/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210406.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 6, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 63
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Christian Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Golden Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Granat Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: King Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: McClain Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: McConville Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: McGrath Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Sneddon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Wilcoxson Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
ADP INC: Faces Kares Management Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
AGNESIAN HEALTHCARE: Jorgensen-Ziebert Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
ALKERMES PUBLIC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Trzeciak Sues Over Unfair Insurance Rate Policy
AMAZON.COM INC: Independent Bookstore Sues Over Unfair Practices
AMNEAL PHARMA: Impax Bid for Rehearing with the 9th Cir. Pending
AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Underway
AMTEL LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Hafley Suit Alleges
APPLE INC: Court Gives OK to $18M Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: Judge Approves New Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro
ARCHER DANIELS: Big Agbiz's Sues Over 'Price-Fixing' Settlements
ARNDT ELECTRONICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATHENEX INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
BANCO SANTANDER: Putative Antitrust Class Suit in New York Tossed
BARKING LABS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAYER AG: Roundup Class Action Settlement Face Opposition
BAYER CORP: Seresto Collars Cause Harm to Pets, Maiorino Suit Says
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Schneider Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California
BEANFIELDS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Henry Says
BEECH-NUT: Baby Food Products Contain Contaminants, Suit Says
BEECH-NUT: Henry Sues Over Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
BELLUS HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
BLUEBIRD BIO: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 13 Deadline
BP PLC: $700,000 Unclaimed From 2010 Oil Spill Settlement Funds
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Managers' Initiated Class Action Underway
CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms $30MM Damages in Class Action Suit
CANADA: TCN Among Plaintiffs in Clean Water Class Action Lawsuit
CANOO INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Business Tort Suit in Calif. State Court
CHINA AGRITECH: Hails Supreme Court's Class Action Ruling
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline
CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Curtis Markson Putative Class Suit Ongoing
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Tabizon Class Action vs Subsidiary Underway
CURO GROUP: Yellowdog Partners Putative Class Suit Dismissed
CYTODYN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
CYTODYN INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
DORDT UNIVERSITY: Two Students Part of Anti-Discrimination Suit
DOSKOCIL MANUFACTURING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Agreement Reached in Suit v. Unit
EBIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EBIX INC: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
EBIX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS LTD: Klein Hits Share Drop from False Disclosures
EHANG HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
EM COSMETICS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
EMBARK VETERINARY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVENT ENTERTAINMENT: Corwin Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
EVENT ENTERTAINMENT: Hit With Another Lawsuit Over Ticket Refunds
FARM PROJECT: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FATECH INTERNATIONAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FORT INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Calcano Alleges
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Set for April
FUBOTV INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
GEICO CASUALTY: Profits From Covid 19 Pandemic, Day Suit Claims
GOOGLE LLC: Ridenti Consumer Suit Moved From D. Mass. to N.D. Cal.
GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Underway
HARDWARE WORLD: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD FIRE: RV AgateSeeks Payment for COVID-19 Business Losses
HEXO CORP: New York Securities Class Action Dismissed
HRG GROUP: Bernstein Litowitz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
INDIVEST INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Rosales Claims
INFINITE PRODUCT: CBD Consumer Class Action Pending in California
INFINITY Q: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of April 27 Deadline
ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
JUUL LABS: Richey Files Suit in N.D. California
KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 2 Deadline
KENCKO FOODS: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
KROGER CO: Kinman Hits Artificial Smoke Flavor in Gouda Cheese
LEGALZOOM.COM: Alhadeff Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Customers Still Waiting for Cash Settlement
MARATHON OIL: Robert Balks at Improper Gas Royalty Payments
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Parish Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Tennessee
MERCEDES-BENZ: Response Filed in Sunroof Class Action Suit
MIDDLE TENNESSEE: Hawkins Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
MINNESOTA: ACLU's COVID Class Action Lawsuit Can Move Forward
MOBILITYWARE LLC: Komins Suit Removed to C.D. California
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Amo Suit Over Polaris Proposed Merger Deal
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
NURTURE INC: Faces Westin Suit in Southern District of New York
OCULUS SYSTEMS: Dut Sues Over Security Staff's Unpaid Wages
OLD NAVY: Holden Suit Removed from State Court to M.D. Florida
ONTRAK INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Suit Pending
PLUG POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
POST CEREAL: Faces Suit Over How Healthy the Cereal Really Is
POSTAL FLEET SERVICES: Garner Slams Workplace Discrimination
PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
PUBLIC HEALTH: Govens FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
QUANTUM GLOBAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
RALLYE MOTORS: Faces Stile Suit Over Deceptive & Inaccurate Docs
RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline
REPRO MED SYSTEMS: Faces Humenik Suit Over Drop in Share Price
REPRO MED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
REPRO MED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
RING LLC: Foster Sues Over Defective Remote-Access Cameras
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kadin Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
ROOT INC: Faces Kitzler Suit Over Drop in Share Price
ROOT INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Anaya Suit Removed to C.D. California
SNOW TEETH: Blasts Suit Over Whitening Products for Extortion
SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 1 Deadline
SOS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SOS LIMITED: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SOS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Kubicek Sues Over Sale to Great Outdoors
STASHER INC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STATE FARM: Toms Sues Over Improper Charging of Insurance Premiums
STMM INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TBD PIZZA: Winsor FLSA Suit Transferred From D.N.H. to D. Mass.
