to address evidence directly contradictory to his opinion. And, because Adkins lacks even basic familiarity with the MRP program, his opinions on whether payments derived from it could adequately compensate Beyers lack reliability and should be excluded. Poland, the owner/president of Spartan Claims, LLC's duties include supervising and adjusting and appraising property insurance claims. He has personally adjusted almost five hundred claims on behalf of his company. Beyers offers the Poland, as a purported expert witness regarding: (1) whether a general contractor's overhead and profit should be paid for shingles and gutter repair/replacement projects; (2) a roofing contractor's practice of using a starter strip for the first course of shingles and method of estimating the costs for same; (3) how roofing contractors select a shingles supplier; (4) the inclusion by Consolidated for removal costs for certain roof peripherals, such as flashing and vents, on the Xactimate estimate used to pay the Plaintiff; and (5) identification of purported class members. Based on the following, the Defendants' ask the Court to strike Poland's expert testimony and report. They argue argue that (i) Poland is not qualified to opine on roofing practices, (ii) any opinions offered outside the scope of Poland's expert report should be excluded, (iii) Poland's opinion about GCOP is unreliable and irrelevant; (iv) no industry standard supports Poland's contention that starter strips must be used; and (v) Poland lacks relevant knowledge to discuss the MRP Program; and (vi) Poland's testimony about roof removal costs is neither reliable nor relevant. In response, Beyers notes that (i) Poland's extensive experience and knowledge make him ideally suited to opine on steps and coordination required to complete a Gutter and Shingle Repair Project; (ii) Poland's opinion does not run [a]foul of any existing legal standard or legitimate industry practices; (iii) Poland's testimony about starter strips is reliable because he and Adkins agree that it is the industry standard to use starter strips to seal rake and eves whenever shingles on an entire slope or the entire roof are replaced; (iv) Poland has never encountered any contractor who uses the MRP program to purchase shingles; and (v) Poland's methodology is "squarely aimed at providing a feasible road map for ascertaining class members. Judge Pratt grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron Poland, striking his testimony and any related evidence, including his expert report. Among other things, she finds that (i) Poland is not qualified to offer his opinions on construction practices because his knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education does not qualify him to opine on matters of roofing construction practices; (ii) Poland's own testimony contradicts his GCOP opinion; (iii) Poland's opinion is not supported by generally accepted practices in the field; (iv) Poland's opinion is unreliable because he lacks relevant knowledge to discuss the MRP Program; and (v) Poland identified purported class members for proposed classes that the Plaintiff no longer seeks to certify. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment The Defendants seek judgment as a matter of law as to Beyers' four claims against them for breach of contract, following hail damage to his roof. They contend Beyers' Second Amended Complaint conjures claims that do not exist as his insurance claim was promptly investigated and paid by his insurer, and his four individual claims -- breach of contract related to (1) GCOP, (2) removal costs, (3) starter strips, and (4) replacement shingles -- are all defeated by the plain language of Consolidated's estimate that was given to him, the policy of insurance, and common sense. Judge Pratt explains that in Indiana, insurance contracts are governed by the same rules of construction as any other contract, citing Empire Fire v. Frierson, 49 N.E.3d 1075, 1079 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Because no allegation advanced by Beyers forms the foundation for a breach of contract claim against the Defendants, she grants their Motion for Summary Judgment. Among other things, she finds that (i) the opinion forwarded by Fako is belied by industry publications; (ii) Beyers cannot broadly proclaim that general contractors are necessary for every gutter and shingle job; (iii) Beyers no longer maintains that Defendants failed "to pay cost of dump fees, hauling, disposal and labor associated with the removal of Flashing, Roof Vent, Continuous Ridge Vent, and Gable Cornice Return; (iv) the Plaintiffs may not amend their complaints through briefs opposing summary judgment when new allegations cut against prior factual bases for liability; and (v) the Defendants have demonstrated that Beyers could have replaced his shingles at the price paid by Consolidated under the MRP program for the exact shingles specified by the estimate. Beyers' Motion for Class Certification When a court decides that the claim of a putative named plaintiff lacks merit -- such as on an adverse summary judgment ruling -- that decision "moots the question whether to certify the suit as a class action," especially when "the ground on which the district court threw out the plaintiff's claims would apply equally to any other member of the class." Because she grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Pratt must deny Beyers' Motion for Class Certification as moot. As demonstrated, no member of any potential class could prevail on these claims. For the reasons she explained, Judge Pratt grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Randal Adkins; grants the Defendants' Motion in Limine to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Witness Aaron Poland; grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Exhibit H; grants the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Surreply; denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Surreply; and denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Judge dismisses the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Final Judgment will the issued under separate order. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/m28ve94n from Leagle.com. CRATEJOY INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cratejoy, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cratejoy, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02589 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cratejoy -- https://www.cratejoy.com/ -- is home to hundreds of monthly subscription boxes for all hobbies, interests, and passions.[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 CRONOS GROUP: Bid to Nix Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cronos Group 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 filed in the consolidated putative class action suit, is pending. On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman) and Chief Financial Officer. The court has consolidated the cases, and the consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were incorrect based on the Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel. The consolidated amended complaint does not quantify a damage request. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 8, 2021. Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with international production and distribution across five continents. The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company is based in Ontario Canada. CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Action in Canada Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Cronos Group 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 filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim, as amended on August 12, 2020, in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and damages of an unspecified amount. The Amended Statement of Claim names the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), Chief Financial Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial Officer, and current and former members of the Board as defendants and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act, oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common law misrepresentation. The Amended Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of the Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2, 2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of the Board was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's subsequent restatement. The Amended Statement of Claim does not quantify a damage request. Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with international production and distribution across five continents. The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company is based in Ontario Canada. CYTODYN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC: CYDY). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found at the link provided. CytoDyn, Inc. (Other OTC: CYDY) Class Period: March 27, 2020 to March 9, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 CytoDyn is focused on the development and commercialization of a drug named "Leronlimab" which has long been promoted as a potential therapy for HIV patients. Since the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic, however, CytoDyn has begun to aggressively tout Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19. Beginning on March 5, 2021 CytoDyn began issuing press releases that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not statistically significant. After closing at $4.05 on March 5, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35. The complaint, filed on March 17, 2021, alleges that defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning Leronlimab being used as a treatment for Covid-19. For more information on the CytoDyn class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CYDY About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] CYTODYN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the "Company") (OTCQB: CYDY) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of CytoDyn between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased shares of CytoDyn, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the shares of CytoDyn, Inc., you may, no later than May 17, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of CytoDyn, Inc. The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose that: -- while the Company's stock price was sufficiently pumped with the COVID-19 cure hype, long-term shareholders, including CEO Nader Z. Pourhassan and CFO Michael Mulholland, dumped millions of shares; -- the Company engaged in a wrongful scheme with its lender, Iliad Research and Trading L.P. ("Iliad"), and its principal John Fife ("Fife"), whereby Iliad and other Fife entities operated as an unregistered securities dealer for the Company; and -- Iliad obtained a convertible promissory note from the Company and converted the note into newly issued shares of the Company and sold those shares into the public market at a profit, in violation of the dealer registration requirements of the federal securities laws. On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.14 per share, or 28%, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN] DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosen Law Announces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) resulting from allegations that Danimer Scientific may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Danimer Scientific securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2065.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer Scientific's claims that Nodax, a plant-based plastic which the Company markets, breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The article alleges that according to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." Further, the article cites an expert as stating that broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not accurate" and is "greenwashing." On this news, Danimer Scientific's share price fell $6.43 per share, or 12%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021, the next trading day, damaging investors. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] DILLARD'S INC: Liberto Suit Removed to N.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Pamela Liberto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dillard's Inc., Case No. 2021-CA-000350 was removed from the First Judicial Circuit, Escambia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on March 25, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00517-MCR-EMT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Dillard's -- https://www.dillards.com/ -- is a shop that offers designer dresses, shoes, clothing, handbags, cosmetics and beauty, bedding, lingerie, wedding registry items and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Elizabeth Trehan, Esq. Jordan David Maglich, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - TAMPA FL 401 E Jackson Street, Ste. 2400 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 222-8180 Email: ashley.trehan@bipc.com jordan.maglich@bipc.com DISNEY STORE: Vicario Files Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Disney Store USA, LLC. The case is styled as Camila Vicario, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Disney Store USA, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-21131-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Disney Store online is now shopDisney.com -- https://www.shopdisney.com/ -- which operates as entertainment and media company. The company provides clothes, toys, home decor, movies, music, books, and video games for children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bezalel Adin Stern, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3050 K Street, NW Washington Harbour, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 342-8422 Fax: (202) 342-8451 Email: bstern@kelleydrye.com DON & TOD: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Deductions ------------------------------------------------------------------ ARMANDO GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DON & TOD GRUBERGER DBA WORK BOOT WAREHOUSE, DON GRUBERGER, TOD GRUBERGER, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation, failure to pay meal period compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage and hour statements, failure to pay wages upon discharge, failure to indemnify and illegal deductions from wages, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked as a sales representative and as a truck driver from approximately May 2018 through June 2020. Don & Tod Gruberger, doing business as Work Boot Warehouse, is a footwear retail company, with its principal place of business located in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq. SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (818) 473-5003 Facsimile: (818) 476-5619 E-mail: contact@slawla.com DOUBLE DOWN: Loses Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Claims in Benson ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADRIENNE BENSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C18-0525RSL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations. The Plaintiffs, Washington residents, allege that Defendant Double Down, a Washington company, owns and operates several virtual casinos that constitute illegal gambling enterprises under Washington law. They assert claims under Washington's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act ("RMLGA"), Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), and theories of unjust enrichment and seek to recover their gambling losses. Defendant Double Down, headquartered in Seattle, develops, publishes, and maintains digital games for mobile and web-based platforms. The games are available worldwide. The Defendants' "Double Down Casino" allows consumers to play a variety of on-line casino games using virtual chips. Double Down provides to new players an initial gift of one million free chips with which to play in Double Down Casino. When a player has burned through the initial allotment of chips, he or she can purchase additional virtual chips through the Casino's electronic store. The Plaintiffs purchased and lost virtual chips in Double Down Casino. They allege that Double Down's games constitute illegal gambling under the RMLGA, that the violation is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for purposes of the CPA, and that Defendants were unjustly enriched. The named Plaintiffs hope to represent a class of "all persons in the United States who purchased and lost chips by wagering at the Double Down Casino" and to recover those losses on behalf of the class. The Defendants filed the instant motion to reform the proposed class definition and limit the class to only residents of Washington. They argue that Washington law conflicts with the gambling and consumer protection statutes of other states, that imposing Washington law on conduct occurring in other states violates the dormant Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and that Washington's choice of law rules require the application of the law of each putative class member's home state. The Plaintiffs concede that there are material differences between Washington's gambling and consumer protection statutes and those of other states, but argue that when the connection between the claims asserted and Washington are accurately characterized, application of Washington law is proper. In short, subject to constitutional limitations and the forum state's choice-of-law rules, a court adjudicating a multistate class action is free to apply the substantive law of a single state to the entire class, citing In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., 926 F.3d 539, 561 (9th Cir. 2019). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to do just that. Double Down argues, however, that both the Constitution and Washington's choice-of-law rules forbid application of Washington law to the claims of non-resident class members in the circumstances presented. Constitutional Barriers to Application of Washington Law Judge Lasnik holds that the conduct at issue, web- or app-based game play and the sale or purchase of virtual chips, is neither inherently national nor has it been subject to a uniform system of regulation. Because the RMLGA and the CPA neither discriminate in favor of in-state commerce nor impose a significant burden on interstate commerce, they are not prohibited by the dormant Commerce Clause. The Judge is also is confident that adequate notice to the absent class members, along with an opportunity to be heard, to participate, and to opt out, can be provided so as to satisfy the dictates of the Due Process Clause. Lastly, he holds that the Court can constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the absent class members, mooting the Defendants' res judicata concerns. The Defendants assert that applying Washington substantive law on a nationwide basis is also constitutionally limited by the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, Section 1. A judgment issued in the absence of personal jurisdiction over a party is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Washington's Choice-of-Law The Plaintiffs assert that Washington law applies to this case, regardless where the consumer who purchased virtual chips in the Double Down Casino resides. The Defendants argue that the law of each consumer's home state has the more significant relationship to the dispute. As a preliminary matter, when choice of law is disputed, there must be an actual conflict between the laws or interests of Washington and the laws or interests of another state before Washington courts will engage in a conflict of laws analysis. To settle choice of law questions, Washington uses the most significant relationship test as articulated by Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws Section 145 (1971). The most significant relationship inquiry involves a two-step analysis. Judge Lasnik first evaluates the contacts with each interested jurisdiction, considering which contacts are most significant to the occurrence and the parties and determining where those contacts are found. Second, he evaluates the interests and public policies of the competing jurisdictions. Judge Lasnik finds that while each state in which a putative class member resides has some relationship with the causes of action asserted in the case, Washington, as the domicile of Double Down and some portion of the Plaintiff class, has a greater relationship than does any other single state. To the extent that (i) residents of other states may lose access to Double Down Casino if the Plaintiffs' claims succeed and (ii) some states may lose tax revenues from sales/purchases of virtual chips, the Judge finds that applying Washington law is nevertheless the "result that will achieve the best possible accommodations" of the competing policies. Lastly, choosing the law of the state in which an internet or app-based gambling operation is located for purposes of a nationwide class action will make the law easier to determine and apply with more predictable results. For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lasnik finds that neither constitutional considerations nor the applicable choice-of-law rules precludes the application of Washington law to the claims asserted in the litigation, regardless where the putative class members reside. Therfore, he denied the Defendants' motion to strike the nationwide class allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/rsxedusx from Leagle.com. DOUBLE ROBOTICS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Double Robotics, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Double Robotics, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02564 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Double Robotics -- https://www.doublerobotics.com/ -- is a technology startup company that produces iPad-based telepresence robots called Double and Double2.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com DPI INC: Williams Suit Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DPI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02532-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://iliveelectronics.com/, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the general public through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) empty links, (3) redundant links, and (4) linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals. DPI, Inc. is a company that operates the iLive online retail store across the United States, with its principal executive office located at 900 N. 23rd Street, St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal E. MISHAN: Nisbett Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KAREEM NISBETT, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E. MISHAN & SONS, INC., d/b/a Alien Tape, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02277 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a blind and visually-impaired person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered multiple access barriers during his visits to the Defendant's Website, www.tryalientape.com, the last occurring on or about February 8, 2021, which denied him substantially equal access similar to that of sighted individuals, and the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website and of the Defendant's retail operations. Allegedly, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination as a result of its failure and refusal to comply with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, which would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit the Defendant from violating Title III of the ADA and requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in Title III of the ADA, as well as compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. d/b/a Alien Tape is an online retailer of various products that owns and operates the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks Unpaid Reporting Time for Route Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN LEMM, an individual v. ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ECOLAB, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 21STCVS08647 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2021) alleges that the Plaintiff and other non-exempt Route Sales Managers were was not paid in accordance with California law for unpaid reporting time. The Plaintiff alleges that during the relevant time period, he and other non-exempt Ecolab employees were required to and did work second shifts of less than two hours. Further, the Defendants did not provide him and his fellow employees with accurate wage statements under California law, the suit says. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated were current and former employees of Ecolab in California who are/were non-exempt; who have worked in California for Ecolab during the last three years as Route Sales Managers (RSMs) who failed to receive reporting time and split shift pay as required by California law. Plaintiff Lemm is a resident of California. He has worked for Ecolab Inc. from June of 2014 to the present. He performed work in Fresno and Los Angeles Counties for the Defendant. Defendant Ecolab is an international sanitation company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, with offices in the State of California, including in this judicial district. The Defendant is in the business of providing, among other things, sanitation and pest control service and supplies, commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, repair and products, and food safety services to restaurants, hospitals, food and beverage plants, laundries, schools, and retail and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq. HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC 5450 Telegraph Road, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93006-3 577 Telephone: (805) 644-7111 Facsimile: (805) 644-8296 E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com - and - Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq. PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC 1746 S. Victoria Avenue, Suite 230 Ventura, CA 93003 Telephone: (805) 628-8220 Facsimile: (805) 765-8600 E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com ELANCO ANIMAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Seresto Flea and Tick Collars --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnathan Hettinger at usatoday.com reports that two pet owners who claim their dogs either died or developed problems after using Seresto flea and tick collars filed a class-action lawsuit against Elanco Animal Health, alleging it misrepresented the safety of its product. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of California in Los Angeles, comes just days after a congressional subcommittee asked Elanco to voluntarily recall the flea and tick collars in the wake of reporting by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting and USA TODAY on thousands of incident reports about pet and human harm linked to the collar. The lawsuit cites the news outlets' reporting. Elanco declined to voluntarily recall the product. The lawsuit is likely the first of "dozens," said Spencer Sheehan, a New York-based consumer liability attorney with a history of filing class-action suits. He is part of the legal team representing the plaintiffs in this case and said he expects other law firms to file similar cases across the country. Colleen Dekker, a spokeswoman for Elanco, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. In a previous interview, she said Elanco has investigated reports of incidents and deaths in which the pet collar was present and "there's nothing that suggests it's the active ingredients in the collar that's at fault." Seresto has two active pesticide ingredients: imidacloprid and flumethrin. The two plaintiffs blame their dogs' issues on Seresto. Faye Hemsley of Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, claims in the suit that she purchased a Seresto pet collar in January 2020 for her 13-year-old terrier mix named Tigger Shadow. Tigger was fine at an annual veterinary check-up on Feb. 19 but suddenly died five days later in Hemsley's son's arms, the suit claims. The other plaintiff, Aitana Vargas of Los Angeles, first purchased a Seresto collar for her 10-year-old Siberian Husky named Lolita in March 2020 and the second one in November 2020, the lawsuit claims. Two months later, Vargas noticed a lump on the dog's neck near the site of the pet collar that was later diagnosed as cancer and removed during an emergency surgery in January this year. "Had Plaintiffs known the Seresto collar Products would cause, or increase the likelihood of causing, serious injury and/or death, they would not have purchased them," according to the lawsuit. Since the collar was sold beginning in 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has received more than 75,000 incident reports about pet and human harm linked to use of the collar. These incident reports include at least 1,698 pet deaths and 907 humans harmed. The EPA is in charge of regulating products that contain pesticides. The agency has known about these incidents for years but has not informed the public of the potential risks associated with this product, said Karen McCormack, a retired EPA employee who worked as both a scientist and communications officer. McCormack said the collars have the most incidents of any pesticide pet product she's ever seen. The reporting by the Midwest Center and USA TODAY prompted congressional action. On March 17, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois), chairman of the subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, sent letters to Elanco, asking the company to recall the product and issue full refunds to customers, and Bayer, asking the company to release information about the toxicity of the product. Seresto collars were developed by German pharmaceutical giant Bayer, but the company sold its Animal Health division, which includes the Seresto collar, to Elanco for $7.5 billion in 2020. In 2019, Bayer reported annual revenues of more than $300 million on sales of the collar. Dekker, the Elanc spokeswoman, said in a recent interview that the incident reports are "raw data" that need to be further investigated. Dekker said Elanco has investigated all 1,698 death incident reports and found no link in those deaths to the active ingredients in the pesticides. Each report came back as either "unlikely" or "unclassified," Dekker said. She said the company either conducts these investigations internally or hires out a group to investigate the death. "There's nothing that suggests it's the active ingredients in the collar that's at fault," Dekker said. Dekker said the company has sold more than 25 million collars and has an incident report of .3%, meaning that about 1-in-300 pets have an adverse effect. Dekker said the vast majority of adverse effects are dermal issues, such as irritation, redness or hair loss. The lawsuit alleges that Elanco "misrepresented the Product through affirmative statements, half-truths, and omissions regarding the safety of the Product." Because of that, the company was able to sell the product for more than what it would have otherwise. This story is a collaboration between USA TODAY and the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. The center is an independent, nonprofit newsroom covering agribusiness, Big Ag and related issues. USA TODAY is funding a fellowship at the center for expanded coverage of agribusiness and its impact on communities. [GN] ELEVATE CREDIT: Bid to Nix Suit Related to TFI Operations Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elevate Credit, 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 a motion to dismiss the class action suit related to the operations of Think Finance, Inc. (TFI) prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off. A class action lawsuit against Elevate was filed on August 14, 2020 in the Eastern District of Virginia alleging violations of usurious interest and aiding and abetting various racketeering activities related to the operations of Think Finance, Inc. (TFI) prior to and immediately after the 2014 spin-off. On October 26, 2020, Elevate filed a motion to dismiss and awaits a ruling on that motion. Elevate views this lawsuit as without merit and intends to vigorously defend its position. Elevate said, "Based upon preliminary settlement discussions in the fourth quarter of 2020, we accrued a contingent loss in the amount of $17 million for estimated losses related to the TFLT and class action disputes at December 31, 2020." Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas. ELEVATE CREDIT: Facing Sopheary Sanh Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Elevate Credit, 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 is facing a class action suit initiated by Sopheary Sanh. On January 27, 2020, Sopheary Sanh filed a class action complaint in the Western District Court in the state of Washington against Rise Credit Service of Texas, LLC d/b/a Rise, Opportunity Financial, LLC and Applied Data Finance, LLC d/b/a Personify Financial. The Plaintiff in the case claims that Rise and Personify Financial have violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, and seeks class certification, injunctive relief to prevent solicitation of consumers to apply for loans, monetary damages and other appropriate relief, including an award of costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit was removed to federal court. On January 12, 2021, the court granted Rise's motion to dismiss, however, Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 25, 2021, suing Elevate alleging it is the true lender and violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act. Elevate disagrees that it has violated the above referenced law and it intends to vigorously defend its position. Elevate Credit, Inc. provides online credit solutions to consumers and banks in the United States and the United Kingdom who are not well-served by traditional bank products and who are looking for better options than payday loans, title loans, pawn and storefront installment loans. The company is based in Forth Worth, Texas. ENDEAVOR LEADS: Sends Unsolicited Phone Calls, Wiley Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MONA WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENDEAVOR LEADS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00739-GLR (D. Md., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant made telemarketing calls to consumers, including the Plaintiff, without obtaining prior express written consent. The unauthorized solicitation telephone calls have allegedly harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone's hardware and the consumption of memory on the phone. Endeavor Leads LLC is a telemarketing company headquartered in Pasadena, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aimee Bader, Esq. ADVOCATES LAW OFFICE, LLC 2029 Fleet Street Baltimore, MD 21231 Telephone: (410) 537-5950 E-mail: anesquire1@yahoo.com - and – Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ENDO INT'L: Bid for Class Certification in Pelletier Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 for class certification in Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli, is still pending. In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the pricing of various generic pharmaceutical products. In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in the action. In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part in February 2020. In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss, allowing other aspects of the lead plaintiff's claims to proceed. In June 2020, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification. In February 2021, the court replaced the existing lead plaintiff with the Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund, appointed Alexandre Pelletier, Nathan Dole and Wayne Wingard as co-lead plaintiffs and ordered supplemental briefing on class certification. The motion for class certification remains pending. Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Albiges Putative Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 defendants motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, Benoit Albiges v. Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and Mark T. Bradley, is pending. In June 2020, a putative class action entitled Benoit Albiges v. Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and Mark T. Bradley was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the marketing and sale of opioid medications and the New York Department of Financial Services' administrative action against the Company, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI). In September 2020, the court appointed Curtis Laakso lead plaintiff in the action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in November 2020. In January 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 and its subsidiaries continue to defend opioid-related class action suits. Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada have filed suit against the company and/or certain of its subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and in Canada, Paladin, as well as various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of the company's products. As of February 18, 2021, filed cases in the U.S. of which the company was aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,890 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 300 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 185 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids, an action filed by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta on behalf of a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada, as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid medications. The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws and/or common law claims for public nuisance, fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust enrichment. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs and/or other relief. Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts. The cases are at various stages in the litigation process. The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go forward after most defendants settled. EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the Track One plaintiffs in September 2019 which provided for payments totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT(R) and/or ADRENALIN(R). Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. The earliest trial is currently scheduled for April 2021; however, trials may occur earlier or later as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. Most cases remain at the pleading and/or discovery stage. In February 2021, the MDL court declined to certify a proposed class of legal guardians of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome; plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. In September 2019, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking documents and information regarding the marketing, sale and distribution of opioid medications in New York. In June 2020, DFS commenced an administrative action against the Company, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI alleging violations of the New York Insurance Law and New York Financial Services Law. The statement of charges alleges that fraudulent or otherwise wrongful conduct in the marketing, sale and/or distribution of opioid medications caused false claims to be submitted to insurers and seeks civil penalties for each allegedly fraudulent prescription as well as injunctive relief. The action is currently set for hearing in June 2021. Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit involving alleged price-fixing of generic drugs currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs, state attorneys general and other governmental entities have filed cases against the company's subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical products. These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers, as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There is also a proposed class action filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of a proposed class of Canadian purchasers. The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs generally seek to hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by a particular defendant. The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and discovery is ongoing. Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ENDO INT'L: Dismissal of Ranitidine Related Suit Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International plc 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 appeal made by the Third Party Payers in the suit related to Ranitidine, is pending. In June 2020, an MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, was expanded to add Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and numerous other manufacturers and distributors of generic ranitidine as defendants. The claims are generally based on allegations that under certain conditions the active ingredient in Zantac(R) and generic ranitidine medications can break down to form an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). PPI and its subsidiaries have not manufactured or sold ranitidine since 2016. The MDL includes individual plaintiffs as well as putative classes of consumers and third-party payers. The complaints assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to various product liability, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, statutory and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without limitation, compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees and costs as well as injunctive and/or other relief. The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including orders directing the filing of "master" and short-form complaints, establishing a census registry process for potential claimants and addressing various discovery issues. In December 2020, the court dismissed the master complaints as to PPI and several other defendants with leave to amend certain claims. Third-party payers have appealed the dismissal of their master class action complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Other plaintiffs have filed amended master complaints or sought leave to do so. In particular, in February 2021, various plaintiffs filed an amended master personal injury complaint, a consolidated amended consumer economic loss class action complaint and a motion for leave to file a consolidated medical monitoring class action complaint. PPI is not named as a defendant in the consumer economic loss complaint or the proposed medical monitoring complaint. Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ETORO USA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Sanchez Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ETORO USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02291 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read Website content using computer. The Plaintiff claims that he has encountered multiple access barriers during his visits to the Defendant's Website, www.etoro.com, the last occurring in March 2021. These access barriers denied him full and equal access to the Defendant's facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Specifically, these access barriers have deterred him from learning about those various financial services for purchase, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by him and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated blind and visually-impaired persons, to seek for a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so the its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, litigations costs and expenses together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Etoro USA LLC is a financial services company that owns and operates the Website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal EVENING EVENTS: Yong Sues Over Absconding Tips & Illegal Kickbacks ------------------------------------------------------------------ TELIBA YONG, OLIVIA FELIX, and SKYLAR SUTTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVENING EVENTS, LLC dba EDEN f/k/a HALO, a Texas Limited Liability Company; ALEJANDRO MENDEZ, an individual, CHRIS DOE, an individual; ERIC DOE, an individual, DOE MANAGERS 1 through 10; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-00710 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) alleges causes of action against the Defendants for damages due to the Defendants' evading of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding with the Plaintiffs' tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees." These causes of action arise from the Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants in the preceding three-year period to the filing of this complaint. During their time being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were allegedly denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiffs and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors." The Plaintiffs worked at Defendants' principal place of business located at 6333 Richmond Ave., Houston, Texas 77057. The Defendants are owners and directors of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Evolent Health, 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 second amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, is pending. On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer and Steven Wigginton, alleges that Evolent's executives made false or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport. A second amended complaint, which was substantially similar to the amended complaint, was filed on June 8, 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in response on June 22, 2020 and the briefing was completed on July 17, 2020; the parties are now waiting for the court's decision. Evolent said, "We and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock." Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC, provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Services and True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. EVOLENT HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of Evolent Health, Inc. (NYSE: EVH) ("Evolent" or the "Company") against certain of its officers and directors. Specifically, a class-action lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Virginia against Evolvent and certain of its current and former officers recently survived, in part, certain defendants' attempts to have the case dismissed. According to the lawsuit filed, the case arises from Defendants' false and/or misleading statements and/or failure to disclose that: Evolent acquired Passport despite previously stating that it had no intention of buying any health plans for the foreseeable future and that acquiring health plans was not part of its strategic focus. In addition, in acquiring Passport, and contrary to the Company's positive statements during the Class Period, Evolent admitted that Passport was performing poorly and was not being run or managed properly, despite paying massive management fees to Evolent for what was previously understood by investors to be an aligned relationship. If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Evolvent holding shares before March 3, 2017, you may have standing to hold Evolent harmless from the alleged harm caused by the Company's officers and directors by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. If you are interested in learning more about the investigation, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. Additionally, if you have owned Evolvent's shares since before March 3, 2017, you can [Click here to join this action]. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contact: Johnson Fistel, LLP Jim Baker, 619-814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Monopolizes Social Advertising Market, Ryan Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA RYAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-02017 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in anticompetitive scheme to monopolize the market for social advertising. The scheme allegedly aims to (a) neutralize any potential competition from tens of thousands of mobile and mobile-friendly apps built using Facebook's own platform, (b) conscript apps on its platform to bootstrap through large advertising purchases Facebook's fledgling NEKO mobile advertising product with restrictive tying agreements, and (c) acquire, kill, or clone competitors that could rival Facebook as a source of social user data, which would in turn threaten Facebook as a preeminent and unopposed platform for social advertising. As a direct result, the Defendant was able to charge supracompetitive prices for social advertisements on Facebook to thousands of people and businesses, including the Plaintiff, the suit adds. Facebook, Inc. is a social media company with its principal place of business and headquarters located at 1601 Willow Road in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin F. Ruf, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com - and – Brian P. Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 300 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Rosenman Antitrust Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SHARI ROSENMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 21-CIV-00896, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 25, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02108 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged used of its monopoly power to undermine consumer privacy in violation of Section 4 of the Sherman Act and Section 15 of the Clayton Act. Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sonal N. Mehta, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 E-mail: Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL: Remand of Dernoshek to State Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Catherine C. Eeagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand to state court the case, LOGAN DERNOSHEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-CV-56 (M.D.N.C.). The Plaintiff seeks to remand the putative class action to state court. He filed suit against the Defendants in the Superior Court of North Carolina. He brings numerous state law claims arising out of fees the defendants charged him to confirm that he was not delinquent in his homeowner's association fees when he sold his residence. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violated three North Carolina statutes: (1) a North Carolina statute prohibiting transfer fee covenants, N.C. Gen. Stat Section 39A-1 et seq.; (2) the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 et seq.; and (3) the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 75-50 et seq. He also asserts North Carolina common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. Finally, he asks for a declaratory judgment that the fees charged are illegal transfer fees in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 39A-1 et seq. Mr. Dernoshek seeks certification of a class comprised of "all individuals who were charged and paid Resale Fees to FirstService for property sales in North Carolina," and of a subclass of "all individuals who paid Resale Fees to FirstService and HomeWise for property sales in North Carolina." After NextLevel Association Solutions, Inc., doing business as HomeWiseDocs.com, was named as a Defendant in the amended complaint, it removed the case to the Middle District pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). In his motion to remand, Mr. Dernoshek contends that HomeWise has not met the amount in controversy required for CAFA removal and that the "local controversy" exception applies. After HomeWise filed evidence in support of the amount in controversy, Mr. Dernoshek implicitly conceded subject matter jurisdiction under CAFA, ignoring the issue in his reply brief and addressing only the issue of whether the local controversy exception applies. Judge Eagles opines that it is undisputed that the class has more than 100 members and that the parties are minimally diverse. HomeWise plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold. When challenged by Mr. Dernoshek in the motion to remand, HomeWise provided evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Mr. Dernoshek has not disputed that evidence nor offered any evidence to the contrary. For jurisdictional purposes only, the Judge finds by the preponderance of the evidence that there are over 100 class members and likely to be at least 8,000 class members, that the parties are minimally diverse, and that the amount in controversy is well over $5 million. Specifically, Mr. Dernoshek is seeking thousands of dollars in actual, statutory, treble, and punitive damages for each class member. Indeed, Mr. Dernoshek alleges each class member is entitled to up to $4,000 on the Debt Collection Act claim, which results in well over $5 million in controversy on that claim alone. Hence, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2). Mr. Dernoshek contends that the case is subject to mandatory remand under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA jurisdiction in Section 1332(d)(4)(A). He, as the party seeking remand, has the burden of proving that this exception applies. Judge Eagles finds that Mr. Dernoshek has shown, without dispute by HomeWise, that all but two of these requirements have been met. For purposes of her order, the Judge finds by the preponderance of the evidence that at least one Defendant, FirstService, is a citizen of North Carolina, the state in which the action was originally filed; that FirstService's conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted; that Mr. Dernoshek seeks significant relief from FirstService, the local defendant; and that the principal injuries occurred in North Carolina. This leaves two requirements for consideration: the two-thirds-citizenship requirement and the no-other-class-action requirement. The Judge holds that it is not at all clear that Mr. Dernoshek has shown that over two-thirds of the putative class are citizens of North Carolina. She also finds by a preponderance of the evidence that another class action has been filed within the relevant time asserting the same or similar factual allegations against HomeWise on behalf of the same or other persons. Therefore, the local controversy exception does not apply and remand is not required. In light of the foregoing, Judge Eagles concludes that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the class action, which has more than 100 class members, an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, and minimally diverse parties. Mr. Dernoshek has not established that the "local controversy" exception applies. Therefore, the motion to remand is denied. HomeWise's motion to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. The motions to dismiss remain pending subject to completion of the briefing. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6es6hrr4 from Leagle.com. FIVEFOUR GROUP: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FiveFour Group LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FiveFour Group LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02588 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Five Four Group -- https://www.fivefourgroup.com/ -- is a holding company for fashion brands and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal FLINT, MI: Rogers' Claims v. LAN & LAD in Flint Water Cases Trimmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To Rogers v. Snyder, et al., Case 5:18-cv-10713-JEL-MKM (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss. The moving Defendants are Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc., and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C. (together, "LAN"); and Leo A. Daly Company ("LAD"). The case is one of the many cases that are collectively referred to as the Flint Water Cases. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, a combination of private and public individuals and entities, set in motion a chain of events that led to bacteria and lead leaching into the City of Flint's drinking water. The Plaintiffs in the various Flint Water Cases claim that the Defendants subsequently concealed, ignored, or downplayed the risks that arose from their conduct, causing them serious harm. These Plaintiffs contend that the impact of what has since been called the Flint Water Crisis is still with them and continues to cause them problems. The Plaintiff in the case is Gradine Rogers. The Defendants are: (1) Veolia North America, Inc., Veolia North America, LLC, and Veolia Water North America Operatizing Services, LLC (together, "VNA"); (2) Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc. and Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, P.C.'s (together, "LAN"); (3) Leo A. Daly Company ("LAD"); (4) the City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson ("City Defendants"); and (4) former Gov. Richard D. Snyder, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, Liane Shekter Smith, and Adam Rosenthal ("State of Michigan Defendants"). In previous Flint Water decisions, the Court has set forth descriptions of each of these Defendants and adopts those descriptions as if fully set forth in the case. In August 2020, the putative class Plaintiffs and individual Plaintiffs in the Flint Water Cases reached a proposed settlement with State of Michigan Defendants for $600 million. In October 2020, the same Plaintiffs and the City Defendants agreed to a $20 million proposed settlement. Because of the progress toward a partial settlement, the Court granted a stay of proceedings in the Flint Water Cases involving the settling Defendants (Carthan v. Snyder, No. 16-10444, ECF Nos. 1323; 1324; 1353). It preliminarily approved the partial settlement on Jan. 21, 2021. The proposed settlement is still subject to final approval by the Court. The Plaintiffs and other qualifying individuals in the Flint Water Cases have until March 29, 2021, to decide whether to participate in the settlement. If Rogers decides to participate and if the Court grants final approval of the settlement, then, in consideration for a monetary award, the Plaintiff's claims against the City and State of Michigan Defendants will be dismissed. Accordingly, and pursuant to the stay, the Court denies without prejudice the City and State of Michigan Defendants' pending motions to dismiss. If Rogers opts out of the settlement and proceeds with her litigation against the City and State of Michigan Defendants, they may re-file their motions to dismiss pursuant to the schedule and requirements set forth in the Master Settlement Agreement for those Plaintiffs who wish to proceed with litigation. VNA also has a pending motion to dismiss. However, VNA and the Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of all VNA related claims. Accordingly, VNA's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. The only remaining motions to dismiss for determination, therefore, are LAN's and LAD's motions. The Plaintiff alleges professional negligence and punitive damages against Defendants LAN and LAD. Judge Levy opines that her Short Form Complaint contains no factual allegations against LAN or LAD. Accordingly, all of the facts that the Plaintiff relies on as the basis for her claims against LAD and LAD derive from the Master Complaint in Walters v. Flint, No. 17-10164, 2019 WL 3530874 (6th Cir. August 2, 2019). In Marble v. Snyder, 453 F.Supp.3d 970 (E.D. Mich. 2020), and Brown v. Snyder, No. 18-10726, 2020 WL 1503256 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020), the Court analyzed the Master Complaint's allegations as they related to those plaintiffs' legionella-based claims. And in the case, as in Marble and Brown, the fact that the Plaintiff alleges legionella exposure rather than lead exposure does not change the core analysis of the Plaintiff's claims. As to professional negligence, the Judge finds that neither LAN nor LAD's motions to dismiss present any arguments that differ from the arguments they presented in Walters, Marble, or Brown. In Walters, the Court denied LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' professional negligence claims. LAN and LAD do not present any reasons to deviate from that Opinion and Order. Accordingly, for reasons set forth in Walters, LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss are denied. The Plaintiff's claims for professional negligence against LAN and LAD may continue. As to punitive damages, in Marble and Brown, the Plaintiffs brought identical claims for punitive damages against LAN and LAD. In those cases, the Court dismissed the claims for punitive damages because the Plaintiffs in those cases acknowledged that punitive damages are not available for negligence claims. Judge Levy holds that the result here is no different. The Plaintiff's punitive damages claims against LAN and LAD are dismissed. LAD also moves for an order dismissing the Plaintiff's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a cause of action. It acknowledges that the Court was presented with the same motion and arguments in Carthan, which the Court denied. LAD also moved to preserve similar arguments in Walters and in Brown. Because these arguments were made for preservation purposes, the Court did not address them in those cases, and the same result applies in Rogers' case. For the reasons she set forth, Judge Levy (i) denied as moot VNA's motion to dismiss, (ii) denied the City and State of Michigan's motions to dismiss without prejudice to refiling if the Plaintiff opts out of the settlement or it does not receive final approval, and (iii) granted in part and denied in part LAN and LAD's motions to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/fdzb3jxm from Leagle.com. FOOT LOCKER: Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC. d/b/a/ Champs US; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-589180, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 24, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02040 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay proper minimum wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition. Foot Locker Retail, Inc., doing business as Champs US, is an American sportswear and footwear retailer, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason M. Richardson, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: jmrichardson@shb.com FUBOTV INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of fuboTV Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. FUBO Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14118&wire=1 fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:FUBO) FUBO Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 23, 2020 - January 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : April 19, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fubotv-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14118&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, fuboTV Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (ii) Fubo offering of products was subject to undisclosed cost escalations; (iii) Fubo could not successfully compete and perform as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its only sports wagering opportunity; (iv) Fubo's data and inventory was not differentiated to allow Fubo to achieve long-term advertising growth goals and forecasts; (v) Fubo's valuation was overstated in light of its total revenue and subscription levels; (vi) the acquisition of Balto Sport did not provide the stated synergies, internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's addressable market into online sports wagering; and as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] FULLY LLC: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fully LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fully LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02563-JMF (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fully LLC -- https://www.fully.com/en-eu/ -- offers standing desks, ergonomic office chairs, and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com GC SERVICES: Blumenfeld Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------------- RUCHEL BLUMENFELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01394 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged debt incurred to Citibank, N.A. primarily for personal, family or household purposes on behalf o creditors using the United States Postal Services, telephone and Internet. According to the complaint, Citibank, N.A. has contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt. Subsequently on or about February 12, 2021, the Defendant sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff which offers ways to settle. However, the letter is false and deceptive to the Plaintiff because it states that the payment must be an exact amount, yet it also states that the amount may increase and the amount owed on the day the Plaintiff pays may be greater. The Plaintiff is confused whether the total amount would increase and thereby the settlement offer will increase as well. The Defendant has allegedly violated Section 1692e as the letter is open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate, and by making a false and misleading representation. As a result of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices, the Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. GC Services Limited Partnership is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Deutsch, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Food Contains Toxic Metals, Bryan Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- RENEE BRYAN, JEN MACLEOD, ALISON FLEISSNER, KELLY MCKEON, and TERESA HAGMAIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00349 (E.D. Va., Mar. 19, 2021) is an action against the Defendant for its negligent, reckless, and intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the heavy metals or other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging, or advertising of, or statements concerning the Defendant's baby food products. The Plaintiffs alleges in the complaint that the Defendant knew that the presence of toxic heavy metals in their baby food was a material fact to consumers, yet omitted and concealed the unsafe level of heavy metals from consumers. The Defendant's baby foods bear no label or warning to parents that it contains dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, the suit says. Gerber Products Company manufactures and sells baby food, as well as offers life and health insurance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. Kevin J. Funk, Esq. DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-6900 Facsimile: (804) 775-6911 E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com kfunk@dagglaw.com -and- Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Mary M. Nikolai, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com awilliams@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com -and- Kevin Landau, Esq. Miles Greaves, Esq. TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 931-0704 -and- Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Kara A. Elgersma, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE, LLP 55 West Monroe, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com kae@wexlerwallace.com -and- Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-3895 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com -and- Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Lori G. Kier, Esq. Davina C. Okonkwo, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (610) 200-0581 E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com lgk@sstriallawyers.com dco@sstriallawyers.com -and- E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. William Kalas, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com wk@millerlawpc.com GILLENWATER FLOORING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gillenwater Flooring Center, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Gillenwater Flooring Center, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02607 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gillenwater Flooring -- https://gillenwaterflooring.com/ -- is a source for flooring in the Maryville area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GOOGLE LLC: Conspires With Social Casino App Makers, Andrews Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER ANDREWS and JOHN SARLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-02100 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly partnered with slot machine companies in order to develop illegal social casino apps such as DoubleDown Casino. The participation of Google in the illegal Internet gambling enterprise allows social casino developers to make the distribution and payment processing online faster and efficient. As a result of the Defendant's action, more consumers, including the Plaintiffs, become addicted to social casino apps, maxing out their credit cards with purchases amounting to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Consumers addicted to social casinos suffer a variety of non-financial damages ranging from depression to divorce to attempted suicide, says the suit. Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, headquartered in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. Brandt Silver-Korn, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com tlogan@edelson.com bsilverkorn@edelson.com GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit as Conspirator With Slot Machine Makers -------------------------------------------------------------- lawstreetmedia.com reports that consumers filed a class-action complaint in the Northern District of California against Google for hosting social casino phone apps, illegally profiting from gambling games, and being a co-conspirator with technology companies who developed the social casinos. According to the complaint, for about the last ten years, "the world's leading slot machine makers -- companies like International Game Technology, Scientific Games Corporation, and Aristocrat Leisure -- have teamed up with American technology companies to develop a new product line: social casinos," which are gambling apps that mimic the "'Vegas-style' experience" of slot machine gambling. The plaintiffs asserted that the social casino companies, "along with Google, Facebook, and Apple (the Platforms), have found a way to smuggle slot machines into the homes of consumers nationwide." (Neither the slot machine makers nor Facebook and Apple are party to the lawsuit.) The plaintiffs claimed that social casinos, like in-person slot machines, allow users to purchase a virtual "chip" in exchange for real money and then to gamble these chips on the slot machine game to win more chips and continue gambling. Allegedly, in an exemplary social casino "players purchase 'chip packages' costing up to $499.99. . . . . But unlike Las Vegas slots . . . . purchased chips and won chips alike can be used only for more slot machine 'spinning.'" The plaintiffs averred that social casinos combine "the addictive aspects of traditional slot machines with the power of the Platforms . . . . to leverage big data and social network pressures to identify, target, and exploit consumers prone to addictive behaviors." Reportedly, the social casinos must work with the Platforms to profit at a high level. The plaintiffs claimed that the Platforms "retain high-spending users and collect player data, (are) a trustworthy marketplace to conduct payment transactions, and (provide) the technological means to update their apps with targeted new content designed to keep addicted players spending money." Additionally, the plaintiffs contented that by using Google "for distribution and payment processing, the social casinos entered into a mutually beneficial business partnership. In exchange for distributing the casino games, providing them valuable data and insight about their players, and collecting money from consumers, Google (and the other Platforms) take a 30 percent commission off of every wager, earning them billions in revenue." The plaintiffs compared this to traditional casinos, where the "house" takes only 1 to 15 percent. Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted that social casinos are illegal under the gambling laws of many states. Nevertheless, Google and the other Platforms purportedly continue to host and participate in social casinos despite their illegality, according to the plaintiffs. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed that Google and the other Platforms are "all liable as co-conspirators to an illegal gambling enterprise," for providing access to customers, hosting their games, and processing payments. The plaintiffs accused Google of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, as well as for racketeering activities and collection of unlawful debts. The plaintiffs seek class certification and for the plaintiffs and their counsel to represent the class; restitution; declaratory and injunctive relief; and an award for damages and other costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Edelson PC. This lawsuit comes after a wave of lawsuits against gambling games and social casinos and their hosting platforms, like Google. For example, Google was sued over DoubleU Games, and Zynga Games's gambling games. Additionally, a similar lawsuit to the instant action was filed against Apple that accused it of being a co-conspirator for social casinos.[GN] GREEN DOT: Koffsmon Putative Class Suit in California Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Green Dot 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 Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and two of its former officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding our business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding our customer acquisition strategy and its impact on our financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing alleged in the first lawsuit described above. The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged. These cases have been related. The company had not yet responded to the complaints in these matters. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Charging Commissions on Orders ---------------------------------------------------------------- ZAY TOON INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01590 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, conversion, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Nevada Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful business practices that include: (1) failing to disclose in its standard form contracts that it does not take telephone orders and that instead it creates a new telephone number for each restaurant that is advertised on Grubhub's website that, when dialed, redirects the call to the restaurant itself and records the call; (2) misrepresenting that commissions will only be charged on actual food and beverage orders; (3) failing to disclose in its standard form contracts Grubhub's method, if any, for determining which phone calls generate actual food and beverage orders; (4) failing to disclose that Grubhub does not undertake any analysis to determine which telephone calls actually result in food and beverage orders before charging commissions for them; and (5) misrepresenting that commissions are being charged for orders placed through GrubHub.com and generated by Grubhub. The Defendant's actions, and failure to act when required, have caused the Plaintiff and tens of thousands of other restaurants across the country to suffer harm, including but not limited to lost profits. Zay Toon, Inc. is a company that owns and operates restaurant, Zaytoon Restaurant & Market, located at 3655 S. Durango Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. Grubhub Holdings Inc. is an American online and mobile prepared food ordering and delivery platform that connects diners with local restaurants, with its principal place of business located at 3166 N Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq. BLAU & MALMFELDT 566 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 443-1600 Facsimile: (312) 443-1665 E-mail: pmalmfeldt@blau-malmfeldt.com - and – Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Zachary P. Beatty, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 W. Lancaster Ave. Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com ZPB@chimicles.com - and – James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com HELIX ENERGY: Paul Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN PAUL and VICTOR GENERA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. & HELIX WELL OPS INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00717 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) alleges that Helix did not pay the Plaintiffs and Members of the Class one and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours any worked over 40 in a workweek. According to the complaint, Helix paid the Plaintiffs and Members of the Class on a "day rate" basis as subsea engineers. Helix paid them and similarly situated subsea engineers a day rate for their work, and did not pay them overtime, even though they routinely overtime. Thus, they are suing Helix for unpaid overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and seek to represent a collective action group of similarly situated individuals, the suit says. Helix is a marine contractor and operator of offshore oil and gas properties and production facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edwin Sullivan, Esq. Mark J. Oberti, Esq. OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 401-3557 Facsimile: (713) 401-3547 E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com mark@osattorneys.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Ramirez Suit Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, 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 appeal as to the Company in the purported shareholder class action suit entitled, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., remains stayed. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in certain of its public disclosures in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. The complaint, as amended, was dismissed with prejudice on April 27, 2017 and on September 20, 2018, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice. On February 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the federal district court to exercise its discretion and allow the plaintiffs to reinstate their claims to include additional allegations from the administrative order agreed to by the SEC and the Company in December 2018, which was supplemented by reference to the Company's subsequently filed litigation against former executives. On September 30, 2019, the federal district court of New Jersey denied the plaintiffs' motion for relief from the April 27, 2017 judgment and a related motion to allow the filing of a proposed fifth amended complaint. On October 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument had been scheduled for June 19, 2020. As a result of the Company's bankruptcy, the appeal was stayed as to the Company, but the plaintiffs advocated that the appeal could proceed against the individual defendants. On October 13, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for relief against the individual defendants since the motion was not timely filed. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides airport and off-airport vehicle rental and leasing services. It operates through three segments: U.S. RAC, International RAC, and All Other Operations. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in Estero, Florida. HP INC: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Suit With Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION FUND, LOCAL 103, I.B.E.W., et al., Plaintiffs v. HP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01260-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: (i) grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend; (ii) grants the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice; and (iii) grants the Defendants' request for judicial notice. The matter arose in connection with statements by corporate executives of HP regarding HP's Four Box Model. HP is a global provider of personal computers, printers, and related supplies. In 2015, it announced the Four Box Model, which allowed HP to assess supplies revenue based on four factors: installed base, usage, printer supplies market share or supplies attach, and price of supplies. According to HP, the Four Box Model used various forms of data and analytics to accurately predict supplies revenue. During the class period, between Feb. 23, 2017 and Oct. 3, 2019, HP told investors that the Four Box Model predicted HP's supplies revenue would stabilize. However, on Feb. 27, 2019, HP's CEO, Defendant Dion J. Weisler, admitted that HP lacked statistically sufficient, accurate, and otherwise reliable telemetry data from HP's toner-based printer, meaning that the Four Box Model could not accurately predict supplies stabilization. On Feb. 19, 2020, the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 ("Plaintiffs") filed the securities class action lawsuit against HP. On July 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint ("AC"), bringing suit against HP; Weisler, President and CEO of HP from November 2015 to November 2019; Catherine A. Lesjak, CFO from November 2015 to July 2018, interim COO from July 2018 to February 2019; Steven J. Fieler, CFO since July 2018; Enrique Lores, President of Imaging, Printing and Solutions; and Christoph Schell, Chief Commercial Officer since November 2019. The Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. They allege the Defendants made false and misleading statements by failing to disclose the Four Box Model's lack of "reliable telemetry data from HP's toner-based printers and, instead, unbeknownst to investors, utilized inaccurate, stale, and lagging third-party survey data." They also allege violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), against Individual Defendants for their roles as controlling persons of HP and one another during the class period. Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder for insider trading based on violations of the Exchange Act and contemporaneous insider trading of HP common stock. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. On Dec. 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. The Defendants filed a reply on Jan. 20, 2021. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Defendants filed a request for judicial notice. On Dec. 11, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Defendants' request for judicial notice and submitted their own request for judicial notice. On Jan. 20, 2021, the Defendants filed a reply in support of their request for judicial notice and an opposition to the Plaintiff's request for judicial notice. Requests for Judicial Notice and Incorporation-by-Reference The Plaintiffs and the Defendants requested judicial notice or incorporation-by-reference of various documents, including SEC filings, transcripts of meetings, and an Order Instituting Cease-And-Desist from the SEC. Both parties argue that the facts contained within each of the opposing party's documents are subject to reasonable dispute. Without ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits, Judge Illston grants the Defendants' and the Plaintiffs' requests for judicial notice and takes notice of the existence of the parties' exhibits. She does not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents that are subject to reasonable dispute. Exchange Act Claims The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim for failure to adequately plead actionable misstatements and scienter, Section 20(a) claim for failure to plead an independent violation of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A claim for failure to plead an independent violation of the Exchange Act and contemporaneous trading. Among other things, Judge Illston finds that (i) the AC fails to adequately plead with particularity why the Defendants' statements about "big data" are misleading; (ii) the core operations theory does not establish a strong inference of scienter; (iii) the Defendants' statements of general access to the Four Box Model do not establish that they personally monitored the system telemetry or had access to all data within the system; (iv) the seven-week gap between the Defendants' last alleged misstatement and the alleged February 2019 statement is insufficient to establish scienter; and (v) the AC fails to adequately plead that the Defendants had actual knowledge of falsity at the time defendants made the alleged misstatements during the class period. She grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act because the AC failed to adequately plead a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs argue the AC adequately plead a primary violation of Section 10(b). For the reasons she stated above, Judge Illston finds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a violation of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. She grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs argue the AC establishes contemporaneous trading by pleading that they purchased HP shares on the same day as one of Defendant Lores' trades and within nine days of Defendant Weisler's trades. Section 20A of the Exchange Act requires the Plaintiffs to establish (1) an independent violation of another provision of the securities laws, (2) the Defendants traded while in the possession of material, nonpublic information, and (3) contemporaneous trading activity between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Judge Illston finds that the Plaintiffs failed to adequately plead a violation of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The AC also adequately pleads contemporaneous trading. The AC adequately pleads two contemporaneous trades: (1) Defendant Weisler's sale of stock on November 6, 2017 and Lead Plaintiff Iron Worker's subsequent purchase on Nov. 15, 2017 and (2) Defendant Lores' sale on March 9, 2018 and Iron Workers' purchase on the same day. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Illston grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and grants the Plaintiffs leave to amend. She also grants the Defendants' request for judicial notice and the Plaintiffs' request for judicial notice. Any amended complaint must be filed no later than April 9, 2021. The Case Management Conference currently scheduled for March 28, 2021 is continued to May 7, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/s76u8b34 from Leagle.com. HUMAN BEES: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Human Bees, Inc. The case is styled as Diana Mendoza, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all person similarly situated v. Human Bees, Inc., a California Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0002678 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March 25, 2021). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Human Bees -- https://humanbees.com/ -- provides recruiting and temporary workforce solutions to secure time critical staff augmentation demands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Email: norm@bamlawca.com HURRICANE GROUP: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hurricane Group, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hurricane Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02567 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hurricane Group, Inc. (Formerly Force 12 Media) -- https://hurricane.media/ -- began as an online military news and entertainment outlet founded in 2012 and has organically grown to a multi-channel digital network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HYPER STRUCTURE: Underpays Construction Workers, Castro et al. Say ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA CASTRO and MARIO DEL VALLE MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiffs v. HYPER STRUCTURE CORP. d/b/a HYPER STRUCTURE, SAHEL KHAN, CHARLES TOLIVER, and MOHAMMAD RAHMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01391 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to work at the Defendants' construction site located at 138-28 Queens Boulevard, Jamaica, New York 11435 – Plaintiff Castro as a flag person from in or around February 2019 until in or around December 2019, and Plaintiff Martinez as a foreman from in or around October 2019 until in or around March 2020. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants employed a time-shaving policy by requiring their workers off-the-clock without compensating them. Despite working over 40 per week and 10 hours every workday throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week, and their spread of hours premium for workdays that exceeded 10 hours in length. Instead, the Defendant paid them a fixed salary regardless of how many hours they work each workweek, the Plaintiffs add. Allegedly, the Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated construction workers in cash, but failed to provide them with proper wage statements, and with accurate withholding tax statements for each tax year during which they worked because the Defendants did not withhold any of their wages for tax purposes. Hyper Structure Corp. operates a construction firm. Sahel Khan and Charles Toliver are principals of the Corporate Defendant and exercise operation control over their employees. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 INFINITY Q: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of shares of the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ:IQDAX)(NASDAQ:IQDNX) between December 21, 2018 through February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important April 27, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action lawsuit first filed by the firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Diversified Alpha Fund securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Diversified Alpha Fund class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2045.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to calculate net asset value ("NAV") correctly; (3) as a result, the previously reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a result, the Prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Diversified Alpha Fund class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2045.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] INSPIRE UPLIFT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspire Uplift LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Inspire Uplift LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02575-PAE-RWL (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Inspire Uplift -- https://www.inspireuplift.com/ -- offers home improvement products to beauty and health gear, clothing and electronics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Facing GameStop-Related Class Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Interactive Brokers LLC is facing more than three dozens of federal class action lawsuits related to the improper restriction in trading the shares of and options on GameStop Corp. Since late January 2021, more than three dozen federal class action lawsuits have been filed in different jurisdictions against various brokers and other market participants claiming that the defendants acted improperly in restricting trading in the shares of and options on GameStop Corp. and other companies that were subject to unusual trading in January 2021 in what has been referred to as the "Reddit-related short-squeeze". Most of these cases assert federal antitrust claims, including alleging an illegal antitrust conspiracy among the defendants, and various state law claims. Interactive Brokers LLC (IB LLC) and its affiliates have been named as defendants in seven of these class action lawsuits. On February 4, 2021, plaintiffs in one of the class actions filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer all existing short-squeeze related class actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated and consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The time for IB LLC and its affiliates to respond to the allegations will likely be stayed during the pendency of the JPML proceedings. The Company believes that the claims asserted against IB LLC and its affiliates lack merit on their face and the Company intends to file, at the appropriate time, a motion to dismiss any class action that might name IB LLC and its affiliates as defendants. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Plaintiff Bid for Class Status Due August 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on August 16, 2021. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, Ph.D., the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On September 28, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On September 28, 2017, plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 26, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and commercially unreasonable liquidation but vacated and remanded back to the District Court plaintiff's claims for negligence. On November 30, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint on January 15, 2019, which was denied on September 30, 2019. On December 9, 2019, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District Court certify to the Connecticut Supreme Court two questions of Connecticut law directly relevant to the motion to dismiss. The Court denied the Company's motion to certify on May 15, 2020. Currently, Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on August 16, 2021. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case may be fully pursued against the plaintiff. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. operates as an automated electronic broker worldwide. It specializes in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds, and mutual funds. Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES: Facing Putative Class Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- iRhythm 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 company is facing a putative class action suit filed in the Northern District of California, On February 1, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the Company and its former chief executive officer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class includes all persons who purchased or acquired our securities between August 4, 2020 and January 28, 2021. The complaint seeks unspecified damages purportedly sustained by the class. The Company believes the complaint to be without merit and plans to vigorously defend itself. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. is a digital healthcare company redefining the way cardiac arrhythmias are clinically diagnosed by combining our wearable biosensing technology with cloud-based data analytics and deep-learning capabilities. The company is based in San Francisco, California. JHW SERVICES: Underpays Safety Managers, Girling Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ EVAN GIRLING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JHW SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00271 (W.D. Tex., March 16, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from July 2019 through March 2021 as an hourly-paid safety manager. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to compensate him for all hours he worked. Specifically, the Defendant did not count the time spent by the Plaintiff traveling during the workday as hours worked. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week from June 2020 through March 2021, the Defendant automatically rounded off his hours worked into 40 per week, thereby failing to pay him his lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, added the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court finds proper. JHW Services, LLC provides electrical, instrumentation, and automation oil-field services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles A. Sturm, Esq. STURM LAW, PLLC 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 955-1800 Fax: (713) 955-1078 E-mail: csturm@sturmlegal.com JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 230, JOHNSON COUNTY, STATE OF KANSAS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC., JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH, RIAZ VALANI, ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-02099 (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence and violations of the Kansas Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other Defendants allegedly developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis, the suit contends. Unified School District No. 230 is a school district located at 101 East South Street in Spring Hill, Kansas. JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq. Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 Facsimile: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com jpkieffer@wcllp.com thudson@wcllp.com - and – Kirk J. Goza, Esq. Brad Honnold, Esq. GOZA & HONNOLD LLC 9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400 Overland Park, KS 66207 Telephone: (913) 451-3433 E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com bhonnold@gohonlaw.com - and – Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com LEIDOS HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (LDOS) Class Period: 5/4/2020 - 2/23/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-leidos-holdings-inc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] LIBERTY BROADBAND: Discovery Ongoing in Pension Fund Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Broadband 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 discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al., Case No. 2020-0880. On October 9, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by two purported GCI Liberty stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware under the caption Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund, et al. v. GCI Liberty, Inc., et al., Case No. 2020-0880. A new version of the complaint was filed on October 11, 2020. The complaint named as defendants GCI Liberty, as well as the members of the GCI Liberty board of directors. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Mr. Gregory B. Maffei, a director and the President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Broadband and, prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, and Mr. John C. Malone, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Liberty Broadband and, prior to the Combination, GCI Liberty, in their purported capacities as controlling stockholders and directors of GCI Liberty, and the other directors of GCI Liberty, breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Combination. The lawsuit further alleged that the Combination violated Section 203 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware ("DGCL") and that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus that was filed in connection with the Combination misstated and omitted material information. The complaint also alleged that various prior and current relationships among members of the GCI Liberty special committee, Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei rendered the members of the GCI Liberty special committee not independent. The complaint sought certification of a class action, declarations that Messrs. Maffei and Malone and the other directors of GCI Liberty breached their fiduciary duties and that the Combination violates Section 203 of the DGCL, an injunction barring the stockholder vote and the Combination, and the recovery of damages and other relief. On October 15, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On October 27, 2020, after a hearing, the Court granted the motion. On November 6, 2020, the Court entered an order setting a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction for December 7, 2020. On November 21, 2020, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a stipulation and proposed order describing an agreement reached among them, including plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss their claim that the Combination violates Section 203 of the DGCL as moot and to withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction in return for certain agreements by Mr. Malone and Mr. Maffei described in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 24, 2020. The Court granted the Agreed Stipulation and Order and canceled the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint does not include claims against GCI Liberty or Ms. Sue Ann Hamilton, a former member of the GCI Liberty special committee. The Second Amended Complaint also does not assert Plaintiffs' prior claims regarding violations of Section 203 of the DGCL or seek an injunction barring the stockholder vote or the Combination. The Second Amended Complaint includes a new count of breach of fiduciary duty against Mr. Maffei and Mr. Gregg Engles, the other former member of the GCI Liberty special committee, for purportedly failing to inform the GCI board of former and current social and professional relationships between Mr. Maffei, Mr. Engles and Mr. Anthony Magro, an employee of Evercore, financial advisor to the GCI Liberty special committee. The Second Amended Complaint also contains new allegations that the price of GCI Liberty was depressed as a result of statements and omissions by Mr. Maffei in November of 2019. The parties are conducting discovery. Trial in the matter is scheduled for November 2021. Liberty Broadband believes this lawsuit is without merit. Englewood, Colorado-based Liberty Broadband Corporation a cable operator, provides video, Internet, and voice services to residential and commercial customers in the United States. It operates through Skyhook and Charter segments. The Skyhook segment offers a Wi-Fi-based location platform that provides positioning technology and contextual location intelligence solutions. The Charter segment offers subscription-based video services, including video on demand, high definition television, digital video recorder, and digital set-top box services; and voice services, such as local and long distance calling, voicemail, call waiting, caller ID, call forwarding, and other services, as well as international calling services. LIBERTY MEDIA: 9th Cir. Stays Flo & Eddie Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Liberty Media 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 Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related case against Sirius XM. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. (Pandora) in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition, misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings"). On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The California Supreme Court accepted certification. In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018) (the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an important question of law." The MMA grants a potential federal preemption defense to the claims asserted in the aforementioned lawsuits. In July 2019, Pandora took steps to avail itself of this preemption defense, including making the required payments under the MMA for certain of its uses of pre-1972 recordings. Based on the federal preemption contained in the MMA (along with other considerations), Pandora asked the Ninth Circuit to order the dismissal of the Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. case. On October 17, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a memorandum disposition concluding that the question of whether the MMA preempts Flo and Eddie's claims challenging Pandora's performance of pre-1972 recordings "depends on various unanswered factual questions" and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2020, the District Court denied Pandora's renewed motion to dismiss the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding the case no longer qualified for anti-SLAPP due to intervening changes in the law, and denied Pandora's renewed attempt to end the case. Alternatively, the District Court ruled that the preemption defense likely did not apply to Flo & Eddie's claims, in part because the District Court believed that the Music Modernization Act did not apply retroactively. Pandora promptly appealed the District Court's decision to the Ninth Circuit and moved to stay appellate briefing pending the appeal of a related case against Sirius XM. On January 13, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order granting the stay of appellate proceedings pending the resolution of a related case against Sirius XM. Sirius XM Holdings believes it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions, and it intends to defend these actions vigorously. Liberty Media Corporation, through its subsidiaries, engages in the media and entertainment businesses primarily in North America and the United Kingdom. The company operates through SIRIUS XM and Formula 1 segments. The company is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado. LIFESPIRE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckles Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GAIL D. BECKLES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFESPIRE, INC.; THOMAS LYDON; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02447 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 19, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Beckles was employed by the Defendants as health aide. Lifespire Inc. operates as a non profit organization. The Organization provides residential services, day rehabilitation, pre-vocational training, and supported employment to disabilities and their families. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 286-1425 Facsimile: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com LLOYD JONES: Ramirez Suit Alleges Unpaid OT for Maintenance Staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTOR M. RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LLOYD JONES LLC and CHRISTOPHER C. FINLAY, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60639-AHS (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance employee at Shamrock of Sunrise Apartments, a senior living community, located at 4001 N. Pine Island Rd., Sunrise, Florida from January 1, 2019 to March 17, 2021. Lloyd Jones LLC is a real estate investment, development, property management, and senior housing management company based in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LOMPOC, CA: Trial Date Approved in Prison COVID-19 Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo News reports that a tentative trial date has been set for August in a federal class-action lawsuit accusing Bureau of Prisons officials of cruel and unusual punishment over their response to a COVID-19 outbreak at the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex last year. Once known as a place for doing easy time, the complex lost that reputation after it converted to a more security facility in the early 1990s, according to the Los Angeles Times, and later became the location of one of the worst coronavirus outbreaks in the federal system at the time, infecting more than 1,000 inmates. Five inmates at the facility also died as a result of the virus in 2020. As a result, five inmates - Yonnedil Torres, Vincent Reed, Felix Garcia, Andre Brown and Shawn Fears - filed a class-action lawsuit on May 16, 2020, in U.S. District Court. In the lawsuit, they accuse the Bureau of Prisons of an "ineffective" and "unacceptable" response to the outbreak, which included a lack of testing and personal protective equipment, in addition to isolating inmates who tested positive for the coronavirus in solitary confinement for several consecutive days without medical care. The five inmates also are seeking home confinement, claiming the Bureau of Prisons has not done enough curb the spread of the coronavirus. Bureau of Prisons officials did not respond to several emails seeking comment. In a ruling in July 2020, U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall issued a preliminary injunction that ordered officials to begin the process of identifying at-risk inmates for release to home confinement as a safety measure. After 10 months, the plaintiffs are asking the judge to enforce the injunction for a second time based on the low number and slow rate of inmates released to home confinement. Marshall set a tentative trial date of Aug. 24, with pretrial conferences to begin in July. Some inmates released on home confinement, others vaccinated At least 44 of the facility's inmates have been released to home confinement since July 2020, although 129 were approved for release, according to Naeun Rim, one of the plaintiff's attorneys. Additionally, 81 received compassionate release and about 100 were transferred to halfway houses. Plaintiffs have accused prison officials of dragging their feet in releasing inmates, although the Bureau of Prisons contends the preliminary injunction doesn't actually require the prison to release inmates immediately, according to a Sept. 15, 2020, filing. In December, both parties entered mediation to discuss the Bureau of Prisons' alleged noncompliance with the injunction, days before the first round of vaccines arrived at the prison. As of February, more than 240 inmates have been vaccinated against COVID-19, while 151 inmates have refused the vaccine, according to Jason Christopher, a Lompoc FCC paramedic, who added that at least 441 were offered the vaccine. In a ruling that now is included in the Lompoc case, a federal judge in Connecticut recently denied release for inmates who have either received or were offered the vaccine. Bureau of Prisons officials have indicated their intention to ask a judge to make a final ruling on the case, citing their own vaccination and containment efforts. "Evidence that a defendant has been offered the vaccine, whether he accepts it or not, demonstrates that he had the ability and opportunity to take measures to markedly reduce his risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 while incarcerated," read the March 10 ruling. The plaintiffs have been ordered to return to court on March 26 to submit data showing that the Bureau of Prisons officials imposed barriers on their home confinement, according to court records. Epidemiologist to return for second inspection at facility Dr. Homer Venters, an epidemiologist, will return to the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex no later than April 21. In his first visit, Venters was sent to document the outbreak's response at the FCI, finding that inmates lacked timely access to medical care. Marshall authorized the second visit in order to follow up on his first report, despite objections by the Bureau of Prisons, according to court records. "When specifically asked about his latest assignments, Venters did not disclose that he had been retained to give opinions against the federal government," U.S. Attorney Jasmin Yang said in a March 21 filing, also accusing him of "scientific dishonesty." [GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) investors to submit your losses now. Class Period: Aug. 3, 2020 - Mar. 17, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/RIDE Contact an Attorney Now: RIDE@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 RIDE Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint alleges defendants misled investors by (i) falsely touting customer pre-orders when they were non-binding agreements, (ii) concealing that many would-be customers lacked the means to make such purchases, (iii) misstating that Lordstown was "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in Sept. 2021, and (iv) omitting to disclose that the first Endurance test run resulted in the vehicle quickly bursting into flames. Investors began to learn the truth on Mar. 12, 2021, when Hindenburg Research published a report, claiming that the 100,000 pre-orders for Lordstown's EV truck are "largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy." Hindenburg also cited significant, undisclosed production delays and a prototype that "burst into flames 10 minutes before the test drive" in Jan. 2021, substantiating claims by former employees that the company is not conducting the needed testing or validation required by the NHTSA. On this news, Lordstown shares fell by 17% in one trading day. Before the markets opened on Mar. 18, 2021, Lordstown's CEO, Stephen Burns, appeared on CNBC stating, "We never said we had orders. We don't have a product yet so by definition you can't have orders." Lordstown shares fell approximately another 9% on this news. More recently, on Mar. 24, Hindenburg hit again, publishing photos of a broken down Endurance on a tow truck during a commercial shoot last summer. The commercial aired several days before Lordstown Motors announced its merger with SPAC DiamondPeak. Then, on Mar. 25, 2021, Lordstown filed its annual report disclosing that the SEC has instructed the company to turn over documents relating to the SPAC merger and pre-orders of its vehicles. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Lordstown duped investors about its order book," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a Lordstown investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Lordstown Motors should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email RIDE@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw. Contact: Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Lordstown Motors Corp. (RIDE) Class Period: 8/3/2020 - 3/17/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 17, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ride/ If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] LYONS DOUGHTY: Seo Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis P.C. The case is styled as Ji Seo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis P.C., Case No. 2:21-cv-06763-JMV-MF (D.N.J., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis P.C. -- https://ldvlaw.com/ -- is located in Mount Laurel, New Jersey and is part of the Legal Services Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Phone: (201) 507-6300 Email: lh@hershlegal.com M & J TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & J Trimming Company, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. M & J Trimming Company, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02609 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. M&J Trimming -- https://www.mjtrim.com/ -- carries rhinestones, ribbons, buttons, fabric trims, Swarovski crystals, supplies and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal MASTERCARD INC: Court Will Decide if Class Action Moves Forward --------------------------------------------------------------- pymnts.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against Mastercard for a record 14 billion pounds ($19 billion) will be heard by a specialist London court on March 25, which will decide if the case should proceed, Reuters reported. The 2016 suit, brought by former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, could entitle every adult in Britain to about £300 pounds each. Merricks accused Mastercard of overcharging over 46 million people across nearly 16 years. The case goes before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for a two-day hearing after the U.K. Supreme Court last year overruled objections to it moving forward. This is Britain's first-ever mass consumer claim, and the outcome could set the stage for other such lawsuits on deck. Quinn Emanuel, the U.S. law firm advising Merricks, accused Mastercard of overcharging retailers for credit card fees from May 1992 through June 2008. The allegations further state that those fees were then passed on to consumers via increased prices for merchandise, Reuters reported. Some of the arguments expected to be heard this concern the estates of those deceased, and whether compound interest should accrue. The case comes more than a dozen years after the European Commission ruled that Mastercard had charged unlawful cross-border interchange fees across the period indicated. Mastercard maintains that the case has no merit and that many people reaped benefits from the company's payments technology. If allowed to move ahead, Merricks will likely have to prove that Mastercard's domestic fees were illegal and what that actually ended up costing consumers. The class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of 46 million consumers and is the first major lawsuit to proceed under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which penalizes anti-competitive behavior. Mastercard and Visa lost a lawsuit in June 2020 over swipe fees. The U.K. high court upheld a 2018 ruling that charged both companies with suppressing retail competition with multilateral interchange fees (MIF).[GN] MASTERCARD INC: Resists Compound Interest on $19BB UK Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kirstin Ridley at Reuters reports that Mastercard Inc pushed back against attempts to add compound interest to a 14 billion-pound ($19.2 billion) British consumer class action during a specialist court hearing to certify and agree the scope of the historic case. On the first day of a two-day hearing at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), a Mastercard lawyer said that common law did not assume that interest would accrue on a compound basis on such claims. "The law is not the same as economic theory," he said. "In most cases, simple interest is going to be perfectly adequate as a means of compensation." Former financial ombudsman Walter Merricks, who is leading the claim, alleges that Mastercard overcharged almost 60 million people in Britain - including about 14 million people now deceased - over nearly 16 years. The case could entitle adults and their estates to roughly 300 pounds each if successful. Mastercard will lay out its arguments about why claims from the deceased should be excluded, after which the CAT has to decide whether to certify Britain's first mass consumer claim as a collective action - and clarify the rules for a string of other class actions stalled in its wake. The UK Supreme Court paved the way for the case to proceed after overruling objections in December. Merricks, who is being advised by law firm Quinn Emanuel, alleges Mastercard charged excessive "interchange" fees - the fees retailers pay credit card companies when consumers use a card to shop - between May 1992 and June 2008 and that those fees were passed on to consumers as retailers raised prices. Mastercard says it "fundamentally disagrees" with the claim, that people received valuable benefits from its payments technology and that the lawsuit is driven by U.S. lawyers and backed by organisations focused on making money for themselves. The case was filed in 2016, one year after the CAT was nominated to oversee Britain's U.S.-style "opt-out" class action regime for breaches of UK or EU competition law - and 12 years after the European Commission ruled that Mastercard had charged unlawful cross-border interchange fees over the period. [GN] MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Georgia Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEACH COUNTY, GEORGIA and the CITY OF WOODBURY, GEORGIA, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00043-TCB (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, public nuisance, civil conspiracy, wanton-intentional conduct, deceptive trade practices, and false statement in advertising. The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Georgia. The Defendants knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the misconduct of opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, but nonetheless advised Purdue to improperly market and sell OxyContin, a brand-name opioid. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages from the Defendants and to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that has been spent, or will be spent, because of the Defendants' conduct in fueling the epidemic. McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York, New York. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd Street, New York, New York. McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington D.C. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew J. Conn, Esq. HARRIS LOWRY MANTON LLP 1418 Dresden Drive NE, Unit 250 Brookhaven, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 961-7650 Facsimile: (404) 961-7651 E-mail: aconn@hlmlawfirm.com - and – Jeff Friedman, Esq. Matt Conn, Esq. Rodney Dillard, II, Esq. FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO & ZULANAS, P.C. 3800 Corporate Woods Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com mconn@friedman-lawyers.com rdillard@friedman-lawyers.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Tenn. Sues Over Opioid's Deceptive Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BLOUNT COUNTY, TENNESSEE and THE CITY OF MARYVILLE, TENNESSEE, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON DC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00105 (E.D. Tenn., March 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, common law public nuisance, statutory public nuisance, civil conspiracy, wanton-intentional conduct, and deceptive trade practices. The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Tennessee. The Defendants allegedly knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the misconduct of opioid manufacturers such as Purdue Pharma, but nonetheless advised Purdue to improperly market and sell OxyContin, a brand-name opioid. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages from the Defendants and to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that has been spent, or will be spent, because of the Defendants' conduct in fueling the epidemic. McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York, New York. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd Street, New York, New York. McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is a management consultant company, with a principal place of business located at 1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington D.C. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph L. Kerr, Jr., Esq. Jeff Friedman, Esq. Matt Conn, Esq. FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO & ZULANAS, P.C. 3800 Corporate Woods Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Telephone: (205) 278-7000 E-mail: jkerr@friedman-lawyers.com jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com mconn@friedman-lawyers.com - and – Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr., Esq. KRAMER RAYSON LLP Post Office Box 629 Knoxville, TN 37901-0629 Telephone: (865) 525-5134 E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com - and – Mark P. Bryant, Esq. Emily Ward Roark, Esq. Teris N. Swanson, Esq. BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC 601 Washington Street Paducah, KY 42003 Telephone: (270) 442-1422 E-mail: mark@bryant.law emily@bryant.law teris@bryant.law - and – David G. Bryant, Esq. DAVID BRYANT LAW, PLLC 600 West Main Street, Suite 100 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 540-1221 E-mail: david@davidbryantlaw.com MDL 2921: Court Narrows Claims in Allergan BIOCELL Implants Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: ALLERGAN BIOCELL TEXTURED BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-md-2921-BRM-ESK, MDL No. 2921 (D.N.J.), Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey enters Opinion granting in part and denying in part the following motions filed by Defendants Allergan, Inc., and Allergan USA, Inc.: a. Motion to Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CAC") and every other class action complaint filed in a lawsuit that is part of the Multi District Litigation ("MDL") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f); b. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints on preemption grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and c. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Master Long Form Personal Injury Complaint ("PIC") on non-preemption grounds and every other complaint filed in a lawsuit that is part of the MDL and alleges personal injury damages pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs and class members are patients who had Allergan's BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders implanted into their bodies. Many of the Plaintiffs are breast cancer survivors or women having undergone prophylactic mastectomies, who were implanted with the BIOCELL implants in reconstructive surgery. The Plaintiffs allege the BIOCELL implants cause Breast-Implant Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma ("BIA-ALCL"), a cancer of the immune system that develops in the area around an implant, often between the implant and the surrounding scar tissue. BIA-ALCL frequently presents as a late-onset seroma in the breast, which is an accumulation of fluid between the capsule and the implant, resulting in swelling of the breast. Left untreated, BIA-ALCL can spread through the body and be fatal. Some of the Plaintiffs have been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, others have had their implants removed, and others still have BIOCELL implants in their bodies. The case involves dozens of recalled models of the BIOCELL implants. Many models were sold pursuant to three pre-market approvals ("PMAs") that Allergan received from the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on May 20, 2000, on Nov. 17, 2006, and on Feb. 20, 2013. The Plaintiffs allege these PMAs contained Conditions of Approval, requiring Allergan to (among other things) conduct studies of the devices' safety, report adverse events to the FDA, and revise the labeling to add warnings when necessitated by new safety information. Other models, including the BIOCELL tissue expanders, were approved through the much less rigorous Section 510(k) process. Still others were approved for use in investigative studies under the Investigational Device Exemption ("IDE"). For over 20 years, Allergan and its predecessor companies marketed and sold the BIOCELL Implants. Allergan recalled the BIOCELL implants in July 2019 after the FDA found they posed a heightened risk of BIA-ALCL. The Plaintiffs claim Allergan's textured implants increase the risk of BIA-ALCL by 3,000 times. The FDA has concluded "the risk of BIA-ALCL with Allergan BIOCELL textured implants is approximately six times the risk of BIA-ALCL with textured implants from other manufacturers." According to the FDA, 246,831 BIOCELL Implants have been recalled in the United States. On July 29, 2019, the FDA issued a Class I Recall notice. According to the FDA, the continued distribution of the BIOCELL Implants "would likely cause serious, adverse health consequences and potentially death from BIA-ALCL." Allergan refuses to pay the implants' users for the cost of explant surgeries to remove the implants or for ongoing monitoring and testing for BIA-ALCL. The litigation began as a series of actions filed in judicial districts throughout the country. By Order dated Dec. 18, 2019, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred several of those matters to the District of New Jersey, thereby creating MDL No. 2921. The Panel has continued to transfer cases since that time, and the Plaintiffs have directly filed others, such that the MDL currently consists of more than 562 member cases. On May 26, 2020, Liaison Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel filed the PIC. The complaint asserts: claims for manufacturing defect, based on strict liability (Count I) and negligence (Count II); claims for failure to warn, based on strict liability (Count IV) and negligence (Count V); claims for general negligence (Count III) and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count VII), primarily based on the aforementioned defects; claims for negligent misrepresentation (Count VI) and breach of express warranty (Count VIII), based on false representations and warranties Allergan allegedly made regarding the safety of the BIOCELL implants. The complaint also asserts a claim for survivorship and wrongful death on behalf of representatives of decedents who died after being implanted with the BIOCELL implants (Count XI), loss of consortium on behalf of the spouses of those implanted with the BIOCELL implants (Count XII), and punitive damages (Count XIII). On May 26, 2020, certain Plaintiffs filed the CAC. (ECF No. 118.) In addition to certain claims also asserted in the PIC (strict liability and negligent failure to warn, strict liability and negligent manufacturing defect, strict liability and negligent design defect (for non-PMA devices), and breach of implied warranty of merchantability), the CAC asserts claims for medical monitoring (Counts 300-05), violations of state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts (Counts 330-82), unjust enrichment (Counts 383-436), declaratory judgment declaring that releases signed by certain class members are unenforceable (Counts 437-38), and rescission of those releases (Count 439). The CAC also seeks equitable relief in the form of a court-ordered medical monitoring program funded by Allergan. On Aug. 7, 2020, Allergan filed a Motion to Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs' CAC and every other class action complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(f), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints on preemption grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 171-1), and a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' PIC and every other complaint on non-preemption grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Plaintiffs filed oppositions to Allergan's Motions to Dismiss. On Dec. 14, 2020, the Court held oral argument on the motions and permitted simultaneous supplemental briefing. Allergan's Motion to Dismiss on Preemption Grounds Allergan argues the Plaintiffs' claims trigger express and implied preemption and are mostly foreclosed by the Medical Device Amendments ("MDA"). The Plaintiffs counter that their claims regarding Allergan's violations of its duties under state law parallel federal requirements and therefore are not preempted. Judge Martinotti concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations of Allergan's violations of state law duties, if in parallel with federal requirements and not amounting to a private enforcement of the FDCA, are not preempted. He finds that the following Plaintiffs' claims are preempted and therefore dismissed: (1) label-based failure to warn claims; (2) claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of Allergan's investigational devices used in an approved clinical trial; and (3) negligent failure to warn claims based on Allergan's alleged failure to conduct post-PMA clinical studies. These preemptions, however, do not apply to the Plaintiffs' claims concerning Allergan's tissue expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA. Both parties agree the Plaintiffs' claims concerning Allergan's tissue expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA are not preempted. Indeed, Allergan's tissue expanders and pre-PMA implants were sold through the 510(k) process. Allergan's Motion to Dismiss on Non-Preemption Grounds Allergan argues the Plaintiffs raise novel state law personal injury claims that have not been authorized by a state statute or adopted by any state's highest court, and the Court should not recognize such claims under the Erie doctrine. It maintains, when confronted with open questions of state law liability, federal courts in this Circuit must opt for the interpretation that restricts liability, rather than expands it, until the state's highest court decides differently. However, Allergan concedes the Court need not rely solely on the decisions of a state's highest court in interpreting state laws. The Plaintiffs contend the Erie doctrine does not mandate the dismissal of all the state claims not recognized by that state's highest court. Instead, they assert, if the state's highest court has not spoken, district courts sitting in diversity must predict what the state's highest court would decide. Judge Martinotti dismisses: (1) FDCA/CGMP-based negligence per se claims under the laws of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; (2) report-based failure to warn claims under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming; (3) negligence misrepresentation claims under the laws of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Virginia, as well as common law negligence misrepresentation claims under Mississippi law; and (4) the following warranty claims: Implied warranty of merchantability claims under Pennsylvania law and warranty claims under Wisconsin law. Among other things, the Judge opines that (i) the question of whether present injuries exist is a factual issue specific to each individual Plaintiff, and should not be scrutinized at this stage; (ii) the Plaintiffs cannot assert an FDCA/CGMP-based negligence per se claim in some jurisdictions; (iii) the Plaintiffs may assert express warranty claims and UCC-based implied warranty of merchantability claims; and (iv) the Plaintiffs' claims are not viable under Wisconsin law. Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Allegations Allergan challenges the Plaintiffs' class allegations asserted for the following three classes, purportedly nationwide in scope: "A medical monitoring class comprised of all persons who were implanted with Allergan's textured breast implant devices, but have not yet been diagnosed with BIA-ALCL; 112 separate subclasses--two for every U.S. State and Territory--consisting of the exact same putative members as the nationwide class; and A release subclass comprised of persons who signed an optional release of liability as part of their individual warranty claims leading to the explant of their breast implant devices." The Plaintiffs argue Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss the CAC is premature and a rare remedy: Because the issue of whether the Plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23 is a fact-intensive question, class certification decisions should be made following discovery. Judge Martinotti dismisses the Plaintiffs' class allegations asserted for (1) the following subclasses: Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Vermont; and (2) a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) medical monitoring class. Among other things, the Judge holds that (i) the named Plaintiffs do not have the standing as class representatives to assert claims for the state-specific subclasses of which they are not members; (ii) the claims asserted by the named Plaintiffs and putative class members stem from the same course of conducts of Allergan; (iii) a predominance and superiority inquiry is premature at this stage; and (iv) a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) class action for medical monitoring will not provide any relief to some Plaintiffs. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti grants in part and denies in part Allergan's Motion to Strike/Dismiss CAC, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints on preemption grounds, and Motion to Dismiss PIC as follows: a. The Judge dismisses with prejudice all the Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they are based on the alleged defects in Allergan's investigational devices used in an approved clinical trial, other than Allergan's tissue expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA. b. The Judge dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for: negligence per se (Count III) to the extent the claims are asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming; strict liability (Count IV) and negligent failure to warn (Count V) to the extent they are based on Allergan's alleged failure to (1) warn on its label the risk of developing BIA-ALCL and (2) conduct post-PMA clinical studies, for the BIOCELL implants, other than Allergan's tissue expanders and implants sold before the 2000 PMA; strict liability (Count IV) and negligent failure to warn (Count V) to the extent they are based on Allergan's alleged failure to adequately report safety information to the FDA under the laws of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming; negligent representation (Count VI) the extent they are asserted under the laws of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Virginia, as well as Mississippi common law; implied warranty of merchantability (Count VII) to the extent they are asserted under Pennsylvania law and Wisconsin law; and express warranty (Count VIII) to the extent they are asserted under Wisconsin law. c. The Judge strikes/dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiffs' class allegations for (1) the a nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) medical monitoring class; and (2) the PMA and non-PMA Device State Subclasses the extent of the subclasses for Alaska, American Samoa, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Vermont. d. The Judge denies the motions to dismiss as to the remaining claims. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3424v2m6 from Leagle.com. MEISNER'S GOURMET: Palacios et al. Seek Proper OT and Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO PALACIOS, and MARLON REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MEISNER'S GOURMET CATERING, INC., MEISNER'S DEMANDED KOSHER PREPARED FOODS INC., and SOLOMON MEISNER and JOSEPH MEISNER, as individuals, Case No. 2:21-cv-01155 (E.D.N.Y., March 4, 2021), seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of the overtime wage and minimum wage laws pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. As a result of the Defendants' violations of federal and New York State labor laws, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. Meisner's Gourmet offers catering services and event planning for all occasions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 MERCHANT OF TENNIS: Underpays Production Employees, Solis Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOSE HERNANDEZ SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00459 (C.D. Cal., March 15, 2021), arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt production employee from approximately April 2020 to June 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that although the Defendants paid him overtime pay for work in excess of 8 hours per workday and in excess of 40 hours of work in the workweek, the Defendant underpaid his overtime because it failed to pay him at the correct rate of pay. In addition, the Defendants failed to compensate him and other similarly situated non-exempt employees for the time they spent undergoing off-the-clock Covid-19 temperature checks at the beginning of the workday, and failed to compensate them for the rest periods they did not take because the Defendant did not authorize them. Consequently, the Defendants failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements as a result of its failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages, including rest period premiums, the suit says. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to timely pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees for their lawfully earned wages upon separation from employment, added the suit. Thus, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the members of the Classes, the Plaintiff seeks full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies withheld, as well as pre-judgment interest on all due and unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Merchant of Tennis, Inc. provides variety of sports products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Joseph R. Holmes, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Tel: (424) 292-2350 Fax: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com jholmes@haineslawgroup.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Denies McGinnis' Bid to Strike Offer ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KATHLEEN S. McGINNIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-05370-JDW (E.D. Pa.), Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denies the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Offer. Ms. McGinnis filed the putative class action complaint on Oct. 27, 2020. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff an offer of judgment on Jan. 26, 2021, for $1,001. The offer of judgment created a dilemma: Accept the offer and abandon the putative class or press on. Ms. McGinnis pressed on, so the offer expired. The Plaintiff then filed the Motion to Strike on Feb. 8, 2021. She wants the Court to strike it because she says it created an unfair dilemma for her. The offer expired on Feb. 9, 2021. Judge Wolson first addresses the procedural basis for Ms. McGinnis's motion. She captions her motion as a "Motion to Strike," and those semantics create some confusion, both in the case and others. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides for motions to strike certain material from a pleading. That rule applies only to certain types of pleadings, not including an offer of judgment. As a result, Midland Funding argues that the Motion is improper. Ultimately, Midland Funding's argument is one of semantics. If Ms. McGinnis had captioned her motion a "Motion To Declare Offer Of Judgment Null And Void," or something similar, the Court could entertain it under its inherent power. That power does not change just because Ms. McGinnis used the word "strike" in the caption of her motion. That focus on semantics, at the expense of deciding the merits of the parties' dispute, would run afoul of Rule 1's requirement that the Court construe the rules to ensure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the instant and every case. Ms. McGinnis rejected Midland Funding's offer of judgment when she did not accept it within 14 days. So the offer has "no continuing efficacy." The offer of judgment does not now, and did not ever, moot the class action before the class certification stage. Because the Supreme Court has addressed Ms. McGinnis's concern of mootness, there is no reason to strike the offer. Judge Wolson recognizes that an offer of judgment can create some tension for a putative class representative who has to decide whether to accept the offer and avoid any potential liability for costs in the future or to continue to pursue the class's interest. But Rule 23 permits a plaintiff who is afraid of the impact of rejecting an offer of judgment to accept the offer without court approval, as long as the plaintiff has not yet filed a class certification motion. A plaintiff in that position has to face the same choice as any other plaintiff faced with an offer of judgment. There's nothing unfair about that. To hold otherwise would mean that a defendant can never serve an offer of judgment on a putative class representative. If that were the case, Rule 68 would say so. It doesn't, and the Judge does not read that limit into Rule 68 by implication. In light of the foregoing, Judge Wolson concludes that the offer of judgment created a dilemma for Ms. McGinnis, just as offers of judgment do for all the Plaintiffs. But that's no reason to strike the offer. The Judge, therefore, denies Ms. McGinnis's motion. An appropriate Order follows. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/sx4dyxb6 from Leagle.com. MIRAJ COMMUNICATIONS: Rasheed Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Mohammed Rasheed, and All Others Similarly Situated v. Miraj Communications, LLC d/b/a Metro PCS, and Ashraf Umar, Case No. 4:21-cv-00707 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants Miraj Communications, LLC and Ashraf Umar, and their cellular telephone businesses. According to the complaint, in violation of the FLSA, the Defendants failed to pay Mr. Rasheed and Members of the Plaintiff Class overtime wages. Mr. Rasheed and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40 hours a week for the Defendants, yet they did not receive overtime wages as the FLSA requires. The Defendants have a company-wide policy, applied uniformly, that results in the non-payment of employees' overtime wages. This action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all costs of the action, and post-judgment interest for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages to Mr. Rasheed and to Members of the Plaintiff Class. The Plaintiff was an employee who worked as a store clerk at Defendants' various Metro PCS stores. Miraj Communications, LLC does business through its multiple locations in Texas and other states as "Metro PCS". The Members of the "Plaintiff Class" are current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants who work, or worked, at one or more business establishments (i.e., the Metro PCS cellular retail stores) owned, operated and/or controlled by the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq. ALI S. AHMED, P.C. 430 W. Bell Street Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 898-0982 E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com MISSISSIPPI: Supplemental Bid for Injunctive Relief in Amos Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, MICHAEL AMOS, et al., Plaintiffs v. NATHAN "BURL" CAIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-7-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.), Judge Debra M. Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division, denied the Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for injunctive relief. The case is a tale of two prisons -- if both the story of the inmates and the story of the prison administrators are credited. One prison, as told by the inmates and their retained experts, is unfit for human habitation, is dangerously understaffed, contains an array of inhumane conditions, and stands in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The other prison, according to the administrators and their retained experts, implemented recent repairs and increased staffing numbers and, as a result, complies with the Eighth Amendment, at least in most respects. These conflicting stories describe the same place -- the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman -- just at different times. The inmates in the case, who have moved for injunctive relief for four of the Plaintiffs, describe Parchman as it existed in February of 2020. The administrators describe Parchman as it existed in June of 2020, after the implementation of numerous improvements. On Jan. 28, 2020, 33 inmates at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman filed a "First Amended Class-Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial" against Tommy Taylor, in his official capacity as the Interim Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, and Marshal Turner, in his official capacity as the Superintendent of Parchman. In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' policies and practices caused years of neglect at Parchman, which place them in imminent danger of serious physical injury, in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The pleading, which includes a proposed class action, seeks monetary and injunctive relief. On June 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the Court, the Defendants responded to the motion on July 13, 2020, and the Plaintiffs replied on July 27, 2020. The supplemental motion seeks injunctive relief as to four Plaintiffs -- Aric Johnson, Phillip Webster, Kuriaki Riley, and Justin James. The requested relief concerns the medical treatment of these Plaintiffs as well as the environmental conditions to which they are exposed. The relevant factual background, therefore, is limited to those aspects of the Injunction Plaintiffs' medical treatment and housing directly related to the requests for injunctive relief. The Defendants argue that many of the Injunction Plaintiffs' complaints have been addressed by the new Parchman administration and the subsequent repairs. The Plaintiffs respond that the voluntary cessation of the allegedly illegal practices "does not deprive a federal court of its power to determine the legality of the practice." Judge Brown holds that the Plaintiffs' argument is true, to an extent. Subsequent remedial measures are still relevant to their claims for injunctive relief. Specifically, the impact of the remedial steps on an inmate's request for injunctive relief may relate to four separate issues -- sovereign immunity, mootness, the injunction requirements under the PLRA, and the general requirements for injunctive relief. In sum, she concludes that while the case is a tale of two prisons, the present motion concerns only the story of four inmates. She says these inmates indisputably experienced inhumane and intolerable conditions at Parchman in the early months of 2020 (and likely before). Her conclusions regarding Parchman's current state are not intended to diminish these inmates' experiences or suggest there is no form of redress available for what they were forced to endure. Nor does she hold that Parchman as it stands today is in complete compliance with all constitutional standards or that the prison administrators' work to improve Parchman is done. The Judge merely concludes that, based on the administrators' recent efforts, the limited injunctive relief requested for these four inmates is inappropriate. The prison administrators are encouraged, if not cautioned, to continue to improve the conditions at Parchman to ensure that the Parchman of early 2020 never returns. For now, because the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for four inmates based on conditions at Parchman that no longer exist or for which they have not shown a constitutional violation to justify the relief sought, their supplemental motion for injunctive relief is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9vtn4v59 from Leagle.com. MOBILE TELESYSTEMS: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Salim Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled SHAYAN SALIM, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOBILE TELESYSTEMS PJSC, ANDREI A. DUBOVSKOV, ALEXEY V. KORNYA, and ANDREY KAMENSKY, Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-1589 (AMD) (RLM) (E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint filed by Defendant MTS. On March 19, 2019, the named Plaintiff brought the class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Mobile Telesystems PJSC ("MTS") and three executives--Andrei Dubovskov, Alexey Kornya, and Andrey Kamensky. On April 6, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the SAC. MTS is a Moscow-based telecommunications company that provides services in Russia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and Armenia. From 2004 to 2012, MTS allegedly conspired to pay over $420 million in illegal bribes for the benefit of an Uzbek government official, Gulnara Karimova, so that it could operate in the Uzbek telecommunications market. The company operated in Uzbekistan until 2012, when it refused to continue meeting Karimova's bribery demands. On March 18, 2014, Reuters reported that international scrutiny over the Uzbek telecommunications market was growing, and that the Securities and Exchange Commission was investigating two of MTS's rivals--VimpelCom and TeliaSonera--for misconduct. The following year, it was publicly reported that MTS, VimpelCom and TeliaSonera paid bribes to Uzbek officials to obtain business contracts. In a Form-6K filed on November 20, 2018, MTS disclosed that it had reserved approximately $840 million USD (RUB 55.8 bln) to resolve the SEC and DOJ investigations. That same day, the company hosted an earnings conference call with analysts and investors during which Defendant Kornya stated that MTS had "more visibility towards the potential outcome" of the investigations. Following this announcement, MTS's stock price fell $0.64 per share to close at $7.45. In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege that between 2014 and 2019 ("Class Period"), MTS issued false and misleading statements about the company's potential liability for the bribery scheme, the effectiveness of the company's internal controls and compliance structure, and the company's cooperation with U.S. investigators. According to the SAC, the Defendants' misstatements and omissions artificially inflated MTS's stock price, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer a loss after the company entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA") with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") in 2019. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and that Defendants Dubovskov, Kornya and Kamensky ("Individual Defendants") violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a). MTS entered into a DPA with the DOJ on February 22, 2019, in which the company agreed to pay a penalty of $850 million to resolve charges of conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), and violating the internal controls provisions of the FCPA. On March 6, 2019, the SEC announced that MTS consented to an SEC order finding that it violated the anti-bribery, books and records and internal accounting control provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and requiring it to pay a $100 million fine. The DOJ credited the $100 million SEC fine in the DPA. On May 21, 2020, MTS moved for dismissal, arguing that the Plaintiffs have not adequately pled any false or misleading statements, or the required "strong inference" of scienter. The Plaintiffs' allegations of misleading statements or omissions can be grouped into four categories: (i) recording a reserve; (ii) disclosures about the nature of the DOJ and SEC investigations; (iii) statements that MTS was cooperating with the investigation; and (iv) statements regarding MTS's compliance with its code of ethics. The Plaintiffs allege that MTS violated the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles' Accounting Standard Codification ("ASC") 450 and the International Financial Reporting Standards' International Accounting Standard ("IAS") 37 because it did not timely record a reserve for potential fines resulting from the DOJ and SEC investigations. ASC 450 defines a loss contingency as an "existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss to an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur." District Judge Ann M. Donnelly opines that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that MTS violated ASC 450 or IAS 37 by waiting to record a reserve until November of 2018. The SAC also does not allege sufficient facts to establish that MTS could have predicted the outcome of the DOJ's investigation before November of 2018. The Plaintiffs did not cite any authority for the proposition that MTS had to disclose that VimpelCom and TeliaSonera entered into DPAs for similar misconduct, Judge Donnelly notes. The requirement under ASC 450 and IAS 37 that a company must disclose the nature of its own liability cannot logically extend to reporting on the liabilities of competitors. Accordingly, the Judge holds, these omissions are not actionable. The Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that MTS's statements about cooperation were false, Judge Donnelly holds. The fact that MTS did not also get credit for cooperation and remediation pursuant to the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy does not mean that its statements about cooperation were false, she points out. She adds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that suggest that MTS's statements were false or misleading, nor that the statements were false or misleading when they were made. Accordingly, they have not alleged an actionable statement or omission. In short, Judge Donnelly holds, the Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to demonstrate that the challenged claims were false or misleading. To allege scienter under the "motive and opportunity" theory, a plaintiff must show that the defendant "benefitted in some concrete and personal way from the purported fraud," Judge Donnelly explains, citing Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 4586792, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020). Judge Donnelly notes that the Plaintiffs do not allege that MTS or the Individual Defendants "benefitted" from the alleged fraud. She adds that MTS did not conceal the fact of the various investigations into its conduct; the company disclosed that it was under investigation in 2014 and continued to provide updates as to the status of the investigation throughout the Class Period. Nor have the Plaintiffs alleged enough to show conscious misbehavior or recklessness. Accordingly, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have not established conscious recklessness. Since the Plaintiffs have not identified any actionable misstatements or adequately alleged scienter, they have not adequately pled a Section 10(b) claim, Judge Donnelly opines. Therefore, their Section 20(a) control person claim fails as well, as control person liability under Section 20(a) depends on a primary violation of Section 10(b). Though the Individual Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, Judge Donnelly dismisses the Plaintiffs' 20(a) claim against them on these grounds. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, therefore, is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wndk8ac5 from Leagle.com. MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Reed Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- WESTON REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., and CR INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01851-SK (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2021) brings this class action complaint alleging the Defendants of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant CR Insurance placed calls on his cellular telephone, that was registered with the National Do Not Call Registry on November 27, 2013. Defendant CR Insurance has been prominently advertising its contractual relationship with Defendant Molina Healthcare on its website. Purportedly, in an attempt to promote Defendant Moline Healthcare's services, Defendant CR Insurance used an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS) and a variety of numbers from September 2020 to March 2021 in placing its calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone and other similarly situated individuals. Despite the Plaintiff's request to the Defendants to stop harassing him with unwanted calls, their calls continued. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff has received another call on November 20, 2020 from Defendant CR Insurance asking to verify his information for the Molina insurance, who attempted to charge his debit card three times from December 2020 to January 2021 using the information he provided to Defendant CR Insurance on November 19, 2020, added the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the TCPA, the Plaintiff seeks for himself and each member of the proposed classes an injunctive relief prohibiting such violations of the TCPA by the Defendants in the future, as well as treble damages and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Corporate Defendants provides healthcare insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Tel: (646) 837-7150 Fax: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com MOWI ASA: Faces Farmed Salmon Price-Fixing Class-Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- seafoodsource.com reports that a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 against four major Norwegian salmon farming firms has been given the go-ahead to proceed by the judge presiding over the case. Several separate suits were consolidated into one last year and placed under the oversight of Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The defendants in the case, which include Mowi, SalMar, Leroy Seafood, Grieg Seafood, and Cermaq Group, made a motion to dismiss the suit in January 2021, but Altonaga ruled on 23 March that the suit contains enough meritorious claims to allow it to proceed. "In sum, the [complaint] contains enough factual material to 'nudge plaintiff's claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,'" Altonaga wrote in her decision. With the ruling, Altonaga set a two-week trial date for the case beginning on 23 May, 2023, and ordered representatives for the plaintiffs and defendants to selected a mediator by 23 June, 2021, and file a report of their meeting within seven days of it occurring. If mediation fails to resolve the case, witness summaries are due to the court by 1 December, 2021, and within a year of that date, the court will conduct class certification hearings, exchanges of expert witness testimony, and complete the fact-sharing process on issues germane to the case. Mediation must be completed by 18 December, 2022, and pre-trial motions must be received by the court by 3 January, 2023. The lawsuit is based primarily on an ongoing investigation by the European Commission into an investigation of potential anti-competitive practices in the farmed Atlantic salmon sector in Europe, first made public in February 2019. The investigation included raids by E.C. officials of the Scottish and Dutch corporate offices of several seafood companies based in Norway, including Mowi, Grieg Seafood, Leroy Seafood, and SalMar. Subsequently, in November 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had launched its own investigation and issued subpoenas to selected Norwegian salmon firms. The civil suit alleges the major players in Norway's farmed salmon industry exchanged competitively sensitive information among themselves, with the aim of artificially controlling the price of farm-raised salmon bought by U.S. seafood buyers, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The original suit alleged manipulation of the spot market for Atlantic salmon in Oslo, Norway's capital, forcing up prices, as the spot market is frequently used as a baseline for longer-term contract prices. But amendments made to the complaint added concerns that the Norwegian companies in question jointly manipulated the NASDAQ Salmon Index, a weighted average of weekly reported sales prices for head-on gutted Atlantic salmon assembled by a panel of Norwegian salmon exporters and producers. The index was created in 2013 to ensure a more uniform price for salmon on the open market. "The NASDAQ Salmon Index, formally unveiled in April 2013, provided defendants the direct ability to impact and influence the market through their purchases of salmon on the spot market," the complaint alleges, pointing to Mowi, SalMar, Cermaq, and Ocean Quality serving as members of the index's advisory panel and Mowi's subsidiary, Nova Sea, serving as a reporting member of the advisory panel. Mowi's Polish subsidiary, Morpol, played a key role in the conspiracy, according to the suit, as it accounted for around 70 percent of salmon spot-market purchases, effectively pegging the market to "supra-competitive" prices, the suit alleges. "There is no legitimate pro-competitive justification for the key industry players -- the Norwegian defendants here -- to sell substantial quantities of salmon to Morpol on the spot market," the suit says. "Mowi was fully capable of supplying Morpol's salmon requirements through internal transfers, rather than through spot market purchases (which were then used to set salmon prices worldwide). In fact, Morpol's salmon needs amounted to only approximately 10 percent of Mowi's salmon production on an annual basis. Likewise, SalMar and other vertically integrated Defendants had their own 'value-added' subsidiaries like Morpol, and instead of directing that salmon to those subsidiaries (or other non-competitor customers), sold the product on the spot market to Morpol. Morpol's spot market purchases create the appearance of greater consumer demand for these fish than actually is present in the market and that increases and/or stabilizes salmon prices at supra- competitive levels when these spot trades are reported to market participants." The lawsuit also alleges the Norwegian salmon companies exchanged internal information - sometimes related to pricing - at meetings of the Norwegian Seafood Council, the North Atlantic Seafood Forum, the Norwegian Seafood Federation, and the Global Salmon Initiative. It notes that, despite Russia's move in 2014 to ban all Norwegian salmon from entering the country, resulting in the loss of a major market for the Norwegian suppliers, salmon prices rose. In their motion to dismiss the case, the Norwegian salmon companies pilloried the plaintiffs' changes to their suit, "abandoning their prior theory that defendants entered into the alleged conspiracy in 2015, in response to a Russian ban on imports of Norwegian salmon." "Plaintiffs now contend that defendants began conspiring in 2013 in connection with the adoption of the NASDAQ Salmon Index. Plaintiffs allege that defendants coordinated to manipulate the index to prop up industry prices by engaging in artificial spot market transactions. But . . . . salmon prices trended downward after the index was created. Moreover, the NASDAQ Salmon Index is an industry pricing benchmark developed and overseen by third parties. Two defendants - Leroy and Grieg - were never members of the NASDAQ panel, and the majority of companies that contribute sales to the index are not defendants," the motion states. "Under these circumstances, plaintiffs have no plausible explanation as to how defendants supposedly manipulated the index, which plaintiffs admit is based on a lagged weekly average of prices provided by defendants and non-defendants." The salmon farmers also attacked the suit's heavy reliance on the ongoing criminal investigations in the E.U. and U.S. "Despite receiving defendants' document productions to governmental agencies and having nearly a year and a half to allege a plausible antitrust violation, [the suit] continues to be based on nothing more than reports of these early-stage inquiries - with no charges and no assertions of wrongdoing by anyone - and the normal workings of a commodity industry," the motion states. "Notwithstanding their acknowledgment that there are dozens of farm-raised salmon producers in at least 10 different countries, plaintiffs claim that five Norwegian companies accounting for a minority of sales in an alleged global market carried out a years-long conspiracy that inflated salmon prices worldwide. That claim defies logic." In her ruling, Altonaga sided with the plaintiffs, agreeing they "plausibly allege defendents reacted to this constriction of the market [caused by the Russian ban] by colluding together to manipulate the NASDAQ Salmon Index in order to protect themselves from the effect of the ban." Altonaga also said plaintiffs had adequately shown that the Norwegian salmon farmers had shifted "from competition to cooperation and their pricing conduct constituted a change in behavior" and that their spot market transactions constituted potentially anticompetitive conduct. Altonaga also said the Norwegian companies' frequent swapping of executives and mutual attendance at trade association meetings "make it more plausible that the alleged conspiracy spawned from meetings at trade shows or conventions." "At this stage of the litigation, the court finds the alleged substance and quantity of these communications, and the players involved, support a reasonable inference of conspiracy," Altonaga wrote. Altonaga also dismissed the salmon companies' efforts to have the case thrown out due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, ruling the suit cannot be limited by the statute of limitations if there is evidence of fraudulent concealment of a conspiracy. [GN] NANTHEALTH INC: Status Conference in BCERF Suit Set for April 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- NantHealth, 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 Court in Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330, scheduled a further status conference for April 7, 2021. In May 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Act based on allegations similar to those in Deora. That case is captioned Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. NantHealth, Inc., BC 662330. The parties agreed to stay the case. During a status conference on February 4, 2021, the Court scheduled a further status conference for April 7, 2021 and stated that if Plaintiff does not voluntarily dismiss the action, the Court will entertain a motion to dismiss in light of the finalization of the Deora settlement. The Company believes that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. NantHealth, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a healthcare technology company in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Culver City, California. NantHealth, Inc. is a subsidiary of NantWorks, LLC. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Goode Files Suit in M.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kerry Goode, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:21-cv-00026-CAR (M.D. Ga., March 25, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. The National Collegiate Athletic Association -- http://www.ncaa.org/-- is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletes from up to 1,268 North American institutions and conferences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cale H. Conley, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP 4200 Northside Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: (404) 467-1155 Fax: (404) 467-1166 Email: cale@conleygriggs.com NAVIENT CORP: Discovery in Lord Abbett Fund Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Navient 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt. These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court, with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al. The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018. In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Navient defendants' motion to dismiss. The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit. Discovery is on-going. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides asset management and business processing services to education, healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NAVIENT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in NJ Consolidated Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Navient 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, In RE Navient Corporation Securities Litigation. Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown, and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After the cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018. In December 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and discovery is on-going. The Company continues to deny the allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides asset management and business processing services to education, healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is based in Wilmington, Delaware. NEPTUNE WELLNESS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found at the link provided. Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEPT) Class Period: July 24, 2019 to February 16, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 On May 9, 2019, Neptune announced that it had signed a definitive agreement to acquire the assets of SugarLeaf Labs, LLC and Forest Remedies LLC (collectively, "SugarLeaf"), a registered North Carolina-based commercial hemp company providing extraction services and formulated products (the "SugarLeaf Acquisition"). On July 24, 2019, Neptune announced the closing of the SugarLeaf Acquisition. On February 15, 2021, Neptune announced disappointing financial results for the third quarter of the Company's fiscal year 2021, missing analyst expectations. Among other results, Neptune reported third quarter revenues of CA$3.32 million and a net loss of CA$73.8 million, down 63.81% and over 1,000% year-over-year, respectively. Neptune attributed the net loss, in part, to a CA$35.6 million impairment of goodwill and a CA$2.1 million impairment of "property, plant and equipment and right-of-use assets related to the acquisition of SugarLeaf in July 2019," as well as accelerated amortization of CA$13.95 million "also related to the SugarLeaf acquisition." Additionally, the Company disclosed that its "[g]ross margin declined to a loss of 268.3%," which included a non-cash CA$7.39 million "write-down of inventory and deposits to reflect their net realizable value." On this news, Neptune's stock price fell $0.86 per share, or 30.71%, to close at $1.94 per share on February 16, 2021. Then, on February 17, 2021, prior to the start of the day's trading session, Neptune issued a press release announcing the termination of an at-the-market offering conducted by the Company, selling 9,570,735 of its common shares and raising approximately $18.6 million in gross proceeds. Just minutes later, Neptune issued a second press release announcing that the Company was conducting a $55 million registered direct offering. On this news, Neptune's stock price fell another $0.21 per share, or 10.82%, to close at $1.73 per share on February 17, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the cost of Neptune's integration of the assets and operations acquired in the SugarLeaf Acquisition would be larger than the Company had acknowledged, placing significant strain on the Company's capital reserves; (ii) accordingly, it was reasonably foreseeable that the company would need to conduct additional stock offerings to raise more capital; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Neptune Wellness class action case go to: https://bespc.com/cases/NEPT About Bragar Eagel & Squire Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] NEW HAMPSHIRE: Twyman Employment Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled TIMOTHY TWYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEW HAMPSHIRE BALL BEARINGS, INC., Case No. 20STCV02459, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 24, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02573 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to include all remuneration when calculating the overtime rate of pay, failure to authorize or permit meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc. is a manufacturer of precision bearings, headquartered in Peterborough, New Hampshire. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nancy E. Pritikin, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 815-2691 Facsimile: (650) 815-4694 E-mail: NPritikin@sheppardmullin.com - and – Krista Stevenson Johnson, Esq. Gal Gressel, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 E-mail: KSJohnson@sheppardmullin.com GGressel@sheppardmullin.com NEW YORK CITY: Miller Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Of New York, et al. The case is styled as Dahkeem Miller, Jose Guity, Travis Butler, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. City Of New York, Cynthia Brann, Timothy Farrell, Hazel Jennings, Brenda Cooke, Case No. 1:21-cv-02616 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. New York City (NYC), often called simply New York -- https://www.nyc.gov/ -- is the most populous city in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric J. Hecker, Esq. CUTI HECKER WANG, LLP (NYC) 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 620-2602 Fax: (212) 620-2612 Email: ehecker@chwllp.com NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Suit Over False COVID-19 Statements Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings 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 ro defend a consolidated class action suit related to the company's alleged false COVID-19 statements. 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. Norwegian Cruise 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, the company 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. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. operates a fleet of passenger cruise ships. The Company offers an array of cruise itineraries and theme cruises, as well as markets its services through various distribution channels including retail and travel agents, international and incentive sales, and consumer direct. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Miami, Florida. OAK VIEW GROUP: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak View Group, LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Oak View Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02601 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oak View Group -- http://www.oakviewgroup.com-- operates as an entertainment and sports facilities company. The Company offers arena and stadium alliance, consulting, sponsorships and partnerships, venture capital, and global facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com OHIO: Dismissal of Entire Claims in Jones v. ODRC in Recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AARON L. JONES, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE DEWINE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-3301 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, enters her Order and Report and Recommendation: a. recommending that the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, but grants leave to Plaintiff Jones to amend to develop his individual claim(s); b. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment; and c. denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. On May 6, 2020, 21 Plaintiffs, who are state inmates under the supervision of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("ODRC") at the Belmont Correctional Institution, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, filed the putative class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against Governor Mike DeWine and the ODRC. They initiated the action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, but on June 29, 2020, the case was transferred to the Court. On Aug. 26, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Jones leave to proceed in forma pauperis. No other Plaintiffs sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On Sept. 21, 2020, 18 Plaintiffs filed what appears to be an Amended Complaint against Gov. DeWine; Annette Chambers-Smith, the Director of the ODRC; Ernie Moore, the Deputy Director of the ODRC; Dr. Eddy Andrews, the Medical Director of the ODRC; and Karen Stanforth, the Chief Medical Inspector of the ODRC. On Oct. 24, 2020, six Plaintiffs filed a Request for Removal from Civil Action, seeking to withdraw from the subject action and file their claims in a separate lawsuit. The Court takes judicial notice that these six Plaintiffs are pursuing their claims in a related case, Joseph Shine-Johnson, et al. v. Mike DeWine, et al., S.D. Ohio Case No. 20-5919. For good cause shown, the Court therefore grants the Plaintiffs' request. Plaintiffs Joseph Shine-Johnson, Jarron V. Earley-Tabor, Rubin L. Williams, Antonio Henderson, Victor Steel, and James Goodson are dismissed from the case with prejudice. With regard to the 12 remaining Plaintiffs, the matter is now before the Court for an initial screen of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2), 1915A to identify cognizable claims and to recommend dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The matter is also before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. First, Judge Deavers finds that the Amended Complaint is titled as followed: "Plaintiff(s) Class Action Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23(a)(b)(2) & (3), in Executive Order of Release Enacted by Defendants." The Amended Complaint, however, is devoid of any allegations on behalf of a putative class. Therefore, to the extent the Plaintiffs intend to assert claims on behalf of a class, the Amended Complaint is deficient. Moreover, because the Plaintiffs are non-attorneys and inmates proceeding pro se, they cannot adequately represent a class. Second, according to the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs are inmates at Belmont Correctional Institution ("BCI"), and they allege that the Defendants are not adhering to proper social distancing and other public health-related protocols in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. They purport to allege a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. However, Judge Deavers finds that the Amended Complaint does not contain any class allegations, and it does not set forth to define a putative class. Rather, the Amended Complaint contains multiple general allegations regarding the conditions at BCI in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including that "all incarcerated people at BCI are at heightened risk of contracting COVID-19." Separate from the Plaintiffs' collective claims, Plaintiff Jones also appears to assert an individual claim, alleging that in April 2020 he requested a breathing treatment for his bronchitis, but he was told by three separate nurses at BCI that they were not allowed to provide the treatment. Plaintiff Jones attaches a sworn declaration to the Amended Complaint in support. Even reading the Declaration as part of the Amended Complaint, Judge Deavers finds it unclear what relief Plaintiff Jones seeks. Third, the Plaintiffs bring their federal law claims against the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As a general rule, a plaintiff proceeding under Section 1983 must allege that the deprivation of his rights was intentional or at least the result of gross negligence. Mere negligence is not actionable under Section 1983. Judge Deavers finds that the Plaintiffs expressly bring their claims against the Defendants in their official capacities. The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution operates as a bar to federal court jurisdiction when a private citizen sues a state or its instrumentalities unless the state has given express consent. It is well established that Section 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment. Because Ohio has not waived its sovereign immunity in federal court, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for monetary damages. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages. Accordingly, the Judge recommends that the Plaintiffs' claim for monetary relief be dismissed. That recommendation notwithstanding, there is an exception to the state sovereign immunity rule, "if an official-capacity suit seeks only prospective injunctive or declaratory relief." Because the Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Defendants, the exception to the state sovereign immunity rule may apply. Judge Deavers analyzes the Plaintiffs' claims to see if the exception applies to any of the Defendants. Judge Deavers recommends that (i) the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant DeWine be dismissed in their entirety because while the Governor may direct broad policy initiatives to various state agencies such as the ODRC, those agencies retain responsibility for direct enforcement of those policies; (ii) the Plaintiffs' deliberate indifference claims against the ODRC Defendants be dismissed in their entirety because they have not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that the ODRC Defendants acted with deliberate indifference" within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment; (ii) the Plaintiffs' medical deliberate indifference claims against the ODRC Defendants be dismissed in their entirety because it appears Plaintiff Jones may believe he has an individual claim for medical deliberate indifference, but the Plaintiffs collectively have failed to state such a claim. Fourth, Plaintiff Jones, who has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, also appears to bring an individual claim against the Defendants under Section 1983. Specifically, he alleges that he has bronchitis, and in April 2020, he requested a breathing treatment for his bronchitis, but he was told by three separate nurses that they were not allowed to provide the treatment to Plaintiff Jones. Judge Deavers cannot conclude that Plaintiff Jones has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted at this point. It is unclear against whom Plaintiff Jones asserts his allegations, as neither the Amended Complaint nor the Declaration identifies any Defendants by name. Although respectful of the Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court is not permitted to guess what claims the Plaintiff asserts, let alone against which Defendant(s) he asserts such claims. Accordingly, the Judge recommends that Plaintiff Jones be granted leave to amend the Complaint to develop his individual claim(s). Should Plaintiff Jones choose to amend his Complaint to assert individual claims against specific Defendants, then this Court will evaluate the viability of such claims at that time. Plaintiff Jones is advised that, should the Court allow it, any forthcoming Amended Complaint shall be limited to his, and only his individual claims. Fifth, the matter is also before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. The Court has not yet ordered service of the Plaintiffs' Complaint, let alone service of the now-operative Amended Complaint. Therefore, Judge Deavers holds that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment is premature, as the Defendants have not missed any deadline for answering or otherwise responding to the Plaintiffs' pleadings. Accordingly, she denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion. Lastly, the matter is also before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Although the Court has statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e) to appoint counsel in a civil case, Judge Deavers holds that appointment of counsel is not a constitutional right. She has evaluated whether such exceptional circumstances exist in the case and determines that the appointment of counsel is not warranted at this juncture. Accordingly, the Judge denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Counsel. For the reasons she stated, Judge Deavers grants the Plaintiffs' Request for Removal. Plaintiffs Shine-Johnson, Earley-Tabor, Williams, Henderson, Steel, and Goodson are dismissed from the case with prejudice. Further, the Judge recommends that the Court dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety, but that the grants leave to Plaintiff Jones to amend to develop his individual claim(s). Finally, the Judge denies as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion for Default, and denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. The Clerk is directed to strike ECF No. 18 from the docket. If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, it may, within 14 days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating the Report and Recommendation, and the part in question, as well as the basis for objection. Response to objections must be filed within 14 days after being served with a copy. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order & Report & Recommendation is available at https://tinyurl.com/mxm32pv6 from Leagle.com. ONTRAK INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ:OTRK) securities between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., No. 21-cv-01987, and is assigned to Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha. The Ontrak class action lawsuit charges Ontrak and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ontrak securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ontrak class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Ontrak class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ontrak class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Ontrak class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ontrak class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Ontrak class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ontrak class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 3, 2021. Ontrak is a healthcare company that offers a Predict-Recommend-Engage platform that organizes and automates healthcare data integration and analytics. A critical component of this platform are Ontrak programs, which are designed to provide healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions. The Ontrak class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Ontrak's largest customer evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (ii) as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find Ontrak's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (iii) because this customer accounted for a significant portion of Ontrak's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Ontrak's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 1, 2021, Ontrak revealed that its largest customer had terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. Ontrak stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings." Ontrak also stated that "the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics." On this news, Ontrak's share price fell by more than 46%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Michael Albert, 800-449-4900 malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ONTRAK INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:OTRK) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ontrak's largest customer gauged the Company's performance on the basis of reaching the lowest cost per medical visit possible rather than patient outcomes or medical cost savings. This customer found the Company's program to be ineffective and was likely to terminate its contract. Because this customer represented a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of this contract would have a significant impact on its financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Ontrak, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] PACIFIC CHOICE: Coe Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANTHONY COE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIFIC CHOICE SEAFOOD COMPANY, PACIFIC SEAFOOD, RESOURCE STAFFING GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00278041, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 23, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:21-at-00270 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. Pacific Choice Seafood Company is a provider of seafood products based in California. Pacific Seafood is a seafood company based in Oregon. Resource Staffing Group, Inc. is a recruitment services and staffing firm headquartered in Sacramento, California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Dan M. Forman, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5150 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-6300 E-mail: dforman@cdflaborlaw.com - and – Corey J. Cabral, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 900 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 361-0991 E-mail: ccabral@cdflaborlaw.com PACIFIC TRIMMING: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Trimming Enterprise Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Pacific Trimming Enterprise Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02610 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pacific Trimming Enterprise -- https://www.pacifictrimming.com/ -- is a craft store in New York City offering tools & trimmings for fashion crafters including buttons, chains, zippers, elastic & hardware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal PATENAUDE & FELIX: Bid to Dismiss/Strike McClellan FDCPA Suit Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, BRIAN McCLELLAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. PATENAUDE & FELIX, A.P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-CV-678-NR (W.D. Pa.), Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, as well as strike their proposed class definition and allegations. Plaintiffs McClellan and Michael Cockerham filed a putative class action against Defendant Patenaude & Felix ("P&F") for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). P&F now moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint, as well as strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition and allegations. First, it argues that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they did not suffer a "concrete" and "particularized" injury. Judge Ranjan disagrees. He says the Plaintiffs assert that they suffered additional expenses, fees, and costs directly due to P&F's allegedly improper conduct. That is sufficient to satisfy the "concrete and particularized injury" requirement for Article III standing. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently established standing at this stage. Next, P&F argues that Counts I and II should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) because they do not allege violations of the FDCPA. The Plaintiffs bring two counts in their amended complaint. Count I alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, specifically Section 1692e(5) & (10). Count II alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692d. Judge Ranjan finds that the Plaintiffs have pled sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim for relief under the FDCPA, and thus satisfy the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. He concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations state plausible claims for relief under the plain language of the FDCPA. This is especially so in light of the broad protections provided by the FDCPA. Details surrounding P&F's actual motivations, the effect of P&F's actions on the Plaintiffs, and the precise communications between the Plaintiffs (and their attorneys) and P&F, are all relevant considerations that may affect the Plaintiffs' claims. These questions must be determined through discovery. Dismissal is thus unwarranted. Finally, P&F moves to strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition and allegations under Rule 12(f). It argues that the Plaintiffs use an improper "fail-safe" class definition, and "the 'competent attorney' standard alone thwarts certification in the matter. Judge Ranjan acknowledges that the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition may be problematic, as the definition inherently assumes an FDCPA violation. However, he finds that P&F's class arguments are better addressed at the class-certification stage. He, therefore, denies the P&F's motion to strike without prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiffs move to certify a class defined in the same manner as pled in the amended complaint, P&F can raise this same argument at the class-certification stage. Accordingly, Judge Ranjan denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss/strike. It is without prejudice to the Defendant raising its arguments on a more complete record at subsequent stages of the case. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Memorandum Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zc3n3a9 from Leagle.com. PERSONAL TOUCH: Kehoe Law Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential class action claims on behalf of victims of a January 27, 2021 cybersecurity attack on the private cloud hosted by Personal Touch Holding Corp.'s ("PTHC") managed service providers. PTHC's recently published "Notice of Security Breach" stated that the following information was involved in the cyberattack: "PTHC's private cloud-stored business records of PTHC and its direct and indirect subsidiaries . . . where patients' personally identifiable information and protected health information were contained. This information may include medical treatment information, insurance card, and health plan benefit numbers, medical record numbers, first and last name, address, telephone numbers, date of birth, Social Security number, and financial information, including check copies, credit card numbers, and bank account information." "Employee information may include first and last name, address, telephone numbers, date of birth, Social Security numbers (including dependent and spouse Social Security numbers), driver's license number, passport numbers, birth certificates, background and credit reports, demographic information, usernames and passwords used at the Company, personal email addresses, fingerprints, insurance card and health and welfare plan benefit numbers, retirement benefits information, medical treatment information, check copies, and other financial information necessary for payroll." PTHC's "Notice of Security Breach" listed the following direct and indirect company subsidiaries: PT Intermediate Holding, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of W. Va. Inc.; PT Hospice of PA Inc.; Personal Touch Care of PA, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Ohio, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Baltimore, Inc.; PT Home Services of San Antonio, Inc.; Houston-Personal Touch Home Care, Inc.; PT Home Services of Dallas, Inc.; Houston-Personal Touch Home-Aides, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Indiana, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Greater Portsmouth, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of N.J., Inc.; PT Management Services, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of KY, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of S.E. Mass., Inc.; PTS of Westchester, Inc.; Personal-Touch Home Aides of New York, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Westchester, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Long Island, Inc.; Personal Touch Home-Aides, Inc. (PA); Personal Touch Home Care of VA, Inc.; Personal Touch Hospice of VA, Inc.; Personal Touch Home --Aides, Inc. (MA); Personal Touch Home Aides of VA, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care of Mass., Inc.; Personal Touch Home Aides of Baltimore, Inc.; Personal Touch Home Care IPA, Inc. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE A VICTIM OF PTHC'S DATA BREACH AND HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT KEHOE LAW FIRM'S CLASS ACTION DATA BREACH INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS, PLEASE CONTACT KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C., MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ., (215) 792-6676, EXT. 804, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM. Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is a multidisciplinary, plaintiff--side law firm dedicated to protecting investors and consumers from corporate fraud, negligence, and other wrongdoing. Driven by a strong and principled sense of social responsibility and obtaining justice for the aggrieved, Kehoe Law Firm represents plaintiffs seeking to recover investment losses resulting from corporate wrongdoing or malfeasance, those harmed by anticompetitive practices, and consumers victimized by fraud, false claims, deception or data breaches. [GN] PLUG POWER: Scott+Scott Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Plug provides comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell turnkey solutions focused on systems used to power electric motors in the electric mobility and stationary power markets. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; and (2) the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. Throughout the Class Period, Plug touted its internal controls over financial reporting and its record billings for the year. Then, on March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a Notification of Late Filing with the Securities Exchange Commission stating it could not timely file its annual report for the period ending December 31, 2020, because it was completing a "review and assessment of the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the recoverability of the right to use assets associated with certain leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas." The Company stated "[i]t [was] possible that one or more of these items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior period financial statements." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021. Then, on March 16, 2021, Plug announced that it will have to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 as well as quarterly filings for 2019 and 2020. As a result of the restatement, Plug would not file its Form 10K as planned. What You Can Do If you purchased Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is May 7, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts Joseph Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] RANGE RESOURCES: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or the "Company") (NYSE:RRC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and docketed under 21-cv-00301, is on behalf of a class consisting of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Range Resources common stock between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Range Resources securities during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its subsidiary, Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC, engage in the exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian region, including Pennsylvania. Under Pennsylvania regulations, Range Resources must apply for the correct designation of the status of its wells with local regulators. These status designations include, for example, "active," "inactive," or "abandoned." Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP") enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a well's status. According to the DEP, "inactive" wells must be viable for future use within a certain time frame. If a well is not viable for future use within that time frame, then the well should be classified as "abandoned" and must be plugged. Improperly classified wells present serious health, safety, and environmental concerns, further highlighting the need for the correct designation of a well's status. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 10, 2021, shortly before the close of the trading session, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania-specifically concerning whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested to designate as inactive, the DEP found that "between July 16, 2013, and October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12 months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue. The following day, as the market fully digested the significance of the DEP's announcement, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] RANGE RESOURCES: Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Range Resources Corporation ("Range Resources" or "the Company") (NYSE:RRC) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in the state of Pennsylvania since 2013. This action artificially decreased the Company's cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells. The Company was the subject of an investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating its well status. The DEP investigation ultimately led to the Company incurring fines from the state of Pennsylvania. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Range Resources, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] REAL WATER: Milberg Coleman Files Lawsuit Over Defective Product ---------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC ("Milberg") has filed a class action lawsuit against Real Water, a Las Vegas-based bottled water brand, claiming that the product causes liver failure and other side effects. Real Water, owned by Affinity Lifestyles.com, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada claims its product is the "healthiest drinking water available." Thanks to its alkaline properties and infusion with "negative ions," says Affinity, Real Water can "help your body to restore balance and reach your full potential." However, according to Milberg's class action complaint, Real Water failed to disclose that its product is defective and can cause health problems that include fever, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, jaundice, liver failure, and hospitalization, despite knowing about these harmful effects since at least November 2020. "Defendant's Real Water is not the healthiest drinking water available," states Milberg's complaint, filed on March 21 in U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. "In fact, it is far from it. Defendant's Product does not help one reach their full potential. In fact, Defendant's Product has caused liver damage to children due to non-viral hepatitis." In November 2020, a 2-year-old from Southern Nevada was transported to the hospital for liver malfunction. While there, it became apparent that multiple children have had similar ailments. The only common link among the group was drinking Real Water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began an investigation into these cases on March 16. On March 21, FDA issued a warning that consumers, restaurants, and retailers should not drink, cook with, sell, or serve Real Water. A company press release says that Real Water has asked stores to stop selling its products "throughout the United States until the issue is resolved." "Affinity makes a lot of impressive-sounding claims about Real Water's health benefits and innovative technology," says Dan Bryson, a Senior Partner at Milberg. "It goes out of its way to deride the dangers of tap water when, ironically, drinking tap water appears to be far safer than drinking Real Water." Milberg's Real Water class action lawsuit has a proposed nationwide class of all persons in the United States who purchased the product for personal, family, or household use. It also includes a subclass of California residents who purchased Real Water. The lawsuit seeks damages and/or equitable relief on behalf of the class members. Two of the lead plaintiffs suffered nausea after drinking the water, and one plaintiff noticed blood in her urine. "Consumer class actions play an important role in protecting public health by drawing attention to dangerous products," said Milberg Senior Partner Greg Coleman. "Many of the so-called health products out there are anything but, and litigation like this helps to root out bogus manufacturer claims." Media Inquiries Karine Lim Senior Brand Executive klim@milberg.com About Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman Established by members of Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP, Sanders Phillips Grossman LLC, Greg Coleman Law PC, and Whitfield Bryson LLP, Milberg represents plaintiffs in the areas of antitrust, securities, financial fraud, consumer protection, automobile emissions claims, defective drugs and devices, environmental litigation, financial and insurance litigation, and cyber law and security. Milberg has nearly 100 attorneys operating on three continents. The firm and its affiliates have recovered over $50 billion in verdicts and settlements. Milberg offices are located in New York, London, California, Georgia, Mississippi, Washington, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico. [GN] RECRO PHARMA: Bid to Nix Suit Related to IV Meloxicam Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Recro Pharma, 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 filed in the securities class action suit related to the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam, is pending. On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the Company concerning the New Drug Application ("NDA") for IV meloxicam. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims and sought the same relief but included new allegations and named additional officers as defendants. On February 8, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, which the lead plaintiff opposed on April 9, 2019. On May 9, 2019, the Company filed its response and briefing was completed on the motion to dismiss. In response to questions from the Judge, the parties submitted supplemental briefs with regard to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint during the fall of 2019. On February 18, 2020, the motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice. On April 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 18, 2020. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on August 17, 2020. On September 16, 2020, the Company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. In connection with the separation of Baudax Bio, Baudax Bio accepted assignment by the Company of all of its obligations in connection with the Securities Litigation and agreed to indemnify it for all liabilities related to the Securities Litigation. The Company and Baudax Bio believe that the lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Recro Pharma, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company. It operates through two divisions, an Acute Care, and Contract Development and Manufacturing (CDMO). The company was formerly known as Recro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. in August 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. RENEWABLE ENERGY: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (REGI) Class Period: 5/3/2018 - 2/25/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-renewable-energy-group-inc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] RENEWABLE ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 3 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Renewable Energy Group, Inc. ("Renewable Energy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REGI) and reminds investors of the May 3, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Renewable Energy stock or options between May 3, 2018 and February 25, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/REGI. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that due to failures in the diesel additive system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's customers; (2) that, as a result, Renewable Energy was not the proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020; (3) that, as a result, Renewable Energy's revenue and net income were overstated for certain periods; (4) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial reporting related to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, to close at $77.77 per share on February 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Renewable Energy's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. [GN] REPRO MED: Frank R. Cruz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Humenik v. Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems, et al., (Case No. 21-cv-02632) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KORU" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.97, or 32%, to close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced its preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In the press release, KORU also announced that its CEO, Donald Pettigrew, resigned, effective immediately. On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80, or 15.5%, to close at $4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased KORU securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased KORU securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] REPRO MED: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Humenik v. Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems, et al., (Case No. 21-cv-02632) on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KORU" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action. If you suffered a loss on your KORU investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/koru-medical-systems/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.97, or 32%, to close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced its preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In the press release, KORU also announced that its CEO, Donald Pettigrew, resigned, effective immediately. On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80, or 15.5%, to close at $4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired the KORU securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KURO" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 25, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. KORU increased the usage of allowances such as growth rebates to key customers to retain their business and improve growth starting in January 2020. As these rebates built up, the Company's net sales were likely to decline. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about KORU, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] RINGCENTRAL INC: Reuben Class Suit Over Privacy Violations Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, 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 initiated by Meena Reuben. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. On July 7, 2020, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend time for the Company to respond to Reuben's complaint. The Company has not responded to the complaint. This litigation is still in its earliest stages. RingCentral said, "Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's consolidated financial statements, it is not possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit." RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RINGCENTRAL: Hurley Settlement Granted Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, 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 court entered its final order and judgment approving the settlement in the putative class action suit initiated by Joann Hurley. On November 17, 2017, Joann Hurley, filed a second amended complaint in an ongoing putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, adding the Company as a named defendant and alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and regulations promulgated thereunder by allegedly using an automated telephone dialing system to deliver prerecorded political messages to Hurley, an incumbent running for reelection, and others. Hurley alternatively alleged that the Company was vicariously liable for the actions of the other co-defendants. Hurley seeks statutory, compensatory, consequential, incidental and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees in connection with her claims. The Company was served with the second amended complaint on January 4, 2018. On March 23, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to sufficiently state a claim on which relief may be granted. Hurley filed her opposition brief on April 6, 2018, and the Company filed its reply brief on April 13, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the district court issued its memorandum and opinion order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed Hurley's vicarious liability claim but allowed Hurley's TCPA claim to proceed. The Company filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the second amended complaint on October 18, 2018. Hurley filed a motion to certify a class on July 9, 2019. The Company and another defendant filed oppositions to the motion, which were fully briefed and are pending decision by the court. Discovery closed on October 25, 2019. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2019. Hurley opposed the motion, which also has been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court. The parties mediated the case before a private mediator on January 23, 2020, at which time a tentative settlement was achieved. A fairness hearing on the proposed settlement was held on January 25, 2021, at which time the Court tentatively gave final approval of the settlement. The Court thereafter entered its final order and judgment approving the settlement on February 9, 2021. Any appeal of the Court's order must be filed by March 12, 2021. RingCentral said, "If no appeal is filed, the settlement will become effective as of March 12, 2021. The consolidated financial statements include an immaterial accrual for the estimated loss that is expected to occur." RingCentral, Inc. provides software-as-a-service solutions that enable businesses to communicate, collaborate, and connect primarily in North America. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Belmont, California. RIO TINTO: Class Action Over Oyu Tolgoi Mine Expansion Escalates ---------------------------------------------------------------- A new claim filed in a US court over Rio Tinto's (ASX, LON, NYSE: RIO) handling of the Oyu Tolgoi copper-gold mine expansion in Mongolia alleges the mining giant concealed the real cause of the delays that have held back its most important growth project. In a 163-page claim filed in New York, Pentwater Capital Management -- the second-largest shareholder in Rio-controlled Turquoise Hill (TSX, NYSE: TRQ) -- has included the testimony of 12 individuals who worked for Rio or its contractors and which could tip the balance against the miner. The document cites defective Chinese steel, incompetent engineering and poor procurement as some of the "true" reasons behind the mine expansion's massive cost increase and delays. The new claim expands upon the initial class action lodged late last year, which accused Rio of being too slow in telling investors of the cost and schedule blowouts. Both Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill have largely blamed the setbacks to the late realization that the project's geology was weaker than first thought and needing a change of technical approach. The complaint quotes a former employee described as a "top manager" who worked at Oyu Tolgoi from 2013 to 2019 for mining contractor Redpath, saying the notion that geological issues were the primary cause of the delays was "one hundred per cent pure horseshit". "The project was being delayed because of engineering and execution. There may have been some pockets of bad ground, but that's expected in any mine," the amended claim quotes. A second Red Path project manager said the steel required for the main shaft at the underground mine was "consistently subpar, had structural defects and issues with fabrication, including steel parts not being made to specifications, had poor joints, and was otherwise unusable and dangerous." In its filling, Pentwater claims the oversights effectively forced managers to rebuild much of Shaft 2 from scratch. The task, the complaint says, required workers to replace more than 40,000 bolts and about 95% of the steel in the shaft's headframe, predictably causing costs and schedule delays "to skyrocket." The activist investor argues that despite being informed of ongoing issues with the project throughout 2017 and 2018, Rio and Turquoise kept telling investors the expansion was on track for a capital cost of $5.3 billion and would achieve first production in the first quarter of 2021. It was not until July 2019 that Rio Tinto and Turquoise Hill announced the project would require an additional $1.2bn to $1.9bn in capital and was 16 to 30 months behind schedule. "Ultimately, Turquoise Hill investors incurred massive losses as Turquoise Hill shares lost well over 70% of their value when the true extent of the delays and cost overruns at Oyu Tolgoi came to light," the document reads. Never-Ending Troubles Mounting investor activism is just one of the may headaches Rio Tinto has had while building what would rank as one of the world's three largest copper mines when operating at full tilt. Full production is now expected to be by 2025 at the earliest, with first output planned for October 2022. There was also an open dispute between Rio and Turquoise Hill over funding the expansion's cost increase. The row began heating up in early November when Turquoise Hill launched arbitration proceedings against Rio Tinto to get clarity on the issue and ended up costing the Canadian miner's CEO, Ulf Quellmann, his job. Pentwater's fresh claims come as Rio's new copper boss Bold Baatar holds crucial talks with the Mongolian government over Oyu Tolgoi's future. The company has repeatedly said the underground expansion is its most important growth project. Once completed, Oyu Tolgoi will churn out 480,000 tonnes of copper a year from 2028 to 2036. This would make it the biggest new copper mine to come on stream in several years. Rio Tinto owns the mine through its majority stake in Turquoise Hill, which has a 66% interest in Oyu Tolgoi. The Mongolian state has the remaining 34% of the operation, located in the South Gobi desert near the border with China. [GN] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Milhouse Sues Over Stock Trading Restrictions ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARK MILHOUSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01601 (N.D. Ill., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' actions to block retail investors from accessing the market of several stocks, including Gamestop Corp. (GME), BlackBerry Ltd. (BB), AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. (AMC), on their web-based application, while allowing institutional investors to trade as usual. According to Robinhood, the trading activity on its platform had become so voluminous and the trades themselves were so volatile that the company was forced to restrict the most volatile trades. The Plaintiff and Class members allege that Robinhood breached obligations owed to its users and caused them substantial losses by failing to have enough cash on hand to satisfy the clearinghouse's demands at a time when access to the markets was critical to Robinhood's users. Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California. Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq. Eviealle Dawkins, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: erapp@edelson.com edawkins@edelson.com - and – Lily E. Hough, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: lhough@edelson.com ROBO CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Auto Shop Staff, Amaya Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROBO CAR INC. dba MAGIC AUTO CENTER; BIJAN RASTEGAR; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV11527 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and the California's Business and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, and wrongful constructive discharge. The Plaintiff worked in the sales and finance department at Magic Auto Center in California from in or around 2018 until September 15, 2020. Robo Car Inc., doing business as Magic Auto Center, is an automobile dealership business located in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com ROOT INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of those who: (i) purchased or acquired Root, Inc. ("Root," or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ROOT) between October 28, 2020, and March 8, 2021 (the "Class Period") and/or (b) Root Class A common stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to recover damages for Root investors under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Root securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Root Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On March 9, 2021, Bank of America securities analyst Joshua Shanker initiated coverage of Root with an "Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that insurers Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would continue to impede the Company's profitability, with progressive and Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of amount of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data" used to price their auto insurance. On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46% to close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total decline of 54.93% from the offering price. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you must move the court no later than May 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Root securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rootinc-root-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-382/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] ROOT INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming May 18, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Root, Inc. ("Root" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ROOT): (a) securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). If you suffered a loss on your Root investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/root-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On December 1, 2020, post-market, Root announced its third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting revenues of $50.5 million (or down 36.6% year-over-year) and earnings per share ("EPS") of -$2.20 per share (missing consensus estimates by $1.79 per share). On this news, the Company's stock fell $2.30, or over 13%, to close at $14.70 per share on December 2, 2020. Then, on February 25, 2021, post-market, Root announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results, reporting EPS of -$0.72, missing consensus estimates by $0.07 per share. On this news, the Company's stock fell $2.93, or nearly 18%, to close at $13.49 per share on February 26, 2021. Then, on March 9, 2021, BofA Securities analyst Joshua Shanker initiated coverage of Root with an "Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs." The report stated that already established market players would continue to impede the Company's profitability with superior telematics data and their dominant market positions. On this news, stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a 55% decline from the IPO price. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (2) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (3) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Root securities during the Class Period and/or Class A common stock pursuant to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than May 18, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] ROOT INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Root, Inc. (ROOT) Class Period: 10/28/2020 - 3/8/2021, or shares issued pursuant and/or traceable to the October 2020 Initial Public Offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 18, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-root/ If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] ROOT INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Root, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. ROOT Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/root-inc-information-request-form?prid=14118&wire=1 Root, Inc (NASDAQ:ROOT) This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020. Lead Plaintiff Deadline : May 18, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/root-inc-information-request-form?prid=14118&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] ROOT INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT) who: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Root securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) purchased or otherwise acquired Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 18, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Root securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Root class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, the Offering documents and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (2) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (3) notwithstanding the defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (4) as a result, the Offering documents and defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Root class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2061.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ROOT INC: The Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Root, Inc (NASDAQ: ROOT) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in ROOT: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/root-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14172&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Root, Inc made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. Shareholders have until May 18, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the ROOT lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] ROOT INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Root, Inc. ("Root" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ROOT) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's October 28, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"), or between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 18, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Root was likely to fail to generate positive cash flow for years following its IPO. As a result, the Company was likely to require injections of cash to fund its operations. The Company touted its data-driven advantages in the marketplace, but its established industry competitors had already developed superior technology that resulted in a competitive advantage over the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's Offering documents and public statements during the IPO and class period were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Root, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Denies Bid for Prelim. Injunction in Montoya ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALEX MONTOYA; REX SHIRLEY; PHILIP PRESSEL; and AARON GRESSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a public entity; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 19cv0054 JM(BGS)(S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the City of San Diego. On Jan. 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint asserting claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, et seq., California Civil Code section 51, et seq., California Civil Code section 54, et seq., (the Rehabilitation Act, and California's Disabled Persons Act); California Government Code section 4450, et seq., and California Government Code section 11135, et seq. On March 21, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("FAC"). The Court issued a detailed order denying the City's motion to dismiss the FAC but granting the motions to dismiss brought by the private entities that rent the dockless vehicles to third party individuals, which Plaintiffs categorized as the "Dockless Vehicle Defendants." The Plaintiffs chose not to amend their claims against the Dockless Vehicle Defendants. Following a joint motion to amend, the Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges that the Plaintiffs, who are individuals with disabilities, had found their access to San Diego's sidewalks diminished by the proliferation of dockless electric vehicles currently in use in the City. They allege that people using the dockless electric vehicles either travel on the sidewalks or block paths of travel because the vehicles are discarded in the middle of sidewalks or at other rights-of-way, making it difficult for people with disabilities to safely traverse the pathways. Further, the SAC alleges that as usage and abandonment of these vehicles and the speed at which they travel increases, the Plaintiffs are denied safe, equal, and full access to the sidewalks. In their words, the vehicles' "burgeoning proliferation and uncurbed growth comes at the detriment of the rights of all disabled persons with mobility and/or visual impairments who are residents and visitors of the City of San Diego, causing the Plaintiffs injury, severe anxiety, diminishing their comfort and discriminating against them based on their disabilities." The Plaintiffs direct allegations at the City regarding its responsibilities as a municipality and the duty it has to maintain the sidewalks. On May 8, 2020, the City filed its answer to the SAC. On Oct. 1, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave file a third amended complaint. The City opposed the motion, and the Court denied the request. On Oct. 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary injunction. The City filed its opposition, and the Plaintiffs filed their reply. The Plaintiffs contend that a preliminary injunction against the City will protect their physical safety and prevent the irreparable loss of dignity, independence, and deprivation of their civil rights during the pendency of the action. They assert that people with mobility and visual impairments are being disproportionately burdened and their independence impeded by the City's acquiescence in allowing the public sidewalks to be turned into showrooms, rental stores, and store locations for the dockless vehicle companies. The Plaintiffs argue that "due to the ubiquitous presence of dockless vehicles, people with mobility and visual impairments are denied equal access to and equal enjoyment of the City's system of sidewalks, cross walks, transit stops and other walkways." In essence, the Plaintiffs are asking the Court for an order prohibiting the City from permitting or authorizing dockless vehicles to be present on public sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops, and other pedestrian walkways, or access ways anywhere within the City and under the City's jurisdiction. In opposition, the City counters that the Plaintiffs' failure to seek the injunction for over two years belies their claims that they now need urgent judicial intervention to avoid irreparable harm. It also contends that the Plaintiffs have neither demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits nor that they will be irreparably harmed. It also argues that granting the Plaintiffs motion will harm the public interest. The City has also filed a declaration from an accessibility expert, and a declaration by a City of San Diego Investigator in support of its opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Delay Undercut Claims The City argues that the Plaintiffs' long delay in bringing this motion "belies their claim of irreparable harm and urgent need for judicial intervention." The Plaintiffs counter that their delay in filing for the injunction was justified, and that the delay should not prevent the issuance of the injunction, especially in light of the fact that they face "ongoing, cumulative harm." Judge Miller holds that a review of the docket reveals that the SAC was filed on April 15, 2020, 15 months after the original complaint. As to the consideration given to the Deputy City Attorney's illness, this also occurred following the filing of the SAC. Therefore, he says, the justifications propounded by the Plaintiffs do not account for the 15-month interval between when they initiated the lawsuit and began settlement negotiations. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have consistently alleged that the dockless vehicles have created hazards on the sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops and other walkways since the very beginning. Thus, the harm they have been exposed to has been present since the outset. The failure to seek injunctive relief is, therefore, probative, appears to have been a tactical decision, and implies a lack of urgency that the court must consider. Accordingly, the Judge finds this factor weighs against the Plaintiffs. Immediate Irreparable Harm The Plaintiffs assert they will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because they are deprived of their ability to safely traverse the City's sidewalks and that they have been stripped of their dignity and independence due to their disabilities. They also point to the recent proliferation in the number of dockless vehicles to support their claim that an injunction is necessary, arguing that this uptick increases the chances that the sidewalks will once again become obstructed. In opposition, the City argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate imminent, irreparable harm. While Judge Miller is sympathetic to the Plaintiffs, he holds that they have described several frustrating, isolated inconveniences that have impeded their paths of travel. But all members of the general public are subjected to the nuisance the presence of these dockless vehicles on sidewalks pose when ridden by an individual disregarding the user instructions and the traffic laws or when carelessly abandoned by the user -- facts the Plaintiffs themselves even acknowledge. The City cannot guarantee that individuals with disabilities will not encounter some impediments when they move around on the sidewalks. The realities of everyday life mean that a "perfect" ADA accessible sidewalk does not exist in the constantly changing variable that is city living. It is not practicable to expect that compliance can be achieved every second of every day. The Plaintiffs' position also ignores the efforts the City has taken to address the influx of dockless vehicles into San Diego. To be clear, the Judge is not suggesting that the City's solution is perfect, it simply illustrates that the City has been working toward finding a solution. This fact mitigates against the court imposing the drastic relief requested by the Plaintiff at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Judge finds this factor weighs against the Plaintiffs. Public Interest The Plaintiffs maintain that preventing discrimination against people with disabilities serves to uphold the purpose of the ADA and that "a completely accessible walking city that is equally and fully accessible to every person with disabilities is assuredly in the public interest." The City counters that issuing an injunction would frustrate the will of San Diegans and the entire state of California. It also argues that enjoining it from enforcing the municipal code would not resolve the Plaintiffs' complaints. Judge Miller holds that in asking the Court to order that all dockless vehicles be removed from the City limits while the lawsuit proceeds, the Plaintiffs are asking for relief that goes beyond maintaining the status quo, they are asking for the final relief requested in the SAC. The overbreadth of this request is evidenced by the fact that it reaches non-parties and implicates issues of broader public concern that could have public consequences. Additionally, the California State legislature encourages the use of the dockless vehicles in question and the people of San Diego have also spoken on the issue. The San Diego City Council has enacted an ordinance allowing dockless vehicle companies to operate within the San Diego City limits. Accordingly, the Judge finds the public interest is not served by granting the preliminary injunction and that this factor weighs against the Plaintiffs. Balance of Equities The Plaintiffs assert that the balance in equities tips in their favor. They take the position that if the injunction is not granted, people with disabilities who have mobility impairments will be forced to choose between staying in their homes or risking physical safety and mental anguish attempting to navigate the highway obstacle course that public sidewalks have become. If the injunction is entered the only harm may be to the dockless vehicles offerings being present on sidewalks throughout the City. Judge Miller finds that if the injunction is not entered, the Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm, they will suffer potential inconveniences in the form of dockless vehicles left intermittently on some of the sidewalks and crosswalks they traverse. Furthermore, in making their arguments, he says the Plaintiffs ignore the measures the City has already taken to combat the issues the presence of the dockless vehicles has created. Accordingly, the Judge concludes that the balance of hardships does not tip in the Plaintiffs favor. Likelihood of Success on the Merits The Plaintiffs argue that the City has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the ADA and ensure that the sidewalks are maintained to allow meaningful pedestrian access for those with mobility and visual impairments. The City counters that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing they have a strong likelihood or reasonable certainty that they will prevail on the merits. Judge Miller finds that on balance, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the law and facts to favor their position or establish a likelihood of their success on the merits. He is not convinced that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they will succeed in showing that they have been denied meaningful access to the City's sidewalks when it considers the 5,000 miles of sidewalk the City has to maintain in relation to the number of their "documented obstructions." Accordingly, this favor weighs against the Plaintiffs. For the reasons he set forth, Judge Miller denies the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/xz7x2py from Leagle.com. SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Conti Suit Over Housing Market Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFIO CONTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN FRANCISCO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GREATER SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., COMPASS SF I, INC., SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY, HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., RODEO REALTY, INC., RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC., and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01934 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 19, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' conspiracy has substantially reduced competition in the market for buyer agent services to the detriment of American home buyers. Specifically, the Defendants' conspiracy enables brokers to raise, fix, and maintain buyer agent compensation at artificially high levels that would not exist in a competitive marketplace, which in turn causes home buyers to pay higher prices. The conspiracy also enables brokers to "steer" home buyers away from lower commission homes, the suit says. The Plaintiff and the other class members have each incurred at least thousands of dollars in overcharges as a result of the Defendants' conspiracy. San Francisco Association of REALTORS is a professional association serving over 4,000 members throughout San Francisco and the surrounding areas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914‐2001 Facsimile: (858) 914‐2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com SANDHU PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandhu Products, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Sandhu Products, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02602 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sandhu Products -- https://www.sandhuproducts.com/ -- offers a wide range of Herbal Dietary Supplements, Natural Health Products, Organic Herbs and Teas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Time to Appeal Judgment in Anderson Passed ------------------------------------------------------------------ SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 time to appeal judgment in Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. suit has passed. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. Civil Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW. The putative class consisted of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. The complaint (as amended) alleged causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California Consumers Legal Remedy Act (CCLRA). The complaint sought restitution, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. The case was dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs did not file a motion for class certification. The case was prosecuted by certain plaintiffs for individual restitution in a nominal amount and injunctive relief. The Court bifurcated the trial of the case into two phases: the plaintiffs' standing to sue and the merits of their claims. Before the first phase of the trial, plaintiff Anderson dismissed all claims against the Company. The standing trial with regard to the remaining plaintiffs took place in March of 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Court ruled that the remaining plaintiffs have no standing to sue and judgment was entered in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs have elected not to appeal this decision and the time to do so has passed. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the United States. The company operates SeaWorld theme parks in Orlando, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; and San Diego, California, as well as Busch Gardens theme parks in Tampa, Florida, and Williamsburg, Virginia. The company was formerly known as SW Holdco, Inc. and changed its name to SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. in December 2012. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Orlando, Florida. SENIOR RIDE: Paramedics Sue Time-Shaving & Rounding Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN WASHINGTON and JOSEPH BOLANOS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members v. SENIOR RIDE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, SENIORCARE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES INC., and MICHAEL VATCH, Case No. 1:21-cv-01907 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime due to time-shaving, unpaid wages and overtime due to rounding, compensation for late payments of wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate an ambulance service business with multiple offices providing transportation and related services for hospitals or other medical facilities in New York State. The Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members are non-exempt employees worked for the Defendants as drivers, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) or paramedics. The Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members allege that they were not compensated properly for all of the hours they worked, including their overtime hours.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG). Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found at the link provided. Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG) Class Period: November 3, 2016 to December 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 On February 28, 2018, Sequential Brands Group issued a press released entitled "Sequential Brands Group Announces Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Financial Results" which belatedly announced the goodwill adjustment. On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $6.80 per share, or 8%, to close at $76.00 per share on February 28, 2018. Then on December 11, 2020, the SEC filed a Complaint alleging that the Company failed "to take into consideration clear, objective evidence of likely goodwill impairment, which avoided and delayed a material write down to goodwill in the fourth quarter of 2016 and the first three quarters of 2017 (the 'Relevant Period')." On this news, Sequential Brands Group's stock price fell $2.03 per share, or 11%, to close at $16.20 per share on December 11, 2020. The complaint, filed on March 16, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, the Company knew or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2) the Company avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill in late 2016 through 2017; (3) the Company understated its operating expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017; (4) the Company's internal controls were deficient; (5) the Company has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties, deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Sequential Brands class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SQBG About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] SERENE TEFFAHA: Under Investigation by Board Over COVID Lockdown ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawyer who has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Victorian government on behalf of public housing tower residents who were shut inside their homes during Melbourne's 2020 Covid lockdown is under investigation by the state's legal services board. The Melbourne-based lawyer, Serene Teffaha, who during the pandemic has appeared at anti-lockdown rallies and on YouTube with conspiracists such as the former celebrity chef Pete Evans, filed a class-action lawsuit in Victoria's supreme court on behalf of the residents. But the Guardian has confirmed Teffaha is the subject of an investigation by the Victorian Legal Services Board, the body charged with regulating the legal profession in the state. While a spokesman for the VLSB said it did not comment on current investigations, in posts made on social media and in an interview with the Guardian, Teffaha claimed the authority had "threatened to cancel" her. Queensland premier urges PM to halve international arrivals as state records one new Covid case Teffaha was reportedly referred to Queensland's legal services board last month by a magistrate after submissions she made in a case in that state. According to a report in the Queensland Times, magistrate Anthony Gett referred her to that state's Legal Services Commission over submissions in court that he said "may be prejudicial to or diminish the public confidence in the administration of justice". Teffaha had reportedly said a child taken by an alleged child-stealing syndicate had been "let down" by the police and judiciary and the court was "enabling" his abuse. She told the Guardian that the complaint had been "transferred" to the VLSB, which had sent her correspondence "basically saying we're going to cancel your licence". But while the initial referral appeared to relate to her comments in Queensland, the Guardian understands the VLSB may also be inquiring into the class actions she has raised money for throughout the pandemic. Besides the estate towers class action, Teffaha has for months been raising money for a separate "national" class action lawsuit that would, she claims, encompass "any form of detention" during the pandemic including people stopped by border closures. The broad-brush suite includes a swathe of other Covid-19 measures such as contact tracing, so-called "mandatory" vaccinations, mask-wearing mandates, "inappropriate requirements to undergo medical examinations" without "full and informed consent" and what she calls "inappropriate classification of cause of death as Covid-19". While the Guardian has not sighted the correspondence from the VLSB, Teffaha said she planned to release more information. She said the authority had sent her "a list of one million and one questions" including over the class action lawsuits. "They want the details of all my clients, they want to know what my barristers think of the cases, they're trying to speak on behalf of all my clients when not a single one of them has made a complaint against me," she told the Guardian. "I will be revealing everything and I will be defending myself. There is way too much corruption in this country." Teffaha's rhetoric during the pandemic helped to make her a cause celebre among the anti-lockdown activists who have emerged during the pandemic. She claims to have raised in excess of $650,000 to run the broad-brush class action, which she says is being held in a trust account that she "hasn't touched", and told the Guardian she had "more than 5,000" people signed up as part of the still-unfiled lawsuit. But she has also flirted with the conspiracy-minded elements of the movement. The Age reported in January that Teffaha had appeared at an anti-lockdown protest in Broadmeadows in which she described bureaucrats as "liars", judges as "corrupt" and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) as "the most terrorist organisation". "We will keep calling them all out until there's a revolution on the streets and if we need to shed blood for peace, then so be it," Teffaha said at the protest, which she later clarified was not meant to be taken literally. In August last year, she also appeared on a YouTube discussion with a number of high-profile Australian conspiracy theorists including Evans and the anti-5G activist Matt Lawson who has also attempted to distribute vaccine misinformation to aged-care homes during the pandemic. Teffaha has previously told the Guardian that her participation in the discussion did not amount to an endorsement of the views of people such as Evans, saying her concern was her clients. The towers lawsuit lodged in the supreme court alleges the more than 3,000 residents in nine public housing towers subject to a five-day lockdown in July last year suffered "degrading" and "oppressive" conditions that breached their human rights. It alleges the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, Idris Hassan, and his family were not given food for three days and survived on "nuts and beans" after they ran out of supplies. It also alleges Hassan and his son both suffered from asthma attacks after they ran out of medication during the lockdown. Teffaha told the Guardian there were currently only "about seven" people signed onto the lawsuit, but that "hundreds" had expressed interest in joining. "At the moment we're also trying to notify the residents about the class action, but we will have a lot more who will join up, we just have to raise awareness that it is happening," she said. The lawsuit lists Victoria's deputy chief health officer, Annaliese van Diemen, deputy public health commander, Finn Romanes, police commissioner, Shane Patton, and the state of Victoria as defendants. [GN] SONY ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Defective a7 III Camera Shutters ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sony has been hit with a class-action lawsuit by a consumer who claims that the popular Sony a7 III has shutter defects that brick the camera and force owners to pay for expensive repairs. Law Street Media reports that the plaintiff, a man named John Guerriero, filed the class-action complaint in the Southern District of New York against Sony Electronics Inc. Guerriero calls Sony "the vanguard of the mirrorless camera movement because they're the most accessible full-frame system[s] on the market" before accusing the company of denying warranty claims made by camera owners who experienced "mechanical problems" with the a7 III's shutter. "The a7iii is smaller, lighter, and more durable than its DSLR counterpart, which contributes to its higher cost - approximately $2,000.00," the lawsuit reads. "Unfortunately for many purchasers of the a7 III, mechanical problems with the shutter have rendered the cameras unusable provided they do not pay over $500 for repair to an authorized service center." Sony states that the a7 III is rated for 200,000 shutter actuations, but according to the lawsuit, many owners have reported shutter failures occurring far before reaching that 200,000 actuation mark. "Numerous users report shutter failures far below 200,000 but between 10,000 and 50,000 for most of the users who experienced this," the complaint states. "While the a7iii is generally sold with a one-year warranty, shutter failure occurs randomly, often outside of the warranty period." "The result is that purchasers must pay approximately $500-$650 for repair and replacement of the shutter mechanism." The lawsuit also claims that because the camera's shutter failure happens in such a predictable way, it's due to a mechanical flaw in the design. "The shutter failure manifests in a consistent way," the filing states. "Prior to shutter failure, users report hearing an atypical shutter sound, followed by the screen turning black and displaying the following message: 'Camera Error. Turn off then on.' [. . . ] "When a user removes the lens, the shutter is closed and stuck. In most instances, the shutter has become detached, as shown through the numerous a7 III users who shared pictures of their broken shutters on the internet." There are various theories out there as to what is causing this particular kind of shutter failure. "These include the observation that the shutter blade catches on the front edge as it moves down in taking a picture," the lawsuit says. "This is because the blades are positioned farther forward, so they 'catch' and fail to fully clear. "Moreover, the front curtain shutter material is of limited strength, causing it to break. Additionally, the shutter is unusually susceptible to disruption by small particles, even dust, which can cause the blades out of alignment." Some Sony a7 III users are said to be turning electronic front curtain shutter (EFCS) off in hopes of avoiding this failure, but this increases shutter noise and is less-than-optimal for photographers who purchased their a7 III for quiet shooting - at weddings, for example. Others who experienced this failure have attempted do-it-yourself fixes that can lead to warranty claims being denied. Guerriero is now suing Sony on behalf of "all citizens of New York who purchased the a7iii cameras," and among the things he's seeking from the court are an injunction, an award for damages/costs/fees, and other relief. [GN] SQUARE GROVE: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Square Grove LLC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Square Grove LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02570 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Square Grove LLC -- https://www.squaregrove.com/ -- was founded in 2002. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of household furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com STAKE CENTER: Walker Files FLSA Suit in Utah -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stake Center Locating. The case is styled as Dustin Walker, individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. Stake Center Locating, Case No. 2:21-cv-00183-JCB (D. Utah, March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Stake Center Locating, Inc. -- https://www.stakecenter.com/ -- provides utility locating services. The Company offers wired and wireless, electric, and gas construction, as well as professional, site development, and underground utility locating services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Paige Benjamin, Esq. PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC 470 N University Ave., Ste. 100 PO Box 1464 Provo, UT 84603 Phone: (801) 822-9210 Email: paigebenjamin@mac.com STANDARD CANDY: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Standard Candy Company, LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Standard Candy Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02611 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Standard Candy Company, Inc., best known for its Goo Goo Cluster candy bar -- https://googoo.com/ -- manufactures and distributes candy bars. The Company produces chews, fudges, creams, frappes, nougats, cereal rolls, layered bars, and other products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal SUPER7 RETAIL: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Super7 Retail, Inc. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Super7 Retail, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02603 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Super7 -- https://super7.com/ -- is the producer of lifestyle-oriented collectibles, toys and apparel based in San Francisco.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com TAFFY TOWN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Taffy Town, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Taffy Town, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02612 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Taffy Town -- https://www.taffytown.com/ -- is a gourmet Salt Water Taffy manufacturer located in Salt Lake City, Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal TENNESSEE VALLEY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Holbrook Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DAVID HOLBROOK, Plaintiff v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 1:20CV00025 (W.D. Va.), Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Abingdon Division, granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. The proposed class action concerns electricity rates charged by the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA"). TVA is the nation's largest public power provider. It was formed during the Great Depression at a time when most rural American households could not access electricity. Currently, TVA sells electricity directly to about 60 large industrial customers and to 154 local power companies, who in turn distribute the electricity to industrial, commercial, and residential customers in the southeastern United States. Beginning in 2010, through its Strategic Pricing Plan, TVA adopted a series of rate changes that were intended to be revenue neutral. Its purpose in adopting these rate changes was to further its stated objective that revenue collected from each customer class should be proportional to the costs associated with that customer class. One of TVA's goals was to make its industrial rates more competitive. In 2010, TVA implemented a rate change that sought to adjust pricing based on the time of year electricity was used. By 2013, domestic customers were paying approximately 10% more than they had in 2010, while industrial customers were paying approximately 10% less. In 2013, TVA gave industrial customers a rate reduction for two years. As a result, TVA achieved an industry-wide ranking for industrial rates that was better than TVA's industry-wide ranking for domestic consumer rates. By 2015, the TVA's industrial rates were more competitive than its domestic rates, according to the TVA's own analysis. TVA then instituted another manufacturing credit and made other rate changes. As a result, the rates TVA charged to industrial consumers were reduced by 6.4% on average, and direct-serve industrial consumer rates were decreased by 9%, while the rates TVA charged to domestic consumers increased by 1.1%. By 2016, the TVA's rate changes had shifted approximately $439 million in rates per annum from domestic consumers to industry. Changes subsequent to 2016 increased the shift in rates. TVA adopted additional revenue-neutral rate changes in 2018. It reduced rates for large general service customers and increased rates for other customers, including domestic consumers. TVA also reduced wholesale energy rates for all users and instituted a Grid Access Charge. The change benefitted industrial users to the detriment of domestic users. TVA enters into standard form contracts with its distributors, one of which is defendant BVU Authority ("BVU"). Expressly incorporated into these contracts is the statutory directive that sale of electricity to industry should be used primarily to ensure the provision of electricity to domestic consumers at the lowest possible rates. TVA sets the resale rates that distributors like BVU charge their customers. Different classes of customers -- industrial users, commercial users, and domestic users -- are charged different rates, but all customers within a user class are charged the same rate. Local power companies and TVA can attempt to agree on changes to rates and charges, but if they are unable to reach agreement, TVA is empowered to change rates unilaterally. Plaintiff Holbrook is a customer of BVU. He alleges that he has paid higher rates for electricity than he would have paid had TVA not implemented the aforementioned rate changes, which he contends violate the TVA Act's directive that rates should be set to ensure the lowest possible rates for domestic consumers. He brings the action on behalf of a class of TVA residential customers and a subclass of BVU residential customers who received electricity pursuant to a contract between TVA and BVU. Count One of the Amended Class Action Complaint asserts a breach of contract claim against both Defendants. Holbrook avers that he is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between TVA and BVU. He claims that TVA and BVU have violated the "lowest possible rates" provision contained in the contract. Count Two claims that TVA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 702, by acting arbitrarily and capriciously in setting rates that were not the lowest possible rates for domestic consumers of energy. He contends that TVA's rate changes exceeded TVA's statutory jurisdiction and authority. Count Three is a claim of unlawful exaction. Here, Holbrook alleges that TVA caused him to pay rates that exceeded the amount that could lawfully be charged under the TVA Act. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. They contend that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims because TVA's rate-setting decisions are judicially unreviewable due to the broad discretion the TVA Act grants to TVA. They further argue that even if the Court had jurisdiction, Holbrook's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and he has failed to state viable claims of breach of contract, violation of the APA, or exaction. Based on the environmental assessments, responses to public comments, and other documents attached to the Amended Complaint, Judge Jones finds that TVA appears to have concluded that reducing rates for industry would encourage a sufficiently high load factor as well as a more consistent demand for electricity, and perhaps greater overall use by industry. This would, in TVA's estimation, satisfy the statutory objective that power will be sold at rates as low as are feasible. TVA could reasonably have decided that reducing industry rates would have the ultimate effect of lowering electricity bills for all users, including rural and domestic users. Judge Jones holds that it is unnecessary at this junction to delve into the weeds of TVA's thought processes. He says the statute simply does not say what the Plaintiff suggests it says. A review of Section 831j and the TVA Act as a whole reveals that TVA is tasked with balancing a number of objectives that are not cabined by clear criteria. This is the essence of commitment to agency discretion by law. There is no law the Court could apply to determine whether TVA has complied with Section 831j. Determinations about the level of rates necessary to recover the various costs of operating TVA's power system, as well as the terms and conditions of TVA's power contracts, are part of TVA's unreviewable rate-making responsibilities. The Judge holds that Holbrook cannot escape dismissal of the case by rebranding his claims under different legal theories. The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all three counts of the Amended Class Action Complaint, including the Plaintiff's claims of breach of contract and exaction, because they all seek review of TVA's discretionary rate-making decisions. The statute ensures that Holbrook's only remedy is a legislative one. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims, the case must be dismissed. For these reasons, Judge Jones granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. He denied as moot the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice because the Court considered the referenced statements as true in accord with the applicable standard of review. A separate Final Order of Dismissal will be entered. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/6t5by97s from Leagle.com. Martin Bienstock -- MBienstock@BienstockPLLC.com -- BIENSTOCK, PLLC, in Washington, D.C., and Mark T. Hurt Abingdon, Virginia, for Plaintiff. Maria V. Gillen, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, in Knoxville, Tennessee, for Defendant Tennessee Valley Authority; Cameron S. Bell -- cbell@pennstuart.com -- PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, in Abingdon, Virginia, for Defendant BVU Authority. TEXAS: Appeals Court Panel Rejects Inmates' COVID-19 Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court struck down a lawsuit brought by elderly inmates of a Texas prison who alleged the state did not implement adequate measures to shield them from COVID-19. Two male inmates of the Wallace Pack Unit near Houston filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the conditions there violated their constitutional rights by endangering their health and safety. A federal judge in Houston had agreed and ordered the state to equip inmates with protective equipment. Last June, the appeals court panel overturned the order, saying the state was in substantial compliance. The three-judge appeals court panel ruled in favor of the state. Brandon Duke, one of the inmates' attorneys, said the decision was disappointing, "but we do agree with the court that the suit, as stated in the opinion, 'played a role in motivating the prison officials into action and saved countless lives.' That was the ultimate goal of the case." It's unclear whether further appeals are planned. [GN] THANG HOLT: Sundermann Sues Over Unsolicited ATDS-Generated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARL SUNDERMANN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THANG HOLT d/b/a KELLER WILIAMS REALTY OF GREATER DES MOINES HOMES TEAM, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-00083-RGE-CFB (S.D. Iowa, March 15, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's employee, Ryan Rohlf, made automated and pre-recorded telemarketing calls to cellular telephone numbers that has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, including the Plaintiff. Allegedly, telemarketing is one of the Defendant's strategies for marketing its services and generating new customers by using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS). On October 10, 2018 and on March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff received numerous marketing calls to his cellular phone (515) 867-**** that has been added to NDNC Registry on November 3, 2014. The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided the Defendant his prior express consent to receive ATDS-generated or prerecorded calls. Because of the Defendant's calls, his privacy has been violated and he was annoyed and harassed, he contends. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals who has received unsolicited ATDS-generated or pre-recorded calls from the Defendant. The Plaintiff seeks an injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from making telemarketing calls to any cellular telephone numbers, as well as damages and other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. Thang Holt is a real estate broker in the business of representing buyers and sellers in real estate transactions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Hansen, Esq. Michael C. Lueder, Esq. HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC 301 N. Broadway, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Tel: (414) 455-7676 Fax: (414) 273-8476 E-mail: thansen@hansenreynolds.com mlueder@hansenreynolds.com - and – Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Tel: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com TICKETSONSALE.COM LLC: Shankula Sues Over Denied Refund Request --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SHANKULA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TICKETSONSALE.COM, LLC, TICKET FULFILLMENT SERVICES LP, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00515-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., March 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff's refund request for the tickets that he purchased online to a live performance by Hillsong Worship at the Cal Coast Credit Union Open Air Theatre at San Diego State University following California government orders to cancel public events in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants denied the request on that grounds that their policy is to issue refunds only for officially cancelled events. However, the indefinite postponement of the event for which the Plaintiff purchased tickets is the equivalent of cancellation. The Defendants' failure to honor contractual obligation and refund the purchase price of tickets for effectively cancelled events has deprived the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers of the benefit of their bargains, added the suit. Ticketsonsale.com, LLC is an online secondary ticket reseller. Ticket Fulfillment Services LP is an online secondary ticket reseller with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com - and – Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and – Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 321 N. Mall Drive, Suite R108 St. George, Utah 84790 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com TRACE STAFFING: Fails to Pay Recruiters' OT, Gouldie Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL GOULDIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACE STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00088-TES (M.D. Ga., March 15, 2021) brings this collection action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a recruiter from approximately 2016 until October 2018. According to the complaint, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated recruiters on a salary basis, but misclassified them as exempt from overtime. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours each week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law, added the suit. Trace Staffing is an employment and staffing company operating throughout the U.S., including Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin T. Holcombe, Esq. Kris Skaar, Esq. SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP 133 Mirramont Lake Drive Woodstock, GA 30189 Tel: (770) 427-5600 Fax: (404) 601-1855 E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com TRICIDA INC: Facing Pardi Putative Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Tricida, 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 is facing a putative securities class action suit entitled, Pardi v. Tricida, Inc., et al., 21-cv-00076. On January 6, 2021, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and its CEO and CFO. Pardi v. Tricida, Inc., et al., 21-cv-00076. The Securities Class Action complaint alleges that during the period September 4, 2019 through October 28, 2020, the Company and its senior officers violated the federal securities laws, including under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, through alleged public misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts concerning the Company's new drug application (NDA) for veverimer and the likelihood and timing of approval of veverimer by the FDA. No damages amount is specified in the Securities Class Action. On February 15, 2021, a derivative action was filed in the District of Delaware, brought by and on behalf of Tricida, Inc. as a Nominal Defendant, against the Company's directors as well as its CEO and CFO. Ricks v. Alpern et al., Case No, 1:21-cv-000205. The Derivative Case is based on the allegations of the Securities Class Action and asserts that by allowing the Company and senior executives to make the allegedly false and misleading statements at issue in the Securities Class Action, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets. Additionally, the complaint asserts claims against the senior officers for violation of Sections 10(b) and 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. No damages amount is specified in the Derivative Case. Tricida said, "At this time, the Company has not provided for a loss contingency in its financial statements relating to the Securities Class Action and the Derivative Case since it is not probable that a loss has been incurred." Tricida, Inc. operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on the discovery and clinical development of novel therapeutics to address renal, metabolic, and cardiovascular diseases. Tricida serves patients in the United States. The company is based in South San Francisco, California. TS TECH USA: Faces Cruz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE DELA CRUZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TS TECH USA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01147-EAS-EPD (N.D. Ohio, March 16, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manufacturing employee between about April 9, 2003 through about January 18, 2021 at the Defendant's manufacturing facility located in Reynoldsburg, Ohio. According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing employees as non-exempt employees and paid on an hourly basis. Although they frequently worked over 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not compensate them for all hours they worked, including all of the overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 each workweek. Specifically, the Defendant required them to perform work duties, which are integral and indispensable part of their principal activities, without being compensated that is amounted to approximately 20 t 30 minutes per day, added the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid wages, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, and other additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. TS Tech USA Corporation is a global supplier of automobile seats and interiors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8 N. Court St., Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Tel: (847) 986-5889 Fax: (847) 673-1228 E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com UKG INC: W.D. Washington Denies Bid to Dismiss/Transfer REI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., Plaintiff v. UKG, INC., Defendant, Case No. C21-0107JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, denies UKG's motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer venue. REI is a Washington corporation with its principle place of business in Kent, Washington. UKG is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Weston, Florida. The case arises out of UKG's alleged breach of a contract to provide REI with software, services, and Software as a Service ("SaaS") services related to payroll administration. REI alleges that UKG's breach resulted in damages in the form of a settlement payment and associated legal fees for an underlying lawsuit in California, where the Plaintiffs alleged REI violated California labor laws. REI's contract with UKG was a result of a strategic sourcing process run out of REI's headquarters in Kent, Washington. The alleged contract was executed on Sept. 30, 2016. Over the course of 2017, a UKG analyst worked with REI personnel at its headquarters in Kent to implement UKG's UltiPro payroll and human resources system. On Jan. 1, 2018, REI transferred its payroll processes to UKG's systems. On Oct. 31, 2018, Martha Reilly, an REI employee, filed a class action lawsuit against REI in the California Superior Court of Alameda County, claiming it had violated the California Labor Code by, among other things, providing inaccurate wage statements. REI subsequently removed the lawsuit to federal court in the Northern District of California. On Sept. 30, 2019, REI provided written notice and tender to UKG of REI's claim for damages related to Ms. Reilly's suit. On Oct. 16, 2019, REI invited UKG to participate in a mediation with Ms. Reilly in Los Angeles, California. UKG refused this invitation. After the mediation, REI reached an agreement with Ms. Reilly for a class-wide settlement in which REI agreed to pay $5 million. On Dec. 16, 2019, REI notified UKG of the settlement and demanded that UKG pay $5,413,036.74, which included the settlement payment and REI's defense costs and attorney's fees. UKG refused to pay. On Aug. 6, 2020, the district court in the Northern District of California finally approved REI's class settlement agreement, and on Sept. 4, 2020, REI fully funded the settlement. REI filed its amended complaint in the Superior Court for King County, Washington on Dec. 29, 2020. REI brings claims against UKG for breach of contract, implied indemnity, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable indemnity. According to REI, to the extent Ms. Reilly succeeded on her Wage Statement Claim in the underlying Lawsuit, UKG breached REI and UKG's contract by failing to design and issue accurate wage statements to REI non-exempt employees in California in compliance with California Labor Code. On Jan. 28, 2021, UKG removed the case to federal court. On Feb. 4, 2021, UKG filed the instant motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, transfer venue. REI filed its response on March 1, 2021. On reply, UKG concedes that the Court has jurisdiction and venue over the matter but nonetheless requests that it transfers the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UKG concedes that its motion to dismiss is not well founded and that venue is proper. Therefore, Judge Robart construes UKG's motion as one to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instructs district courts to apply a nine-factor balancing test to determine whether to transfer a case under Section 1404(a). The balancing test weighs: "(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, (8) the ease of access to sources of proof," and (9) the public policy considerations of the forum state. Judge Robart concludes that UKG has carried its burden to establish that the Northern District of California is a suitable alternative forum for this dispute. Venue is proper in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." The underlying lawsuit and settlement that form at least part of the basis for REI's breach of contract and indemnification claims occurred in the Northern District of California. This is sufficient to comply with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2). UKG concedes that two of the nine factors weigh in favor of venue remaining with the Court: The location where the agreement was executed by REI and REI's choice of forum. However, it contends that all other factors weigh in favor of transfer to the Norther District of California. Judge Robart disagrees and concludes that the remaining factors either suggest venue should remain in the Western District of Washington or weigh in neither party's favor. He holds that (i) while UKG contends that the underlying case was based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, it is at heart a breach of contract case regarding a contract that is governed by Washington law; (ii) UKG offers no arguments that it has more contacts with California than Washington; (iii) the costs of litigation, availability of compulsory process, and ease of access to sources of proof factors are neutral, and (iv) UKG offers no arguments regarding the final factor -- public policy considerations. Thus, the Judge determines that none of the nine Jones factors weigh in favor of transfer, while at least four suggest that venue should remain in the Western District of Washington. UKG's motion to transfer is accordingly denied. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart denies UKG's motion to dismiss or transfer venue. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Amended Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/svaz97z9 from Leagle.com. ULTA BEAUTY: Katavitch Labor Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROBERT KATAVITCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ULTA BEAUTY INC., Case No. 2021-344, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 24, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00540-CCC to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the common law of Pennsylvania. Ulta Beauty Inc. is an American chain of beauty stores headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Brandon R. Sher, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 995-2840 Facsimile: (215) 995-2801 E-mail: brandon.sher@ogletree.com UNISEA INC: Ohring Seeks Seafood Processors' Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMICHAI OHRING, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. UNISEA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00359 (W.D. Wash., March 16, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a seafood processor from 2020 until the present. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied her and other similarly situated seafood processors compensation for the time they spent donning and doffing gear prior to clocking in or after clocking out that was integral and indispensable part of their principal activities. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other seafood processors were not properly paid overtime at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and liquidated damages for her and other similarly situated seafood processors, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Unisea, Inc. produces an impressive variety of finished seafood products that are distributed throughout the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. Henry Avery, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 223-2053 Fax: (206) 343-9636 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com havery@zsz.com UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Discusses Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Hamilton and Harriet Ryan at Latin Times reports that the $1.1-billion payout to former patients of USC gynecologist George Tyndall, who was accused harassing and assaulting a generation of female students, ranks as the largest sexual abuse settlement in American higher education. USC has made a series of legal settlements with former patients of Tyndall, and the largest of those -- for $852 million -- was announced. This settlement far exceeds the scale and cost of other sex abuse scandals, including those that roiled the Archdiocese of L.A., Michigan State University and Penn State, and will result in hundreds of women receiving money from their alma mater. Here are the basic facts: The Settlements A final group of 710 women suing the university in Los Angeles Superior Court settled their claims for $852 million. USC previously agreed to pay thousands of other alumnae and students $215 million in 2018 as part of a class action settlement reached in federal court. USC also agreed to pay up to $25 million in legal fees in this case, putting the total cost at about $240 million. Women who were part of settlement in state court had to explicitly opt out of the 2018 federal class action settlement. A group of about 50 other women with individual state court cases were previously settled for an amount that has not been made public. Years of Legal Battles The sole full-time gynecologist at the student health clinic from 1989 until 2016, Tyndall was accused of preying on a generation of USC women. After The Times exposed the years of misconduct accusations against Tyndall in 2018, USC was sued by hundreds of former female students who accused the gynecologist of sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, assault and sex abuse. The university hired at least three top law firms to defend against the former patients' lawsuits in federal court, including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Fraser Watson Crouch. The cost of USC's legal defense is separate from the settlements and ran into the tens of millions of dollars, according to the university's general counsel. From 2018 until this spring, USC's lawyers have repeatedly sparred with lawyers representing the hundreds of former Tyndall patients. The women's attorneys had dozens of USC administrators and employees sit for questioning under oath, including former provost Michael Quick, former general counsel Todd Dickey and nurses and student clinic staff. Tyndall was also questioned under oath but he repeatedly invoked his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Tyndall has been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault by Los Angeles County prosecutors and is awaiting trial. Former USC President C.L. Max Nikias was scheduled to be questioned during a deposition this winter, but it was postponed amid settlement negotiations and ultimately never took place. The Payouts The 710 women who were part of the settlement will receive an average payment of $1.2 million, although the exact distribution of the money was expected to vary by individual allegations and ultimately be determined by a retired judge in coming months. Lawyers for the women expected some would receive in the middle to low six figures, while other women could receive more than $2 million, depending on the severity of their claims. USC will pay the settlement over two years. The first payment will be in August 2021, and the second will occur in August 2022. To pay for the enormous cost, USC will rely on insurance proceeds, litigation reserves, the deferment of capital projects, the sale of some "nonessential assets" and cuts to discretionary spending like travel and entertainment. No philanthropic gifts, endowments funds, or tuition will be used in the settlement, according to USC. The thousands of former patients who are part of the class action settlement have already received a minimum payment of $2,500. Some patients were eligible for higher awards -- up to $250,000 -- depending on what they experienced. Those former patients have begun this month to receive notice of how much they were awarded. [GN] USG CORP: Stockholder's Bid to File 2nd Amended Class Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, III, of the Court of Chancery of Delaware denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the lawsuit titled In re USG Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 2018-0602-SG (Del. Ch.). Judge Glasscock notes that the Motion comes to him in oddly circuitous fashion. The parties have already fully briefed and argued a motion to dismiss. He granted that motion in its entirety in a memorandum opinion on August 31, 2020. In the Memorandum Opinion, Judge Glasscock found that the Plaintiffs had (via a sufficient allegation that disclosures in way of a stockholder vote were inadequate) shown that Corwin cleansing did not apply (Corwin v. KKR Fin. Hldgs. LLC, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015)). Nonetheless, Judge Glasscock found that the Plaintiffs had also failed to "plead facts that make it reasonably conceivable that the Defendants" acted in bad faith or in breach of the duty of loyalty, and that the Motion to Dismiss must be granted. In the Memorandum Opinion, Judge Glasscock asked the parties to submit an appropriate form of order consistent with his findings in the opinion. Before that could occur, however, the Plaintiffs moved to reargue, positing that Judge Glasscock had "overlooked the fact that one Defendant, Jennifer Scanlon, was an officer as well as a director of USG, and that, in her officer role, she was not exculpated from damages for a violation of a duty of care in relation to a disclosure to stockholders." Judge Glasscock denied that motion as well via a letter opinion (the "Letter Decision"), on the grounds that it does not appear that the Complaint alleges Ms. Scanlon, as a corporate officer, was grossly negligent in the dissemination of disclosures. To the extent that, given the Plaintiff-friendly pleading standard on this Motion to Dismiss, it may be so read, the Plaintiffs failed to brief the issue in response to the Motion sufficiently to consider it raised, and failed to raise it at oral argument as well, Judge Glasscock opines. The claim, accordingly, was waived. After the Letter Decision was issued, the Defendants submitted a proposed order implementing the Memorandum Opinion. The Plaintiffs did not stipulate to the proposed order, and indicated that they intended to seek leave to file an amended complaint. The Motion was filed two days later, on December 11, 2020, and was fully briefed by December 21, 2020. However, on January 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of Judge Glasscock's decision granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, despite there being no final order (or request to certify interlocutory appeal) in the case. In any event, in light of the appeal, Judge Glasscock stayed this action--including the fully briefed Motion--until resolution of the appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the appeal. The parties have informed me that the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is fully submitted for adjudication. Court of Chancery Rule 15(a) provides that a party may amend its pleadings "once as a matter of course" before a responsive pleading is served; "otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of Court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave will be freely given when justice so requires." Rule 15(aaa), however, forms an exception to that general and liberal rule; it provides a more stringent standard when a motion to dismiss has been submitted before a motion to amend is made. Judge Glasscock notes that the purpose of Rule 15(aaa) was to curtail the number of times that the Court of Chancery was required to adjudicate multiple motions to dismiss the same action. He adds that Rule 15(aaa) was written precisely for situations, such as the one here, in which the parties have fully briefed and argued a motion to dismiss and the court has decided it. The Plaintiffs, nevertheless, argue that Rule 15(a), rather than Rule 15(aaa), should apply here. In support, they cite TVI Corp. v. Gallagher. In TVI, the Court treated a motion to amend made during the pendency of a motion to dismiss "as if it had been submitted after the disposition of the Motion to Dismiss," and proceeded to grant the motion to amend. Judge Glasscock holds that the holding in TVI is that Rule 15(aaa) is not applicable to an amendment that states a new claim not addressed in a motion to dismiss. The revised pleading proposed here would not state a claim outside "the purview of the motion to dismiss," Judge Glasscock opines. The claim that Defendant Scanlon breached her fiduciary duty of care--the claim that the Plaintiffs seek to reform and perfect in the proposed amended pleading--was subject to the Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss sought dismissal of the entire Amended Complaint--which, in turn, included only one count: a breach of "fiduciary duties" against all the Defendants. By definition, a breach of Scanlon's duty of care would fall within that count, the dismissal of which was sought in the Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the TVI exception does not apply here, Judge Glasscock adds. The Plaintiffs, with their Motion, seek to amend their Amended Complaint to perfect a claim that they had "attempted" to make, after the Court decided that the claim was insufficiently alleged. Judge Glasscock holds that this is not a case where a new and unique claim is being raised against the Defendants. Rather, the parties went through full briefing and argument, yet the Plaintiffs did not once identify any additional allegations that might bolster their claim, the Judge opines, citing Mooney v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 2017 WL 5713308, at *8 (Del. Super. Ct. Nov. 28, 2017), aff'd, 192 A.3d 557 (Del. 2018). Judge Glasscock finds that the Plaintiffs' allegations in their complaint are insufficient to state a claim against Scanlon. They fail to allege that the Company's incomplete and misleading disclosures--issuance of which is the sole breach of care that the Plaintiffs articulate--are the result of Scanlon's gross negligence--a point Judge Glasscock articulated in his Letter Decision. He adds that the Plaintiffs' allegations merely allege that the proxy in question was insufficient and conclude that it may be Scanlon's fault. Although the standard at a motion to dismiss is plaintiff-friendly, it does not require the Court to accept the plaintiff's conclusory allegations. Finally, as noted in the Letter Decision, even if the plaintiff-friendly motion to dismiss standard may be read to allow an inference that Scanlon was grossly negligent in causing the corporation to issue the incomplete and misleading proxy, "the Plaintiffs failed to brief the issue in response to the Motion sufficiently to consider it raised, and failed to raise it at oral argument as well," Judge Glasscock holds. Indeed, the Plaintiffs raised the duty of care allegation with regards to Scanlon (if at all) only in a footnote of their motion to dismiss briefing that stated: "Section 102(b)(7) does not exculpate officers in their capacity as officers, such that exculpation is not available to Scanlon." True, but unhelpful to the Plaintiffs. The footnote does not provide any argument as to how the factual allegations support gross negligence on Scanlon's part with respect to the disclosures, or how such gross negligence caused the harm to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs in their original pleading attempted and failed to plead breach of fiduciary duty against Scanlon. Rule 15(aaa) precludes a second such attempt here. Application of that rule does not work an injustice "under all the circumstances," Judge Glasscock further opines. For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 11, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ujwt64z3 from Leagle.com. VELODYNE LIDAR: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (VLDR) Class Period: 7/2/2020 - 3/17/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 3, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] VROOM INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming May 21, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) securities between November 11, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Vroom investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/vroom-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vroom securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 21, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] VROOM INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with losses in excess of $100,000 that they have until May 21, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Vroom, Inc. (NasdaqGS: VRM), if they purchased the Company's securities between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Vroom and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-vrm/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by May 21, 2021. About the Lawsuit Vroom and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On March 3, 2021, post-market, the Company announced its Q4 and Full Year 2020 financial results, disclosing that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit" as well as a fourth quarter increase in net loss from 41.9% to $60.7 million. On this news, shares of Vroom plummeted $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The case is Zawatsky v. Vroom, Inc., et al., 21-cv-02477. About Kahn Swick & Foti Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM) ("Vroom") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Vroom securities between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Vroom securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 21, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/vroom-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vroom Vroom operates an end-to-end ecommerce platform that sells fully reconditioned vehicles. The Class Period commences on June 9, 2020, when Vroom filed the prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on a Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the registration statement for the IPO. On September 8, 2020, Vroom filed with the SEC a registration statement on a Form S-1 for a follow-on stock offering, in which Vroom sold 10.8 million shares of stock at $54.50 per share for nearly $590 million in gross offering proceeds (the "Secondary Offering"). On September 11, 2020, Vroom filed the prospectus for the Secondary Offering with the SEC on a Form 424B4, which formed part of and incorporated the registration statement for the Secondary Offering. According to the complaint, on March 3, 2021, Vroom announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, Vroom reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." During the accompanying earnings call, the defendants revealed that Vroom was suffering from serious sales and support bottlenecks which had severely constrained Vroom's growth and profits per vehicle. Following this news, Vroom's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion of existing inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and overreliance on third-party sales support; (2) Vroom's lack of adequate sales and support staff had resulted in severe growth constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales opportunities and a greater than 10% increase in average days to sale for Vroom products; (3) Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Vroom's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Vroom investors may, no later than May 21, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] VROOM INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) securities during the period from November 11, 2020 through March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until May 21, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. The Company reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by $12.29 per share, or approximately 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you acquired Vroom securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you. Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Kirby McInerney LLP Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600 investigations@kmllp.com www.kmllp.com [GN] VROOM INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 11, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 21, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/2QJnY6C to participate. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Vroom failed to demonstrate any ability to control and scale its salesforce to meet the demand for its products. The Company discounted aged inventory to sell through the retail channel and liquidated product through wholesale channels. As a result, the Company's gross profit per unit was likely to decline. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Vroom, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] W.P. PRODUCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.P. Produce Corporation. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. W.P. Produce Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02591 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. W.P. Produce -- https://www.wpproduce.com/ -- has imported and distributed Desbry tropical green skin avocados from Florida throughout the United States & Canada.[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 WAKE COUNTY, NC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Gorrell Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, STEVEN E. GORRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAKE COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00129-M (E.D.N.C., March 16, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged systemic, company-wide willful failure to properly pay its employees overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendant, through the Wake County Department of Emergency Medical Services, as an hourly paid paramedic from approximately 2006 to 2015, as field training officer from approximately 2015 to 2020, then as paramedic again since approximately 2020. According to the complaint, the Defendant implemented a corporate policy requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to record all of their hours worked on the day shift started, instead of on the days they actually worked. As a result, despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hour they worked over 40 in a workweek, the suit adds. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover from the Defendant overtime wages due, liquidated damages in an equal amount, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other legal and equitable relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Defendant, through the Wake County Department of Emergency Medical Services, provides emergency ambulance service throughout Wake County, North Carolina, on a 24-hour per day basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. Oxendine, Esq. James A. Barnes, Esq. OXENDINE BARNES & ASSOCIATES PLLC 6500 Creedmoor Rd., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27613 Tel: (919) 848-4333 Fax: (919) 848-4707 E-mail: ryan@oxendinebarnes.com jim@oxendinebarnes.com WAKPAMNI LAKE: Marquez Files Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation. The case is styled as Aileen Marquez, Individually and On Behalf of Alf Others Similarly Situated v. Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation, Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation II (also known as: WLCC II doing business as: Arrowhead Advance), Raycen American Horse Raines formerly known as: Raycen Ballard, Geneva Lone Hill, Case No. 3:21-cv-00525-WQH-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 25, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for Unsolicited Telephone Sales. Arrowhead Advance -- https://www.arrowheadadvance.com/ -- provides loans and installment services and is an entity of the Wakpamni Lake Community Corporation (WLCC), a tribal corporation wholly owned by the Wakpamni Lake Community.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ahren A. Tiller, Esq. BLC LAW CENTER, APC 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 894-8831 Fax: (866) 444-7026 Email: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com WAL-MART STORES: $2.9MM Class Settlement in Neal Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Curtis Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart and Synchrony Bank, f/k/a GE Capital Retail Bank, Defendants. Roy Campbell on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synchrony Bank, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00022 (W.D.N.C.), Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Expenses, and Incentive Awards, and Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Judge Bell held a Final Approval Hearing on March 18, 2021, after notice of the Final Approval Hearing was given in accordance with this Court's Order (1) Conditionally Certifying a Settlement Class, (2) Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement, (3) Approving Notice Plan, and (4) Setting Final Approval Hearing. He has carefully considered all matters submitted to the Court at the Final Approval Hearing. The Settlement Class means: All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Synchrony Bank placed, or caused to be placed (either by one of its own employees or by an agent or vendor), a call, (2) directed to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, (3) by using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) from June 17, 2016 through the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, (5) where the subject of the call was a Synchrony account that did not belong to the recipient of the call, and (6) where the recipient of the call did not provide Synchrony the telephone number to which it placed, or caused to be placed, the call. There are no objections to the Settlement. Judge Bell concludes that the Settlement's terms constitute, in all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directs its consummation pursuant to its terms and conditions. Judge Bell approves the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of $966,666.67 (representing one-third of the $2.9 million Settlement. Additionally, the Class Counsel is awarded $20,525.39 in costs of litigation. The award of attorneys' fees and litigation costs are to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement. The Judge finds the payment of service awards in the amount of $10,000 to each of the two Settlement Class Representatives is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, each of the Settlement Class Representatives is awarded $10,000, such amounts to be paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Agreement. The Settlement Class described is finally certified, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement and the Order and Final Judgment. Judge Bell dismisses, with prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for in the Agreement, all of the Actions. He directs the Claims Administrator to distribute the consideration to the Settlement Class pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. By incorporating the Agreement and its terms in the Final Judgment and Order, the Judge determines that the Final Judgment complies in all respects with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1). Finding that there is no just reason for delay, he orders that the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal will constitute a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court orders that, upon the Effective Date, the Settlement will be the exclusive remedy for any and all Released Claims or the Plaintiffs and each and every Settlement Class Member. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter the Order on the docket forthwith. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Final Judgment & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yrrrkbkr from Leagle.com. WALDEN LOCAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walden Local, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Walden Local, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02578 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Walden -- https://waldenlocalmeat.com/ -- offers New England and New York sustainable, locally raised meat, distributed directly to families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com WATERMAN VENTURES: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waterman Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Waterman Ventures, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02565 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Waterman Ventures -- http://www.waterman-ventures.com/-- is a community of Brown University alumni: investors, entrepreneurs, and innovation enthusiasts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com WATFORD HOLDINGS: Facing Canh Putative Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Watford Holdings 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 is facing a putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Canh v. Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021. On October 9, 2020, the company announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Arch Capital Group Ltd. (ACGL) and Merger Sub pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into Watford Holdings, with Watford Holdings surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACGL. On November 2, 2020, the company announced that it had entered into an amendment to the merger agreement with ACGL and Merger Sub to amend certain terms of the agreement. Two lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The first action was filed on January 20, 2021, captioned Canh v. Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). The second action was filed on January 25, 2021, captioned Ciccotelli v. Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No.650544/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (which we refer to as the. Both lawsuits name the company and its directors as defendants. The Canh Action is a putative shareholder class action. The plaintiff claims to be a shareholder of the company. He asserts that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by, among other things, (i) agreeing to the merger and allegedly failing to obtain maximum value for our company in connection therewith; and (ii) allegedly failing to disclose certain purportedly material information relating to the Merger. The plaintiff alleges that the company aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: (i) an injunction barring the Merger and ordering the company's directors to obtain an un-specified different transaction "in the best interest" of the company and its shareholders; (ii) rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated; (iii) a declaration that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties; (iv) an order directing the company and its directors to account for damages; and (v) costs and fees in connection with the lawsuit. The Ciccotelli Action is brought solely on behalf of the named plaintiff, who claims to be a shareholder of our company. The plaintiff asserts that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose certain purportedly material information relating to the Merger. The plaintiff alleges that we aided and abetted the directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: (i) a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the Merger and directing the defendants to disseminate additional information relating to the Merger; (ii) rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated; (iii) a declaration that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties; and (iv) costs and fees in connection with the lawsuit. Watford said, "Other potential plaintiffs may also file additional lawsuits challenging the Merger. The outcome of Canh Action, the Ciccotelli Action, and any additional future litigation is uncertain. Such litigation, if not resolved, could prevent or delay completion of the Merger and result in substantial costs to us, including any costs associated with the indemnification of directors and officers. One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is the absence of any law, injunction or order by any governmental entity enjoining or otherwise prohibiting the consummation of the Merger. Therefore, if a plaintiff were successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may prevent the Merger from being completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the Merger is completed may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." Watford Holdings Ltd. is a global property and casualty, or P&C, insurance and reinsurance company with approximately $1.2 billion in capital as of December 31, 2020 and with operations in Bermuda, the United States and Europe. The company's strategy combines a diversified, casualty-focused underwriting portfolio, accessed through its multi-year, renewable strategic underwriting management relationship with Arch, with a disciplined investment strategy comprising primarily non-investment grade corporate credit assets, managed by HPS Investment Partners, LLC, or HPS. WELCOME SKATEBOARDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Welcome Skateboards Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Welcome Skateboards Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02598 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Welcome Skateboards -- https://welcomeskateboards.com/ -- offers skateboards and clothing.[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 WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Orantes Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ODILIA ORANTES, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v. WESTLAKE WELLBEING PROPERTIES LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B295150 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Second District, Division Five, affirms the trial court's order denying Westlake's motions to compel arbitration. Defendant Westlake employed Plaintiffs Orantes and Maria Elena Avila Cardona as housekeepers at the Four Seasons Hotel Westlake Village. Ms. Orantes was born in Guatemala and moved to the United States in 1988 when she was about 27 years old. She speaks and reads only "very basic" English, enough to communicate with hotel guests regarding, for example, their need for towels or room cleaning. When she was hired by Westlake in 2007, her English was even more limited. Westlake personnel knew her English was limited and, when she was required to sign a document in English, "someone would translate and give a basic description of the document before she would sign it." Orantes resigned her position with Westlake in 2017. Ms. Cardona was born in Colombia and moved to the United States in 2008 when she was about 36 years old. She did not speak or read any English when Westlake hired her as a housekeeper in 2012. English-speaking managers at Westlake knew she did not speak English and relied on other employees to interpret when they needed to speak with her. Cardona resigned her position with Westlake in 2016. Ms. Orantes, Ms. Cardona, and a former colleague, Karla Blanco, filed a class action complaint asserting wage and hour claims against Westlake and affiliated entities in 2017. They allege wage and hour claims against Westlake. The appeal concerns Westlake's motions to compel arbitration as to Orantes and Cardona. In its motions to compel arbitration, Westlake alleged that, as part of the hiring process, Orantes and Cardona each executed an individual employment contract dubbed an "EmPact." The EmPacts included terms for a mediation and arbitration program given the acronym "C.A.R.E." ("Complaint, Arbitration & Review for Employees"). With its motion to compel arbitration, Westlake submitted unsigned EmPact booklets and signed, one-page EmPact forms for both Orantes and Cardona. The materials relevant to Orantes are similar, but not identical, to those relevant to Cardona. Westlake's motion was also accompanied by declarations from Jim Cathcart, its human resources director since 2010. According to Cathcart, employees are informed arbitration is "not mandatory or a condition of employment." Cathcart's declarations did not suggest he had personal knowledge of either the specific documents presented to Orantes and Cardona or of how the hiring documents were explained to them. Rather, he declared only that he found the one-page EmPact forms they appeared to have signed and unsigned EmPact booklets in their personnel files. Ms. Orantes and Ms. Cardona acknowledged they signed the one-page EmPact forms but denied they had seen the larger EmPact booklet or were told about the document's arbitration provisions. The trial court denied Westlake's motions as to both Orantes and Cardona. Preliminarily, the trial court found the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. Section 2 et seq.) did not govern its analysis because Westlake did not satisfy its burden to demonstrate the requisite connection to interstate commerce. It then found that neither employee entered into an enforceable agreement to arbitrate their claims against Westlake. As to Orantes, the trial court held the signed one-page EmPact form did not reflect a meeting of the minds as to arbitration because it was undisputed Orantes could not read the document and relied on a description that did not mention arbitration. Cathcart's assertion that the EmPact documents were correctly explained to her, the court found, was not based on personal knowledge. As to Cardona, the trial court concluded there was no evidence that she ever received the unsigned EmPact booklet and, standing alone, the signed one-page EmPact form was no more than an "agreement to agree." As with Orantes, the court disregarded Cathcart's statement that the agreement was explained to her because it was not based on personal knowledge. As an alternative ground for denying Westlake's motions, the trial court found the purported arbitration agreements were unconscionable. It determined there was procedural unconscionability because, notwithstanding employees' right to opt out of arbitration, the EmPact booklets describing the material terms of the agreements are entirely in English and there was no evidence either employee received a copy of the AAA rules that would govern arbitration. The trial court found the agreements to be substantively unconscionable because, notwithstanding the mutual obligation to arbitrate disputes, the agreement extended only to claims employees were likely to bring against Westlake. It also found that the pre-mediation C.A.R.E. steps give Westlake a "free peek" at employees' claims and the arbitration rules give the arbitrator mere discretion to award fees that a prevailing party would be automatically entitled to under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals considers whether the trial court erred in finding the purported arbitration agreements were unenforceable due to fraud in the execution in Orantes's case and uncertain terms in Cardona's case. It concludes that the trial court correctly determined Orantes and Cardona did not enter into an enforceable agreement to arbitrate their claims against Westlake. It finds that the trial court's well-founded concerns about the description of the one-page EmPact form provided to Orantes that did not mention arbitration are properly analyzed as fraud in the execution of the agreement. As to Cardona, where the trial court focused primarily on the form's indication there would be signatures on the separate booklet, the Court of Appeals agrees there was a lack of certainty regarding a promise to arbitrate pursuant to the procedure "described in C.A.R.E." because the one-page EmPact form does not define C.A.R.E. and does not incorporate any other document by reference. Because it affirms the order on these grounds, the Court of Appeals does not address the trial court's alternative holding that the purported agreements are unconscionable. For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's order denying Westlake's motions to compel arbitration. Orantes and Cardona will recover their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/jfd6w3yn from Leagle.com. Stokes Wagner, Peter B. Maretz -- pmaretz@stokeswagner.com -- Shirley A. Gauvin -- sgauvin@stokeswagner.com -- and Adam L. Parry -- aparry@stokeswagner.com -- for Defendants and Appellants. Lavi & Ebrahimian, Joseph Lavi -- jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- Jordan D. Bello -- jbello@lelawfirm.com -- and Vincent Granberry -- granberry@lelawfirm.com -- for Plaintiffs and Respondents. WILLIAM E. NEWMAN: Faces Smith Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, INC., and WILLIAM E. NEWMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., March 16, 2021) brings this complaint to recover back pay, liquidated damages, attorney fees, litigation costs and other relief from the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants in or around July 2019 to work as a foreman and remain in that capacity until he quit working for the Defendants on or about February 25, 2021. The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the Defendants, he worked at least 55 hours per week without being compensated for the hours he worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked over 40 in a workweek, he added. William E. Newman, Inc. provides floor underlayment and leveling services in the Northern District of Florida. William E. Newman owns and operates the company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew W. Birk, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK 309 NE 1st Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Tel: (352) 244-2069 Fax: (352) 372-3464 E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com WINE.COM LLC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wine.Com, LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Wine.Com, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02613 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Wine.com -- https://www.wine.com/ -- is an American wine online retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal WORKHORSE GROUP: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds investors of pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit: Workhorse Group, Inc. (WKHS) Class Period: 7/7/2020 - 2/23/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: May 7, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-workhorse-group-inc-securities-litigation If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About ClaimsFiler ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of dollars from securities class action settlements. At ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain access to information and settlement websites for various securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN] WORKHORSE GROUP: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ:WKHS) between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 7, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action lawsuit first filed by the firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Workhorse securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Workhorse class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that the USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from the USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had concealed the fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle - electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Workhorse's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Workhorse class action, go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2042.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WORLD FINANCIAL: Court Partially Stays Yeomans' Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TRICIA YEOMANS, et al., Plaintiffs v. WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00792-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the moving Defendants' motion to stay the case. Moving Defendants World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., and World Financial Group, Inc., moved to stay the case pending their appeals of the Court's orders denying their motions to transfer the case and to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs Yeomans, Ismail Chraibi, Adrian Rodriguez, Robert Jenkins, Dorothy Jenkins, Cameron Bradford, and Fatemeh Abtahi allege the following. The Defendants represent themselves as a financial- and insurance-products marketing company; they recruit individuals as "Associates" and purport to give people the tools "to build and operate their own financial services business." However, the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants conduct their business by way of a massive pyramid scheme," wherein recruiting new Associates is one of the "main factors involved in achieving promotions." Once someone is an Associate, the Defendants pressure that person to "purchase the Defendants' financial and insurance products" and to "sell financial and insurance products to the new Associates." Central to the Plaintiffs' case is their allegation that the Defendants have unlawfully misclassified Associates as 'independent contractors' rather than as employees to further increase company profits. Specifically, each Associate is required to sign identical, nonnegotiable Associate Membership Agreements ("AMAs"), which set forth uniform rules and policies promulgated by the Defendants, which subject Associates to strict control. The Plaintiffs and the Class Members signed the AMAs. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants completely control the overall operation of the business and retain the exclusive authority to hire and fire every Associate. Furthermore, because of this classification, Associates earn only commissions, not minimum wage, and they bear the burden of business costs, which the Defendants might otherwise bear. In addition, Associates are improperly deprived of the protection of workers' compensation, the benefits of overtime pay, and meal and rest breaks. The Plaintiffs filed the case in San Francisco Superior Court in December 2018. The Defendants removed the case to federal court in February 2019. In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint ("FAC"). Shortly after the FAC was filed, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which the Court denied on Nov. 16, 2019, because the forum selection clause in the AMAs violated California public policy as expressed by section 925 of the California Labor Code. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants' filed a mandamus petition asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia, notwithstanding the Court's order denying such transfer. On June 18, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims, and stay the case, which the Court denied on Sept. 11, 2020. The Defendants appealed this order shortly thereafter. On Feb. 16, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant motion to stay the action pending the outcome of their appeals in the Ninth Circuit. In Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (9th Cir. 2011), courts generally consider four factors when determining whether to grant a stay pending the appeal of a civil order: (1) the likelihood of the moving party's success on the merits; (2) whether the moving party will be irreparably injured if a stay is not granted; (3) whether a stay will substantially injure the opposing party; and (4) the public interest." Likelihood of Success on the Merits or Serious Legal Questions The Defendants argue that their direct appeal of the Court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration raises two serious legal questions. Judge Chen holds that the first question, whether the Court is required to conduct a jury trial to determine if the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, is not a "serious legal question" in the case because the Court did not deny the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the parties had not entered into an arbitration agreement. The second question in the Defendants' direct appeal, whether "California's unconscionability doctrine set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., 6 P.3d 559 (Cal. 2000) applies if the Federal Arbitration Act governs, and if so, if it applies to independent-contactor misclassification cases like this one," also fails to raise a serious legal question. As the Court explained in its arbitration order, "the Ninth Circuit has concluded that 'California law regarding unconscionable contracts' is not inherently 'unfavorable towards arbitration,' and instead 'reflects a generally applicable policy against abuses of bargaining power.'" The Defendants also argue, however, that their mandamus petition challenging the Court's denial of their motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia raises serious legal questions about the application of section 925, which the Ninth Circuit has never discussed. Indeed, it appears the Ninth Circuit has never addressed section 925 at all, let alone whether it prevents transferring a case where plaintiffs allege they were misclassified as independent contractors. The Defendants' mandamus petition also argues that section 925 is preempted by federal law favoring forum selection clauses, and that it does not apply to contracts entered into before the law was enacted on Jan. 1, 2017. Admittedly, almost all district courts agree with this Court's analysis of these questions. Accordingly, because the Defendants' mandamus petition in the case presents serious legal questions material to the outcome of the appeal since the Ninth Circuit has yet to address the question at bar, the Judge considers the remaining three factors for obtaining a stay. Irreparable Harm to Defendants The Defendants' portend that they will be irreparably harmed if forced to litigate their claims, including having to respond to class-wide discovery, because if they succeed in their appeals the case will be either transferred to Georgia or to arbitration. They do not specify exactly what the "harm" of litigating the case in this forum will be, but typically that harm is understood to be "(1) the loss of time and money associated with the ongoing litigation of the case pending appeal; and (2) the irrecoverable loss of the speed and efficiency of the arbitral forum." First, Judge Chen Court has pointed out that nearly all courts have concluded that incurring litigation expenses does not amount to an irreparable harm. Therefore, the Defendants will not be prejudiced if the Court allows the parties to conduct reasonable pre-trial discovery while Defendants' appeals are pending. Moreover, if the case were ordered to be transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, the Judge is hesitant to preempt the transferee court from making key procedural and substantive rulings. Therefore, to avoid any injury "from the actual adjudication of the case on the merits in federal court," he issues only a partial stay that does not permit trial, dispositive motions, the certification of a class, or adjudication of the case on the merits. Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs The Plaintiffs argue that they have already suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm from the continued delay of their case. Judge Chen holds that the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of staying all non-discovery-related activity in the case until the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits of Defendants' appeals. The risk of further delay will be minimized in the case because the Court will allow the Plaintiffs to conduct reasonably tailored discovery. If the Defendants' appeals are not decided by the time the parties complete this initial discovery, the Plaintiffs can move the Court to reconsider its partial stay at that time. Public Interest Lastly, Judge Chen holds that the public interest does not tilt strongly in either party's favor. There are competing interests in the case. On the one hand, there is an interest under the FAA in enforcing valid arbitration agreements. On the other hand, the existence of a federal policy favoring arbitration does not, by itself, require a stay, and the Court must consider other public policies at issue, such as California's interest in enforcing its wage and hour laws. Both interests are valid and largely in equipoise for purposes of the motion. Therefore, the public interest factor is neutral. For the reasons he stated, Judge Chen grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion by partially staying the action for all purposes pending the issuance of the Ninth Circuit's mandate on their mandamus petition except that the parties may engage in reasonable discovery commensurate with that which would likely be permitted if the case were arbitrated (which allows for any eventual ruling that this case should be arbitrated), but also including discovery keyed to the PAGA claim which is likely to proceed in any event. Moreover, the Judge vacates the hearing on the Defendants' motion scheduled for March 25, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. Instead, he will hold a status conference where the Court will decide what discovery is reasonable while the Defendants' appeals are pending. The parties are instructed to meet and confer about the scope of discovery to be permitted during the stay, keeping in mind that the Court has allowed, in similar cases, focused discovery "designed to allow the Plaintiffs to secure and preserve the evidence needed to pursue their PAGA claims otherwise at risk due to delay." In the past, this has included the production of a list of individuals that might be covered by the PAGA claims, contact information for those individuals, time and pay records related to those claims, and depositions of witnesses whose testimony might be lost with the passage of time. The Order disposes of Docket No. 89. A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvhd8v43 from Leagle.com. YELP INC: Putative Securities Class Action Underway in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yelp 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 pending before the Northern District of California. In January 2018, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint, which the plaintiff amended on June 25, 2018, alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations on February 9, 2017. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 2, 2018, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part on November 27, 2018. On October 22, 2019, the Court approved a stipulation to certify a class in this action. The case remains pending. Yelp said, "Due to the preliminary nature of this lawsuit, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate either the probability of incurring a loss or an estimated range of such loss, if any, from the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Yelp Inc. operates a platform that connects consumers with local businesses in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Yelp Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. ZUM SERVICES: Order Allowing Arbitration in Contreras Suit Flipped ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled ROBINA CONTRERAS, et al., Petitioners v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ZUM SERVICES, INC., Real Party in Interest, Case No. B307025 (Cal. App.), Presiding Justice Laurence D. Rubin of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five, reversed an order granting motion to compel arbitration. Petitioners Robina Contreras and Gabriel Ets-Hokin filed suit against Zum under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). The Petitioners alleged Zum misclassified them and others as independent contractors, thereby, violating multiple provisions of the California Labor Code. Zum is a transportation service, designed to allow customers to schedule rides for children using the Zum website or phone application. Upon logging in the first time, new Zum drivers are expected to sign the Zum Terms of Service Agreement. The Agreement contains what appears to be a mutual dispute resolution provision that requires drivers to resolve disputes through final and binding arbitration. The Agreement gives the arbitrator "exclusive authority to make all procedural and substantive decisions regarding any dispute and to grant any remedy that would otherwise be available in court; provided, however, that the arbitrator does not have the authority to conduct a class arbitration or a representative action, which is prohibited by these Terms." The JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures, incorporated by reference, state in relevant part: "Jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement under which Arbitration is sought, and who are proper Parties to the Arbitration, will be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator." Plaintiff Contreras began driving for Zum in October 2018; Plaintiff Ets-Hokin started in June 2019. Both assented to the terms of the Agreement. On March 23, 2020, the Petitioners filed the operative first amended complaint against Zum, raising a single cause of action pursuant to PAGA. The complaint alleged that Zum had misclassified them as independent contractors and, as a result, Zum violated multiple provisions of the California Labor Code and other statutes and regulations protecting California employees. Specifically, the Petitioners claimed Zum willfully misclassified drivers as independent contractors in violation of section 226.84; failed to reimburse drivers for expenses incurred while working in violation of section 2802 and Wage Order No. 9; failed to ensure that drivers receive minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of Sections 1194 and 1197; failed to pay drivers the appropriate overtime premium for all overtime hours worked in violation of Sections 510, 554, 1194, and 1198; and required drivers to sign illegal contracts in violation of Section 432.5. On April 21, 2020, Zum filed its motion to compel arbitration, citing the Agreement's provisions waiving class actions and agreeing to submit claims to binding arbitration. The Petitioners opposed the motion, arguing that PAGA claims cannot be compelled into individual arbitration. In reply, Zum again emphasized the terms of the Agreement and also raised the argument that the "threshold issue" of whether petitioners were employees and thus eligible to raise PAGA claims should be decided in arbitration. On July 22, 2020, the trial court granted Zum's motion. In its ruling, the court relied on California public policy that favors resolving conflicts through arbitration, and Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, which directs courts to order the parties to arbitrate a controversy if an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. The court relied on cases that support the general rule that arbitrators should decide the issue of arbitrability if there is an enforceable delegation clause in an agreement (Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson (2010) 561 U.S. 63, 68-69; Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 227, 239.). The court found that the delegation clause here was enforceable, with "clear and unmistakable" terms. The Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Court, challenging the trial court's order granting the motion to compel arbitration. Zum filed a preliminary opposition. On August 25, 2020, the Appellate Court issued an order to show cause why the relief sought in the petition should not be granted. Zum filed a return and petitioners a reply. Judge Rubin notes that the Petitioners' writ petition is founded on a fairly straightforward argument: The district's Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 and several Courts of Appeal are uniform in holding that PAGA claims are not waivable and are not arbitrable. Under that case law and in light of the very nature of a PAGA claim, a court--not an arbitrator--must decide all aspects of the claim. The only exception is when the state, as real party in interest, has consented to arbitration. The state did not consent here. Zum argues PAGA is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Iskanian is no longer good law. But its more tailored assertion is: The trial court did not order the PAGA claim to arbitration. It only compelled a single antecedent fact or "gateway issue" to be arbitrated: whether petitioners are employees, which they must be to have standing under PAGA, or independent contractors, and thus ineligible to bring a PAGA claim. Zum contends that, by virtue of the delegation clause of the Agreement and its incorporation of JAMS rules, "jurisdictional and arbitrability disputes, including disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope of the agreement and who are proper Parties to the Arbitration, will be submitted to and ruled on by the Arbitrator." Iskanian and most other appellate opinions are beside the point. Judge Rubin opines that PAGA claims are not subject to the FAA and that PAGA claims cannot be arbitrated without state consent. He points out that nothing in the record suggests that the state has consented to the arbitration of the Petitioners' PAGA claim. Zum also argues that, even if PAGA claims are not subject to the FAA, even if Iskanian is still good law, and even if an employee by predispute agreement may not be forced to arbitrate a PAGA claim, the trial court's order was nevertheless correct. Zum portrays the arbitrability question as "a private issue subject to a private agreement, not a public issue in which the State has an interest," as there will be no determinations on the merits of the claim. The state will not have an interest in the suit unless and until the arbitrator determines petitioners are employees and, if it does, the PAGA claim may be litigated in court. Judge Rubin opines it is fallacious wordsmithing. If an arbitrator rules that petitioners are not 'aggrieved employees,' there will be no remaining PAGA claim anywhere. By virtue of an arbitration to which it did not consent, the state will have lost one of its weapons in the enforcement of California's labor laws. Judge Rubin adds, among other things, that Zum's cited cases all have reached the same conclusion; and the Court agrees with the chorus that in California--a PAGA plaintiff may not be compelled to arbitrate whether he or she is an aggrieved employee. Judge Rubin holds that a peremptory writ of mandate will issue directing the respondent court to vacate its July 22, 2020 order granting the motion to compel arbitration, and to issue a new order denying the motion. The Petitioners will recover their costs in this proceeding. BAKER, J. and MOOR, J., concurs. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated March 1, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/bh7cwu68 from Leagle.com. Lichten & Liss-Riordan, Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- and Anne Kramer -- akramer@llrlaw.com -- for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Littler Mendelson, K. Kayvan Iradjpanah -- kiradjpanah@littler.com -- and Ashley J. Brick -- abrick@littler.com -- for Real Party in Interest. ZYNGA INC: Awaits Court Ruling in Bid to Transfer Oeste Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Zynga 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 class action suit initiated by James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company believes notice was required or appropriate. On June 9, 2020 plaintiffs James Oeste and Marissa Oeste, both residents of Maryland, filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of Maryland. Plaintiffs allege they were Zynga players who were affected by the Data Incident. Similar to all the foregoing plaintiffs, the Oeste plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and generally allege that Zynga failed to adequately or reasonably protect certain player information, including names, email addresses, and passwords (among other items); that Zynga used outdated or improper password hashing methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of the Data Incident. The Oeste plaintiffs assert claims for contractual breach, negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and claims for relief under California consumer protection and unfair competition statutes. Zynga responded to the complaint on August 31, 2020, with a motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games. ZYNGA INC: Bid for Initial Arbitration in Chaudhri Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga 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 district court issued an order in "Chaudhri complaint," denying the company's motion to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motion. On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company believes notice was required or appropriate. Since March 3, 2020, five consumer class action complaints have been filed in connection with the Data Incident in federal court. On March 3, 2020, two plaintiffs – minor "I.C." (acting through his parent Nasim Chaudhri) and Amy Gitre – filed a class action complaint arising out of the Data Incident, generally alleging that Zynga failed to reasonably safeguard certain player information, including names, email addresses, and passwords (among other items); failed to provide them with timely notification of the breach; and made misleading representations concerning the safety and security of plaintiffs' personal information. Plaintiffs allege claims against Zynga under several state law theories, including negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, failure to comply with data breach notification statutes, and unjust enrichment, and they seek injunctive relief and damages. Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration and arbitration-related discovery on May 8, 2020. On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez, denying Zynga's motions to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motions. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs' identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's records on its systems. A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games. ZYNGA INC: Continues to Defend Rosiak Data Breach Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Zynga 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 initiated by Christopher Rosiak. On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company believes notice was required or appropriate. On August 13, 2020, plaintiff Christopher Rosiak filed a fifth class action in the Northern District of California (the Rosiak complaint). Plaintiff alleges similar and analogous claims to those in the Martinez (and other) actions, alleging that he suffered harm as a result of Zynga's data breach. Plaintiff Rosiak alleges multiple state law claims, including contract-based claims, negligence, and violation of California's unfair competition, false advertising, and consumer protection statutes. Pursuant to extension orders granted by the Court, Zynga's deadline to respond is currently March 8, 2021. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games. ZYNGA INC: Court Grants Initial Arbitration in Johnson Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga 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 district court in the "Johnson complaint", issued an order denying Zynga's motions to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motions. On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company believes notice was required or appropriate. On March 23, 2020, plaintiffs Carol Johnson and Lisa Thomas filed a class action complaint in the Northern District of California federal court (the "Johnson complaint"). Similar to the Chaudhri complaint, the Johnson plaintiffs – residents of Missouri and Wisconsin – assert Zynga failed to adequately protect certain player information, including names, email addresses, and passwords (among other items). Plaintiffs contend that, despite Zynga's representations in its privacy policy that sensitive player information would be adequately protected, plaintiffs' passwords were stored using inadequate hashing methods or in plain text. Plaintiffs allege that the lack of adequate security measures caused them harm as a result of the Data Incident, and they assert numerous various claims against Zynga, including claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, breach of confidence, breach of contract and implied contract, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL", CGL 17200, et seq.), and state-specific violations of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act and Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. On May 26, 2020, Zynga filed a motion to compel arbitration and arbitration-related discovery. On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez, denying Zynga's motions to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motions. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs' identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's records on its systems. A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games. ZYNGA INC: Court OK's Initial Arbitration in Martinez Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga 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 district court in the "Martinez complaint", issued an order denying Zynga's motions to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motions. On September 12, 2019, the company announced that an incident had occurred that may have involved player data. Upon its discovery of the Data Incident, an investigation immediately commenced and advisors and third-party forensics firms were retained to assist. The company's current belief is that, during the third quarter of 2019, outside hackers illegally accessed certain player account information and other Zynga information, and that no financial information was accessed. The company had provided notifications to players, investors, regulators and other third parties, where the company believes notice was required or appropriate. On April 15, 2020, plaintiffs Joseph Martinez IV and Daniel Petro, residents of Colorado and Iowa, filed a third class action complaint in the Northern District of California (the "Martinez complaint"). Plaintiffs allege they are longtime Zynga players who were affected by the Data Incident. Similar to the Chaudhri and Johnson plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs generally allege that Zynga failed to adequately store and protect or otherwise secure certain player information, including names, email addresses, and passwords (among other items); that Zynga used outdated and improper password encryption methods; that Zynga failed to adequately provide notice of the Data Incident; and that they have been harmed as a result of the Data Incident. Like the Johnson and Chaudhri plaintiffs, the Martinez plaintiffs assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, as well as contractual claims, and claims for relief under multiple state consumer protection statutes. Additionally, the Martinez plaintiffs also assert misrepresentation and omission claims under California's false advertising law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class. Zynga responded to the Martinez complaint by filing a motion to compel arbitration on June 19, 2020. On January 6, 2021, the district court issued an order in all three actions, Chaudhri, Johnson, and Martinez—denying Zynga's motions to compel arbitration without prejudice, and granting an alternative request for preliminary arbitration-related discovery that Zynga had made in connection with its motions. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide Zynga with plaintiffs' identifying information so that Zynga could identify each player's records on its systems. A status hearing has been set for March 1, 2021. Zynga Inc. is an American social game developer running social video game services and founded in April 2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California, United States. The company primarily focuses on mobile and social networking platforms. Zynga states its mission as "connecting the world through games. [*] Poultry Companies to Pay $104MM to Settle Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ thepoultrysite.com reports that according to reporting in Meat + Poultry, the class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods, Peco Foods, Fieldale Corp and George's Farms Corp alleges that the poultry processors conspired to lower chicken production and raise consumer prices. This action is in violation of state and federal anti-trust laws. It also violates consumer protection regulations. The court document stipulates that the companies would pay $104.5 million. Fieldale would pay $1.7 million, Peco Foods $1.9 million, George's $1.9 million and Tyson $99 million as part of the settlement agreement. The court document said the "ice breaker settlements" and the companies' agreement to provide cooperation will strengthen the class's case against the remaining processors. The case has been in federal court since 2016. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***