/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210401.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 1, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 60
Headlines
48 ROCKEFELLER: Grande Seeks Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Underway
ACM RESEARCH: Kain Putative Class Suit Underway in California
ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Facing MYMD Merger Related Suits
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
ALASKA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in Pilot Initiated Class Action
ALL MY SONS: Vega Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Action Underway
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Tan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss JUULS Investment-Related Suit Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Nix Suits Related to E-Cigarette Sales Pending
ALTRIA GROUP: Facing 27 Class Suits Related to JUUL E-Vapor
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Class Suits
ALVERNO COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Career Counseling Seeks Class Certification
AMERIGROUP WASHINGTON: Class Settlement in Dennis Gets Final Nod
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
APACHE CORP: Facing Plymouth County Retirement System Class Suit
APEX INTERNATIONAL: DeSalvo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Final Approval of Wong Settlement Pending
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Final Hearing on Settlement OK Set for July 19
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Court Enters Final Judgment in Rubin-Knudsen
ATOOSA NASSIMI: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending
BANDWIDTH INC: Bid to Dismiss Mey Putative Class Suit Pending
BARBERTON TREE: Class Settlement in Hall Wage Suit Wins Final Nod
BEYOND MEAT: Dismissal of Tran Putative Securities Class Suit Final
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Strike Portions of Hunt's Complaint Denied
CAMPING WORLD: Initial Agreement to Settle PAGA Class Suit Entered
CARDTRONICS PLC: Discovery in Schertzer Suit Ongoing
CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Seeks to Certify Two Classes
CHEMED CORP: Lax Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
CORRECTIONS CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Grae Suit Partly Granted
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bid to Remand Fantasy Sports Suit Pending
EAGLE BANCORP: New York Class Action Stayed Pending Mediation
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial Date Still Not Set in Nichols Suit
ENDO INT'L: Intervenor Consents to Dismissal of Appeal in PERS Suit
ENDO INT'L: Suit Against PPI Over Xyrem(R) Sales Underway
EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit Pending
EVENTBRITE INC: Terminates Settlement Agreement in IPO Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Counsel in Koopmann Ordered to Contact Wambach
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Facing Allred Putative Class Action
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification in Klopfenstein Pending
FIFTH THIRD: Heavy & General Laborers' Suit Underway
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Zagorski FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
GERMAN AMERICAN: Discovery in Putative Class Suit Stayed
GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Suit Removed to N.D. California
GOOGLE LLC: Court Approves SCB's Class Notice Plan in Adtrader Suit
GOSSAMER BIO: Bid to Dismiss Kuhne Putative Class Suit Pending
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
GRUBHUB INC: Stockholder Putative Class Action Ongoing in Illinois
HARVEY J. BAZAAR: Wurst Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
HEMED CORP: Settlement of Four Class Suits Gets Final Approval
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Kim et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
IHS MARKIT: Facing S&P Global Merger Related Suits
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Merger Suit Moved to May 6
INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Underway
J2 GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Garcia Putative Class Suit Pending
J2 GLOBAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Davis Suit Pending
KEYSTONE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KFORCE INC: Facing Elliot-Brand Putative Class Suit
KFORCE INC: Gofton and Kimbrel Class Suit Underway
LACKWANNA COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIVE NATION: Class Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets Ongoing
LIVENT CORP: April 15 Fairness Hearing Set for Class Settlement
LUND-PEARSON: Gonzales Sues Over Missed Breaks, Inaccurate Payslips
M&T BANK: Flynn Suit Transferred to in E.D. Pennsylvania
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Class Suit
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
MARION COUNTY, OR: Court Tosses Monical Class Certification Bid
MILLER COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Morris v. MCDC Denied
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Interest Rate Swaps Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Iowa PERS Antitrust Suit
MOWI ASA: Bid to Toss Amended Salmon Antitrust Complaint Denied
MYLAN NV: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in KPH Healthcare Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Guzman Sues Over Home's Low Price at Auction
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Suit
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Appealed
NETAPP INC: Court Dismisses California Securities Class Suit
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
NRG ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against XOOM in New York
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suit Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Extend Stay in Baton Class Suit Pending
PERRIGO CO: Clobetasol Price-Fixing Related Suits Underway
PERRIGO CO: Court Tosses Contaminated Ranitidine Suits
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: FLSA Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Wilson Settlement Granted Final Approval
PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid to Dismiss Utah Class Action Pending
PRECIGEN INC: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits in CA
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Hsu Class Action
QUANTA SERVICES: TNS Liability in Benton Suit Pegged at $9.5MM
READY WIRE: FLSA Conditional Certification of Employee Class Sought
REALREAL INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Suit in Marin County Pending
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
RESTORE WEST: Summers Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Final Judgment Entered in Contreras Class Suit
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Indiana Public Retirement System Suit Underway
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Class Action Underway
STERLING COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SWITCH INC: State Court Securities Action Dismissed
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Turizo TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
TELADOC HEALTH: Livongo Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Australian Law Firm's Class Suits Underway
UNITED STATES: Rodriguez de Leon Files Suit v. SSA Commissioner
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Minnesota
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Suit
WALMART INC: Staff Seek Pay for Time Spent for COVID-19 Screening
WINRED TECHNICAL: Whittaker TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Facebook Order
*********
48 ROCKEFELLER: Grande Seeks Denied Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Grande, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 48 Rockefeller Corp. and Byung W. Cho, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-01593, (S.D. N.Y. February 23, 2021), seeks to
recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours
premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act including damages under the Internal Revenue Code for
relief, damages, fees and costs in this matter for willfully filing
fraudulent tax information forms with the Internal Revenue
Service.
Defendants operate a restaurant under the trade name "DELIS 48"
located at 48th Street, New York where Grande worked as a food
preparer. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours
a week without overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 hours per
workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding
10 hours. He also claims to have never received wage statements.
In addition to the wage and hour violations, Defendants failed to
provide Plaintiff with an accurate W-2 tax statement for each tax
year during which Plaintiff worked, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Acer Therapeutics 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 company continues to
defend a putative class action suit entitled, Skiadas v. Acer
Therapeutics Inc. et al.
On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al, No.
1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the company, Chris Schelling and Harry
Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The complaint alleges that the company violated federal securities
laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements
regarding the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration approval
for the EDSIVOTM NDA.
With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned
Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The Lead Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint on February 28, 2020 and the company moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020. On June 16,
2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the company's
motion to dismiss.
The company filed its answer to the Second Amended Complaint on
August 7, 2020, and the Court held an initial conference on August
17, 2020.
After obtaining leave from the Court to do so, the Lead Plaintiff
filed his Third Amended Complaint on February 4, 2021.
Acer said, "We have not recorded a liability as of December 31,
2020 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings."
Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for
serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts.
ACM RESEARCH: Kain Putative Class Suit Underway in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACM Research, 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 company continues to defend
a putative class action suit entitled, Kain v. ACM Research, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:20-cv-09241.
On December 21, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit against the
company and three of its current executive officers was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under the caption Kain v. ACM Research, Inc., et al., No.
3:20-cv-09241, which the company refers to as the Securities Class
Action.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount as
well as costs and expenses incurred in the litigation.
The court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff.
ACM Research said, "Our management believes the claims are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend this litigation. We are
currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss."
ACM Research, Inc. supplies advanced, innovative capital equipment
developed for the global semiconductor industry. Fabricators of
advanced integrated circuits, or chips, can use our wet-cleaning
and other front-end processing tools in numerous steps to improve
product yield, even at increasingly advanced process nodes. The
company is based in Fremont, California.
ADTRAN INC: Bid to Dismiss Burbridge Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADTRAN, 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 purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned
Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619, is
pending.
On October 17, 2019, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Burbridge v. ADTRAN, Inc. et al., Docket No. 19-cv-09619,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its current
executive officers and one of its former executive officers.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of purported
purchasers of ADTRAN securities between February 28, 2019 and
October 9, 2019.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about, the Company's business, operations and
prospects, specifically relating to the Company's internal control
over financial reporting, excess and obsolete inventory reserves,
financial results and demand from certain customers.
The lawsuit was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama on January 7, 2020, and co-lead
plaintiffs have been appointed to represent the putative class.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2020. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June
17, 2020. The plaintiffs filed an opposition brief to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 17, 2020. The defendants
filed a reply to the plaintiffs' brief on August 17, 2020.
The motion to dismiss remains under review by the Court.
ADTRAN said, "We deny the allegations in the complaint, as amended,
and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. At this time,
we are unable to predict the outcome of or estimate the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ADTRAN, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services
a variety of high-speed digital transmission products. The
Company's products are used by telephone companies and corporate
end-users to implement advanced digital data services over existing
telephone networks. ADTRAN also offers a line of multiplexers which
provides modular flexibility. The company is based in Huntsville,
Alabama.
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Facing MYMD Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, 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 company is facing
putative class action suits related to its merger with MYMD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
On November 11, 2020, the company entered into the Merger
Agreement, pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, XYZ Merger Sub Inc., a Florida corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company will merge with and into
MYMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with MYMD being the surviving
corporation and becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.
The Merger is intended to qualify for federal income tax purposes
as a tax-free reorganization under the provisions of Section 368(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
In addition, in connection with the execution of the Merger
Agreement, Akers agreed to advance a bridge loan of up to
$3,000,000 to MYMD pursuant to a secured promissory note. Upon
completion of the merger, the combined company is expected to be
renamed MyMD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Between January 22, 2021 and February 10, 2021, five alleged Akers
stockholders filed separate actions in the state and federal courts
of New York and New Jersey against Akers and the members of its
board of directors, respectively captioned as follows: (i) Douglas
McClain v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., et al., No. 650497/2021 (Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.); (ii) Owen Murphy v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., et
al., No. 650545/2021 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.); Sue Gee Cheng v. Akers
Biosciences, Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-01110 (S.D.N.Y.); Danny Lui
v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., et al., No. GLO-C-000006-21 (N.J.
Super. Ct., Ch. Div.); and Alan Misenheimer v. Akers Biosciences,
Inc., et al., No. 1:21-cv-02310 (D.N.J.).
The McClain and Lui actions are styled as putative class actions
brought on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated
stockholders, while the Murphy, Cheng, and Misenheimer actions are
brought solely on behalf of the individual stockholders.
The MYMD Merger Complaints generally assert that Akers and its
board of directors failed to disclose allegedly material
information in the joint proxy and consent solicitation
statement/prospectus and seek an order enjoining or unwinding the
consummation of the Merger Agreement and awarding damages.
Akers said, "The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the
MYMD Merger Complaints are without merit and intend to
appropriately defend themselves against them. Accordingly, the
Company does not expect that these claims will have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.
Akers Biosciences, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products
designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers
and consumers in the United States, the People's Republic of China,
and internationally. Akers Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Thorofare, New Jersey.
ALASKA AIR: Appeal in Flight Attendants Class Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air 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 appeal from a
ruling in the Flight Attendants class action suit remains pending.
In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. The court certified a class of
approximately 1,800 flight attendants in November 2016.
The Company believes the claims in this case are without factual
and legal merit.
In July 2018, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding Virgin America, and Alaska Airlines, as a
successor-in-interest to Virgin America, responsible for various
damages and penalties sought by the class members.
In February 2019, the Court entered final judgment against Virgin
America and Alaska Airlines in the amount of approximately $78
million. It did not award injunctive relief against Alaska
Airlines.
In February 2021, an appellate court reversed portions of the lower
court decision and significantly reduced the judgment. The
determination of total judgment has not been completed as of the
date of this filing.
Based on the facts and circumstances available, the Company
believes the range of potential loss to be between $0 and $78
million.
The Company has recorded an estimate of the loss within this range
in the financial statements for the period ending December 31, 2020
as a recognized subsequent event.
The Company is seeking an appellate court ruling that the
California laws on which the judgment is based are invalid as
applied to national airlines pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and
federal law and for other employment law and improper class
certification reasons.
The Company remains confident that a higher court will respect the
federal preemption principles that were enacted to shield
inter-state common carriers from a patchwork of state and local
wage and hour regulations such as those at issue in this case and
agree with the Company's other bases for appeal.
Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.
ALASKA AIR: Discovery Ongoing in Pilot Initiated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action suit initiated by a pilot seeking to represent
all Alaska and Horizon pilots.
In January 2019, a pilot filed a class action lawsuit seeking to
represent all Alaska and Horizon pilots for damages based on
alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
Plaintiff received class certification in August 2020.
The case is in discovery.
The Company believes the claims in the case are without factual and
legal merit and intends to defend the lawsuit.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Alaska Air Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
passenger and cargo air transportation services. The company
operates through three segments: Mainline, Regional, and Horizon.
The company was founded in 1932 and is based in Seattle,
Washington.
ALL MY SONS: Vega Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose A. Vega, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, v. All My Sons Business
Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; All My Sons
Moving & Storage of Tucson LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; All My Sons Moving & Storage of Phoenix LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 4:20-cv-00284-RCC (D. Ariz.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
1. conditionally certifying this lawsuit as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA");
2. authorizing Vega to mail, email and text notice to other
potential plaintiffs;
3. approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Opt-In to
Lawsuit; and
4. requiring that, within 10 days of the Court's ruling on this
Motion, the Defendants All My Sons produce the names and
contact information of all current and former Helpers who
worked for All My Sons from its Tucson, Arizona location from
July 2, 2017 to the present.
Vega seeks FLSA conditional certification on behalf of:
"all the employees who, like Vega, worked as Helpers for All My
Sons from its Tucson, Arizona location (the "Helpers").
All My Sons hires numerous Helpers like Vega to provide moving
services for customers throughout Arizona from its Tucson, Arizona
location, but All My Sons fails to pay them for all the time they
work and are due to be compensated for, the Plaintiff contends.
Through this action, Vega seeks to recover all the wages the
Helpers in Tucson, Arizona have earned but not been paid, including
unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime. All My Sons employed at
least 208 Helpers providing moving services for the company in
Arizona in the last three years from the All My Sons dispatch
center in Tucson, Arizona.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3m3q9gY
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN,
FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone (602) 274-1100
E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com
psyverson@bffb.com
ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Allakos 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 company continues to defend
itself against a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.).
On March 10, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo
Redmond.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical
trials of lirentelimab. The proposed class period is August 5,
2019, through December 17, 2019, inclusive.
On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding as defendants Dr. Adam Tomasi, the company's President,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Dr. Henrik
Rasmussen, the company's Chief Medical Officer.
Allakos said, "Given the early stage of this litigation matter, we
cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a range of
potential future losses and have not recorded a contingent
liability accrual as of December 31, 2020."
Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing
lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's
wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast
cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in
Redwood City, California.
ALLIED ACCOUNT: Tan Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Account
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Genevieve Tan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allied Account
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01617 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Allied Account Services --
https://alliedaccountservicesinc.com/facsweb/weblogind.htm -- is a
collection agency located in Bellmore, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (718) 705-8706
Fax: (718) 705-8705
Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com
ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Dismiss JUULS Investment-Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit related to
Altria's investment in JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL), is pending.
In October and December 2019, two purported Altria shareholders
filed putative class action lawsuits against Altria, Howard A.
Willard III, Altria's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and William F. Gifford, Jr., Altria's former Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer and current Chief Executive Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In December 2019, the court consolidated the two lawsuits into a
single proceeding. The consolidated lawsuit was subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act.
In April 2020, JUUL, its founders and some of its current and
former executives were added to the lawsuit. The claims allege
false and misleading statements and omissions relating to Altria's
investment in JUUL.
Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including damages and attorneys'
fees.
In July 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims.
Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.
ALTRIA GROUP: Bid to Nix Suits Related to E-Cigarette Sales Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suits (one
on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of indirect
purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers), related to
electronic cigarette marketing.
In April 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an
administrative complaint against Altria and JUUL Labs, Inc. (JUUL)
alleging that Altria's 35% investment in JUUL and the associated
agreements constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, and
substantially lessened competition in violation of Section 7 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act.
If the FTC's challenge is successful, the FTC may order a broad
range of remedies, including divestiture of Altria's minority
investment in JUUL, rescission of the transaction and all
associated agreements, and prohibition against any officer or
director of either Altria or JUUL serving on the other party's
board of directors or attending meetings of the other party's board
of directors.
The administrative trial will take place before an FTC
administrative law judge and is currently scheduled to begin April
2021. The administrative law judge's decision is then submitted to
the FTC, which decision is subject to review by the FTC on its own
motion or at the request of any party. The FTC then issues its
ruling, which is subject to appellate review.
Also as of January 25, 2021, 16 putative class action lawsuits have
been filed against Altria and JUUL in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuits initially named, in addition to the two companies,
certain senior executives and certain members of the board of
directors of both companies as defendants; however, those
individuals currently or formerly affiliated with Altria were later
dismissed.
In November 2020 these lawsuits were consolidated into three
complaints (one on behalf of direct purchasers, one on behalf of
indirect purchasers and one on behalf of indirect resellers).
The consolidated lawsuits, as amended, cite the FTC administrative
complaint and allege that Altria and JUUL violated Sections 1, 2
and/or 3 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act and
various state antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment
laws by restraining trade and/or substantially lessening
competition in the U.S. closed-system electronic cigarette market.
Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including treble damages,
attorneys' fees, a declaration that the agreements between Altria
and JUUL are invalid, divestiture of Altria's minority investment
in JUUL and rescission of the transaction.
Altria filed a motion to dismiss these lawsuits in January 2021.
Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.
ALTRIA GROUP: Facing 27 Class Suits Related to JUUL E-Vapor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 as of January 25, 2021,
Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, were named as
defendants in 27 class action lawsuits relating to JUUL Labs, Inc.
(JUUL) e-vapor products.
JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits.
The theories of recovery include violation of RICO, fraud, failure
to warn, design defect, negligence and unfair trade practices.
Plaintiffs also sought to add antitrust claims due to the recent
administrative complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC).
Although the court denied this request in the class action
lawsuits, the individual antitrust claims remain pending before the
same court.
Plaintiffs seek various remedies, including compensatory and
punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting product sales.
Altria and/or its subsidiaries, including PM USA, also have been
named as defendants in other lawsuits involving JUUL e-vapor
products, including 1,631 individual lawsuits, 81 "third party"
lawsuits, which include school districts, state and local
governments, including the states of Alaska, Hawaii and Minnesota,
and tribal and healthcare organization lawsuits.
JUUL is an additional named defendant in each of these lawsuits.
The majority of the individual and class action lawsuits mentioned
above were filed in federal court. In October 2019, the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
coordination or consolidation of these lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial
purposes.
Altria and its subsidiaries filed motions to dismiss certain claims
in the class action and school district cases, including the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
claim.
In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the motion to dismiss the RICO class action
claim. Although it otherwise denied the motion, the court found
that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged standing or causation
with respect to their claim under California law. The court also
granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claim in the cases filed by
various school districts, but denied the motion in all other
respects. The court gave plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their
complaints to attempt to cure the deficiencies the court identified
and plaintiffs filed their amended complaints in November 2020. In
January 2021, Altria and its subsidiaries filed a renewed motion to
dismiss.
An additional group of cases is pending in California state courts.
In January 2020, the Judicial Council of California determined that
this group of cases was appropriate for coordination and assigned
the group to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
for pretrial purposes.
No case in which Altria or any of its subsidiaries is named has
been set for trial.
JUUL also is named in a significant number of additional individual
and class action lawsuits to which neither Altria nor any of its
subsidiaries is currently named.
Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Faces 2 Lights & Ultra Lights Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria 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 two "Lights/Ultra Lights"
class actions are pending in the U.S. state court, but neither case
is active.
Plaintiffs have sought certification of their cases as class
actions, alleging among other things, that the uses of the terms
"Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair
trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment
or breach of warranty, and have sought injunctive and equitable
relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive
damages.
These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in
certain instances, Altria or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the
statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory
provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory
directives, and the First Amendment.
Twenty-one state courts in 23 "Lights" cases have refused to
certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed
prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in
favor of PM USA.
As of January 25, 2021, two "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions are
pending in U.S. state court. Neither case is active.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Altria Group, Inc., is an American corporation and one of the
world's largest producers and marketers of tobacco, cigarettes and
related products. It operates worldwide and is headquartered in
Richmond, Virginia.
ALVERNO COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alverno College. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Alverno College, Case No.
1:21-cv-02646 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alverno College -- https://www.alverno.edu/ -- is a Roman Catholic,
four-year, independent, liberal arts college, historically and
still primarily a women's college located in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: B&R Supermarket Suit in New York Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, B&R Supermarket,
Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al.
On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market,
et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against American Express
Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks
and EMVCo, LLC.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to
shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants
after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. An amended complaint
was filed on July 15, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied
our motion to dismiss as to claims brought by merchants who do not
accept American Express cards, and on May 4, 2017, the California
court transferred the case to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.