TIKTOK INC: Settlement Shows Class Action Bar is "Broken"
TOWER RESEARCH: Lowey Discloses Notice of Proposed Settlement
TRANSUNION: Court Considers Standing, Typicality for No-Injury Suit
TYSON FOODS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitrator Orders to Pay Blind Rider Treatment
UNITED STATES: LGBTQ+ Students File Discrimination Lawsuit
UNITI GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
VELODYNE LIDAR: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VIATRIS INC: Ranitidine End-Payor Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending
VILLAGE OF NEWBURGH: Illegally Issued Tickets, Sekki Suit Alleges
VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
WALMART INC: Litigation Provides Guidance on Data Breach Lawsuit
WANDERING BEAR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WASTE PRO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Trash Pickup
WORKHORSE GROUP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 7 Deadline
WORKHORSE GROUP: Investors File Class Action in California
WORKHORSE GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XL FLEET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 2 Deadline
XL FLEET: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
XPO LOGISTICS: District of Connecticut Dismisses Putative Class
[*] Cameron Goodwin Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Actions
[*] Railways in London Sued Over Unfair Ticket Prices
*********
3M COMPANY: Christian Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL LEE CHRISTIAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00705-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Christian case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Golden Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL GOLDEN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:21-cv-00702-RMG (D.S.C., March 10, 2021) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Golden case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Granat Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------------
Perry L. Granat Sr. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00700-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Granat case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Jones Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER LEE JONES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00703-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Jones case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: King Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM MICHAEL KING v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00699-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The King case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: McClain Suit Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARLIN JIM MCCLAIN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00701-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The McClain case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: McConville Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT McCONVILLE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00690-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The McConville case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: McGrath Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES FRANCIS MCGRATH v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00706-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The McGrath case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Sneddon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SNEDDON v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CORTEVA, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-00704-RMG (D.S.C., March 10,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the Plaintiff
contends.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.
The Sneddon case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Wilcoxson Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WILCOXSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00944-RMG
(D.S.C., March 31, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications, the
suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr.
Steven D. Gacovino
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ADP INC: Faces Kares Management Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADP, Inc. The case is
captioned as Kares Management, Inc. v. ADP, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02084-PAE (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over contract-related violations. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
Kares Management is a privately-owned, full-service management
company specializing in workforce management solutions and
temporary staffing services.
ADP is an American provider of human resources management software
and services.
Plaintiff Kares Management, Inc. is formerly known as: OTS
Holdings, Inc. The Defendant ADP, Inc. is formerly known as: ADP,
LLC.[BN]
The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
Five Greentree Centre
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of April 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or the "Company")
(NYSE:UAVS) from September 3, 2019, through February 18, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased AgEagle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit AgEagle Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (1) AgEagle did not have a
partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship with
Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's understanding about a
partnership with Amazon, defendants were actively contributing to
the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a
result, defendants statements about AgEagles business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report revealing
that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by. . . .
AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS
insiders to defraud US investors." On this news, shares of AgEagle,
fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at $8.96 on February 18, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased AgEagle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/ageagleaerialsystemsinc-uavs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-367/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
AGEAGLE AERIAL: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AgEagle Aerial Systems, Inc. ("AgEagle" or the
"Company") (NYSE:UAVS) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-01991, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise, acquired publicly traded
AgEagle securities between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased AgEagle securities during
the Class Period, you have until April 27, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
AgEagle purports to be a commercial drone company. According to
AgEagle's website, the Company is engaged in the design,
engineering, and manufacturing of commercial drones, as well as in
providing drone services and solutions to the agriculture
industry.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon
and in fact never had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than
correct the public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon,
Defendants were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had
a partnership with Amazon; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about AgEagle's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.
On October 14, 2020, news broke that Amazon did not have a
partnership agreement with AgEagle, and in fact never did. The
Wichita Business Journal published a story with the headline:
"Exclusive: Who's AgEagle's big customer? We now know who it's
not." The article reported that AgEagle was not partnering with
Amazon.
On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report revealing
that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by . . .
AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS
insiders to defraud US investors."
On this news, shares of AgEagle, fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at
$8.96 on February 18, 2021, damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
AGNESIAN HEALTHCARE: Jorgensen-Ziebert Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN JORGENSEN-ZIEBERT on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. AGNESIAN HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-00302-SCD (E.D. Wisc., March 10, 2020) is a collective and
class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.
The Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of Defendant,
Agnesian Healthcare, Inc., for purposes of obtaining relief under
the FLSA and WWPCL for unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed
upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory
and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court
may deem appropriate.
The Defendant is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, and is a
healthcare system operating primarily in east-central Wisconsin.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and
failed to compensate her and all other current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek by engaging in
unlawful timeclock rounding vis-a-vis said employees' pre-shift and
post-shift hours worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of
said employees and to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the
FLSA and WWPCL.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
ALKERMES PUBLIC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
February 26, 2021, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company
and certain of its officers. In re Alkermes Public Ltd. Co. Sec.
Litig., No. 18-CV-7410 (LDH) (RML), slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Feb 26,
2021). Plaintiff alleged defendants made misstatements concerning
clinical trials for a drug that ultimately did not secure FDA
approval. The Court held that plaintiff failed to allege facts
giving rise to a strong inference of scienter and therefore
dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff generally alleged that the company had made optimistic
and misleading statements regarding the chances of FDA approval
without disclosing that the FDA had allegedly indicated that the
trials could not be successful. Id. at 9–10. In particular,
plaintiff alleged that the FDA, in a November 2018 briefing
document, told the company that the testing method ultimately used
"could not be used for proof of efficacy" and that "with certainty"
"the design of [the company's] clinical trials would necessarily
prevent approval." Id. at 14.
While noting that "[p]laintiff's claim is ripe for dismissal on a
number of grounds," the Court focused its opinion primarily on the
scienter requirement, holding that it was unnecessary to address
other issues because the failure to adequately allege scienter
warranted dismissal. Id. at 11. In particular, the Court noted that
plaintiff relied exclusively on a "blatant mischaracterization" of
the FDA's November 2018 briefing document. For example, while
plaintiff argued that the FDA told the company that the testing
method in question "could not be used for proof of efficacy," in
fact the FDA expressly stated that it "voiced no objection" and
merely encouraged the company to provide a detailed statistical
analysis plan and to seek further feedback. Id. at 14. Moreover,
while plaintiff asserted that the company had been told "with
certainty, that the design of its clinical trials would necessarily
prevent approval," the Court referred to this characterization as
"pure fantasy" and noted that no such language appeared in the
FDA's November 2018 briefing document. Id.
The Court further emphasized that in the context of allegations
regarding communications with the FDA about a drug candidate,
scienter is found where "management knows that certain facts will
necessarily prevent regulatory approval ... and conceals those
facts from the investing public." Id. at 13. But, contrary to
plaintiff's assertions, the Court held that the FDA expressly
"voiced no objection" to the company's testing method but merely
encouraged the company to "provide a detailed statistical analysis
plan and seek feedback prior to initiating the trial if they
intended to use the study to support an efficacy claim." Id.