On August 28, 2020, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
American Express said, "We are being challenged in a number of
countries regarding our application of value-added taxes (VAT) to
certain of our international transactions, which are in various
stages of audit, or are being contested in legal actions. While we
believe we have complied with all applicable tax laws, rules and
regulations in the relevant jurisdictions, the tax authorities may
determine that we owe additional VAT. In certain jurisdictions
where we are contesting the assessments, we were required to pay
the VAT assessments prior to contesting."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
American Express Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related
services to consumers and businesses worldwide. It operates through
three segments: Global Consumer Services Group, Global Commercial
Services, and Global Merchant and Network Services. American
Express Company was founded in 1850 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Career Counseling Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREER COUNSELING, INC.
d/b/a SNELLING STAFFNG SERVICES, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v.
AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
3:16-cv-03013-JMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. certify its proposed Class A, or, in the alternative, Class
B, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3);
2. appointing itself the class representative; and
3. appointing its counsel as class counsel.
This case arises out of Defendant AFGL successful transmission of
an unsolicited fax advertisement to 58,944 recipients that were
obtained from a target list purchased from AdMax Marketing. The
Plaintiff received the fax on June 28, 2016, and brought this
lawsuit alleging that the fax violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).
The Class A is defined as:
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax, on or
about June 24 and 28, 2016, stating: "AmeriFactors--Funding Is
Our Business," and "AmeriFactors is ready to help your company
with your financing needs."
The Class B is defined as:
"All persons or entities who were successfully sent a fax to
their stand-alone fax machine, on or about June 24 and 28, 2016,
stating: "Amerifactors--Funding Is Our Business," and
"Amerifactors is ready to help your company with your financing
needs."
AmeriFactors Financial is a business funding company that provides
accounts receivable financing services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dnocs1
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Felder, Jr.
McGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER
1517 Hampton Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: 803-779-0100
Facsimile: 803-256-0702
E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
rkelly@andersonwanca.com
AMERIGROUP WASHINGTON: Class Settlement in Dennis Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington grants final approval of the Settlement
Agreement in the case, DAVID DENNIS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIGROUP WASHINGTON,
INC., a Washington corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-05165-JLR (W.D. Wash.).
The Parties in the class action lawsuit have moved for final
approval of their proposed class settlement. The Court
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on Nov. 13, 2020,
and notice was given to all members of the Settlement Class under
the terms of the Preliminary Approval Order.
Upon consideration of the motion, the Settlement Agreement, and the
exhibits thereto, Judge Robart grants final approval of the
Settlement, and finds that the Settlement is fair, adequate,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), he certifies the
following "Settlement Class", consisting of:
a. All persons in the United States who received a
non-emergency call from Amerigroup Washington, Inc. that played any
artificial or prerecorded voice on or after March 5, 2015 through
the date of class certification whose telephone number has been
associated with a disposition code of wrong party at any time in
Defendant's records.
b. All persons in the United States who received a
non-emergency call from Amerigroup, Washington, Inc. to a cellular
telephone using an automated telephone dialing system on or after
March 5, 2015 through the date of class certification whose
telephone number has been associated with a disposition code of
wrong party at any time in Defendant's records.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Judge to whom the Action
is assigned and any member of the Judge's staff and immediate
family.
David Dennis is appointed as the Class Representative. The
following are also appointed as the Class Counsel: Daniel M.
Hutchinson LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery
Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-3339 Telephone:
(415) 956-1000 Gary M. Klinger MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP 227 W.
Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312)
283-3814.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to
pay a Settlement Fund consisting of $100 for each individual where
a wrong number code was listed in its and/or its vendors' records,
for a total of at least $541,800, and Settlement Costs consisting
of (i) an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the Class Counsel;
(ii) an incentive award to the Plaintiff; and all costs of the
Settlement Administrator. The Class Members who have submitted a
valid claim will receive a pro-rata share of the Settlement Fund.
The Court has not received any objections from any person regarding
the Settlement. It held a hearing on March 23, 2021, at which time
the parties were afforded the opportunity to be heard in support of
or in opposition to the Settlement. Furthermore, the Court finds
that notice under the Class Action Fairness Act was effectuated on
Nov. 18, 2020, and that 90 days has passed without comment or
objection from any governmental entity.
The Settlement Administrator will take all reasonable steps
necessary to ensure that the settlement is effectuated in a manner
consistent with the Settlement Agreement. In the event that
settlement payments exceed the threshold amounts that must be
reported to the Internal Revenue Service be means of a Form 1099,
the Class Counsel, and the Settlement Administrator, will take all
necessary and reasonable steps to obtain W-9's from claimants and
to comply with applicable IRS regulations on issuing 1099's without
a social security number or tax entity identification number, and
will take all reasonable and necessary steps to avoid imposition of
IRS penalties against the Settlement Fund, including, but not
limited to limiting payments below the reportable threshold and/or
withholding of taxes and any applicable penalties.
Judge Robart orders the Parties to the Settlement Agreement to
perform their obligations thereunder. He dismisses the Action with
prejudice and without costs (except as otherwise provided in the
Final Order and in the Settlement Agreement).
The Judge approves payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
to the Class Counsel in the amount of $200,000. This amount will
be paid separate from and in addition to the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. He also
approves the incentive fee payment of $10,000 for the Class
Representative. This amount will be paid from the Settlement Fund
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Clerk is directed to enter the Final Approval Order and
Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/hk3zumh3 from
Leagle.com.
APACHE CORP: Continues to Defend Rhea and Allen Suits in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache 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 the cases, Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation,
Case No. CJ-2019-00219, in Oklahoma.
The Company is a party to two purported class actions in Oklahoma
styled Bigie Lee Rhea v. Apache Corporation, Case No.
6:14-cv-00433-JH, and Albert Steven Allen v. Apache Corporation,
Case No. CJ-2019-00219.
The Rhea case has been certified and includes a class of royalty
owners seeking damages in excess of $250 million for alleged breach
of the implied covenant to market relating to post-production
deductions and alleged natural gas liquid (NGL) uplift value.
The Allen case has not been certified and seeks to represent a
group of owners who have allegedly received late royalty and other
payments under Oklahoma statutes.
The amount of this claim is not yet reasonably determinable.
Apache said, "While adverse judgments against the Company are
possible, the Company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits
and claims."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which
explores, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and
natural gas liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
APACHE CORP: Facing Plymouth County Retirement System Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Apache Corporation, et al.
On February 23, 2021, a case captioned Plymouth County Retirement
System v. Apache Corporation, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against the Company and certain current and former
officers.
The complaint, which is a shareholder lawsuit styled as a class
action (1) alleges that the Company intentionally used unrealistic
assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil
and gas in Alpine High; (2) alleges that the Company 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; (3) alleges that these statements and omissions
artificially inflated the value of the Company's operations in the
Permian Basin; and (4) alleges that, as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading.
Other lawsuits have followed with similar allegations.
The Company believes that all plaintiffs' claims lack merit and
intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits.
Apache Corporation is an independent energy company, which explores
for, develops, and produces natural gas, crude oil, and natural gas
liquids. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
APEX INTERNATIONAL: DeSalvo Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett DeSalvo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apex International Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00317 (C.D. Cal., February
23, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction,
compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action
together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other
and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Apex International Inc. operates as "Raven Fine Jewelers." Its
website, www.ravendiamonds.com provides access to designs and
information regarding natural diamond engagement rings, lab grown
diamond rings, moissanite jewelry, bracelets, earrings, necklaces,
rings, men's jewelry, custom designs, store location, contact
information, frequently asked questions, the designers, financing,
refunds, exchanges and social media webpages. DeSalvo is legally
blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email info@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
ARLO TECHNOLOGIES: Final Approval of Wong Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlo 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 plaintiff's motion
for final approval of the settlement in Wong v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372, is pending.
Beginning on December 11, 2018, purported stockholders of Arlo
Technologies, Inc. filed six putative securities class action
complaints in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, and one complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its executives and directors.
Some of these actions also name as defendants the underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and NETGEAR, Inc.
The actions pending in state court are Aversa v. Arlo Technologies,
Inc., et al., No. 18CV339231, filed Dec. 11, 2018; Pham v. Arlo
Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19CV340741, filed January 9, 2019;
Patel v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV340758, filed January 10,
2019; Perros v. NetGear, Inc., No. 19CV342071, filed February 1,
2019; Vardanian v. Arlo Technologies, Inc., No. 19CV342318, filed
February 8, 2019; and Hill v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No.
19CV343033, filed February 22, 2019.
On April 26, 2019, the state court consolidated these actions as In
re Arlo Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No. 18CV339231
(the "State Action"). The action pending in federal court is Wong
v. Arlo Technologies, Inc. et al., No. 19-CV-00372 (the "Federal
Action").
The plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint
on May 1, 2019. The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
adequately disclose quality control problems and adverse sales
trends ahead of its IPO, violating the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors who purchased Company common stock
issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO.
On June 21, 2019, the court stayed the State Action pending
resolution of the Federal Action, given the substantial overlap
between the claims. The court has set a case management conference
for May 5, 2021, so the parties can provide an update regarding the
Federal Action.
In the Federal Action, the court appointed a shareholder named
Matis Nayman as lead plaintiff. On June 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's sales trends and products.
In the amended complaint, plaintiff sought to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock (i) during the period between August 3, 2018 through December
3, 2018 and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff
seeks class certification, an award of unspecified damages, an
award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other
further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
On August 6, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The court
granted that motion, and plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. On June 12, 2020, plaintiff filed an unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement for $1.25
million, which was also the amount that the Company had accrued for
loss contingency.
The settlement remains subject to further court approval. On
September 24, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. On February 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a
motion for final approval of the settlement. The final approval
hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2021.
In October 2020, the Company made a $1.25 million payment an escrow
account administered by the court and plaintiff's counsel (the
"Settlement Fund"). The Settlement Fund shall be deemed to be in
the custody of the court and shall remain subject to the
jurisdiction of the court until such time as the Settlement Fund is
distributed pursuant to the settlement agreement and/or further
order of the court.
Arlo Technologies, Inc. provides smart connected devices to monitor
the environments in real-time with a Wi-Fi or a cellular network
Internet connection in the Americas, Europe, the Middle-East and
Africa, and the Asia Pacific regions. Arlo Technologies, Inc. was
incorporated in 2018 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.
ARMSTRONG FLOORING: Final Hearing on Settlement OK Set for July 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Flooring, 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 final settlement
approval hearing is currently scheduled for July 19, 2021.
On November 15, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading
statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and November 4,
2019.
On March 2, 2020, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On July 2, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint asserting similar violations and
expanding the alleged class period to cover alleged false and/or
misleading statements or omissions made between March 6, 2018 and
March 3, 2020.
On August 17, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint, and the lead plaintiff filed an opposition on October 1,
2020. On November 30, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in
principle to fully resolve this matter.
The settlement agreement, which is subject to final court approval,
provides in part for a settlement payment of $3.75 million in
exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims against the
defendants. Neither the Company nor any individual defendant admits
any wrongdoing through the settlement agreement.
The $3.75 million settlement payment will be paid by our insurance
provider under our relevant insurance policy.
On January 15, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On February 23, 2021, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, preliminary
certification of the settlement class and approval to provide
notice to the class.
The final settlement approval hearing is currently scheduled for
July 19, 2021.
The Company has recognized a corresponding $3.75 million insurance
receivable and $3.75 million accrued expense related to this matter
in the captions Accounts and notes receivable, net and Accounts
payable and accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as
of December 31, 2020.
Armstrong Flooring, Inc. is a leading global producer of resilient
flooring products for use primarily in the construction and
renovation of commercial, residential and institutional buildings.
The company is based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Court Enters Final Judgment in Rubin-Knudsen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAMELA RUBIN-KNUDSEN, an individual; and MARNINE
CASILLAS, an individual on behalf of themselves, and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER &
CO., a Delaware corporation, ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER SERVICE COMPANY,
LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
2:18-CV-06227-JGB (SPx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enters
judgment in the lawsuit granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of class action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees,
costs and incentive award.
The Parties entered into a Stipulation of Class and Representative
Action Settlement and Release. On Nov. 9, 2020, the Plaintiffs
moved for preliminary approval of the Agreement and the terms
thereof. On Nov. 24, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval
of the Agreement, conditionally certified the settlement class for
settlement purposes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, approved the form of the Notice of class action
settlement, and authorized the mailing of Notice to the Class
Members.
On Jan. 17, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards, and on Feb. 15, 2021, they filed
a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Gallagher
did not oppose the Motions. The Court held a hearing on the
Approval Motion on March 15, 2021 and granted final approval of the
Settlement.
Therefore, Judge Bernal enters Judgment in the action on the terms
set forth in the Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs and Incentive Award. All the claims against the Defendant
are dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter the Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58. The Judgment will be held in abeyance
and will not become effective until expiration of the 90-day CAFA
period on May 4, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4vp262mw from Leagle.com.
FRANK SIMS STOLPER, LLP, Jason M. Frank -- jfrank@lawfss.com --
Scott H. Sims -- ssims@lawfss.com -- in Irvine, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
ATOOSA NASSIMI: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atoosa Nassimi, et
al. The case is styled as Ofelia Vazquez, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Atoosa Nassimi, an
individual; Shahriah Rad, an individual; Does 1 through 10,
Inclusive; Case No. 21STCV11808 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 26, 2021).
Atoosa Nassimi is a homeowner in 16223 Dorilee Lane, Los Angeles,
CA 91436.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 232-3128
Fax: (213) 232-3125
Email: enzo.nabiev@moonyanglaw.com
AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, 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 Central Maine Power Company
(CMP) and the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint without prejudice or to stay proceedings pending
plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies in the class
action suit related to customer billing investigation, is pending.
On August 16, 2018, an amended class action lawsuit was filed
against CMP and the Company in the Cumberland County Superior Court
on behalf of all Central Maine Power Company (CMP) customers
alleging that CMP's new billing software and metering system
improperly overcharged customers.
The plaintiff asserts this claim under the common law of unjust
enrichment, breach of contract and fraudulent and intentional
misrepresentation and seeks damages, punitive damages, attorney
fees and costs.
On September 21, 2018, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims that was opposed by the plaintiffs. On November 14,
2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent
injunction enjoining CMP from sending disconnection notices and/or
disconnecting their power until this litigation is resolved. On
February 22, 2019, the Cumberland County Superior Court ordered
that the proceedings be stayed until November 1, 2019 to allow
resolution of the Maine Public Utilities Commission's (MPUC's)
formal investigation of CMP's billing practices and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.
On July 30, 2019, Douglas Herling, chief executive officer of CMP,
and Iberdrola, S.A. were added as defendants and additional claims
alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act were added to the case. CMP and the Company
removed the case to federal court and filed a Motion to Dismiss on
September 30, 2019.
On November 22, 2019, upon agreement of the parties, CMP and the
Company withdrew its motion to dismiss without prejudice and the
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint on or
before January 31, 2020 to allow for the conclusion of the MPUC
investigation into CMP's metering, billing, and customer
communications practices.
On January 30, 2020, the MPUC deliberated the metering, billing and
customer communications investigation. The MPUC found that with
exception of certain localized and random errors, CMP's billing
system is working as designed and there were no systemic errors in
billing.
The decision also included an administrative process to address
unresolved customer complaints of high bills. On January 31, 2020,
the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.
On February 28, 2020, CMP and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice or to Stay
Proceedings Pending Plaintiffs' Exhaustion of Administrative
Remedies which was denied on November 25, 2020.
Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."
Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.
BANDWIDTH INC: Bid to Dismiss Mey Putative Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bandwidth 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 motion to dismiss the
putative class action suit entitled, Diana Mey v. All Access
Telecom, Inc., et al., is pending
On November 30, 2020, the company was named as a defendant in a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint in a putative class action
captioned Diana Mey v. All Access Telecom, Inc., et al. pending in
the United States District Court, Northern District of West
Virginia relating to the alleged failure to block unsolicited phone
calls to the plaintiff and putative class members. The company
filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 3, 2021.
Bandwidth said, "We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits and
believe we have meritorious defenses to each. However, litigation
is inherently uncertain, and any judgment or injunctive relief
entered against us or any adverse settlement could negatively
affect our business, results of operations and financial
condition."
Bandwidth Inc. is a leading global enterprise cloud communications
company. Our solutions include a broad range of software
Application Programming Interfaces for voice, messaging and
emergency services. The company is based in Raleigh, North
Carolina.
BARBERTON TREE: Class Settlement in Hall Wage Suit Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASON HALL, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. BARBERTON TREE SERVICE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-2036 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, grants the parties' joint motion for
approval of settlement.
Plaintiff Hall, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, filed a collective action against Defendants Barberton
Tree Service, Inc. and Keith N. Luck, alleging the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") (29 U.S.C. Section
201 et seq.) and Ohio Rev. Code Sections 4111.03(D) and Section
4113.15 ("Ohio Wage Laws") by failing to pay the Plaintiffs
overtime wages. Hall also brought an individual claim for unpaid
minimum wages under Ohio law. At all times relevant to the
complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants individually and jointly operate as an enterprise
providing various services involving tree trimming and removal.
The Plaintiffs, who are not exempt from the protections of the FLSA
and the Ohio Wage Laws, are required to arrive between 15 and 20
minutes before their assigned shift to engage in work that includes
"getting machinery ready, checking oil, obtaining trailers, loading
equipment onto trailers and chaining it down, fueling equipment,
and inspecting vehicles, trailers, and equipment." The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants failed to pay them compensation for
these pre-shift duties and, in doing so, failed to pay overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA and Ohio Wage Laws.
The Defendants deny that they violated the FLSA and Ohio Wage Laws
and affirmatively assert that some or all of the Plaintiffs' claims
are barred by the applicable statute of limitations and certain
equitable doctrines.
To avoid the burden, expense, risks, and uncertainty of litigation,
the parties agreed to engage in mediation. Prior to mediation, the
Defendants produced over 3,000 pages of pay stubs for the 79
individuals identified as members of the collective.
On Dec. 14, 2020, at the conclusion of a full-day mediation session
with a third-party neutral mediator, the parties reached a
settlement. On Jan. 20, 2021, the parties filed the present Joint
Motion.
At the outset, Judge Lioi finds that the divergent views of the
facts and the law presented bona fide disputes that, had the
parties not reached settlement, would have necessitated resolution
by the Court and/or a jury. The Joint Motion confirms the same.
As set forth, the parties disagree as to whether the Plaintiffs
were properly compensated for any and all overtime worked and their
claims were time-barred. The parties further disagree as to
whether liquidated damages and damages under the Ohio Prompt
Payment Act were available.
Having reviewed the terms of the Settlement, Judge Lioi finds that
the Settlement represents a fair and reasonable resolution to bona
fide disputes. Further, she notes that the Settlement was the
result of arms'-length negotiations between parties that were
represented by able counsel. As such, she finds no risk of fraud
or collusion.
With respect to the monetary awards to the Plaintiffs, the total
settlement amount reflects over approximately 120% of the
calculated unpaid overtime and substantially more than the expected
value in the case. And Judge Lioi agrees with the parties that the
anticipated individual settlement award of $800.58 is an
exceptional result. Moreover, she has taken into account the
opinion of counsel in the collective action, who has expressed the
opinion that the proposed settlement is a fair and adequate
compromise of the disputed claims and in the best interest of the
Plaintiffs.
As for the award of attorney fees to the Plaintiffs' counsel, Judge
Lioi finds that the award, which is supported by a declaration of
the counsel, is reasonable, taking into consideration the fact that
a settlement was reached early in the litigation and the successful
outcome provides substantial relief to the Plaintiffs. Moreover,
she notes that the attorney fee award amount aligns with the
amounts awarded in other FLSA collective action cases in the
Northern District of Ohio.
In addition, the Settlement provides for a service award to the
Plaintiffs' representative, Hall. Such awards are not uncommon,
and courts routinely approve incentive awards to compensate named
plaintiffs for the services they provided and the risks they
incurred during the course of the class action litigation.
Plaintiff Hall played an active role in assisting the Plaintiffs'
counsel. As such, the Judge approves the modest service award to
the representative Plaintiff in recognition of his service in the
action.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Lioi approves the
Settlement. The claims in the Plaintiffs' complaint are dismissed
with prejudice, and the case is closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/c6zzz8cx from
Leagle.com.
BEYOND MEAT: Dismissal of Tran Putative Securities Class Suit Final
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat, 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 dismissal in the putative
securities class action suit initiated by Larry Tran, is now
final.
On January 30, 2020, Larry Tran, a purported shareholder of Beyond
Meat, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against Beyond Meat and two of its executive officers, its
President and CEO, Ethan Brown, and its Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, Mark Nelson.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and is premised on allegedly false or misleading
statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, related
to the company's public disclosures regarding its ongoing
litigation with Don Lee Farms during the proposed class period of
May 2, 2019 to January 27, 2020.
The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on May 18,
2020, and a First Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2020. The
FAC names the same defendants, proposes the same class period, and
similarly asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act premised on allegedly false or misleading statements,
and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, related to the
company's public disclosures regarding its ongoing litigation with
Don Lee Farms.
The company filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants
on July 31, 2020. On October 8, 2020, the Court entered an opinion
and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the deadline
set by the Court.
As a result, on October 27, 2020, the Court entered an order
dismissing the action with prejudice, except for the class
allegations of absent putative class members, which were dismissed
without prejudice. The dismissal is final, and the appeal period
has now expired.
Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the
fastest-growing food companies in the United States, offering a
portfolio of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based
in El Segundo, California.
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Strike Portions of Hunt's Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLOOM ENERGY
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California denies the Defendants'
motion to strike portions of Lead Plaintiff Hunt's Second Amended
Complaint.
On May 28, 2019, Plaintiff Elissa M. Roberts filed the putative
class action. Three other interested Plaintiffs then timely moved
for appointment as the Lead Plaintiff, including Mr. Hunt. After
the other two motions were withdrawn, Mr. Hunt was the sole
remaining movant. On Sept. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Hunt's
unopposed motion and appointed him as the Lead Plaintiff of the
putative class and Levi Korsinsky, LLP as the Lead Counsel.
The parties subsequently stipulated to a deadline for the Lead
Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and the briefing schedule
for the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. The parties'
stipulation did not address the addition of any additional
plaintiffs.
On April 21, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a SAC. The SAC
included six additional named Plaintiffs: (1) Juan Rodriguez; (2)
Kurt Voutaz; (3) Scott Kline; (4) Joel White; (5) Andrew Austin;
and (6) Ryan Fishman. Additionally, the SAC identified Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as additional counsel for the Plaintiffs
and the class in the signature block.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to strike
portions of Lead Plaintiff Hunt's SAC. They move to strike from
the SAC references to the six additional plaintiffs and newly-added
counsel, none of which has applied for or been appointed by the
Court as lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff counsel. They assert
that the inclusion of these additional named Plaintiffs violated
the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA").
Judge Gilliam holds that the Defendants fail to cite any authority
supporting this claim, and he rejects it. The Judge finds that in
the case, no replacement is being sought: Mr. Hunt, the approved
Lead Plaintiff, remains in that role. And he agrees with the
Plaintiffs that nothing in the PSLRA requires court approval for
the addition of additional named plaintiffs by the Lead Plaintiff.
Nor does the PSLRA speak to whether lead counsel may associate
additional counsel to assist in the prosecution of a case, subject
to the control of lead counsel. So the Defendants' motion fails,
because the claimed prohibition in the PSLRA on which it relies
simply does not exist.
To the extent Defendants' complaint is really that the Plaintiffs
should have sought leave of court before adding these new
plaintiffs and counsel in the SAC, they have a better point. Some
of the Plaintiffs' own cited authorities recognize that securities
lead plaintiffs often seek leave to amend to add other plaintiffs,
consistent with the normal practice for any other type of
amendment. While the Defendants stipulated to the filing of the
SAC to account for the upcoming release of Bloom Energy's Form 10-K
in March of 2020, they appear to have had no reason to believe that
the contemplated amendment would also include new plaintiffs and
counsel. Judge Gilliam holds that the better course would have
been for the Plaintiffs to seek leave to make these additions, as
they tacitly recognize is done routinely.
That said, Judge Gilliam declines to strike the challenged
additions based on a different rationale than the one Defendants
actually advance, because doing so would be a waste of party and
judicial resources. He agrees with the Plaintiffs that the
additions are permissible and consistent with the Lead Plaintiff's
duties. He says while the Defendants argue that the new plaintiffs
all purport to assert the same claims Hunt asserts on behalf of the
same class, making them duplicative, he accepts the Plaintiffs'
counsel's representation that "consistent with his obligations, the
Lead Plaintiff has concluded that it would be beneficial to the
interests of the absent class members to add additional named
plaintiffs to pursue all available claims and to utilize the
assistance of additional counsel."
Under the circumstances, sua sponte striking the additions for
failure to seek leave would simply generate a motion for leave,
which Judge Gilliam would grant under the liberal standard
governing such motions. To the extent the Defendants believe the
inclusion of the new representative plaintiffs poses substantive
concerns, those can be dealt with later on their merits. And to
eliminate any potential ambiguity, the Judge instructs the Lead
Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs' counsel that to the extent they seek
any further amendments to the complaint, they must submit either a
motion for leave or a stipulation and proposed order granting
leave.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4huywujj from Leagle.com.
CAMPING WORLD: Initial Agreement to Settle PAGA Class Suit Entered
------------------------------------------------------------------
Camping World 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 parties
in Kamela Woodings and Jodi Dormaier v. FreedomRoads, LLC, entered
into a preliminary agreement to settle the Amended Class Action and
the PAGA Complaint subject to the terms of a long-form settlement
agreement to be executed by the parties and approval by the courts.
On May 28, 2020, Kamela Woodings, in her representative capacity
under the Private Attorney General Action ("PAGA") filed a lawsuit
styled Woodings v. FreedomRoads, LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court against FreedomRoads, LLC in which she alleged that she and
the putative class members often performed off-the-clock work for
which they were not adequately compensated, and alleged the
following causes of action: Violation of California Labor Code
Sections 2698, et seq, (Private Attorney General Act of 2004),
which includes allegations of (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wage, (2)
Failure to Pay Overtime, (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (4)
Failure to Provide Rest Breaks, (5) Failure to Timely Wage Upon
Termination, (6) Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment, (7)
Failure to Provide Complete And Accurate Wage Statements, and (8)
Failure to Keep Accurate Business Records (the "PAGA Complaint").
The PAGA Complaint seeks civil penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to California Labor Code Section 2699.
On June 25, 2020, Woodings filed a class action complaint styled
Woodings v. FreedomRoads, LLC in Los Angeles County Superior Court
against FreedomRoads, LLC in which Woodings alleged that she and
the putative class members, all of FreedomRoads, LLC's non-exempt
California employees, were not appropriately compensated for all
wages earned in the form of commission, and that she and the
putative class members often performed off-the-clock work for which
they were not adequately compensated.
Woodings also alleged the following causes of action: (1) Violation
of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (unpaid
minimum wages); (2) Violation of California Labor Code Sections
1198 (unpaid overtime); (3) Violation of California Labor Code
Section 226.7 (unpaid meal period premiums); (4) Violation of
California Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums);
(5) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final
wages not timely paid); (6) Violation of California Labor Code
Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); (7) Fraud; (8)
Negligent Misrepresentation; (9) Breach of Contract; (10)
Accounting; and (11) Violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., with the following
sub-claims of (a) Failure to Pay Overtime, (b) Failure to Provide
Meal Periods, (c) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, (d) Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages, (e) Failure to Timely Wage Upon Termination, (f)
Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment, (g) Failure to Keep
Complete and Accurate Payroll Records, and (h) Failure to Pay
Commissions seeking certification as a class action, monetary
damages including general unpaid wages, unpaid wages at overtime
wage rates, premium wages for meal and rest breaks not provided,
general and special damages, actual, consequential and incidental
losses and damages, statutory wage penalties, punitive damages,
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, liquidated
damages, and non-monetary damages including an accounting of
FreedomRoads, LLC's revenues, costs and profits in connection with
each sale of goods made by the putative class members and the
appointment of a receiver to receive, manage and distribute any
funds disgorged from FreedomRoads, LLC as may be determined to have
been wrongly acquired by FreedomRoads, LLC, and any other and
further relief the court deems just and proper (“Class
Action”).
On August 6, 2020, the Class Action was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. On August
27, 2020, Woodings amended the Class Action to add a second
plaintiff, Jodi Dormaier, representing a Washington subclass of all
non-exempt FreedomRoads, LLC employees, in an amended lawsuit
styled Kamela Woodings and Jodi Dormaier v. FreedomRoads, LLC (the
"Amended Class Action").
The Amended Class Action alleged the following additional causes of
action: Violation of Wash. Rev. Code Sections 49.46.090 and
49.46.090 (failure to pay minimum wage); Violation of Wash. Rev.
Code Section 49.46.130 (failure to pay overtime); Violation of
Wash. Rev. Code Sections 49.12.020 (failure to provide meal
breaks); Violation of Wash. Rev. Code Sections 49.12.020 (failure
to provide rest breaks); Violation of Wash. Rev. Code Sections
49.48.010 (payment of wages upon termination); and Violation of
Wash. Rev. Code Sections 49.52.050 (willful exemplary damages)
seeking class certification, damages and restitution for all unpaid
wages and other injuries to Woodings, Dormeir, and the putative
class, pre-judgment interest, declaratory judgment establishing a
violation of California Labor Code, California Business and
Professional Code Sections 17200, et seq., Revised Code of
Washington and other laws of the States of California and
Washington, and public policy, compensatory damages including lost
wages, earnings, liquidated damages, and other employee benefits
together with interest, restitution, recovery of all money, actual
damages and all other sums of money owed to Woodings, Dormaier, and
the putative class members, together with interest, an accounting
of FreedomRoads, LLC's revenues, costs, and profits in connection
with each sale of goods and services made by Woodings, Dormaier,
and the putative class, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and any other and further relief the court deems just and proper.
On January 18, 2021, the parties entered into a preliminary
agreement to settle the Amended Class Action and the PAGA Complaint
subject to the terms of a long-form settlement agreement to be
executed by the parties and approval by the courts.
As of December 31, 2020, the Company had a reserve totaling $4.0
million for estimated losses related to this matter.
Camping World Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as
an outdoor and camping retailer. The company operates through three
segments: Consumer Services and Plans, Dealership, and Retail.
Camping World Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1966 and is
headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.
CARDTRONICS PLC: Discovery in Schertzer Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics plc 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 discovery is ongoing in the
purported class action suit entitled, Kristen Schertzer, et al. v.
Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264.
On March 1, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit stylized as Kristen Schertzer, et
al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00264, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, which makes allegations of harm related to balance
inquiry transactions.
On September 28, 2020, the district court issued a denial of the
Company's motion to dismiss and the matter is proceeding to the
discovery phase.
Due to the early stages of this matter, including uncertainty
related to class certification and potential amount claimed by the
class, the Company is unable to determine if liability will arise
from this matter or estimate the range of any potential liability.
The Company will vigorously defend this matter.
Cardtronics plc provides convenient automated consumer financial
services through its network of automated teller machines and
multi-function financial services kiosks. The company is the
world's largest ATM owner/operator, providing services to over
285,000 ATMs. The company is based in Houston, Texas.
CARTER'S RETAIL: Christensen Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CHRISTENSEN, an
individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC.; and Does 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00776-JLS-KES (C.D. Calif.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on August 20, 2021 to enter an order
pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. certifying classes of employees employed by the Defendant
Carter's Retail defined as:
a. The "Security Check class"
"All non-exempt individuals who were employed by
Defendant
in retail locations in California from March 16, 2016 to
September 24, 2018;" and,
b. The "Rest Period class" defined as follows:
"All non-exempt individuals who were employed by the
Defendant in retail locations in California from March 16,
2016 to the present;"
2. appointing Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP as
class counsel; and
3. approving the designation of Plaintiff Nathan Christensen as
class representative.
The Plaintiff brings the first cause of action under Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code section 19 17200, et seq. for restitution for
Defendant's unlawful and unfair practices for failing to pay wages
when the Security Check class members waited for and submitted to
security checks off the clock before leaving Defendant’s retail
locations at the end of their shifts from March 16, 2016 until
September 24, 2018. The Plaintiff also brings the first cause of
action under the UCL for restitution for Defendant's failure to
provide legally compliant meal periods when meal periods taken by
the Security Check class members were cut short because employees
waited for and submitted to security checks off the clock before
leaving Defendant’s retail locations for meal breaks from March
16, 2016 until September 24, 2018.
Carter's Retail retails clothing and accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sFfQlO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW LLP
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858)551-1223
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
CHEMED CORP: Lax Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Chemed 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 court's preliminary
approval of the settlement in Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and
Does 1 through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case
Number 18CV338652, was granted on November 19, 2020
Alfred Lax, a former employee of Roto-Rooter Services Company
("RRSC") filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara County
Superior Court in November of 2018 alleging (1) failure to provide
or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.
Lax stated these claims as a representative of a class defined as
all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during the
four years preceding the filing of the complaint.
The lawsuit is, Alfred Lax on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in August 2020 to
resolve the allegations, for a settlement amount of $2.6 million
plus employment taxes.
The settlement includes technicians in its Menlo Park and Bristol
locations. The settlement was recorded in the third quarter of
2020.
As of December 31, 2020, $3.1 million was accrued in the
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet.
The Court's preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on
November 19, 2020.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
CORRECTIONS CORP: Summary Judgment Bid in Grae Suit Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, DAMON T. HININGER, DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J.
MULLENGER, and HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-2267
(M.D. Tenn.), Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, issues a
Memorandum:
a. granting in part and denying in part the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment filed by Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for
the LongView Collective Investment Fund;
b. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment; and
c. granting CoreCivic, Inc.'s Request for Judicial Notice.
CoreCivic is a private, publicly traded company that owns and
operates prisons and other detention facilities, pursuant to
contracts with the government agencies ultimately responsible for
the incarcerated individuals' confinement and welfare. The class
action securities fraud case involves the actions and statements of
CoreCivic and its executives from a period of Feb. 27, 2012 to Aug.
17, 2016.
To put it in a somewhat simplified manner, Amalgamated, as the Lead
plaintiff, alleges that the Defendants made false or misleading
statements or omissions about the quality and cost savings that
CoreCivic provided to government clients, including the federal
Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Amalgamated argues that those
statements and omissions created a false picture of the health of
CoreCivic's relationship with the BOP and the BOP's likelihood of
continuing to do business with CoreCivic. These false or
misleading statements and omissions, it is alleged, led to an
overvaluation of CoreCivic's stock and, ultimately, losses on
behalf of its investors when the BOP's parent agency, the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ"), announced that it would phase out
its reliance on CoreCivic and other private prison operators,
leading the value of the stock to decrease. Amalgamated also
argues that a similar, smaller loss occurred when, shortly ahead of
the comprehensive DOJ announcement, the BOP declined to renew a
renewable contract at one CoreCivic facility, the Cibola County
Correctional Center.
On Aug. 23, 2016, Nikki Bollinger Grae filed a Class Action
Complaint in the case. Notice of the suit was published in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i), and
Amalgamated filed a timely motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
Amalgamated claimed to have purchased or acquired almost 159,000
shares of CoreCivic stock and suffered over $1.2 million in losses
as a result of the conduct covered by the suit. The Court granted
its motion, appointing it the Lead Plaintiff for the case.
On Dec. 18, 2017, the Court denied a Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Defendants. In so doing, it addressed a number of the core issues
that continue to be central to the case, including, in particular,
whether claims about the quality of CoreCivic's services could be
actionable for fraud or whether they were, instead, merely
non-actionable "puffery." It concluded that Amalgamated's causes
of action were, if supported by the facts, viable.
On Jan. 18, 2019, the Court denied Amalgamated's Motion to Certify
Class. Amalgamated, however, filed a Motion to Reconsider, and, on
March 26, 2019, the Court granted that motion, based in significant
part on arguments that Amalgamated had not originally pursued but
which it deemed not to be waived.
In addressing the class certification issue, the Court also
addressed another key question in the case -- whether claims for
securities fraud could be premised on the theory that the
Defendants' false or misleading public statements artificially
maintained the high value of CoreCivic stock, a
"fraud-on-the-market" theory alleging "price maintenance," in the
parlance of securities law. It held that such a theory was an
appropriate basis for liability under federal securities laws.
CoreCivic pursued an interlocutory appeal on that issue, which the
Sixth Circuit denied, writing that its "case law supports the legal
standard that the district court applied."
CoreCivic now seeks summary judgment in its favor on all issues,
and Amalgamated seeks partial summary judgment on one
issue—reliance.
Evidentiary Issues Related to Summary Judgment
As a preliminary matter, CoreCivic asks the Court to take judicial
notice of "(1) publicly available Securities and Exchange
Commission disclosures; (2) publicly available articles, news
releases, and reports; (3) publicly available government documents;
and (4) evidence regarding CoreCivic's stock price," pursuant to
Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Judge Trauger notes that at this stage, the determinative issue is
not technically whether the requirements of Rule 201 have been
satisfied, but whether the asserted facts can be presented in
admissible form at trial. She holds that Amalgamated has not
identified any plausible reason why the facts cited would be
incapable of being established with admissible evidence, if it came
to that. That said, she notes that most, if not all, of the cited
materials will likely be appropriate for judicial notice at trial
-- not for the truth of the facts asserted therein, but for the
basic fact that the documents exist and say what they say.
The Judge, therefore, sees no obstacle to taking judicial notice of
SEC disclosures or government documents. While historical stock
prices technically fall outside those categories, the Judge
similarly sees no obstacle to considering those historical prices,
at least at this stage. She grants CoreCivic's motion, at least
insofar as it is necessary to do so to consider the underlying
facts in support of its motion for summary judgment.
The same principles resolve most of the other evidentiary
objections that have been made (primarily by Amalgamated) regarding
the admissibility of evidence relied upon in support or opposition
to the pending motions. Amalgamated raised objections, most often
on the basis of hearsay, with regard to a large number of
CoreCivic's asserted undisputed facts, even ones that appear to be
largely unobjectionable. Few, if any, of the objected-to facts are
incapable of being produced in admissible form at trial. Moreover,
many of the statements to which Amalgamated has objected were not
offered for the truth of the matter asserted and, therefore, are
not hearsay.
Accordingly, without prejudice to any objection at trial, Judge
Trauger overrules all objections made to facts cited in her Opinion
and/or relied upon by the Court. She strongly encourages the
parties to work together, prior to trial, to agree to stipulations
regarding all facts that are not actually subject to reasonable
dispute.
Elements of a Claim for Securities Fraud
The Defendants argue that the Court should grant them summary
judgment because (1) none of their statements was materially false
or misleading; (2) they did not act with the requisite scienter;
and (3) the relevant statements did not cause losses for
Amalgamated or the other class members. Amalgamated, in turn,
requests partial summary judgment with regard to one issue --
reliance.
Judge Trauger opines that the unusually strong statutory pleading
requirements for securities fraud cases under the PSLRA mean that
Amalgamated's allegations of scienter were tested significantly
more demandingly in connection with the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss than is typically the case under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Court considered Amalgamated's allegations pursuant
to this standard in its Memorandum of Dec. 18, 2017 and concluded
that the allegations supported a strong inference of scienter.
Statements Regarding Quality and Related Issues
Amalgamated argues that CoreCivic or its executives knowingly made
materially false statements regarding the quality of CoreCivic's
services, its internal quality controls, the BOP's assessment of
CoreCivic's performance, CoreCivic's compliance with applicable
standards, and the strength of CoreCivic's relationship with its
government clients. Amalgamated has produced evidence that
CoreCivic repeatedly--and indeed routinely--fell short of even
minimum expectations at more than one of its BOP facilities.
Judge Trauger finds that the ambiguities and complications that
CoreCivic has identified may well be enough for a jury to
ultimately conclude that the Defendants' boasts during the Class
Period were simply non-fraudulent spin, putting the most positive
face on a reasonable interpretation of the underlying events. A
jury could also be convinced that, even if some of the statements
were, in hindsight, false or inadvertently misleading, there was
enough uncertainty about the available information, at the time,
that one or even all of the Defendants lacked the requisite mental
state to be held liable for securities fraud. CoreCivic's burden
is not to show that it could prevail, but that a verdict in its
favor is the only outcome that a jury could reasonably reach. It
has failed to do so on the issues of material falsity and scienter
with regard to its statements about the quality of its services,
the adequacy of its internal controls, its history of compliance
with applicable standards, or its clients' estimation of its
services. The Judge therefore will not grant summary judgment on
that ground.
Statements Regarding Cost Savings
The Defendants argue, next, that, regardless of what the Court has
concluded regarding the Defendants claims of quality, Amalgamated
has failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could
conclude that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made
materially false statements regarding the issue of cost savings,
particularly the possibility that CoreCivic could provide cost
savings relative to BOP-operated facilities.
The Court addressed the expert evidence that CoreCivic has provided
about cost in its Memorandum of March 17, 2021, addressing the
admissibility of particular expert testimony. In short, CoreCivic
does not purport to be able to establish, beyond dispute, that, all
relevant costs considered, privatization of prisons, through
CoreCivic or otherwise, necessarily saves money. How to make such
cost comparisons is, CoreCivic concedes, a contested issue in
academic and public policy literature. CoreCivic, however, has
offered largely unrefuted testimony from a well-qualified expert,
Justin Marlowe, that establishes that there are at least some
plausible grounds for making claims such as those made by the
defendants regarding cost.