The Court further emphasized that the documents incorporated into
the complaint showed that there was an "ongoing dialogue" and a
"collective expectation that the process was an iterative one." Id.
at 14–15. Thus, the Court held that plaintiff had not alleged any
facts showing that the FDA had conveyed that "approval of [the drug
candidate] was not possible or even unlikely." Id. The Court
accordingly concluded that the allegations failed to support a
strong inference of scienter. Id. at 16. [GN]
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Trzeciak Sues Over Unfair Insurance Rate Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TRZECIAK and JULIE TRZECIAK, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-10737-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 31, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged implementation of a
discriminatory rate-setting scheme wherein it charges higher
premiums to its more tenured auto insurance policyholders than it
charges otherwise identically-situated newer policyholders for the
same or materially the same coverages. Allstate implements this
discriminatory practice by unilaterally assigning each Allstate
auto policyholder into thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of
microsegments, which assignments are made exclusively by Allstate
itself based on its internal projection of each policyholder's
tolerance to premium changes. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged conduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members incurred economic
harm.
Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
firm with its principal place of business located at 51 W. Higgins
Rd. Ste. T2b, South Barrington, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Fink, Esq.
Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
FINK BRESSACK
38500 Woodward Ave., Suite 350
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 971-2500
E-mail: dfink@finkbressack.com
nfink@finkbressack.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
227 W. Monroe St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 975-0477
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
Jeremy R. Williams, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
pat@whitfieldbryson.com
jeremy@whitfieldbryson.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Independent Bookstore Sues Over Unfair Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Bookwalter at The Chicago Tribune reports that the owner
of an independent bookstore in Illinois is the lead plaintiff in a
lawsuit against Amazon and the five biggest book publishing
companies over what she says are unfair business practices.
The lawsuit alleges that Amazon and the publishing companies engage
in price fixing by intentionally inflating prices and controlling
book sales to discourage bookstores competing with Amazon.
Attorneys representing Bookends & Beginnings filed the suit March
25 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the complaint. Defendants include Amazon.com,
Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing
Group, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.
The filing was a class-action suit, and Bookends & Beginnings owner
Nina Barrett is encouraging other independent bookstores to join in
the complaint. The bookstore is represented by attorneys from law
firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro of New York and Sperling & Slater
of Chicago.
Representatives for Amazon and the publishers did not return
requests for comment.
Barrett said in an interview that she was recruited to be the lead
plaintiff by an attorney from the Chicago firm who lives in
Evanston and is a regular shopper at Bookends & Beginnings.
"He loves my store. He basically felt for someone to be the named
plaintiff and the face of the case . . . we really fit the bill for
that," Barrett said.
"I agreed with him, and I do think that we are typical of other
independent bookstores and the challenges that they face trying to
do business on this playing field that is so not level."
The complaint alleges that Amazon worked with the five biggest
publishing houses to acquire clauses that essentially ensure other
booksellers cannot compete with the online giant, which typically
charges prices lower than those listed on the book flap.
Other booksellers are not allowed to sell new releases earlier, or
any books at a cheaper price than Amazon, and publishers "cannot
offer lower wholesale prices to competing booksellers" than what
Amazon receives, which would encourage competition in the market,
the complaint states.
These clauses, which control the price point at which the
plaintiffs can offer books to customers, "have the intent and
effect of controlling wholesale prices of print trade books and
preventing competition with Amazon in the retail sale of print
trade books," according to the complaint.
Independent booksellers also cannot offer unique book promotional
materials from publishers that are not available on Amazon,
according to the complaint.
"Amazon benefits from this agreement because regardless of the
wholesale prices, it faces no meaningful competition from any rival
bookseller," according to the complaint. [GN]
AMNEAL PHARMA: Impax Bid for Rehearing with the 9th Cir. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal 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 Impax has filed a
motion for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit on the unpublished
opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District
Court's decision.
On April 17, 2017, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel
Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Impax and four
former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
(Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG).
Plaintiff alleges that Impax (1) concealed collusion with a
competitor to fix the price of the generic drug digoxin; (2)
concealed anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug
diclofenac; and (3) overstated the value of the generic drug
budesonide.
In August 2019, the Court granted Impax's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's subsequent second amended complaint in its entirety.
Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, and on January 11, 2021 the Ninth Circuit issued an
unpublished opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the
District Court's decision. Impax has filed a motion for rehearing
with the Ninth Circuit.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMNEAL PHARMA: Metformin Marketing & Sales Practices Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal 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 consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
(No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).
Amneal and AvKARE, Inc. are named as defendants, along with
numerous other manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers,
in several putative class action lawsuits pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, consolidated
as In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No.
2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH).
The lawsuits all allege that defendants made and sold to putative
class members generic metformin products that were "adulterated" or
"contaminated" with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).
An economic loss complaint filed on behalf of consumers and
third-party payors who purchased or paid or made reimbursements for
metformin, alleges that plaintiffs suffered economic losses in
connection with their purchases or reimbursements due to the
purported contamination.
Medical monitoring class action complaints filed on behalf of
consumers who consumed allegedly contaminated metformin allege
"cellular damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an increased risk of
developing cancer", and seek medical monitoring, including
evaluation and treatment.
Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted with respect to this matter.
However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company
and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results
of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition."
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic
and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and
therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and
Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is
based in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
AMTEL LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Hafley Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HAFLEY; and CHRISTOPHER MCCAW, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMTEL, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-TSB (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 25, 2021) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as store manager.
Amtel, LLC retails mobile handsets and wireless devices. The
Company offers smartphones, broadband, data, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew Legando, Esq.
MERRIMAN LEGANDO WILLIAMS &
KLANG, LLC
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
-and-
Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
cmcnerney@outtengolden.com
-and-
Mikael Rojas, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: (202) 847-4400
Facsimile (646) 509-2008
E-mail: mrojas@outtengolden.com
-and-
Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
Camar Jones, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Rd, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 447-8888
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
cjones@shavitzlaw.com
APPLE INC: Court Gives OK to $18M Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern
District of California granted final approval to the $18 million
class-action settlement, including more than $6 million in fees and
expenses, of a lawsuit over Apple disabled FaceTime on iPhone 4
models using iOS 6 or earlier operating systems.