Judge Trauger accordingly, will grant the Defendants' summary
judgment with regard to any claims that it was false or misleading
solely to suggest that CoreCivic offered cost savings to its
government clients. She stresses that her ruling is limited and
should not be construed to suggest that every statement in which
cost was mentioned is now thrown out of the case. Many of the
statements that Amalgamated has identified refer to both cost
savings and issues of quality, sometimes beside each other and
sometimes combined into the hybrid issue of value. Any statement
that contains claims about quality of services, explicitly or
implicitly, may still be relevant to Amalgamated's claims discussed
in the preceding section.
Similarly, insofar as either party may still wish to address the
issue of cost savings because it is relevant to the foreseeability
of the discontinuation of the BOP's business, it may be
appropriate, within limits, to do so. Nevertheless, the Judge will
grant the Defendants summary judgment with regard to the theory
that any statements were false or misleading solely with regard to
the issue of cost savings.
Loss Causation and Reliance
Among other things, the scope of Amalgamated's request for partial
summary judgment is relatively narrow. It asks the Court to grant
it partial summary judgment on the issue of reliance, because it is
pursuing a fraud-on-the-market theory that obviates the need to
establish the plaintiff's subjective personal reliance on an
individual level. As CoreCivic points out, and as Amalgamated
concedes, one of the requirements for actually establishing that
the Basic presumption applies -- materiality -- is still fiercely
contested.
Judge Trauger holds that the lack of materiality, alone, is
sufficient to deny Amalgamated summary judgment outright on the
issue of reliance. As Amalgamated points out, however, the issue
of materiality would be sent to the jury regardless of the
particular test for applying the Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S.
224, 239 n.17 (1988) presumption, because materiality is an element
of any claim for securities fraud, regardless of whether it is a
fraud-on-the-market case.
Amalgamated is, moreover, correct that the remaining requirements
for triggering the presumption are not reasonably contested.
CoreCivic has not produced evidence sufficient to doubt that the
market for CoreCivic stock was at least fundamentally efficient,
albeit with occasional delays and failures to acknowledge
information promptly that the market for any stock might
experience. Amalgamated, therefore, is entitled to partial summary
judgment on the fact that it can establish that it is entitled to
the Basic presumption with regard to any statements that it shows
to be material.
Aaccordingly, the Judge will grant Amalgamated partial summary
judgment, only to the extent that she rules that the class is
entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance with regard to any
public statements during the Class Period for which Amalgamated is
able to establish materiality. That ruling, however, will be
without prejudice to any rebuttal of the presumption by CoreCivic
through evidence of a lack of price impact.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Trauger grants CoreCivic's Request
for Judicial Notice; grants in part and denies in part
Amalgamated's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and grants in
part and denies in part CoreCivic's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Amalgamated is granted partial summary judgment with regard to the
fact that it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance
with regard to any public statements by the Defendants for which it
can establish materiality. CoreCivic is granted summary judgment
with regard to all claims based solely on the Defendants'
assertions about CoreCivic's supposed cost advantages.
An appropriate order will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/c2srasux from Leagle.com.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bid to Remand Fantasy Sports Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
DraftKings 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 remand the
consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In Re: Daily
Fantasy Sports Litigation, remains pending.
Between late 2015 and early 2016, certain individuals who allegedly
registered and competed in daily sports fantasy contests on the
company's and FanDuel's websites, and their family members, filed
numerous actions (primarily purported class actions) against the
company, FanDuel, and other related parties in courts across the
United States.
In February 2016, these actions were consolidated in a
multi-district litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On September 2, 2016, the consolidated
group of plaintiffs filed their First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint, superseding their original class action complaint, which
superseded their individual complaints.
The plaintiffs assert 27 claims arising under both state and
federal law against the DFS defendants. The plaintiffs' claims
against the company generally fall into four categories: (1) the
company online daily fantasy sports contests constitute illegal
gambling; (2) the company promulgated false or misleading
advertisements that emphasized the ease of play and likelihood of
winning; (3) the company induced consumers to lose money through a
deceptive bonus program; and (4) the company allowed its employees
to participate in competitors' fantasy sports contests using
non-public information, which gave such employees an unfair
advantage over other contestants. The plaintiffs seek money
damages, equitable relief, and disgorgement of gains against the
company.
On November 16, 2016, the DFS defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration against all named plaintiffs except one plaintiff
asserting claims against the DFS defendants as a concerned citizen
of the State of Florida (the "Concerned Citizen Claims").
On November 27, 2019, the Court granted the DFS defendants' motion
to compel arbitration with respect to all named plaintiffs other
than a small set of plaintiffs who are family members of
individuals who have DraftKings or FanDuel accounts and who assert
claims under various state laws regarding gambling (the "Family
Member Plaintiffs").
On March 9, 2020, the DFS defendants moved to dismiss the Family
Member Plaintiffs' claims and the Concerned Citizen Claims. On
April 7, 2020, an opposition to the motion to dismiss the Concerned
Citizen Claim was filed. On April 20, 2020, the Family Member
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the DFS defendants' motion to
dismiss, and on April 29, 2020, the Family Member Plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint.
On May 11, 2020, the DFS defendants filed their reply in support of
their motion to dismiss the Family Member Plaintiffs' claims and
the Concerned Citizen Claim, and on May 13, 2020, the DFS
defendants filed their opposition to the Family Member Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend the First Amended Master Class Action
Complaint.
On March 5, 2020, one named plaintiff with respect to whom the
motion to compel was granted filed a renewed motion to remand his
case to state court. On May 29, 2020, the company filed an
opposition to that motion.
DraftKings said, "The company intend to vigorously defend this
case. If the plaintiffs were to obtain a judgment in their favor in
this lawsuit, we may be subject to substantial damages and the
company may have to withdraw our DFS operations in certain states.
We have established an accrual for this matter. We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit."
DraftKings Inc. operates as a digital sports entertainment and
gaming company. The company provides users with daily sports,
sports betting, and iGaming opportunities. It is also involved the
design and development of sports betting and casino gaming platform
software for online and retail sportsbook, and casino gaming
products. The company distributes its product offerings through
various channels, including traditional websites, direct app
downloads, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. DraftKings
Inc. is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
EAGLE BANCORP: New York Class Action Stayed Pending Mediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Bancorp, 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 putative securities
class action against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors remains stayed pending mediation.
On July 24, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its current and former President and Chief
Executive Officer and its current and former Chief Financial
Officer, on behalf of persons similarly situated, who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company securities between March 2, 2015 and
July 17, 2019.
On November 7, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in that matter, and on January 21, 2020, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on behalf of the same class against the
same defendants as well as the Company's former General Counsel.
The plaintiff alleges that certain of the Company's 10-K reports
and other public statements and disclosures contained materially
false or misleading statements about, among other things, the
effectiveness of its internal controls and related party loans, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20 (a) of that act, resulting
in injury to the purported class members as a result of the decline
in the value of the Company's common stock following the disclosure
of increased legal expenses associated with certain government
investigations involving the Company.
On December 23, 2020, the securities class action plaintiffs and
defendants filed a stipulation to stay the class action litigation
pending a non-binding mediation on April 13, 2021. The SDNY
so-ordered the stipulation on December 24, 2020.
Eagle Bancorp said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the
Class Action litigation will be settled. The Company intends to
continue to defend vigorously against the claims asserted."
Eagle Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank that provides commercial and consumer banking services
primarily in the United States. It accepts business and personal
checking, NOW, tiered savings, and money market accounts, as well
as individual retirement, certificate of deposit, and investment
sweep accounts; and time deposits. Eagle Bancorp, Inc. was founded
in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Trial Date Still Not Set in Nichols Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Encompass Health 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 court
in Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp., has not yet set a date for trial
to begin.
The company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28,
2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp.
In July 2019, we entered into settlement agreements with all but
one plaintiff and paid those settling plaintiffs an aggregate
amount of cash less than $0.1 million.
The remaining plaintiff alleges that the company, some of its
former officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a scheme
to overstate and misrepresent the company's earnings and financial
position. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages.
This case was stayed in the circuit court on August 8, 2005.
However, the complaint has been amended from time to time,
including to request certification as a class action.
Additionally, one of the former officers named as a defendant has
repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court.
The company filed its latest motion to remand the case back to
state court on January 10, 2013. On September 27, 2013, the federal
court remanded the case back to state court.
On December 10, 2014, the company filed a motion to dismiss on the
grounds the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were
derivative in nature, and the claims were time-barred by the
statute of limitations. On May 26, 2016, the trial court granted
the company's motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the trial court's
dismissal on March 23, 2018. On April 6, 2018, the company filed an
application for rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court.
On March 22, 2019, the Alabama Supreme Court denied the company's
application for rehearing and remanded the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.
The court has not yet set a date for the trial to begin.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Encompass Health Corporation provides facility-based and home-based
post-acute healthcare services in the United States. The company
operates through two segments, Inpatient Rehabilitation, and Home
Health and Hospice. The company was formerly known as HealthSouth
Corporation and changed its name to Encompass Health Corporation in
January 2018. Encompass Health Corporation was founded in 1983 and
is based in Birmingham, Alabama.
ENDO INT'L: Intervenor Consents to Dismissal of Appeal in PERS Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 putative
intervenor consented to the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the
appeal in Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v.
Endo International plc.
In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International
plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in our June 2,
2015 public offering.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against us, certain of our current and
former directors and officers, and the underwriters who
participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about
Endo's generics business.
In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement providing for,
among other things, a $50 million payment to the investor class in
exchange for a release of their claims.
In December 2019, the court denied a petition to intervene filed by
the lead plaintiff in the Pelletier litigation described below, and
granted final approval of the settlement. The Company's insurers
funded the settlement in 2019.
In December 2019, the putative intervenor appealed the denial of
its petition to intervene and the final approval order to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court.
In January 2021, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal; in
February 2021, the putative intervenor consented to that motion.
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: Suit Against PPI Over Xyrem(R) Sales Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
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 Par Pharmaceutical,
Inc. (PPI) continues to defend a consolidated proposed class action
suit related to the settlement of certain patent litigations
concerning generic versions of Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate).
Beginning in June 2020, several alleged indirect purchasers filed
proposed class actions against Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other
pharmaceutical companies, including Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI),
alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws in
connection with the settlement of certain patent litigations
concerning generic versions of Xyrem(R) (sodium oxybate).
The various complaints allege that Jazz entered into a series of
"reverse-payment" settlements, including with PPI, to delay generic
competition for Xyrem(R) and assert claims under Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, state antitrust
and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law.
Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief
and attorneys' fees and costs.
In December 2020, the cases were consolidated and/or coordinated
for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
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.
EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, 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 motion to compel arbitration
in Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03698, is
pending.
On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed
class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3,
2016, filed suit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, in a case captioned
Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03698.
Plaintiffs allege that Eventbrite failed to provide an opportunity
for purchasers of tickets to events sold through Eventbrite's
platform to obtain a refund where the event is postponed,
rescheduled, or canceled. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in
addition to restitution and monetary damages under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair
Competition Law, in addition to claims brought under California
common law.
The Company denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously. The case is in its early stages. Prior to answering
Plaintiffs' complaint, Eventbrite brought a motion to compel
arbitration pursuant to its Terms of Service. The Court denied that
motion.
The Company thereafter answered Plaintiffs' Complaint and brought a
second motion to compel arbitration, based in part on facts
established via the Company's Answer.
That motion remains pending. No other motions have been made, and
no other rulings have been issued.
The Company is unable to predict the likely outcome at this point.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enables events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
EVENTBRITE INC: Terminates Settlement Agreement in IPO Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, 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 company gave notice to the
lead plaintiff in the Federal action that, in light of the denial
of the preliminary approval motion, it was terminating the
settlement agreement.
Beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of its executives and directors, and its
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
Some of these actions also name as defendants venture capital firms
that were investors in the Company as of the IPO.
On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending
actions (the Federal Action). On October 11, 2019, the lead
plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed an amended consolidated
complaint. That complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented
and/or omitted material information in its IPO offering documents
in violation of the Securities Act. It also challenged public
statements made after the IPO in violation of the Exchange Act. The
amended complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief on behalf of investors. On December 11, 2019, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
On April 28, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in its entirety with leave to amend and set a deadline of June 24,
2020 for lead plaintiff to file its second amended consolidated
complaint. On June 22, 2020, the Court extended lead plaintiff's
deadline to file its second amended consolidated complaint to
August 10, 2020.
On July 29, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the lead plaintiff in the Federal Action. The company recorded
$1.9 million of expense during the year ended December 31, 2020
related to the expected settlement of the Federal Action.
On August 27, 2020, the lead plaintiff in the Federal Action filed
a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 21,
2020, the Court vacated the preliminary approval hearing and on
October 30, 2020, the Court issued an order continuing the
preliminary approval hearing, tentatively rescheduling the hearing
for March 18, 2021.
On January 22, 2021, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice the motion for preliminary approval.
On February 9, 2021, the Company gave notice to the lead plaintiff
that, in light of the denial of the preliminary approval motion, it
was terminating the settlement agreement.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enables events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Class Counsel in Koopmann Ordered to Contact Wambach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY KOOPMANN, TIMOTHY KIDD, and VICTOR PIRNIK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., Plaintiffs v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-7199 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York orders the Lead Counsel to promptly contact Ronald Wambach and
file a letter on the docket addressing the concerns that he raises
no later than two weeks from the date of the Order.
The Court has received the communication attached as Exhibit A from
an alleged class member, Mr. Wambach. Judge Furman advised Mr.
Wambach that parties may not contact the Court directly.
Accordingly, he must either communicate through the Lead Counsel
(or his own counsel admitted to practice in the Court) or via the
Pro Se Intake Unit.
In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding
pro se (that is, without counsel) are encouraged to submit all
filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro
se parties who are unable to use email may still submit documents
by regular mail to the Pro Se Office, Thurgood Marshall Courthouse,
40 Centre Street, Room 105, in New York City, New York 10007, or in
person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan
(500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). In
either case, however, there may be significant delays before such
filings are received and/or docketed.
The Lead Counsel will promptly mail or email a copy of the Order to
Mr. Wambach and file proof of such service on the docket.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/h5yxaxcj from Leagle.com.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Facing Allred Putative Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, 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 company
is facing a new state court putative class action suit entitled,
Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago
Title Ins. Co.
On November 5, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit styled, Blake
E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v. Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title
Ins. Co., Adelle E. Ducharme, Betty Elixman, Gina Champion-Cain,
Joelle Hanson, Cris Torres, and Rachel Bond, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The Named Companies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
several grounds, or alternatively, to stay the case. The court
entered an order dismissing the federal law counts against the
Named Companies without leave to amend, dismissing other counts
with leave to amend, and denied the motion as to the remaining
counts.
Following the court's dismissal of certain counts, Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the entire federal action and refiled a
similar action in the Superior Court of San Diego County for the
State of California.
The new state court putative class action lawsuit, filed February
24, 2021, is styled, Blake E. Allred and Melissa M. Allred v.
Chicago Title Co., Chicago Title Ins. Co., and plaintiffs are
seeking compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages.
The court has been notified that this matter is related to the
other lawsuits filed in San Diego County Superior Court.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., incorporated on May 24, 2005, is
a holding company. The Company is a provider of title insurance,
and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.
FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification in Klopfenstein Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp 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 the consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation
(Case No. 1:12-CV-851), is pending.
On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading.
Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible
customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to
represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access
program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days.
On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against
Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and
Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third
Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v.
Fifth Third Bank).
Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of
Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-851).
On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified
monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive
damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending
Act(TILA).
On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for
further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the
alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million.
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was filed on April
20, 2020 and is now fully briefed and awaiting decision. No trial
date has been set.
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
FIFTH THIRD: Heavy & General Laborers' Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit headed by Heavy &
General Laborers' Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds.
On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff Lee Christakis filed a putative class
action against Fifth Third Bancorp, Fifth Third President and Chief
Executive Officer Greg D. Carmichael, and former Fifth Third Chief
Financial Officer Tayfun Tuzun in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entitled Lee Christakis, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third
Bancorp, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-2176 (N.D. Ill).
The case brings two claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection
with the alleged unauthorized opening of credit card, savings,
checking, online banking and early access accounts from 2010
through 2016.
The plaintiff seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.
On June 29, 2020, the Court appointed Heavy & General Laborers'
Local 472 & 172 Pension and Annuity Funds as lead plaintiff, and
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff.
On September 14, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed its amended
consolidated complaint.
On July 31, 2020, a second putative shareholder class action
captioned Dr. Steven Fox, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bancorp, et al., Case No.
2020CH05219 was filed on behalf of former shareholders of MB
Financial, Inc. in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court.
The suit brings claims for violation of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Bancorp and certain
of its officers and directors made material misstatements and
omissions regarding the alleged improper cross-selling strategy in
filings made in connection with the Bancorp's merger with MB
Financial, Inc.
Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services
company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in
1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Zagorski FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Gwen Zagorski, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Financial Recovery Services,
Inc., Case No. 2021CV000682 was removed from the Circuit Court,
County of Milwaukee, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on March 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00383 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive
coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal
collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive
data security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael S Poncin, Esq.
MOSS & BARMETT PA
150 S 5th St-Ste 1200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 877-5290
Fax: (612) 877-5056
Email: mike.poncin@lawmoss.com
GERMAN AMERICAN: Discovery in Putative Class Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
German American Bancorp 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 all
discovery has been stayed by the Court during the pendency of any
motion to dismiss.
On July 9, 2020, the Company was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in Marion County, Indiana Superior Court challenging
the Company's checking account practices associated with its
assessment of overdraft fees for certain debit card transactions.
The relief sought by the plaintiff includes restitution, other
monetary damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The plaintiff also seeks to have the case certified by the Court as
a class action on behalf all citizens of Indiana who are checking
account holders at German American Bank and who were assessed
overdraft fees on certain debit card transactions.
The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and
intends to defend against them.
As such, the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
The plaintiff has responded and has also stated an intention to
amend the complaint.
All discovery has been stayed by the Court during the pendency of
any motion to dismiss.
German American said, "At this stage of the litigation, it is not
possible for the Company's management to determine the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss."
German American Bancorp Inc. is a multi-bank holding company. The
Banks provide a wide range of retail and commercial banking,
mortgage banking, trust and brokerage services, title insurance,
and personal and corporate property and casualty insurance
products. German American Bancorp operates in southwestern Indiana.
The company is based in Jasper, Indiana.
GOLDEN STATE FC: Scott Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lovenia Scott, on behalf of herself, all other
similarly situated v. Golden State FC, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, agent of Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon.com,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Case No. CGC-21-589695 was removed
from the San Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on March 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-02147 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
Golden State FC LLC is located in Redlands, California and is part
of the Warehousing & Storage Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Katherine V.A. Smith, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
333 S. Grand Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-7107
Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
GOOGLE LLC: Court Approves SCB's Class Notice Plan in Adtrader Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADTRADER, INC., Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:17-CV-07082-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, grants Plaintiff Specialized Collections Bureau,
Inc. 's Unopposed Motion for Approval of Class Notice Plan for Rule
23(b)(3) Adwords Advertiser Class.
Judge Freeman finds that the proposed notice plan set forth in
SCB's unopposed motion and as further described in the declaration
of Steven Weisbrot, the President and Chief Innovation Officer of
the proposed class notice administrator Angeion Group, satisfies
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and
will provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for members of
the AdWords Advertiser Class to exclude themselves from these class
proceedings.
Specifically, Judge Freeman approves the form of the Email,
Postcard, and Long-Form notices as attached as Exhibits B-D of the
Weisbrot Declaration. She also approves Angeion Group as the
Administrator for purposes of sending the Notices, collecting opt
outs, administering the case website, and tabulating the associated
information for reporting to the Court through the Class Counsel.
Within 30 days of entry of the Order, the Administrator will send
the Email Notice to the potential members of the class. Any
requests by potential members of the class to opt out of this
adjudication must be postmarked by no later than 60 days after the
date that the Administrator has send the Email Notice. Within 10
days of the date by when any opt-out requests must be post-marked,
the Class Counsel will submit to the Court the Administrator's
report of its execution of the notice plan and tabulation of opt
outs.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ab5ry2m from Leagle.com.
RANDOLPH GAW -- rgaw@gawpoe.com -- MARK POE -- mpoe@gawpoe.com --
SAMUEL SONG -- ssong@gawpoe.com -- VICTOR MENG -- vmeng@gawpoe.com
-- FLORA VIGO -- fvigo@gawpoe.com -- GAW POE LLP, in San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs AdTrader, Inc., Classic and
Food EOOD, LML CONSULT Ltd., Ad Crunch Ltd., Fresh Break Ltd., and
Specialized Collections Bureau, Inc.
GOSSAMER BIO: Bid to Dismiss Kuhne Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gossamer Bio, 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
putative class action suit initiated by Scott Kuhne, is pending.