For background, as noted in the motion for final approval of the
settlement, the plaintiffs sued Apple on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated "'who owned an Apple iPhone 4 or iPhone
4S that was operating on iOS 6 or an earlier operating system, and
therefore lost the ability to use Apple's 'FaceTime' video
conferencing feature when Apple intentionally broke FaceTime for
iOS 6 and earlier operating systems on April 16, 2014.' " The
plaintiffs brought two causes of action: "trespass to chattels
under California law() and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law." The plaintiffs argued that their iPhones' values
decreased because of the FaceTime break.
The court found that the notice plan, "which was direct notice sent
to 99.8% of the Settlement Class via email and U.S. Mail, has been
implemented in compliance with this Court's Order … and complies
with Rule 23(c)(2)(B)." The court also concluded that the
settlement terms and distribution plan to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the class members. Thus, the court granted the motion
for final approval.
Pursuant to the motion, Apple "will fund an $18 million
non-reversionary cash Settlement Fund. After deducting from the
Settlement Fund the costs of notice and claims administration,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and incentive awards, the proceeds of
the fund will be distributed automatically by electronic and/or
paper checks." The motion noted that the settlement class consists
of approximately 3.2 million members. Judge Koh added that each
settlement class member's payment "will be calculated based on each
Settlement Class Member's proportional share of the Net Settlement
Fund."
The order stated that the certified class consists of "(a)ll owners
of non-jailbroken Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in
California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating
systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices." The court added
that the settlement class is certified for meeting Rule 23
requirements.
In a separate order also issued, the court granted in part and
denied in part the class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees. The
court concluded that "fees in the amount of $5.04 million and
expenses in the amount of $1,083,045.14 be paid to Class Counsel,
and that service awards of $7,500 be paid to each Class
Representative."
Apple is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Durie
Tangri LLP.
The plaintiffs are represented by Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Friedman Oster &
Tejtel PLLC, as well as Caldwell Cassady & Curry. [GN]
APPLE INC: Judge Approves New Suit Over Defective MacBook Pro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Simon at reseller.co.nz reports that it's been a rough
couple of weeks for the MacBook. In late March, a judge allowed a
class-action suit involving the butterfly keyboard to proceed,
affecting nearly every Apple laptop made since 2016. Now the same
judge says Apple deliberately sold laptops with display issues.
As reported by Law360, the new lawsuit is decidedly more narrow
than the keyboard one, only referring to the 15-inch MacBook Pro
from 2016, but it still could end up costing Apple millions of
dollars. The issue stems from the ribbon cable that connects the
display to the logic board.
According to Teardowns, Apple incorporated the cable into the
display, making it impossible to repair. On top of that, Apple used
thin, fragile flex cables that were prone to tearing. When it tore,
it subjected the screen to a so-called stage lighting effect that
showed bright stripes across the bottom of the screen or stopped
working altogether.
To its credit, Apple did launch a repair program for the 13-inch
MacBook Pro that covered this exact issue. However, it didn't
include the 15-inch model with the same ribbon cable design.
That didn't help Apple's case as U.S. District Judge Edward Davila
found that the allegations of pre-release testing in combination
with the allegations of substantial customer complaints are
sufficient to show that Apple had exclusive knowledge of the
alleged defect.
The judge claims that Apple's internal testing and customer
complaints were sufficient evidence to conclude that Apple knew
that laptops were faulty and could fail. In a 2019 report, iFixit
clearly pinpointed the problem to the flex cable and said Apple was
effectively turning a $6 problem into a $600 disaster. It added
that the issue could have been avoided entirely if so many
sacrifices weren't made for the thin-and-light form factor.
The complaint also alleges that Apple routinely deleted Apple
Support Community posts related to the issue. The judge didn't rule
on the veracity of those claims, which Apple attempted to squash as
irrelevant, but concluded, if Apple deleted comments on its website
from consumers complaining about display issues attributable to the
alleged defect, that suggests that Apple had knowledge of the
alleged defect, superior to that of plaintiffs or potential class
members.
There is no information yet on how to join the class-action or when
the case will proceed in court. [GN]
ARCHER DANIELS: Big Agbiz's Sues Over 'Price-Fixing' Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Guebert at aberdeennews.com reports that in a now too-common
story in U.S agriculture, Archer Daniels Midland agreed to pay
farmers $45 million to settle what the March 13 Wall Street Journal
described as "price-fixing allegations leveled at its peanut
processing division."
While $45 million is, indeed, peanuts to ADM -- its estimated 2020
revenue will top $65 billion -- this isn't the first time the
Chicago-based company has faced market manipulation charges. In the
late 1990s, ADM spent years and millions on criminal and civil
price-fixing settlements.
But ADM isn't the only ag master of the universe to settle recent
civil lawsuits over alleged market irregularities. For example:
In October, Brazilian-owned Pilgrim's Pride Corp., the nation's
second largest poultry processor, agreed to pay $110.5 million to
settle U.S. Justice Department allegations of "price fixing in
broiler chicken parts," reported Agriculture.com.
In mid-January, Tyson Foods Inc. "reached an agreement in the
broiler chicken antitrust civil price fixing litigation brought
against the company, as well as many other poultry processors, to
pay $221.5 million," according to Meat+Poultry.com.
One of those other processors was -- again -- Pilgrim's Pride which
-- again -- "agreed to pay $75 million on Jan. 11. Both companies
did not admit liability as part of the settlements."
And while all this lawyerly rock-picking with the chicken giants
was occurring in 2020, "The Justice Department ... deepen(ed)
federal antitrust scrutiny of the $213 billion U.S meat industry,
following complaints from farmers and meat buyers about industry
pricing practices," noted the Wall Street Journal on June 5.
Those being scrutinized were the red meat kings: "The Department
recently issued civil subpoenas to ... JBS USA Holding Inc. (the
majority owner of Pilgrim's Pride Corp., of course), Tyson Foods.
Inc., Cargill Inc. and National Beef Packing Co. . . ."
Despite all this new movement on price fixing, there's nothing new
about price fixing. The roots of U.S. antitrust law, after all,
reach back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton
Antitrust Act of 1914.
What is new, however, is that cooperation and coordination is more
commonplace among competitors that, counter intuitively, make it
more difficult for the government to police.