On April 3, 2020, Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-DEB).
The first amended complaint was filed on August 31, 2020, and the
second amended complaint was filed on November 20, 2020.
The second amended complaint was filed on behalf of all investors
who purchased the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to
the Company's February 8, 2019 IPO. The second amended complaint
alleges that the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its IPO made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about its business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.
The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 19, 2021, and Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion
on February 18, 2021. The Company's deadline to file a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss is March 22, 2021.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Gossamer said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."
Gossamer Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on discovering, acquiring, and developing
therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and
oncology. Gossamer Bio serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in San Diego, California.
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, 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, together
with Container Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a
putative class action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's
Milwaukee reconditioning facilities.
On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM’s Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.
The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.
The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.
GRUBHUB INC: Stockholder Putative Class Action Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grubhub 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 company continues to defend
a putative class action suit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665.
On November 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company, Chief
Executive Officer Matthew Maloney, and President and Chief
Financial Officer Adam DeWitt in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 19 Civ. 7665.
The complaint, which was amended on July 24, 2020, asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on its
allegation that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about the Company's growth, competitive landscape, and strategy.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys'
fees, among other relief. Pursuant to a court scheduling order, the
matter is expected to be fully briefed by March 2021.
The defendants believe that the complaint is without merit and that
a material loss is not probable.
Grubhub said, "However, given the early stage of the proceedings, a
reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of
loss cannot be made at this time."
Grubhub Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a leading online
and mobile platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders,
which the Company refers to as takeout. The Company connects more
than 300,000 restaurants with hungry diners in thousands of cities
across the United States and is focused on transforming the takeout
experience. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois.
HARVEY J. BAZAAR: Wurst Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HARVEY J. BAZAAR. The
case is styled as Karen Leslie Wurst and Robert Clancy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
derivatively on behalf of CPI Aerostructures Inc. v. HARVEY J.
BAZAAR, CAREY E. BOND, JANET K. COOPER, MICHAEL FABER, DOUGLAS
MCCROSSON, VINCENT PALAZZOLO, WALTER PAULICK, ERIC ROSENFELD AND
TERRY STINSON, CPI AEROSTRUCTURES, INC. - NOMINAL DEFENDANT, Case
No. 605244/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., March 26, 2021).
The case type is stated as "E-FILED COMMERCIAL CASE".
Harvey J Bazaar is Former President/CEO at Bkf Capital Group
Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 THIRD AVENUE, 20TH FLR
NEW YORK, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
The Defendants are represented by:
WILMERHALE
SEVEN WORLD TRADE CNTR
NEW YORK, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 230-8800
HEMED CORP: Settlement of Four Class Suits Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed 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 court granted final
approval of the settlement of the state-wide wage and hour class
action claims raised in four separate cases hearing on December 8,
2020.
The Company entered into a settlement agreement in March 2019 that
resolved the California state-wide wage and hour class action
claims raised in four separate cases: (1) Jordan A. Seper on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857; (2)
Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a
California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California,
a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number
37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL (which was subsequently merged with
Seper); (3) Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case
No. 34-2017-0021-2755; and (4) Williams v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, Alameda County Superior Court Case No.
RG 17853886.
These actions were brought by both current and former employees
including a registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse (LVN),
home health aides and a social worker. Each action stated multiple
claims generally including (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked;
(3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4)
failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest
breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage
statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8)
unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.
The cases generally asserted claims on behalf of classes defined to
include all current and former non-exempt employees employed with
VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of
each lawsuit.
The settlement amount of $5.75 million plus employment taxes was
recorded in the first quarter of 2019. The definition of the class
to participate in the settlement is intended to cover claims raised
in the consolidated Seper/Chhina matter, claims raised in Phillips
and Moore, as well as any class claims in Williams.
On January 28, 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The court granted final approval of the settlement
hearing on December 8, 2020. Subsequent to year end, the
settlement was paid.
Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.
HOWARD COUNTY, MD: Kim et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA M.F. KIM, et al., v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HOWARD COUNTY, Case No. 1:21-cv-00655-DK (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion and certifying case as action as a class action on behalf
of:
"all persons in Howard County who are in malapportioned
school-board districts and who are prevented from voting for the
Student Member of Defendant Howard County Board of Education
because they are not students in the Howard County Public School
Systems in grades 6-11."
Howard County Board of Education is to provide leadership for
excellence in teaching and learning by fostering a climate for
deliberative change through policy and community engagement.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dhgwrd
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael F. Smith, Esq.
THE SMITH APPELLATE LAW FIRM
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 454-2860
Facsimile: (202) 747-5630
E-mail: smith@smithpllc.com
- and -
J. Christian Adams, Esq.
Maureen S. Riordan, Esq.
Public Interest Legal Foundation, Inc.
1555 King St., Ste. 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (317) 203-5599
E-mail: adams@PublicInterestLegal.org
mriordan@PublicInterestLegal.org
IHS MARKIT: Facing S&P Global Merger Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------
IHS Markit Ltd. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 1, 2021, that the
company is facing several suits including a class action suit
related to its merger with S&P Global Inc.
On November 29, 2021, IHS Markit Ltd., a Bermuda exempted company
limited by shares entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with
S&P Global Inc., a New York corporation and Sapphire Subsidiary,
Ltd. a Bermuda exempted company limited by shares and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the S&P Global. Pursuant to the Merger
Agreement, IHS Markit will merge with and into Merger Sub, with IHS
Markit continuing as the surviving entity.
On January 22, 2021, each of IHS Markit and S&P Global filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus with respect to the respective special
meetings of IHS Markit and S&P Global shareholders scheduled to be
held on March 11, 2021 in connection with the Merger.
As of March 1, 2021, twelve lawsuits have been filed relating to
the Merger in federal and state courts, including one purported
class action lawsuit, against S&P Global, the S&P Global board of
directors, IHS Markit, the IHS Markit board of directors and/or
Merger Sub.
The Actions are, in the order they were filed, Stein v. IHS Markit
Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00229 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2021); Shi v. IHS
Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00296 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021);
Ye v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00617 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 23,
2021);
Shumacher v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-00621 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 24, 2021), which was subsequently dismissed and refiled as
Kogus v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., No. 1:21-cv-01285 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
12, 2021);
Snitkoff v. Alvera et al., No. 650576/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 26,
2021);
William B. Federman Living Trust Trust No. 1 v. S&P Global Inc. et
al., No 3:21-cv-00791 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2021);
Kent v. S&P Global Inc. et al., No. 3:21-cv-01118 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
15, 2021);
Coffman v. S&P Global Inc. et al., 3:21-cv-01343 (N.D. Cal. Feb 24,
2021);
Nguyen v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 2:21-cv-00848 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 24,
2021);
Parshall v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 1:21-cv-01662 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.
25, 2021); and
Wilson v. IHS Markit Ltd. et al., 1:21-cv-01700 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25,
2021).
The Actions filed in federal court generally allege that the
Definitive Proxy Statement misrepresents and/or omits certain
purportedly material information and assert violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and the rules promulgated thereunder.
Snitkoff, the sole Action filed in state court, alleges, among
other things, that the members of the S&P Global board of directors
breached their state law fiduciary duties by approving the Merger
Agreement and in disseminating materially incomplete disclosures.
The alleged material misstatements and omissions relate to, among
other topics, the opinion of Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC, S&P Global's
financial advisor in connection with the Merger, the opinion of
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, IHS Markit's financial advisor in
connection with the Merger, and certain background events that
occurred in connection with the Merger.
Among other relief, the plaintiffs in the Actions seek injunctive
relief, including directing S&P Global and IHS Markit to disclose
the allegedly omitted material information, enjoining the Merger
unless and until S&P Global and IHS Markit disclose the allegedly
omitted material information, rescinding the Merger in the event
S&P Global, IHS Markit and Merger Sub consummate the Merger (or, in
the alternative, rescinding the Merger or awarding recissory
damages) and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
S&P Global and IHS Markit deny the allegations in the Actions and
deny any alleged violations of law or any legal or equitable duty.
The defendants believe that the Actions are without merit, and that
no further disclosure is required under applicable law.
Nonetheless, to avoid the risk of the litigation delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger, and without admitting in any way
that the disclosures below are material or otherwise required by
law, the defendants are making supplemental disclosures related to
the Merger.
The litigation-related supplemental disclosures should be read in
conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be
read in its entirety.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3u0yc0W.
IHS Markit Ltd. provides critical information, analytics, and
solutions for various industries and markets that drive economies
worldwide. The Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in
London, the United Kingdom.
INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Merger Suit Moved to May 6
---------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank 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 parties in
the suit related to the acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., have
agreed to amend the scheduling order to push back the trial date to
May 6, 2021.
Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by the
Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings,
Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was
completed on April 15, 2014.
Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased
certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit
against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the
U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in
a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et
al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG.
The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were
victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to
recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant
banks.
On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action
Complaint presents previously unasserted claims, including aiding
and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the
large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and
the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek
recovery from the Bank and other defendants for their losses.
The case has been inactive due to a Court-ordered discovery stay
issued March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's
motion for class certificate and designation of class
representatives and counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued
an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court
lifted the previously ordered discovery stay.
On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing
that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. Due to agreed
upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court amended
the scheduling order to provide that the case be ready for trial on
January 11, 2021.
In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which provided that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021.
In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021.
Defendants have filed a motion to remand the case to the Southern
District of Texas and are awaiting a ruling.
It is anticipated that the schedule will change upon remand. The
Bank also filed its motion for summary judgment on February 12,
2021 individually, and joined in on an omnibus motion for summary
judgment based on procedural issues common to all Defendants in
this matter.
The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated
with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in
legal fees as the case proceeds to trial.
The Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the
Second Amended Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially
indicated that the claims are not covered by the policies or that a
"loss" has not yet occurred.
The Bank pursued insurance coverage as well as reimbursement of
defense costs through the initiation of litigation and other means.
On November 6, 2018, the Company settled claims under its Financial
Institutions Select Policy pursuant to which the Company received
payment of an amount which is not material to the operations of the
Company. The Company did not settle any claims under its Financial
Institution Bond Policy.
Independent Bank said, "The Bank believes that the claims are
without merit and is vigorously defending the lawsuit. This is
complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and
issues. As such, we are unable to predict when this matter may be
resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate
outcome of, or the range of potential costs or damages arising
from, this case."
Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.
INOVIO PHARMA: McDermid Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, 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 company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, McDermid v.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim.
On March 12, 2020, a purported shareholder class action complaint,
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and J. Joseph Kim, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, naming the company and J. Joseph Kim, its Chief
Executive Officer, as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its development of a vaccine for
COVID-19 in the company's public disclosures in violation of
certain federal securities laws.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.
On June 18, 2020, the court appointed Manuel Williams to serve as
lead plaintiff. On August 3, 2020, Mr. Williams filed a
consolidated complaint, naming the company and three of its
officers as defendants.
On September 21, 2020, Mr. Williams and another purported
stockholder, Andrew Zenoff filed a first amended complaint, naming
us and three of our officers as defendants. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint on
November 5, 2020.
On February 16, 2021, the court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed with
prejudice, the claims premised on the April 30 and June 30, 2020
statements. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
the remaining statements.
Defendants' deadline to file their answer to the complaint is March
2, 2021.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. researches and develops
pharmaceuticals. The Company develops cancer DNA and infectious DNA
vaccines, anti-inflammatory drugs, and animal health products.
Inovio Pharmaceuticals serves the healthcare sector in the United
States. The company is based in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.
J2 GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Garcia Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 motion to dismiss filed in
the putative class action suit initiated by Jeffrey Garcia, is
pending.
On July 8, 2020, Jeffrey Garcia filed a putative class action
lawsuit against J2 Global in the Central District of California
(20-cv-06906), alleging violations of federal securities laws.
J2 Global has moved to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.
j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
J2 GLOBAL: Preliminary Approval of Settlement in Davis Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 motion for preliminary approval
of the class settlement, certification of a settlement class and
for permission to disseminate notice in the class action suit
initiated by Davis Neurology, P.A., is pending.
On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class
action against two J2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for
the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On March 20, 2017, the
District Court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed
by the J2 Global affiliates and dismissed all claims against the J2
Global affiliates.
On July 23, 2018, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
judgment and remanded to district court with instructions to return
the case to state court. On January 29, 2019, after further appeals
were exhausted, the case was remanded to the Arkansas state court.
On April 1, 2019, the state court granted a motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiff in 2016.
Because the prior removal to federal court had deprived the state
court of jurisdiction, the J2 Global affiliates had not yet filed
an opposition brief to the 2016 motion when the state court granted
the motion. The J2 Global affiliates appealed the order. On July
15, 2019, the J2 Global affiliates removed the case to federal
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
On November 26, 2019, the court denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand. On December 20, 2019, the court granted the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend its complaint. On May 21, 2020, the court
denied J2 Global affiliates' motion to dismiss. On August 11, 2020,
the court approved an opt-in class notice.
Notice has not yet been issued and the J2 Global affiliates have
moved to decertify the class.
On December 2, 2020, the parties provided notice to the Court that
they have reached a tentative settlement in the matter, and on
February 18, 2021, the parties filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement, certification of a settlement
class and for permission to disseminate notice.
j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides Internet
services worldwide. It operates through three segments: Fax and
Email Marketing; Voice, Backup, and Security; and Digital Media.
The company was formerly known as j2 Global Communications, Inc.
and changed its name to j2 Global, Inc. in December 2011. j2
Global, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.
KEYSTONE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keystone College. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Keystone College, Case No.
1:21-cv-02647 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Keystone College -- https://www.keystone.edu/ -- is a private
college in Northeastern Pennsylvania, offering more than 40
undergraduate and graduate degree options in liberal arts and
science-based programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
KFORCE INC: Facing Elliot-Brand Putative Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Kforce 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 entitled, Sydney Elliott-Brand, et. al.
v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.: 20STCV49193.
On December 24, 2020, a complaint was filed and on January 5, 2021,
the complaint was served against Kforce Inc., et al. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County.
Sydney Elliott-Brand, et. al. v. Kforce Inc., et al., Case No.:
20STCV49193.
On behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
commissioned employees employed by Defendants, the plaintiff
purports to bring a collective action for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, Section 201, et seq., Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, and the California Business and
Professions Code, Section 17200, et. seq, based upon the
defendants' alleged failure to: (i) pay minimum and overtime wages;
(ii) timely pay all earned wages; (iii) provide meal periods and
rest breaks; (iv) reimburse business expenses; (v) provide accurate
itemized wage statements; and (vi) timely pay wages and vacation
pay upon separation of employment; as well as associated unfair
competition.
The plaintiff seeks payment to recover minimum, regular, and/or
overtime wages for all hours worked as required by law, meal period
premiums, rest period premiums, unpaid business expenses,
reasonable attorneys' fees, cost of suit and interest, statutory
penalties and liquidated damages, and also seeks an order requiring
Defendants to restore and disgorge all funds acquired by means of
unfair competition under the California Business and Professions
Code.
Kforce said, "At this stage in the litigation it is not feasible to
predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a range
of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding."
Kforce Inc. provides professional staffing services and solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Technology and Finance and Accounting segments. Kforce Inc. was
founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
KFORCE INC: Gofton and Kimbrel Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel,
et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.: 2:20-cv-04886.
On October 13, 2020, Kforce Inc. was served with a complaint
brought in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Hope Gofton and Adam Kimbrel, et al. v. Kforce Inc., Case No.:
2:20-cv-04886 on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
current and former employees.
The plaintiffs purport to bring a collective action for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
et seq., and a class action for alleged violations of the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 P.S. Section 333.101, et seq.,
based upon the defendant's purported failure to pay federal and
state overtime wages.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant improperly classified as
exempt the plaintiffs and other putative collective and class
members, and allegedly failed to pay overtime wages.
The plaintiffs seek payment of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorney's fees, costs and other relief deemed
equitable by the Court.
Kforce said, "At this stage in the litigation, it is not feasible
to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate a
range of loss, should a loss occur, from this proceeding."
Kforce Inc. provides professional staffing services and solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Technology (Tech) and Finance and Accounting (FA) segments. Kforce
Inc. was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida.
LACKWANNA COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lackawanna College.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Lackawanna College, Case No.
1:21-cv-02648 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lackawanna College -- https://www.lackawanna.edu/ -- is a private
college in Scranton, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LIVE NATION: Class Suits Related to Overpriced Tickets Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, 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 company
continues to defend several class action suits related to the
resale of tickets on secondary ticket exchanges at elevated
prices.
The following putative class action lawsuits were filed against
Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster in the United States and Canada:
Vaccaro v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of Illinois, filed
September 2018); Ameri v. Ticketmaster LLC (Northern District of
California, filed September 2018);
Lee v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Northern District of California,
filed September 2018);
Thompson-Marcial v. Ticketmaster Canada Holdings ULC (Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, filed September 2018);
McPhee v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Superior Court
of Quebec, District of Montreal, filed September 2018);
Crystal Watch v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Court of
Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, by amendments filed September
2018);
Gaetano v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Northern
District of New York, filed October 2018);
Dickey v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of California,
filed October 2018);
Gomel v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, filed October 2018);
Smith v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed October 2018);
Messing v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed November 2018); and
Niedbalski v. Ticketmaster LLC, et al. (Central District of
California, filed December 2018).
As of November 2020, each of the consumer class actions filed in
the United States had been dismissed with prejudice. In March 2019,
the Dickey lawsuit was dismissed, and the Gaetano lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff in April
2019. The Ameri lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019, and the Vaccaro
lawsuit was dismissed in June 2019. In June 2020, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling in the Lee
lawsuit, compelling arbitration and dismissing the case. In
November 2020, the Messing and Niedbalski lawsuits were dismissed
with prejudice.
The remaining Canadian lawsuits make similar factual allegations
that Live Nation and/or Ticketmaster LLC engage in conduct that is
intended to encourage the resale of tickets on secondary ticket
exchanges at elevated prices.
Based on these allegations, each plaintiff asserts violations of
different provincial and federal laws. Each plaintiff also seeks to
represent a class of individuals who purchased tickets on a
secondary ticket exchange, as defined in each plaintiff's
complaint.
The complaints seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified
compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
Live Nation said, "Based on information presently known to
management, we do not believe that a loss is probable of occurring
at this time, and believe that the potential liability, if any,
will not have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
cash flows or results of operations. Further, we do not currently
believe that the claims asserted in these lawsuits have merit, and
considerable uncertainty exists regarding any monetary damages that
will be asserted against us. We continue to vigorously defend these
actions."
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. operates as a live entertainment
company. It operates through Concerts, Sponsorship & Advertising,
and Ticketing segments. The Company was incorporated in 2005 and is
headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.
LIVENT CORP: April 15 Fairness Hearing Set for Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Livent 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 final approval court
hearing in the consolidated suit entitled, In re Livent Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 2019-0501229, is scheduled for April 15,
2021.
Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 initial public offering (IPO).
On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218.
In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the actions then pending
in state court were consolidated under the caption, In re Livent
Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2019-0501229.
The operative complaints in both the state and federal actions
assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives and directors in connection with the Company's
October 2018 IPO.
The actions also name as defendants the underwriters in the IPO and
FMC Corporation, whom the Company is generally obligated to
indemnify. The complaints allege generally that the offering
documents for the IPO failed to adequately disclose certain
information related to the Company's business and prospects, in
purported violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and/or 15 of the
Securities Act.
The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.
On October 11, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the state action
in its entirety, and on November 18, 2019, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action in its entirety. On June 29, 2020, the
state court denied the motion to dismiss the state action, while on
July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss the
federal action in its entirety.
On July 7, 2020, in light of the federal court's decision,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the state court's
denial of the motion to dismiss the state action. On July 29, 2020,
defendants filed a motion seeking permission to appeal the state
court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss. On July 31,
2020, plaintiffs in the federal action filed a notice of appeal.
On October 27, 2020, defendants entered into a stipulation of
settlement with the state court plaintiffs to pay $7.4 million to
resolve all claims related to the IPO. On October 29, 2020, the
state court plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval
of the settlement. Preliminary approval was granted on December 22,
2020 and the final approval court hearing is scheduled for April
15, 2021.
Livent said, "If approved, the settlement would resolve all pending
litigation relating to the IPO, including the claims in both the
state and federal actions. All deadlines in the state and federal
actions are currently stayed in light of the settlement."
Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
LUND-PEARSON: Gonzales Sues Over Missed Breaks, Inaccurate Payslips
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Gonzales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lund-Pearson, Inc., Lund Pearson
McLaughlin Fire Protection Systems and Does 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV376393 (Cal. Super., February 23, 2021),
seeks redress for failure to authorize or permit required meal
periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage
statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation
wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon
separation of employment, non-reimbursement of business-related
expenses, failure to maintain time-keeping records, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs and interest under California Labor Code and applicable
Industrial Wage Orders.
Lund-Pearson employed Gonzales as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
M&T BANK: Flynn Suit Transferred to in E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edward R. Flynn, Gene Daisy, Douglas J. Abbott,
Catherine Hosick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. M&T Bank Corporation, Manufacturers & Traders
Trust Company also known as: M&T Bank, Case No. 1:21-mc-00019, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on March 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-mc-00030-MAK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
M&T Bank Corporation -- https://www3.mtb.com/ -- is an American
bank holding company headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michelle Stine Barnoff, Esq.
P.O. Box 816
Uniontown, OH 44685
Phone: (330) 877-8850
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, 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 company's
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the consolidated
class action suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.
Securities Litigation, has been granted in part.
In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three
class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma. On
September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under
the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and
Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the
plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October
19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive.
On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint. On March 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint for violation of federal securities laws
which contains allegations substantially similar to those contained
in the plaintiff's first amended complaint. On March 30, 2020, the
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On January 26, 2021, the court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied the motion to dismiss in part.
Mammoth said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at
this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in LeJeune Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, 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 discovery is
ongoing in the class action suit entitled, LeJeune v. Mammoth
Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics and
Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC.
On March 20, 2019, EJ LeJeune, a former employee of ESPADA
Logistics and Security Group, LLC and ESPADA Caribbean LLC filed a
putative collective and class action complaint in LeJeune v.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a Cobra Energy & ESPADA Logistics
and Security Group, LLC, Case No. 5:19-cv-00286-JKP-ESC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
On August 5, 2019, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his complaint, dismissing Mammoth Energy Services,
Inc. as a defendant, adding Cobra Acquisitions LLC as a defendant,
and adding ESPADA Caribbean LLC and two officers of ESPADA—James
Jorrie and Jennifer Gay Jorrie—as defendants.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants jointly employed
the plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and failed to pay
them overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Puerto Rico law.
The complaint also alleges the following violations of Puerto Rico
law: illegal deductions from workers' wages, failure to timely pay
all wages owed, failure to pay a required severance when
terminating workers without just cause, failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to provide required meal periods, and failure
to pay a statutorily required bonus to eligible workers.
Mr. LeJeune seeks to represent a class of workers allegedly
employed by one or more defendants and paid a flat amount for each
day worked regardless of how many hours were worked. The complaint
seeks back wages, including overtime wages owed, liquidated damages
equal to the overtime wages owed, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-
and post-judgment interest.
On June 16, 2020, Cobra answered Mr. LeJeune's amended complaint,
denying that it employed Mr. LeJeune and the putative class members
and denying that they are entitled to relief from Cobra.
All other defendants have also answered the amended complaint. The
parties stipulated to conditional certification of a collective
action, and on August 14, 2020, Court ordered that notice be sent
to all individuals engaged by ESPADA to provide services to Cobra
in Puerto Rico between January 21, 2017 and the present who were
paid a day-rate. Notice was sent to putative class members on
September 15, 2020, and the opt-in period closed on November 14,
2020. The parties are in discovery.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Wendco Putative Class Suit Ongoing in Puerto Rico
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mammoth Energy Services, 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 company
continues to defend a class action in Puerto Rico initiated by
Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.
On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of
Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators
Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation
of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions
LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in
Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's
electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017,
thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic
loss.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend the action.
Mammoth said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a
material impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield
service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure
Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant
Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It
was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
MARION COUNTY, OR: Court Tosses Monical Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY W. MONICAL, v.
MARION COUNTY JAIL, et al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00103-YY (D. Oreg.),
the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Court said, "Pro se prisoners are not qualified to act as class
representatives as they are unable to fairly represent and
adequately protect the interests of the class, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Oxendine v. Williams, 509
F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975); see also Russell v. United States,
308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding, in case brought by
federal prisoner, litigant appearing in propria persona has no
authority to represent anyone other than himself). Moreover, the
Plaintiff has not adequately shown that the four prerequisites to a
class action under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, i.e., numerosity, typicality, commonality, and
adequacy of representation, have been met in this case. Finally,
the Court notes that plaintiff did not assert a class action claim
in the operative pleading herein."
Accordingly, the Court denies the plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, because the Plaintiff would not be able to
adequately represent a class of former and/or present adults in
custody at the Marion County Jail.
The Plaintiff, an adult in custody at the Oregon State
Penitentiary, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 pro se.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 16, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dnROWd at no extra charge.[CC]
MILLER COUNTY, AR: Bid to Certify Class in Morris v. MCDC Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RANDALL MORRIS, Plaintiff v. STEVEN KING, R.N.; WARDEN
JEFFIE WALKER; CORPORAL GOLDEN ADAMS; DR. KEVIN MCCAIN; SHERIFF
JACKIE RUNION; SGT. JOHN DOE; SERGEANT RICHARD HENDERSON; and CPL
A. ELLIS, Defendants, Civil No. 4:20-cv-04101 (W.D. Ark.), Judge
Barry A. Bryant of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas, Texarkana Division, denies the Plaintiff's Motion for
Certification of Class.
Plaintiff Morris filed the pro se civil rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 on Nov. 18, 2020. His application to proceed
in forma pauperis was granted that same day. On Dec. 17, 2020, in
response to the Court's order, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. After realizing he was attempting to assert his claims
and those of other inmates in his Amended Complaint, the Court
ordered the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint asserting
only his claims.
In the instant Motion, the Plaintiff states he wishes to plead a
class action and to request the Court to appoint counsel seeing as
a Pro Se litigants are generally not permitted to represent
classes. He goes on to state "It is my contention that Claim #8,
#16 and #17 pertain to All MCDC inmates that were incarcerated from
3/11/20 to 3/6/21 or at any time or times in between as these
inmates were subjected to the extreme reckless and deliberate
disregards detailed in Claim #8, #16 and #17." The Plaintiff
identifies several other lawsuits filed by inmates incarcerated in
the Miller County Detention Center who are asserting similar
claims. He goes on to state, "I would like to remind the Court
that the granting of Class Action and counsel would achieve
judicial economy and will allow the Court to avoid multiple
concurrent actions."
Judge Bryant explains that to provide adequate class
representation, Federal Rule of Procedure 23(g) requires, among
other considerations, that the class counsel appointed have
experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation.
Because the Plaintiff is not a licensed attorney, he cannot satisfy
the requirements of either Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(g). He can,
therefore, only bring the claims in his individual capacity and not
on behalf of a class.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint counsel in his case so the
case can proceed as a class action. He previously filed a motion
to appoint counsel on Feb. 8, 2021. That same day the Court denied
the Plaintiff's motion. For the same reasons set forth in the
Court's previous order, Judge Bryant again denies the Plaintiff's
request for counsel. The Judge holds that a civil litigant does
not have a constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel
in a civil action, but the Court may appoint counsel at its
discretion. The Judge has once again considered the need for an
attorney, the likelihood that the Plaintiff will benefit from
assistance of counsel, the factual and legal complexity of the
case, and whether the Plaintiff can investigate and present the
case. In considering these factors, he finds the claims do not
appear legally or factually complex, and the Plaintiff is
adequately prosecuting his case at this time.
Finally, as interpreted by relevant case law, the Prison Litigation
Reform Act requires each prisoner who brings a civil action to
submit a separate complaint and a separate application to proceed
in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for
Certification of Class is denied. The Plaintiff is warned if he
continues to file frivolous motions the Court will require him to
obtain permission of the Court before filing any additional
pleadings.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/zu63t7rc from Leagle.com.
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Interest Rate Swaps Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, In Re: Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation.
Beginning in February of 2016, the company (Firm) was named as a
defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now
consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York styled In Re: Interest
Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and
New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in
connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of
electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rates swaps
trading.
Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased interest rates swaps from defendants, as
well as on behalf of two swap execution facilities that allegedly
were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such
platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, among other relief,
certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble
damages.
On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Iowa PERS Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley 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 purported antitrust class action suit entitled, Iowa
Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al.
August of 2017, the company (Firm) was named as a defendant in a
purported antitrust class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York styled Iowa Public
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation
et al.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their
alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic
exchange-based platforms for securities lending.
The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants.
The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, provides various
financial products and services to corporations, governments,
financial institutions, and individuals in the Americas, Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. The company operates through
Institutional Securities, Wealth Management, and Investment
Management segments. Morgan Stanley was founded in 1924 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.
MOWI ASA: Bid to Toss Amended Salmon Antitrust Complaint Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: FARM-RAISED SALMON AND SALMON PRODUCTS
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 19-21551-CIV-ALTONAGA/Louis (S.D.
Fla.), Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida denied the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Direct Purchaser Class
Action Complaint for Failure to State Claim, filed on Jan. 15,
2021.
The class action is brought on behalf of direct purchasers of
farm-raised Atlantic salmon and salmon products asserting claims
against the Defendants for violations of sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Act, see 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 3. The Defendants allegedly
engaged in the unlawful coordination of prices charged to direct
purchasers of salmon between April 10, 2013 and the present.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have been engaging in the
following misconduct:
a. Applying a coordinated strategy to fix, raise, or stabilize
spot prices of farmed Norwegian salmon through inter-competitor
transactions reported to the NASDAQ Salmon Index, which is used as
the reference point by Defendants to set the prices of salmon and
salmon products worldwide; and
b Coordinating sales prices and exchanging commercially
sensitive information through in-person meetings and telephonic and
written communications in order to reduce competition between
Defendants within the European Union for salmon, and thereby
facilitating supra-competitive spot pricing reported by the NASDAQ
Salmon Index.
The Plaintiffs are Ohio, New York, Florida, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania corporations. They are direct purchasers of salmon
that have suffered monetary losses as a result of the Defendants'
antitrust violations.
The Defendants include the world's leading salmon producers and
their subsidiaries and affiliates.
The Plaintiffs' allegations parallel those of the European
Commission ("EC") in the European Union and the Department of
Justice ("DOJ") in the United States, both of which are
investigating illegal anticompetitive behavior in the farmed salmon
market. In February 2019, the EC opened an antitrust investigation
into the world's major producers of farm-raised salmon after
receiving information that Norwegian producers of farmed Atlantic
salmon participate or ha[d] participated in anti-competitive
agreements and/or concerted practices related to different ways of
price coordination in order to sustain and possibly increase the
prices for Norwegian salmon.
In the United States, the DOJ is investigating the same potential
illegal practices the EC is investigating in Europe. In November
2019, the DOJ issued grand jury subpoenas to Mowi ASA, Grieg ASA,
Leroy Seafood Group ASA, SalMar ASA, and Ocean Quality AS, seeking
information on practices similar to those being investigated by the
EC. The fact that the subpoenas in question were issued by a
criminal grand jury indicates the DOJ is considering a criminal
prosecution against the Defendants.
The named Plaintiffs claim to have "sustained injury to their
businesses or property, having paid higher prices for salmon and
products derived therefrom than they would have paid in the absence
of the Defendants' illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy,
and, as a result, have suffered damages."
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All persons
and entities in the United States who purchased farm-raised
Atlantic salmon and/or products derived therefrom directly from
Defendants, any current or former subsidiary or affiliate of
Defendants, or any co-conspirator, between April 10, 2013 until the
effects of the anticompetitive conduct alleged cease."
The Defendants now jointly move to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint ("SCAC"). They
argue: (1) the Plaintiffs fail to allege direct evidence of an
agreement; (2) the Plaintiffs do not plead parallel conduct or plus
factors sufficient to sustain a Sherman Act claim without direct
evidence; and (3) the class members' claims are time-barred.
Judge Altonaga finds the Plaintiffs adequately allege parallel
conduct by the Defendants. She says the Plaintiffs' facts, taken
together, sufficiently show the Defendants engaged in parallel
conduct by coordinating spot market price increases through
inter-competitor (and subsidiary) sales to influence the NASDAQ
Salmon Index price, which, in turn, increased the price of salmon
across the industry (including in the United States) as illustrated
by the Defendants' correlated pricing and earnings reports. Stated
differently, the Judge holds the Plaintiffs provide enough parallel
conduct allegations with respect to spot prices and other pricing
of salmon. The Plaintiffs thus clear the first hurdle.
As for plus factors, the Plaintiffs put forth additional
circumstantial evidence they claim suggests an illegal agreement.
In rebuttal, the Defendants insist these purported 'facts' do not
support the Plaintiffs' claims.
Viewing the allegations together, and not in isolation, the Judge
also finds that the Plaintiffs allege a plausible conspiracy
existed through circumstantial facts. These facts include: (1) the
Norwegian Defendants' (or their co-venturers') participation in the
NASDAQ Salmon Index; (2) the Defendants' coordinated manipulation
of salmon prices by reporting inflated sales prices to the NASDAQ;
(3) the increase in prices for salmon despite stable or declining
production costs and dwindling demand due to the Russian ban; (4)
the Defendants' use of spot market transactions to drive higher
Index prices; (5) interfirm and intrafirm communications discussing
the avoidance of price competition and encouraging cooperation; (6)
U.S. pricing charts, which show parallel price movements by several
Defendants; (7) the Defendants' access to pricing and market-share
information; (8) the Defendants' transition from battling each
other to cooperating during the relevant period; and (9) parallel
ongoing antitrust investigations by the EC and DOJ.
In sum, the SCAC contains enough factual material to "nudge the
Plaintiffs' claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.
With respect to statute of limitations, the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conspiracy began on April 10, 2013 and has
continued to the present. The Plaintiffs filed the action on April
23, 2019. Thus, if the statute of limitations applies, the damages
period would begin no earlier than April 23, 2015. The Plaintiffs
allege (1) the statute of limitations should be tolled because the
Defendants fraudulently concealed the conspiracy and (2) a
continuing antitrust violation.
Judge Altonaga holds that the SCAC contains no allegations
conclusively establishing the action's untimeliness. The
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege the Defendants' affirmative efforts
to conceal and cover up their anticompetitive conspiracy. They
proffer the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct was only discovered
"through the exercise of due diligence in February 2019, when the
EC commenced its investigation. The Judge holds tha the
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to survive Defendants'
Motion. In any event, as many courts have noted in the antitrust
conspiracy context, it is generally inappropriate to resolve the
fact-intensive allegations of fraudulent concealment at the motion
to dismiss stage, particularly where the proof relating to the
extent of the fraudulent concealment is alleged to be largely in
the hands of the alleged conspirators.
The Plaintiffs further plead a continuing violation. They state
the Defendants engaged in anticompetitive conduct to inflate the
price of salmon on April 10, 2013; that they continued engaging in
this conduct and raising prices through the present; and that the
Defendants directly sold salmon and salmon products to the
Plaintiffs "between April 10, 2013 and the present. Given these
allegations, the Judge holds that the Defendants'
statute-of-limitations position does not provide a basis to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Altonaga denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss. The Defendants have until and including April
6, 2021 to file separate answers to the Plaintiffs' SCAC. A
scheduling order will be issued by separate order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3scff35m from Leagle.com.
MYLAN NV: Court Denies Bid to Stay Discovery in KPH Healthcare Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff v. MYLAN
N.V., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2065-DDC-TJJ (D. Kansas),
Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas denies the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery.
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery. In their motion, the Defendants jointly ask Magistrate
Judge James to enter a stay of discovery pending the presiding
District Judge's ruling on their motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff
opposes the requested stay.
A stay pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate
where (1) the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of
the ruling, (2) the facts sought through the remaining discovery
would not affect the ruling on the pending motion, or (3) discovery
on all issues in the case would be wasteful and burdensome. A
party seeking a stay of discovery has the burden to clearly show a
compelling reason for the court to issue a stay.
The Defendants argue all three factors apply. Although they
acknowledge the Court declined to stay discovery in the EpiPen MDL,
they assert the Plaintiff is differently situated than the MDL
class plaintiffs and Sanofi for this purpose. The differences
include the Plaintiff's alleged lack of standing to assert claims
because of limits on the assignment of claims to the Plaintiff, as
well as lack of standing to bring claims against Pfizer because the
Plaintiff is not a direct purchaser from Pfizer. The Defendants
also argue each of the Plaintiff's claims also suffers from fatal
defects. The Plaintiff vigorously disagrees with the Defendants'
assessment of the strength of their arguments.
Having reviewed the parties' briefing, Magistrate Judge James does
not agree the Plaintiff's claims are likely to be totally and
finally concluded as a result of the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. Hence, a stay of discovery is not warranted under the
first factor.
The Defendants conclusively assert a stay is warranted under the
second factor because the Court will rule on their motions to
dismiss while considering the Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual
allegations as true, thereby obviating the need for discovery.
This argument does nothing more than repeat the standard of review
for motions to dismiss, the Magistrate Judge finds. The second
factor is not instructive in the case, and the Court needn't
consider it.
Finally, the Defendants contend that commencing discovery before
the parties or the Court know whether the case will go forward
would be wasteful, burdensome, and unduly prejudicial. But they do
not explain how, reducing the argument to nothing more than the
inverse of the first factor. The Defendants add another reason,
suggesting discovery should be stayed while District Judge Crabtree
considers the pending summary judgment in the EpiPen MDL. Having
just distinguished the MDL from the case, though, the Magistrate
Judge is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument. A stay is not
warranted under the third factor.
In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge James concludes that
the Defendants have not clearly shown a compelling reason for the
court to issue a stay of all discovery. She, therefore, denies the
Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/588umsjf from Leagle.com.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Guzman Sues Over Home's Low Price at Auction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfonso Guzman and Benita Guzman, individually and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mr.
Cooper Group Inc., Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Xome Inc., Barbara Lynn
Simmons, Thomas Hugh O'Leary and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00318 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2021),
seeks restitution of all improperly collected charges and interest,
and the imposition of an equitable constructive trust over all such
amounts for the benefit of Plaintiffs under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act including damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, expenses and recoverable costs reasonably incurred
in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this
action.
Mr. Cooper Group Inc., through its operating subsidiary, Nationstar
Mortgage LLC, is a non-bank mortgage servicer in the business of
making, arranging, holding and/or servicing loans. Xome, Barbara
Lynn Simmons and Thomas Hugh O'Leary are licensed real estate
brokers in the business of listing, marketing, auctioning and
selling residential real estate.
On February 10, 2006, Plaintiffs purchased a property for $370,000
and concurrently took out a purchase money mortgage in the amount
of $295,900 which was secured by a deed of trust where the
beneficiary was GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. Plaintiffs made
payments on the loan until they defaulted on said loan. On
September 28, 2018, GreenPoint and Nationstar issued a Notice of
Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust and actively
pursued foreclosure against the property. In an effort to avoid
foreclosure, Plaintiffs sought loss mitigation options and
ultimately elected to sell their home though realtor Magdalena
Guajardo to serve as their real estate agent. Plaintiffs granted
Guajardo the exclusive and irrevocable right to list, market and
sell the property from July 17, 2019 until March 21, 2020.
Guajardo found a buyer for the property in the amount of $280,000.
The purchase contract and all supporting documents for the proposed
sale were delivered to Nationstar along with a required request for
short sale approval. However, Nationstar required Plaintiffs and
Guajardo to participate in a proprietary auction process for the
short sale which would be managed exclusively by Xome.
As required by the auction program, Plaintiffs and Guajardo turned
over the listing and marketing of the roperty along with the
solicitation of buyers and negotiations of the purchase terms to
Xome, under threat of losing the home to foreclosure, and agreed to
a 5% Processing Fee for processing the foreclosure prevention
alternative via a short sale. Neither Guajardo nor Plaintiffs were
offered an option to opt-out of listing the property on Xome's
website which is associated with distressed and damaged real
estate, homes subject to foreclosure trustee sales, real estate
owned by lenders after foreclosure and other negative aspects which
significantly depress real estate values. In effect, Nationstar
turned over and relinquished all loss mitigation processing and
communication to Xome personnel, thereby eliminating Plaintiffs'
single point of contract for the loss mitigation process forcing
Plaintiffs and their real estate agent into the auction program
against their will by refusing to review a valid loss mitigation
request, ignoring all foreclosure prevention alternatives and
threating immediate foreclosure and eviction.
The short sale failed and Nationstar conducted a foreclosure
auction on the Property and an investor purchased the home at the
public auction for $260,000, which is $20,000 less than the offer
procured by Guajardo on the property, notes the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Sullivan, Esq.
Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
2330 Third Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 702-6760
Fax: (619) 702-6761
Email: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
- and -
Derik N. Lewis, Esq.
VANTIS LAW FIRM, APC
120 Vantis, Ste 300
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 216-0935
Facsimile: (949) 296-0935
Email: DLewis@VantisLaw.com
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses Putative Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics 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 granted the
company's motion to dismiss the putative securities class action
suit in U.S. District Court in California.
on August 19, 2019, the company and certain of its executives were
named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in U.S.
District Court in California, which complaint was subsequently
amended on January 24, 2020.