Peter Carstensen, a professor emeritus at the University of
Wisconsin law school and senior fellow at the American Antitrust
Institute, examined the recent flood of ag class action settlements
in a March 8 post for ProMarket, at the University of Chicago's
Booth School of Business.
What he found was a company "called AgriStats" that "about a decade
ago" began to collect "detailed information" from almost every
processor "about their ongoing business activities and then
distributed that information to all the participating processors.
Hence, everyone knew what everyone else was doing."
Clearly, this was an "information exchange system (that) seriously
harmed the competitive process," right?
Yes, notes Carstensen, a leading scholar in ag antitrust, "But," he
adds, "antitrust law has failed to connect those dots doctrinally."
And, worse, "The current state of antitrust law makes direct
challenges to information exchanges (like AgriStats) difficult."
That is even more worrisome given Big Agbiz's continued
consolidation into critical aspects of almost every farm and food
sector like hogs, poultry, beef, vegetables and, now, row crops.
That's exactly what 12,000 peanut farmers asserted in the ADM case:
that "ADM's Golden Peanut division coordinated with two other
processors to report faulty supply and pricing data, keeping prices
for farmers low for the past six years," reported the Journal.
It, and its two other competitors, denied any wrongdoing but all
three -- that handle virtually every peanut in the U.S. -- paid to
end the suits; ADM $45 million, the other two, Birdsong Peanuts and
Olam International, paid a collective $58 million.
That, of course, is nothing to the peanut giants. In fact, when
taken as part of the entire pay-without-admitting-guilt strategy
used by Big Agbiz in 2020-21, "the settlements to date," writes
Carstensen, "represent barely one percent of a single year's
sales."
Antitrust reform is in the air, however. More on that later. [GN]
ARNDT ELECTRONICS: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arndt Electronics.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Arndt Electronics, Case No.
1:21-cv-02783 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Arndt Electronics specializes in the purchase and sale of
electronic components and computer products.[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
ATHENEX INC: Thornton Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ATNX). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased ATNX stock or other securities between August 7, 2019
and February 26, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Athenex to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Athenex.
The case alleges that Athenex and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA
presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequelae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results
of the primary endpoint of objective response rate ("ORR") at week
19 conducted by BICR (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read
process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the
BICR; (iv) Athenex's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA
was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with
metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population,
such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial; and
08 (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve Athenex's NDA in its current form.
Interested Athenex investors have until May 3, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Athenex.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Athenex [GN]
BANCO SANTANDER: Putative Antitrust Class Suit in New York Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative
antitrust class action suit in New York has been dismissed.
A putative class action filed in New York federal court by two U.S.
pension funds on March 30, 2018, alleges that the Bank, along with
other members of the Santander Group including Santander España,
violated U.S. antitrust laws by conspiring with other major
financial institutions, including Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria
(BBVA), J.P. Morgan, HSBC, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America
and Citi, to rig auctions and fix prices of MGBs, allegedly
inflating prices.
In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants: (1)
rigged MGB auctions through collusive bidding and information
sharing; (2) sold MGBs purchased at auction at artificially higher
prices; and (3) agreed to fix the "bid-ask spread" artificially
wider, overcharging and underpaying customers in every MGB
transaction by suppressing the "bid price" at which the defendants
offered to buy MGBs and increasing the "ask price" at which they
offered to sell.
The complaint further alleges that these activities resulted in MGB
prices being between 20% and 50% higher than they otherwise would
have been in a competitive market.
According to the complaint, the alleged conspiracy came to light
following an April 2017 announcement that the COFECE had uncovered
evidence of anticompetitive behavior in the MGB marketplace.
In addition, the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating
Authority Pension Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust, filed a second
putative antitrust class action in New York federal court alleging
the Bank along with other members of the Santander Group conspired
with other financial institutions to fix MGB auctions and purchase
prices. These actions were consolidated into one case.
As mentioned above, on October 8, 2019, the Comision Federal de
Competencia Economica (COFECE) issued its report determining that
the alleged antitrust practices were probably executed by two
former employees of Santander Mexico.
Following the publication of COFECE's report, the plaintiffs asked
the court to extend their deadline to file an amended complaint
until December 9, 2019.
On October 1, 2019, the court dismissed the complaint based on the
fact that the plaintiff had not filed a claim. However, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint thereafter. The compoany
filed its defense.
On November 30, 2020, the Court resolved the case dismissing the
complaint due to lack of jurisdiction. This decision is not final,
since it may be appealed by the Plaintiff.
Banco Santander said, "In case of an appeal, while the Bank does
not currently anticipate incurring any liability in connection with
this class action, it is not possible to predict its final outcome
and any adverse finding or penalty imposed could have a material
adverse effect on our reputation, financial condition or results."
Banco Santander (Mexico), S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple,
Grupo Financiero Santander Mexico provides various banking products
and services in Mexico. The company operates through Retail Banking
and Global Corporate Banking segments. The company was founded in
1932 and is headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico. Banco Santander
(MExico), S.A., InstituciOn de Banca Múltiple, Grupo Financiero
Santander MExico is a subsidiary of Grupo Financiero Santander
MExico, S.A. de C.V.
BARKING LABS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barking Labs Corp.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Barking
Labs Corp. doing business as: Fi, Case No. 1:21-cv-02746-AT
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Barking Labs Corp. -- https://tryfi.com/ -- produces and
distributes pet care products. The Company offers chargeable dog
collar for activity tracking and control.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BAYER AG: Roundup Class Action Settlement Face Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------
Carey Gillam, writing for US RTK, reports that more than 90 law
firms and more than 160 lawyers have notified a federal court judge
overseeing U.S. Roundup litigation that they oppose Monsanto owner
Bayer AG's $2 billion plan to settle future claims the company
expects to be brought by people diagnosed with cancer they blame on
use of Monsanto's herbicide products.
In recent days, nine separate objections to the plan and four
amicus briefs have been filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, letting Judge Vince Chhabria know
the extent of opposition to the proposed class settlement. Chhabria
has been overseeing thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits in what is
called 'multidistrict litigation' (MDL).
On March 8, the National Trial Lawyers (NTL) joined in the
opposition on behalf of its 14,000 members. The group said in their
filing with the court that they agree with the opposition that "the
proposed settlement seriously endangers access to justice for
millions of people in the proposed class, would prevent Monsanto's
victims from holding it accountable, and would reward Monsanto in
numerous respects."
The group reiterated in its filing the fear that if Bayer's
proposed settlement is approved, it will set a dangerous precedent
for plaintiffs in future, unrelated cases: "It will hurt the
proposed class members, not help them. This type of settlement
would also provide an untenable template for other corporate
tortfeasors to avoid appropriate liability and consequences for
their conduct . . . the proposed class settlement is not how a
'system of justice' works and thus such a settlement should never
be approved."
The $2 billion proposed settlement is aimed at future cases and is
separate from the $11 billion Bayer has earmarked to settle
existing claims brought by people alleging they developed
non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) due to exposure to Monsanto's weed
killers. The people impacted by the class settlement proposal are
individuals who have been exposed to Roundup products and either
already have NHL or may develop NHL in the future, but who have not
yet taken steps to file a lawsuit.
No punitive damages
One of the key problems with the Bayer plan, according to critics,
is that everyone in the United States who meets the criteria as a
potential plaintiff will automatically become part of the class and
subject to its provisions if they do not actively opt out of the
class within 150 days after Bayer issues notifications of the
formation of the class. The notification proposed is not
sufficient, the critics say. Moreover, the plan then strips those
people -- who may not even choose to be a part of the class -- from
the right to seek punitive damages if they do file a lawsuit.
Another provision garnering criticism is a proposed four-year
"standstill" period blocking the filing of new lawsuits.
The critics also object to the proposed formation of a science
panel that would act as a "guidepost" for an "extension of
compensation options into the future" and to provide evidence about
the carcinogenicity -- or not -- of Bayer's herbicides.
The initial settlement period would run for at least four years and
could be extended after that period. If Bayer elects not to
continue the compensation fund after the initial settlement period,
it will pay an additional $200 million as an "end payment" into the
compensation fund, the settlement summary states.
Struggling for a solution
Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the
Roundup cancer litigation since buying Monsanto in 2018. The
company lost all three trials held to date and lost the early
rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses.
Juries in each of the three trials found not only that Monsanto's
glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup cause cancer, but also
that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
The small group of lawyers who put the plan together with Bayer say
it will "save lives" and will provide "substantial benefits" to
people who believe they developed cancer from exposure to the
company's herbicide products.
But that group of lawyers stands to receive $170 million for their
work with Bayer to implement the proposed plan, a fact critics say
taints their involvement and objectivity. None of the lawyers
involved in putting the class action plan together with Bayer
actively represented any plaintiffs in the broad Roundup litigation
before this point, the critics point out.
In one of the opposition filings, lawyers seeking a rejection of
the proposed settlement wrote this:
"This proposed settlement is opposed by those most familiar with
the litigation of cases involving dangerous products like Roundup
because they recognize that this proposal would benefit Monsanto
and class counsel at the expense of the millions of people exposed
to Roundup.
"Although this Roundup MDL has been underway for over four years,
and other Roundup cases have been litigated in state courts, the
impetus for this engineered class action settlement does not come
from lawyers who have been handling Roundup cases and believe that
an alternative method for resolving them is essential. Instead, the
lawyers who are behind this settlement -- and it is surely the
lawyers and not Roundup victims -- are class-action lawyers who
seek to impose their views on all those who have been exposed to
Roundup, in exchange for a very large fee.
"But an even bigger winner here will be Monsanto, which will get a
four-year stay of litigation by class members, who will also lose
their right to seek punitive damages and be saddled with the
results of an ill-conceived science panel. In exchange, class
members will be shunted into an alternate compensation system that
features modest payments, increased complexity, and high hurdles to
qualify."
Delay sought
Bayer's settlement plan was filed with the court on Feb. 3, and
must be approved by Judge Chhabria in order to become effective. A
prior settlement plan submitted last year was scorned by Chhabria
and then withdrawn.
A hearing on the matter was set for March 31 but the attorneys who
put the plan together with Bayer have asked Judge Chhabria to delay
the hearing until May 13, citing the breadth of the opposition they
must address. The judge responded with an order resetting the
hearing for May 12.
"These filings totaled more than 300 pages, in addition to more
than 400 pages of attached declarations and exhibits," the lawyers
said their request for more time. "The objections and amicus briefs
raise a host of issues, including, among other things, the overall
fairness of the settlement, multiple constitutional attacks on the
settlement and proposed advisory science panel, technical
challenges to the notice program, attacks on the fairness of the
compensation fund, and challenges to predominance, superiority, and
the adequacy of class (and subclass) counsel."
The lawyers who filed the proposed plan said they could use the
additional time before the hearing "to engage with objectors" to
"streamline or narrow the issues that need to be contested at the
hearing."
Deaths continue
Amid the arguments over Bayer's proposed settlement, plaintiffs
continue to die. In what is referred to as a "Suggestion of Death,"
lawyers for plaintiff Carolina Garces filed a notification with the
federal court on March 8 that their client had died.
Several plaintiffs suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma have died
since the start of the litigation in 2015. [GN]
BAYER CORP: Seresto Collars Cause Harm to Pets, Maiorino Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS MAIORINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CORPORATION and ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07579 (D.N.J., March 31, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth-In-Consumer Contract,
Warranty, and Notice Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and false advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Seresto brand
flea and tick collars. The Defendants knew about the harm that
their products can cause to pets but failed to disclose or
otherwise inform consumers about the dangers associated with the
pesticides used in the Seresto collars. Had the Defendants
disclosed the existence of the serious safety risks associated with
Seresto collars, the Plaintiffs and Class members would not have
purchased the product for their pets or else would have paid
significantly less for it, says the suit.
Bayer Corporation is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products, headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3985
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and –
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Mary Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Schneider Consumer Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC; ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
21CV-0115, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Luis Obispo to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 31, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-02771 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law by
failing to disclose to consumers, including the Plaintiff, about
the dangers and risks of using the Seresto flea and tick prevention
collar for dogs and cats.
Bayer Healthcare LLC is a manufacturer of healthcare and medical
products, headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.
Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an American pharmaceutical company
which produces medicines and vaccinations for pets and livestock,
headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Naoki S. Kaneko, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 475-1500
Facsimile: (949) 475-0016
E-mail: nkaneko@shb.com
- and –
Tarek Ismail, Esq.