Also, on February 11, 2020, and on February 20, 2020, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in U.S. District Court in
California naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the company's
board of directors, which derivative complaints were consolidated
and subsequently amended on July 1, 2020.
The class action and shareholder derivative complaints assert,
among other things, that for a period between February 15, 2019 and
August 8, 2019, inclusive, our stock was inflated due to an alleged
failure to disclose a reduction in the planned number of
bempegaldesleukin clinical trials and a bempegaldesleukin
manufacturing issue.
On January 26, 2021, the U.S. District Court in California granted
Nektar's motion to dismiss all claims in this securities class
action filing, stating (among other things) that "Defendants' open
disclosure of risks associated with trial delay … suggests that
they acted openly with investors."
Following the motion, the class action plaintiffs have an
opportunity to file in early March a further amended complaint and
the case remains pending.
Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nektar Therapeutics 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 plaintiffs in the
putative securities class action suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, filed a Notice to
Appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
On October 30, 2018, the company and certain of its executives were
named in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (U.S.
District Court in California), which complaint was subsequently
amended on May 15, 2019.
Also, on February 13, 2019, and February 18, 2019, shareholder
derivative complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware naming the CEO, CFO and certain members of the
company's board of directors.
These class action and shareholder derivative actions assert, among
other things, that for a period beginning at least from November
11, 2017 through October 2, 2018, our stock was inflated due to
alleged misrepresentations about the efficacy and safety of
bempegaldesleukin.
On December 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court in California granted
Nektar's motion to dismiss all claims in this securities class
action filing, and denied plaintiffs with the ability to file a
further amended complaint.
Following the motion to dismiss, on January 29, 2021, the class
action plaintiffs filed a Notice to Appeal the district court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nektar Therapeutics develops drug candidates for cancer,
auto-immune disease, and chronic pain in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
NETAPP INC: Court Dismisses California Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, 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 company's motion to dismiss
the purported securities class action suit pending before the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, has been granted.
On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of its
executive officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to the company's financial guidance for fiscal 2020,
as provided on May 22, 2019.
Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided
revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020. The complaint alleges
unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of the
company's shares following the issuance of the revised guidance on
August 1, 2019.
On February 1, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting
the company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended class action
complaint, and provided plaintiff leave to amend the complaint
within 21 days.
On February 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to
file a second amended complaint, but reserved his right to appeal
the order granting the company's motion to dismiss.
NetApp said, "We believe the complaint is without merit and intend
to defend the case vigorously.
NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.
NEXSTAR MEDIA: Discovery Ongoing in Local TV Ads Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nexstar Media 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 discovery is ongoing
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re: Local
TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:18-cv-06785.
Starting in July 2018, a series of plaintiffs filed putative class
action lawsuits against the Defendants and others alleging that
they coordinated their pricing of television advertising, thereby
harming a proposed class of all buyers of television advertising
time from one or more of the Defendants since at least January 1,
2014.
The plaintiff in each lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and money
damages caused by the alleged antitrust violations. On October 9,
2018, these cases were consolidated in a multi-district litigation
in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
captioned In Re: Local TV Advertising Antitrust Litigation, No.
1:18-cv-06785 ("MDL Litigation"). On January 23, 2019, the Court in
the MDL Litigation appointed plaintiffs' lead and liaison counsel.
The MDL Litigation is ongoing.
The Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 3, 2019;
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 5, 2019. Before
the Court ruled on that motion, the Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint on September 9, 2019. This complaint
added additional defendants and allegations.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike on October 8,
2019. The Court denied that motion on November 6, 2020.
The parties are in the discovery phase of litigation. The Court has
not yet set a trial date.
Nexstar and Tribune deny the allegations against them and will
defend their advertising practices.
Nexstar Media Group, Inc. operates as a television broadcasting and
digital media company in the United States. The company focuses on
the acquisition, development, and operation of television stations
and interactive community Websites in small and medium-sized
markets. The company was formerly known as Nexstar Broadcasting
Group, Inc. and changed its name to Nexstar Media Group, Inc. in
January 2017. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Irving, Texas.
NRG ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Suit Against XOOM in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, 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 discovery is ongoing in the
purported class action suit filed against XOOM Energy, LLC in New
York.
XOOM Energy, LLC has been a defendant in two purported class action
lawsuits in Maryland and New York.
The plaintiffs generally claim that they did not receive the
savings they were promised in their natural gas and electricity
bills.
In the Maryland lawsuit, the district court denied plaintiff's' bid
to certify the case as a class action on August 18, 2020. The
matter has been dismissed.
In the New York case, XOOM filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted on September 21, 2018, later entering judgment in
XOOM's favor on September 24, 2018. The plaintiffs in the New York
case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
On July 26, 2019, the Second Circuit reversed the judgment of the
district court and remanded to the district court with instructions
that plaintiffs be permitted to proceed on their proposed amended
complaint.
The New York case is in the discovery phase.
NRG said, "This matter was known and accrued for at the time of the
acquisition."
NRG Energy, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
integrated power company in the United States. The company is
involved in the generation of electricity using fossil fuel and
nuclear sources. The company was founded in 1989 and is
headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey.
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
On August 8, 2019, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 9, 2019, Occidental acquired all of the outstanding
shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, through a transaction in
which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Occidental merged with and into
Anadarko.
On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 (City of
Sterling), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), based on
alleged misstatements in the Securities Act filings, including the
registration statement filed in connection with the Anadarko
Acquisition and Occidental's related issuance of common stock and
debt securities offerings that took place in August 2019.
The lawsuit was filed against Occidental, certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of the debt
securities offerings and seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
plus attorneys' fees and expenses.
Two additional putative class actions were filed in the same court
(together with City of Sterling, the State Cases) and the State
Cases were consolidated into In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
Occidental intends to vigorously defend itself in all respects in
regard to the State Cases.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and
production.
PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company continues to
defend and received requests for indemnification involving its
store-brand infants' and children's acetaminophen products.
The Company has received requests for indemnification and defense
of several consumer fraud claims involving its store brand infants'
and children's acetaminophen products.
In September 2020, the Company was directly named as a defendant in
one suit filed in the Central District of California.
The Company has also received 16 different claims for
indemnification or defense from 10 different retailers for lawsuits
filed in California, Illinois and Pennsylvania, with nationwide
class action allegations.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the children's and infants'
acetaminophen products have identical drug concentration amounts,
yet the infants' product costs more than the children's product and
consumers have been misled into purchasing the more expensive
product.
The Company will aggressively defend the suit in which it is named
and is continuing to assess whether, or to what extent, the Company
may contribute in the lawsuits filed against its retail customers.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Extend Stay in Baton Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company's motion to
extend the stay in Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al., is
pending.
On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, the company's CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO
Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo
Company plc, et. al.).
The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.
This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.
The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. In
2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United
States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February
2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely. The plaintiff
filed a motion to lift the stay then later agreed that the case
should remain stayed through February 2021; the court extended the
stay through February 2021.
In late February 2021 Perrigo filed a motion to extend the stay.
Briefing on the issues is not yet complete, and the issue of
whether to extend the stay remains pending before the court.
Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Clobetasol Price-Fixing Related Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company continues to
defend class action suits alleging "single drug" conspiracies
involving Clobetasol.
Perrigo is a defendant in several cases in the generic pricing
multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court
for Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
This multidistrict litigation, which has many cases that do not
include Perrigo, includes class action and opt-out cases for
federal and state antitrust claims, as well as complaints filed by
certain states alleging violations of state antitrust laws.
On July 14, 2020, the court issued an order designating the
following cases to proceed on a more expedited basis (as a
bellwether) than the other cases in MDL No. 2724: (a) the May 2019
state case alleging an overarching conspiracy involving more than
120 products (which does not name Perrigo a defendant) and (b)
class actions alleging "single drug" conspiracies involving
Clomipramine, Pravastatin, and Clobetasol. Perrigo is a defendant
in the Clobetasol cases but not the others.
On February 9, 2021, the court entered an order provisionally
deciding to remove the May 2019 state case and the pravastatin
class cases from the bellwether proceedings. The clobetasol class
cases remain part of the bellwether.
The order allows additional briefing on these issues and other
cases may be added to the bellwether cases.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Court Tosses Contaminated Ranitidine Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 company recently
obtained dismissals of the master and the consumer class action
complaint, related to Ranitidine.
After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may
potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known
environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its
externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On
October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based
upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made
the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal.
In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac(R) and
other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial
proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re
Zantac(R)/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
This MDL now includes three master complaints. The Company is named
in two of those: the Master Personal Injury Complaint and the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint.
As of January 9, 2021, the Company has been named in ninety-six of
the MDL's consolidated personal injury lawsuits in various federal
courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers
or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of
ingesting products containing ranitidine.
The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products, as well as distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some
instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection
laws.
The Company recently obtained dismissals of the master and the
consumer class action complaint brought against it, but Plaintiffs
were given leave to amend a subset of their original claims.
The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New
Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation
of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common
law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence.
The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products and/or retailers.
Brand name manufactures named in the lawsuit also face claims under
the state's Unfair Practices & False Advertising acts. This action
has been consolidated to the MDL. Likewise, the Company has also
been named in a Complaint brought by the Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, along with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac(R)
and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers.
This action brings claims under the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act against the brand name defendants only, as well as public
nuisance and negligence for the remaining defendants. This action
has been noticed to the MDL.
Some of the Company's retailer customers are seeking indemnity from
the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability
relating to these cases.
Perrigo said, "We intend to defend all of these lawsuits
vigorously."
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc 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 discoveries are ongoing
in the class action suits related to overarching conspiracy
allegations related to the sales of Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole.
The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers for those products
starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013.
The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The
products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole.
The court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are
proceeding in discovery.
The Clobetasol cases have been designated to proceed on a more
expedited schedule than the other cases. That schedule has not yet
been set.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: FLSA Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOCKETT, et al.,
v. PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 19-00358-CV-W-GAF
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Gary A. Fenner entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) conditional and Rule 23 class certification.
The Court said, "Dealers and dual-rate employees cannot be included
in the same collective asserting that the Defendants maintained an
unlawful tip pool due to conflicting interests. Consequently, the
FLSA Unlawful Tip Pool Collective is conditionally certified only
to the extent that it includes persons working exclusively as
dealers and excludes dual-rate employees. Pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the FLSA Gaming License Deduction Collective is
conditionally certified and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law --
Minimum Wage Rule 23 Class (River City), Iowa Wage Payment
Collective Law -- Minimum Wage Rule 23 Class (Ameristar Council
Bluffs), and Iowa Wage Payment Law -- Unlawful Deduction Rule 23
Class (Ameristar Council Bluffs) are certified."
The Defendant Pinnacle is a gaming entertainment company that owns
and operates casinos in, as relevant here: Indiana, Iowa,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.
Pinnacle is the parent company of the other ten defendants, which
are referred to collectively as the "Subsidiary Defendants."
Subsidiary Defendants own and operate casinos in the seven states.
The Pinnacle and at least one of the Subsidiary Defendants
allegedly jointly employed each of the Plaintiffs as a table games
dealer, a non-exempt, hourly position. Approximately 3,000 others
have been similarly employed during the relevant time period.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendants required them and other similarly
situated table games dealers to participate in illegal tip pools
and improperly deducted gaming license fees from their paychecks,
which reduced their compensation below the required minimum wage.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2O2cmLd at no extra charge.[CC]
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Lawsuits Over Line 901 Incident
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. 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 company
continues to defend lawsuits related to a crude oil release in May
2015 from its Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa
Barbara County, California.
In May 2015, the company experienced a crude oil release from its
Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific
Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following
the release, the company shut down the pipeline and initiated its
emergency response plan.
A Unified Command, which included the United States Coast Guard,
the EPA, the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife
("CDFW"), the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response
and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was
established for the response effort.
Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted
shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified
Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved.
The company's estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on
relevant facts, data and information, and as set forth in the
Consent Decree, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, the
company estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean.
Shortly following the Line 901 incident, the company established a
claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the
release to contact the company to discuss their damage claims. The
company received a number of claims through the claims line and the
company have processed those claims and made payments as
appropriate.
Nine class action lawsuits were filed against the company; however,
after various claims were either dismissed or consolidated, two
proceedings remain pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
In the first proceeding, the plaintiffs claim two different classes
of claimants were damaged by the release: (i) commercial fishermen
who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters
off the coast of Southern California or persons or businesses who
resold commercial seafood caught in those areas; and (ii) owners
and lessees of residential beachfront properties, or properties
with a private easement to a beach, where plaintiffs claim oil from
the spill washed up.
The company is vigorously defending against those claims.
A September 2020 trial date initially set by the Court has been
postponed indefinitely due to COVID-19 related trial suspensions.
In the second proceeding, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that Plains' right-of-way agreements would not allow
Plains to lay a new pipeline to replace Line 901 and/or the
non-operating segment of Line 903 without paying additional
compensation.
No trial date has been set in that action.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., through its subsidiaries,
engages in the transportation, storage, terminaling, and marketing
of crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas in the
United States and Canada. The company operates in three segments:
Transportation, Facilities, and Supply and Logistics. The company
was founded in 1998 and is based in Houston, Texas.
PLAYTIKA HOLDING: Wilson Settlement Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Playtika Holding Corp. 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 Sean
Wilson, et al. v. Playtika LTD, Playtika Holding Corp. and Caesars
Interactive Entertainment, Inc., granted final approval of the
settlement agreement.
In April 2018, a putative class action lawsuit, Sean Wilson, et al.
v. Playtika LTD, Playtika Holding Corp. and Caesars Interactive
Entertainment, Inc. was filed against the Company in federal
district court that is directed against certain of its social
casino games, including Caesars Slots, Slotomania, House of Fun and
Vegas Downtown Slots.
The plaintiff alleged three causes of action, including that the
Company's social casino games violate Washington State gambling
laws, violate Washington State consumer protection laws and a claim
of unjust enrichment.
The plaintiff sought certification of a class action, monetary
damages and injunctive relief. In August 2020, the Company entered
into a settlement agreement, which remains contingent on final
court approval, to settle the Sean Wilson litigation.
Under the terms of the settlement, which will take effect only
after final court approval of the proposed class settlement, the
Company and CIE will pay a combined total of $38.0 million into a
settlement fund and all members of the settlement class who do not
exclude themselves will release all claims relating to the subject
matter of the lawsuit.
In August 2020, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement, and in February 2021 the court granted final
approval of the settlement agreement.
For the year ended December 31, 2020, the Company recorded the
amount of settlement in general and administrative expenses in the
consolidated statement of comprehensive income.
Playtika Holding Corp. is one of the world's leading developers of
mobile games creating fun, innovative experiences that entertain
and engage its users. The company had built best-in-class live game
operations services and a proprietary technology platform to
support its portfolio of games which enable the company to drive
strong user engagement and monetization. The company is based in
Herzliya Pituarch, Israel.
PLURALSIGHT INC: Bid to Dismiss Utah Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Pluralsight, 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 class action suit transferred in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, is pending.
In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by a stockholder
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's
officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking
unspecified damages.
In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah and in March 2020, a lead plaintiff
was appointed. An amended complaint was filed in June 2020.
The amended complaint names the company as defendants, along with
certain of the Company's officers, members of the Board of
Directors, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, the lead underwriters from the Company's March 2019 common
stock offering.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
August 14, 2020. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed. The
Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
The Company believes this suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate a range of
loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final
decision.
Pluralsight said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur, it is
possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results
of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable."
Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and
courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their
programming and IT-related skill sets. Pluralsights services
customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington,
Utah.
PRECIGEN INC: Continues to Defend Putative Class Suits in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Precigen, 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 company continues to defend
a purported shareholder class action suits entitled, Abadilla v.
Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, Chen v. Precigen, Inc.
F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, and Seppen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A
Intrexon Corp., et al.
In October 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Division
of Enforcement of the SEC informing the Company of a non-public,
fact-finding investigation concerning the Company's disclosures
regarding its methane bioconversion platform.
The Company produced documents to, and met with, the staff of the
SEC and voluntarily cooperated with the SEC investigation. In
September 2020, the Company reached a final settlement with the SEC
regarding the matter.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company, without admitting
or denying the allegations of the SEC, consented to the entry of an
administrative order requiring that the Company: (i) cease and
desist from committing or causing any violations and future
violations under Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rules 13a-11 and 12b-20 promulgated
thereunder; and (ii) pay a $2,500 civil money penalty to the SEC.
In October 2020, three purported shareholder class action lawsuits,
captioned Abadilla v. Precigen, Inc., F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al,
Chen v. Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, and Seppen v.
Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon Corp., et al, were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.
The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers. The plaintiffs' claims track the
allegations in the SEC's administrative order. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, interest, and an award of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and have filed motions to consolidate
these claims.
In December 2020, a derivative shareholder action, captioned Edward
D. Wright, derivatively on behalf of Precigen, Inc. F/K/A Intrexon
Corp. v. Alvarez et al, was filed in the Circuit Court for Fairfax
County in Virginia on behalf of Precigen, Inc.
The complaint names as defendants current directors and certain
officers. The plaintiff's claims track the allegations in the SEC's
administrative order described above.
The plaintiff seeks damages, forfeiture of benefits received by
defendants, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however,
there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits.
Precigen, Inc. is a dedicated discovery and clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company advancing the next generation of gene and
cell therapies with the overall goal of improving outcomes for
patients with significant unmet medical needs. The company is based
in Germantown, Maryland.
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Hsu Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology,
Inc.
On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (Case No.
8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).
On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a
consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our
securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.
A trial on the claims relating to four statements alleged to have
been false or misleading was held from January 15 to January 29,
2019. At trial, the jury found that three of the four challenged
statements were not false or misleading, and thus found in the
defendants' favor on those claims.
The jury found liability as to one statement and awarded a maximum
of $4.50 per share in damages, which represents approximately 5% of
the total claimed damages of $87.20 per share. On September 9,
2019, the Court entered an order specifying the rate of prejudgment
interest to be awarded on any valid claims at the 52-week Treasury
Bill rate.
On September 8, 2020, the claims administrator submitted its final
claims report to the Court and, on October 9, 2020, the claims
administrator submitted its supplemental claims report. The claims
report reflects approximately $50.5 million in claimed damages. The
company disagrees with the amount of claimed damages.
On November 27, 2020, the Court issued an order setting out the
process for challenging claims. Pursuant to that order, defendants
must decide by March 29, 2021 which claims they intend to
challenge, and for which claims we need more information to
determine whether or not we will challenge those claims.
Puma said, "Based on a review of specific claims and subject to the
outcome of the claims challenge process, we believe that total
claimed damages after all claims challenges have been adjudicated
could range from $24.8 million to $51.4 million. The total amount
of aggregate class-wide damages still remains uncertain and will be
ascertained only after the claims challenge process and the
exhaustion of any appeals. It is reasonably possible that the final
total damages awarded will differ from these estimates; however,
the amount is not estimable at this time. A final judgment has not
been entered."
Puma Biotechnology, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of products to enhance cancer
care in the United States. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. was founded in
2010 and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
QUANTA SERVICES: TNS Liability in Benton Suit Pegged at $9.5MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, 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 company expects that
Telecom Network Specialists (TNS) will be liable for approximately
$9.5 million representing damages and interest in the class action
suit initiated by Lorenzo Benton.
In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against TNS, a
former subsidiary of Quanta.
Quanta retained liability associated with this matter pursuant to
the terms of Quanta's sale of TNS in December 2012. Benton
represents a class of workers that includes all persons who worked
on certain TNS projects, including individuals that TNS retained
through numerous staffing agencies.
The plaintiff class in this matter is seeking damages for unpaid
wages, penalties associated with the failure to provide meal and
rest periods and overtime wages, interest and attorneys' fees. In
January 2017, the trial court granted a summary judgment motion
filed by the plaintiff class and found that TNS was a joint
employer of the class members and that it failed to provide
adequate meal and rest breaks and failed to pay overtime wages.
During 2019 and 2020, the parties filed additional summary judgment
and other motions and a bench trial on liability and damages was
held. Liability and damages for significantly all claims have been
determined by the trial court, subject to issuance of a final
order, with the amount of liability for TNS, including interest
through the date of the trial court's orders, expected to be
approximately $9.5 million.
This amount includes damages and interest, but does not include
attorneys' fees or costs, which are yet to be determined.
Quanta believes the court's decisions on liability and damages are
not supported by controlling law and continues to contest its
liability and the damage calculation asserted by the plaintiff
class in this matter.