Rami N. Fakhouri, Esq.
Laura Sexton, Esq.
Samuel E. Schoenburg, Esq.
GOLDMAN ISMAIL TOMASELLI BRENNAN & BAUM LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 22nd Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 681-6000
Facsimile: (312) 881-5191
E-mail: tismail@goldmanismail.com
rfakhouri@goldmanismail.com
lsexton@goldmanismail.com
sschoenburg@goldmanismail.com
BEANFIELDS INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Beanfields, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Beanfields, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01751 (E.D.N.Y., March 31,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Beanfields -- https://www.beanfields.com/ -- is a food company that
makes chips with seven flavors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Baby Food Contains Heavy Metals, Henry Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NAJAH A. HENRY, CHANEL J. JACKSON, ALEXIS DIAS, HOLLY BUFFINTON,
and CONSTANCE VENABLE v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-00285-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March 11, 2020) is class action
complaint against the Defendant Beech-Nut for its negligent,
reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting and
failing to fully disclose the heavy metals and/or perchlorate or
other ingredients that do not conform to the labels, packaging,
advertising, and statements of the Defendant's products sold
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class and Sub-Classes including requiring full
disclosure of all such substances and ingredients in the
Defendant's marketing, advertising, and labeling.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
distributes, and sells baby food products under the brand name
Beech-Nut throughout the United States.
The Defendant states that it offers natural and organic baby foods
"that are free from artificial preservatives, colors and flavors."
The Defendant touts that it "conduct[s] over 20 rigorous tests on
our purees, testing for up to 255 pesticides and heavy metals (like
lead, cadmium, arsenic and other nasty stuff). Just like you would,
we send the produce back if it's not good enough."
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's packaging and labels
further emphasize quality and safe ingredients and even declares
that the products are "100% Natural." The Defendant's packaging and
labels further emphasize that its baby food products are natural,
organic, and safe for human infant consumption. Yet nowhere in the
labeling, advertising, statements, warranties, and/or packaging
does Defendant disclose that the Baby Foods include and/or have a
high risk of containing heavy metals or other ingredients that do
not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements,
the Plaintiffs add.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all
consumers who purchased the Baby Foods, to cause the disclosure of
the presence and/or risk of the presence of heavy metals,
perchlorate, and/or unnatural or other ingredients that do not
conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements in
the Baby Foods; to correct the false and misleading perception
Defendant has created in the minds of consumers that the Baby Foods
are high quality, healthy, and safe for infant consumption; and to
obtain redress for those who have purchased the Baby Foods.
Defendant Beech-Nut was founded in 1891 and manufactures more than
150 types of baby products, including a variety of purees and
cereals. The Defendant Gerber was founded in 1927.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Miles Greaves, Esq.
Kevin Landau, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
klandau@tcllaw.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: 215-867-2399 (work)
E-mail: Medelson@edelson-law.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
E-mail: Jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
kae@wexlerwallace.com
- and -
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, &
BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3895
E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
BEECH-NUT: Baby Food Products Contain Contaminants, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA LYNETTE GREGORY ELDRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, GERBER
PRODUCTS CO., and JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS, Case No.
1:21-cv-00283-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., March 11, 2020) asserts claims
against the Defendants for abusing parents' trust by selling baby
food products that contained harmful and dangerous contaminants
like arsenic and lead, all while marketing their products as safe
and rigorously tested.
On February 4, 2021, United States Representative Raja
Krishnamoorthi, Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives'
Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy (the "Subcommittee),
"released a staff report showing that baby foods are tainted with
dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals that endanger infant
neurological development and long-term brain function" (the "House
Report").
According to the House Report, one of the offending baby food
companies was Beech-Nut, a company that touts its "natural" and
"organic" products and markets itself as having "real food for real
babies."
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants provided parents with
false assurances regarding the safety of their products for their
vulnerable, developing infants. She brings this putative class
action on behalf of herself, and all other purchasers and/or
consumers of Gerber and/or Beech-Nut baby and toddler food
products, seeking damages and injunctive relief for Beech-Nut's and
Gerber's wrongful marketing of, sale of, and profit from dangerous
baby food products.
The Plaintiff is a resident of and citizen of Louisiana. She has
purchased a variety of baby foods for her infant daughter, from
retailers including Wal-Mart. If she had known Beech-Nut’s and
Gerber’s products contained the contaminants revealed by the
House Report, she would not have purchased them and/or would not
have fed them to her baby.
Beech-Nut was founded in 1891 and manufactures more than 150 types
of baby products, including a variety of purees and cereals.
Defendant Gerber was founded in 1927. It is a Michigan corporation
with its principal place of business in Virginia. Gerber sells its
products throughout the country. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (347) 353-1150
E-mail: melissa@feganscott.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
BEECH-NUT: Henry Sues Over Non-disclosure of Toxins in Baby Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathey Henry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Defendant,
Case No. 21-cv-00227 (N.D. N.Y., February 26, 2021), seeks
injunctive relief resulting from negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and for violation of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act.
Beech-Nut Nutrition packages, labels, markets, advertises,
formulates, manufactures and distributes infant food throughout the
United States.
This action derives its claim from a recent report by the U.S.
House of Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer
Policy, Committee on Oversight and Reform revealing that certain
brands of commercial baby food (including Beech-Nut Nutrition)
products made with ingredients such as rice flour, sweet potatoes,
certain juices, certain juice concentrates, and carrots, among
other ingredients) are tainted with significant and dangerous
levels of toxic heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium and
mercury saying that exposure to toxic heavy metals causes permanent
decreases in IQ and endangers neurological development and
long-term brain function, among numerous other deleterious alarming
conditions and problems.
Henry seeks full disclosure of all such substances and ingredients
in Beech-Nut's marketing, advertising and labeling; requiring
testing of all ingredients and final products for such substances.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
Washington, DC 20016
Phone: (202) 429-2990
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FORM LLC
134 Kings Highway East, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 772-7200
Fax: (856) 210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Email: (513) 345-8291
Fax: (513) 345-8294
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: gklinger@masonllp.com
BELLUS HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of BELLUS Health Inc.
If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will
be no obligation or cost to you.