Quanta Services, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States, Canada, Australia, Latin America, and
internationally. The company serves electric power, energy, and
communications companies, as well as commercial, industrial, and
governmental entities. Quanta Services, Inc. was founded in 1997
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
READY WIRE: FLSA Conditional Certification of Employee Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BEAVER, et al., On
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. READY
WIRE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS L.L.C., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-05109-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d)
and 83(b), and Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and jointly agree to conditionally certify the present FLSA
case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
and order that notice be given to the putative class members
identified as:
"All present and former electrician employees and employees with
similar job titles and/or duties (including electrician helpers,
apprentices, journeymen, licensed electricians, and laborers) of
Ready Wire Electrical Contractors L.L.C. during the period of three
years preceding the commencement of this action [September 29,
2017] to the present who were paid at a day rate, piece rate, unit
rate, flat rate, weekly rate, or similar form of compensation that
did not account for the payment of overtime hours at time and one
half."
Ready Wire is an electrical contractor.
A copy of the Parties joint motion dated March 16, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Pc2hvQ at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Gary A. Reeve, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GARY A. REEVE
5354 Cemetery Road
Hilliard, Ohio, 43026
Telephone: (614) 808 1881
Facsimile: (614) 334 5107
E-mail: greeve@reevelaw.net
REALREAL INC: Bid to Nix Consolidated Suit in Marin County Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, 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 motion to dismiss the
consolidated purported class action suit filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California in the County of San Mateo, is
pending.
On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.
Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts. The San Mateo case was
voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin County Superior Court and
consolidated with the cases there.
On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the San Francisco
Superior Court case have filed a request for dismissal.
Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019. On February 12, 2020, a lead
plaintiff was appointed in the federal action and an Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31, 2020. Defendants'
filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the state court action on
March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the proceedings in favor
of the federal action on May 1, 2020.
On August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the
state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and motion
to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action. A motion
to dismiss the federal court action was filed on May 15, 2020,
which motion remains pending.
The state and federal complaints each allege claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class of
shareholders who acquired the Company's stock pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement for the Company's IPO. The
federal complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who
purchased the Company's stock from June 27, 2019 through November
20, 2019.
The complaints each allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
statements in the registration statement regarding certain of the
Company's key financial and operating metrics, and related to the
Company's authentication processes.
The complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 10, 2020 and December 7, 2020, purported shareholders
filed putative derivative actions in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The derivative complaints
allege factual allegations largely tracking the above-referenced
lawsuits.
The two derivative cases have been consolidated and the
consolidated case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss in the federal securities case.
RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the litigation described above, the cases are at a very
early stage and there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense. For this same reason, the Company cannot
currently estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may
experience in connection with this litigation."
The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Patel Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reata Pharmaceuticals, 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 company continues
to defend a securities class action suit initiated by Toshif
Patel.
On October 15, 2020, Toshif Patel filed a complaint for alleged
violation of federal securities laws against the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action
on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company’s common
stock between October 15, 2019 and August 7, 2020.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements regarding the sufficiency of its
MOXIe Part 2 study results to support a single study marketing
approval of omaveloxolone for the treatment of Friedreich's ataxia
(FA) in the United States.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of this
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages and interest, costs, and expenses, including counsel fees
and expert fees.
The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaint are without merit and intends to defend the case
vigorously.
The Company cannot predict at this point the length of time that
this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may
arise therefrom.
Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical
company. The Company focuses on identifying, developing, and
commercializing product candidates that modulate the activity of
key regulatory proteins involved in the biology of mitochondrial
function, oxidative stress, and inflammation to address the unmet
medical needs of patients with various life-threatening diseases.
The company is based in Plano, Texas.
RESTORE WEST: Summers Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Adam Summers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Restore West Delray, LLC doing
business as: Restore Hyper Wellness, a Florida limited liability
company, Case No. CACE-21-003269 was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on March 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-60662-WPD to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Restore Hyper Wellness --
https://restore.com/locations/delray-beach-fl/ -- in Delray Beach
offers Cryotherapy, IV Drip Therapy, Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy,
Infrared Saunas, Compression Therapy, and PBM therapy.[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@sflinjuryattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kerry Ann Cummings, Esq.
ELIZABETH R. WELLBORN, P.A.
350 Jim Moran Blvd #100
Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
Phone: (954) 354-3544
Fax: (354) 354-3545
- and -
Joseph Andrew Apatov, Esq.
MCGLINCHET STAFFORD, PLLC
1 E. Broward Blvd, Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 356-2501
Fax: (954) 252-3808
Email: japatov@mcglinchey.com
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Miller Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications 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 class action initiated by Ron Miller is still pending.
On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a Class Action Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and three of its former officers, claiming to represent a
class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the period from
January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.
Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the Company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.
After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.
On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Miller Complaint and, on October 4,
2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss.
The Defendants filed a reply to such opposition on November 1,
2019. There was an oral argument on the motion to dismiss on
February 12, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.
ROSANN LANDSCAPE: Final Judgment Entered in Contreras Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York enters final judgment the case, JOSE BARRAGAN
CONTRERAS, JUAN ALONZO ORELLANA, AND JORGE YEPEZ, Individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated as Class
Representatives, Plaintiff v. ROSANN LANDSCAPE CORP., A.F.A.
MANAGEMENT CORP., AND ANA MARIA BIRLESCU, Defendants, Case No.
7:17-CV-6453-CS (S.D.N.Y.).
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on
Nov. 18, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement and Release between the Parties in the
Litigation and Non-Party the Frank Auricchio Revocable Living
Trust, and approved the form of the Notice of Class Action
Settlement, and authorized the mailing of Class Notices to the
Class Members.
On March 19, 2021, the Court entered its Order Granting the
Parties' Motion for Final Approval of the Class Settlement and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Service Awards, Attorneys'
Fees, and Costs, granting final approval to the settlement.
In the Final Approval Order, the Court found that the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Fair Labor Standards Act, and all
other applicable law. It has found that the content of the Class
Notices sent to Class Members, and the efforts made to apprise the
Class of the proposed settlement fairly and adequately informed the
Class Members of the terms of the settlement, was consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. In the Final
Approval Order, the Court approved the Settlement Administrator to
make payments and distributions and take all measures described in
the Agreement as called for in the Final Approval Order.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Seibel enters final judgment in
the case incorporating the terms of the Agreement and approving the
Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and dismisses the case
with prejudice, in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and
the Final Approval Order.
The Class Members received due and adequate Notice under Rule
23(c)(2) and the Court finds them, as well as Defendants Rosann
Landscape Corp., A.F.A. Management Corp., and Ana Maria Birlescu,
and the Frank Auricchio Revocable Living Trust, to be bound by the
Final Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 19, 2021 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/h44dau79 from Leagle.com.
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Indiana Public Retirement System Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
headed by Indiana Public Retirement System.
On October 7, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint against the company, and three officers, Richard Fain,
Jason Liberty and Michael Bayley, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
misrepresentations relating to COVID-19 in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified
exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from February 4, 2020 through March 17, 2020.
As previously disclosed, on October 27, 2020, a second complaint
was filed by another shareholder against the company and these same
officers in the Court alleging the same misrepresentations relating
to COVID-19.
As is the case with the first action, the second action seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities from February 4,
2020 through March 17, 2020.
On December 23, 2020, these cases were consolidated with a new lead
plaintiff, Indiana Public Retirement System.
Royal Caribbean said, "We cannot predict the duration or outcome of
this lawsuit at this time, although management believes the claims
are without merit. Depending on how this case progresses, it could
be costly to defend and could divert the attention of management
and other resources from operations. Accordingly, even if
ultimately resolved in our favor, this action could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and liquidity. On February 25, 2021, the lead plaintiff
filed with the Court a voluntary dismissal of the action without
prejudice."
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. operates as a global cruise company
operating a fleet of vessels in the cruise vacation industries. The
Company operates through brands which primarily serve the
contemporary, premium, and deluxe segments of the cruise vacation
industry which also includes the budget and luxury segments. The
company is based in Miami, Florida.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Initial OK of Class Action Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDIDO ZAYAS, RUBEN SOTO,
ALFREDO RUIZ, JOSE POOT, MILTON LECLAIRE, NIGEL HENRY, RALPH
DOMINGUEZ, MATTHEW BRUGMAN, MICHAEL BROWN, KISHAWN NORBERT, MARK
EDWARD HILL, and JAMES CLARK, on behalf of themselves individually
and others similarly situated, as a class and Subclass, v. SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSEY; UNDER SHERIFF
MATHEW FREEAN; CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF PAUL MIYAMOTO; CAPTAIN JASON
JACKSON, SARGEANT DOLLY and John & Jane DOEs, Nos. 1-50, Case No.
3:18-cv-06155-JCS (N.D. Calif.), Parties will move the Court for an
order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement
and directing notice to the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)
(1);
2. appointing Settlement Class Counsel and Class Representatives
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3);
3. approving the Settlement Claims Administrator; and
4. scheduling a final approval hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2).
Distribution of the settlement funds will be made in two rounds.
Class Members who do not opt out shall each receive as follows as
part of the first-round distribution:
-- Sub-Class A members are entitled to $510 compensation per
flooding event minus 16 deductions for: attorneys' fees and
costs, including costs for administering the settlement.
-- Sub-Class B members will each receive $130 compensation per
day of direct sewage impact minus deductions for: fees and
costs including costs for administering the settlement. About
50% of the total attorneys' fees and costs and the claims
administrator costs will be allocated to Sub-Class B.
-- Each Sub-Class C member shall be entitled to receive the
compensation equal to $5.15 per each members' incidents of
indirect sewage impact. Sub-Class C members are not subject to
deductions for fees and costs, including costs for
administering the settlement.
For a period of 18 months, from January 3, 2017 through September
15, 2018, the sewage system at County Jail 4 regularly backed up,
causing sewage to overflow in the cells of Housing Block A, B and
C. At times the overflow was so severe that the sewage would flow
into the hallway, and into adjacent cells. When the sewage
overflowed, the water to the entire Housing Block had to be turned
off, and the maintenance staff summoned. On weekends, it often
required several hours before maintenance staff could be summoned
to repair the issue, and during this entire period of time, inmates
had no water to drink, and could not use the toilet.
A copy of the Parties joint motion to certify class dated March 16,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rxE2VJ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yolanda Huang, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG
528 Grand Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Telephone: (510) 329-2140
Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
Dennis J. Herrera, Esq.
Meredith B. Osborn, Esq.
Kaitlyn Murphy, Esq.
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3867
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-mail: kaitlyn.murphy@sfcityatty.org
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Gentry Homes Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co. 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 Gentry Homes,
Ltd.
Gentry Homes, Ltd. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., et al., Case
No. 17-cv-00566, was filed in a federal district court in Hawaii
against Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. and the Company on November
20, 2017.
The Gentry case is a product of a previous state court class
action, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et al., Civil No.
11-1-1522-07, which is now closed.
The Nishimura case concerned alleged corrosion of the Company's
galvanized "hurricane straps" and mudsill anchor products used in a
residential project in Ewa by Gentry, Honolulu, Hawaii. In the
Nishimura case, the plaintiff homeowners and the developer, Gentry
Homes, Ltd., arbitrated their dispute and agreed on a settlement in
the amount of approximately $90 million.
In the subsequent Gentry case, Gentry alleges breach of warranty
and negligent misrepresentation by the Company related to its
"hurricane strap" and mudsill anchor products, and demands general,
special, and consequential damages from the Company in an amount to
be proven at trial. Gentry also seeks pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.
The Company admits no liability and will vigorously defend the
claims brought against it. At this time, the Company cannot
reasonably ascertain the likelihood that it will be found
responsible for substantial damages to Gentry.
Simpson said, "Based on the facts currently known, and subject to
future events and circumstances, the Company believes that all or
part of the claims brought against it in the Gentry case may be
covered by its insurance policies."
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., through its subsidiaries, designs,
engineers, manufactures, and sells building construction products.
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. was founded in 1956 and is
headquartered in Pleasanton, California.
STERLING COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sterling College. The
case is styled as Lawrence Young, On Behalf of Himself and All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Sterling College, Case No.
1:21-cv-02649 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sterling College -- https://www.sterling.edu/ -- is a private
evangelical Christian liberal arts college in Sterling,
Kansas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SWITCH INC: State Court Securities Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Switch, 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 court in the consolidated
state court securities action granted the company's motion to
dismiss.
Four substantially similar putative class action complaints,
captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018);
Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v.
Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch,
Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial
District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single
case.
Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint
captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and subsequently
transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August
2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff.
These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and
former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch,
Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities
law violations in connection with the IPO.
These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch,
Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek
unspecified damages and other relief.
With respect to the Federal Court Securities Action, in July 2019,
the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in part,
which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff's case. In December 2019,
Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and in
July 2020, the federal court entered a judgment in favor of Switch,
Inc.
With respect to the State Court Securities Action, in February
2021, the court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to dismiss.
Switch, Inc. believes that the remaining lawsuit is without merit
and intends to continue to vigorously defend against it.
Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides
colocation space and related services primarily to technology and
digital media companies in the United States. It develops and
operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was
founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Turizo TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Blake Turizo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Synchrony Financial, Case No.
CGC-21-589695 was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on March 26, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:21-cv-60678-XXXX to
the proceeding.
A Motion to Remand to State Court was filed by Blake Turizo on
March 30, 2021.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Synchrony Financial --https://www.synchrony.com/ -- is a consumer
financial services company headquartered in Stamford,
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian C. Frontino, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
200 S. Biscayne Blvd., 31st Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 358-9900
Fax: (305) 789-9302
Email: bfrontino@stroock.com
TELADOC HEALTH: Livongo Merger Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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 all of the Livongo
Health, Inc. merger-related litigations were voluntarily
dismissed.
On August 5, 2020, Teladoc Health announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement with Livongo Health, Inc., which
represents a transformational opportunity to improve the delivery,
access and experience of healthcare for consumers around the world.
The merger closed on October 30, 2020.
Several purported class action complaints were filed in connection
with the merger between Livongo and the Company, including (1) Kent
v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on September 10, 2020 in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, (2)
Raheja v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on September 11, 2020
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, (3) Hart v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on
September 14, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, (4) Kubus v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al.,
filed on September 16, 2020 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, (5) Jones v. Livongo Health,
Inc., et al., filed on September 17, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, (6) Anthony v.
Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on September 18, 2020 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
(7) Banner v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on September 29,
2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, (8) Vea v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on
October 2, 2020 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, (9) Ormesher v. Livongo Health,
Inc., et al., filed on October 13, 2020 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and (10)
O'Connor v. Livongo Health, Inc., et al., filed on October 16, 2020
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (collectively, the Merger Litigations).
The Merger Litigations generally named as defendants Livongo and
the members of its board of directors, and certain of the
complaints also asserted claims against the Company and Tempranillo
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company that was
merged with and into Livongo.
The Merger Litigations generally allege that the registration
statement and/or the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in
connection with the merger between Livongo and the Company omitted
material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, rendering the statements false
and misleading.
Certain of the complaints also alleged that certain defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger. The
Merger Litigations sought, among other things, an order enjoining
the merger; rescinding the merger, to the extent it closes, and
recovering damages; and awarding costs, including attorneys' fees
and expenses.
The Company believes that the claims asserted were wholly without
merit, and as of November 19, 2020, all of the Merger Litigations
were voluntarily dismissed.
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
TELADOC HEALTH: Reiner Securities Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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 company continues to
defend a purported securities class action suit entitled, Reiner v.
Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.
On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and a
former officer. The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock during the
period March 3, 2016 through December 5, 2018. The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous executive
officers. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
On November 30, 2020, the SDNY granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, but granted the plaintiff the opportunity to
refile, which refiling was made on December 30, 2020.
Teladoc said, "The Company believes that the claims against the
Company and its officers continue to be without merit, and the
Company and its named officers intend to defend the Company
vigorously, including filing a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint."
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, 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 Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.
On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or
about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients'
prior express invitation or permission.
The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.
The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential
loss is currently deemed to be immaterial.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Australian Law Firm's Class Suits Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, 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 class action suits
initiated by an Australian law firm are ongoing.
In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi, hire-car, and limousine industries.
The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure
the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly
breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against
transport legislation by UberX Drivers in Australia.
The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.
In March, April and October 2020, the same Australian law firm
filed four additional class action lawsuits alleging the same
claim.
Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously
defend against the lawsuit."
Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
UNITED STATES: Rodriguez de Leon Files Suit v. SSA Commissioner
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Commissioner of
Social Security. The case is styled as Maria E. Rodriguez de Leon,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Commissioner of Social Security Andrew Saul, in his official
capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-21178-CMA (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is state as Other Statutes: Administrative
Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision for Social
Security Benefits.
Andrew Saul was sworn in as Commissioner of Social Security on June
17, 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather Freeman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF HEATHER FREEMAN, PLLC
PO Box 13962
Tallahassee, FL 32308
Phone: (850) 391-5336
Fax: (800) 882-4212
Email: hf@hfreemanlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Noticing Social Security US Attorney
Email: usafls-socialsec@usdoj.gov
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 company continues to
defend against a cost of insurance litigation entitled, Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (D.
Colo. Case No. 1:18-cv-01897), in Colorado.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company also includes Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015.
Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 company continues to
defend against a cost of insurance litigation filed by Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA.
Cost of insurance litigation includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of
Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018), a putative
class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to
rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience
to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality
experience improved, the policy language required the Company to
decrease the cost of insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with its
policyholders, and seeks class certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, 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 cost of insurance
litigation styled, Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (D. Colo. Case
No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is still ongoing.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Barnes v.
Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), a putative class action in
which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
WALMART INC: Staff Seek Pay for Time Spent for COVID-19 Screening
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amado Haro and Rochelle Ortega, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Walmart, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-at-00147 (E.D. Cal., February 23, 2021), seeks redress for
failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, statutory
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment,
non-reimbursement of business-related expenses, failure to maintain
time-keeping records, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Wage
Orders.
Walmart has required employees to undergo COVID-19 tests every two
weeks. As this procedure entails time, Haro and Ortega, both
Walmart employees, contend that this is compensable and should be
considered as overtime if done before their shift as employees are
required to arrive at Walmart at least 30 minutes prior to the
start of their scheduled shift so that they can complete the
COVID-19 screening with enough time to clock in by the start of
their scheduled shift. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
800 Sawyer St.
Houston, TX 77007
Tel: (713) 999-5228
Fax: (713) 999-1187
Email: matt@parmet.law
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
David W. Hodges, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
WINRED TECHNICAL: Whittaker TCPA Suit Stayed Pending Facebook Order
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Brenda Whittaker, Plaintiff v. WinRed Technical
Services LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-20-08150-PCT-JJT (D.
Ariz.), Judge John J. Tuchi of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona grants in part and denies in part Defendant
National Republican Senatorial Committee's Motion to Dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6) or to Stay Proceedings.
On June 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint bringing a
putative class action against NRSC under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The
Plaintiff states that in April 2020, she received seven unsolicited
text messages from NRSC. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges
that this communication violated the TCPA because NRSC
intentionally sent the text messages using an automatic telephone
dialing system ("ATDS") without her consent.
NRSC now moves to dismiss the TCPA cause of action for failure to
state a claim, and in the alternative, requests that the Court
stays the case pending the Supreme Court's review of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Duguid v. Facebook, Inc., 926
F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2019).
NRSC first argues that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim
because a provision of the TCPA was unconstitutional during the
time she alleges to have received text messages from NRSC. The
Plaintiff, however, argues that the invalidation of the provision
to the Act does not render the entire TCPA unconstitutional, and
therefore, NRSC is still liable for its actions. As an alternative
to its request for dismissal, NRSC asks the Court to stay the case
pending the Supreme Court's decision in Facebook and its
interpretation of an ATDS. In response, the Plaintiff contends it
is unnecessary and inefficient to stay the case and delay discovery
because the outcome of Facebook is not dispositive of her claim.
Judge Tuchi agrees with the vast majority of district courts that
have denied motions to dismiss grounded in issues similar to the
one at hand. One district court has even departed from its earlier
decision to grant a motion to dismiss on the issue. Although NRSC
supports its Motion with two out-of-circuit decisions that have
granted dismissal, the Judge finds those holdings not persuasive.
He therefore denies NRSC's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.
Alternatively, NRSC seeks to stay the case pending the Supreme
Court's decision in Facebook. Judge Tuchi holds that the Court has
the inherent authority to manage its cases to ensure their orderly
and efficient disposition. This includes discretion to stay a case
if it serves the interest of judicial economy and does not
substantially prejudice a party. The Plaintiff contests NRSC's
request for a stay of the proceedings; however, because the
Facebook decision is Amendment, and seven Justices opined that the
amendment should be severed from the remainder of the statute.
Likely imminent, the Judge does not find that a brief stay will
substantially prejudice the Plaintiff.
Judge Tuchi, therefore, grants in part and denies in part NRSC's
Motion. He declines to dismiss the case but grants the Defendant's
request to stay these proceedings pending the Supreme Court's
resolution of Facebook. The parties will file a joint Notice of
Decision within 10 days of publication of the Supreme Court's
decision in Facebook.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/63cn4bmz from Leagle.com.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***