BELLUS Health Inc. (NASDAQ:BLU)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/bellus-health-inc-investigation-loss-submission-form?prid=14323&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
Class Period: September 5, 2019 - July 5, 2020
Allegations against BLU include that: while BLU-5937's "high
selectivity" contributed to the drug causing little to no taste
alteration in chronic cough patients, that high selectivity also
contributed to the drug potentially being less efficacious and thus
likely not be able to meet the primary endpoint of the Company's
Phase 2 trial.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
BLUEBIRD BIO: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on March 9 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who acquired
bluebird bio, Inc. ("bluebird" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLUE)
securities from May 11, 2020 through November 4, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until April 13, 2021 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data
supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was
insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii)
Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule
for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to
manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was
foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for
LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 4, 2020, post-market, bluebird disclosed that it would
no longer apply for FDA approval of its LentiGlobin product as a
treatment for SCD in the second half of 2021 as expected. Instead,
citing "feedback" from the FDA requiring the Company to provide
additional data "to demonstrate drug product comparability" for
LentiGlobin for SCD, "alongside COVID-19 related shifts and
contract manufacturing organization COVID-19 impacts," bluebird
adjusted its submission timing to late 2022. On this news,
bluebird's stock price fell $9.72 per share, or 16.6%, to close at
$48.83 per share on November 5, 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired bluebird securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
BP PLC: $700,000 Unclaimed From 2010 Oil Spill Settlement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
AP News reports that Louisiana's treasurer says the state is
holding more than $700,000 that has so far gone unclaimed by people
and businesses affected by the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico.
That's the worth of class action settlement checks that have never
been cashed, Treasurer John Schroder says in a news release.
The amounts range from 8 cents to more than $68,000. More than 100
of the unclaimed settlements are for at least $1,000.
The money, now in the state's unclaimed property fund, comes from
the Deepwater Horizon Trust Fund that BP established to pay claims.
Restaurants, seafood markets, fishermen, shrimpers and oil
industry-related companies are among the people and businesses for
whom the money is intended.
Schroder's release says that 167 people had claimed $165,000 from
the trust fund through the state unclaimed property program. More
than $700,000 in trust fund money remains in the program.
"If your livelihood depends on the Gulf of Mexico, then you need to
search our database," Schroder said in the release. "This is your
money. We want you to claim it."
People can search for unclaimed property at www.latreasury.com.
[GN]
BRAEMAR HOTELS: Managers' Initiated Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the notices to
potential class members have been sent out in the class action suit
initiated by the company's managers.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against one of the Company's
hotel management companies alleging violations of certain
California employment laws, which class action affects two hotels
owned by subsidiaries of the Company.
The court has entered an order granting class certification with
respect to: (1) a statewide class of non-exempt employees of the
company's manager who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a
result of the company's manager's previous policy requiring its
employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (2) a
derivative class of non-exempt former employees of the company's
manager who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon
separation from employment.
Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2,
2021. Potential class members have until April 4, 2021 to opt out
of the class.
There is a Case Management Conference scheduled for March 5, 2021,
at which time the parties expect the court to address the timing
for any motions for summary judgment and trial.
Braemar said, "While we believe it is reasonably possible that we
may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because the class
size has not yet been determined and there is uncertainty under
California law with respect to a significant legal issue, we do not
believe any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable
at this time. As of December 31, 2020, no amounts have been
accrued."
Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. operates as a real estate investment
company. The Company acquires and invests in luxury hotels and
resorts. Braemar Hotels & Resorts serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Dallas, Texas.
CANADA: Appeals Court Affirms $30MM Damages in Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Feyche at jurist.org reports that the Court of Appeal for
Ontario affirmed the damages award of $30 million in a class action
lawsuit against Ontario for mistreatment of inmates in solitary
confinement, finding that the administrative segregation was
negligent and in violation of inmates' constitutional rights.
The use of administrative segregation in correctional facilities in
Ontario constitutes solitary confinement. Inmates are isolated for
at least 22 hours in a small cell that often is "filthy and covered
in bodily fluids." Correctional facilities place inmates in
administrative segregation for a variety of reasons, including
safety or if the inmate committed a serious breach of the rules.
Mentally ill inmates are overrepresented among those who are placed
in administrative segregation. Approximately 43 percent of inmates
who are placed in administrative segregation have a mental health
alert on file. The length of time these inmates are subjected to
administrative segregation is, on average, 30 percent longer than
other inmates.
This class action separates inmates who were placed in
administrative segregation into two groups: (1) those who have a
mental illness; and (2) those who were isolated for at least 15
days.
Conrey Francis commenced this proceeding as a class action in 2017.
Francis was an inmate at Toronto South Detention Centre for over
two years before he was acquitted of charges related to a bank
robbery. Francis suffers from mental illness. During his two years
at the correctional facility, he was subjected to administrative
segregation twice, once for eight days, for allegedly refusing to
take medication because of negative side effects. The correctional
officers viewed this refusal to take medication as a refusal to
follow an order.
Francis' "experience in administrative segregation was
excruciating; his anxiety was out of control; he felt terrorized
and was in a state of delirium and shock."
Ontario challenged the prior finding that administrative
segregation is negligent and in violation of inmates' rights.
Ontario also argued that because the claims of negligence applied
to a policy decision, it is immune to claims of negligence. The
court dismissed these arguments.
The Court of Appeal asserted that "Ontario cannot turn a blind eye
to overwhelming evidence of the unconstitutionality of its
actions."[GN]
CANADA: TCN Among Plaintiffs in Clean Water Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Graham, writing for Thompson Citizen, reports that Tataskweyak
Cree Nation (TCN) in Northern Manitoba, which has been under a
boil-water advisory since 2017, is one of the plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit against the federal government that seeks to
have access to drinkable water recognized as a right and spur the
federal government to do more for it and other First Nations under
long-term water advisories.
"This lawsuit came out of that frustration and the aim is to
recognize rights -- a right to reasonable access, adequate access
to clean drinking water on reserves so that we aren't in this
debate in the future about how much funding is needed and how much
will get them there," said Michael Rosenberg, one of the lawyers
representing TCN and others in the lawsuit, which was first filed
in November 2019, during a Zoom press conference in February.
Actually going to court is not TCN's preferred outcome, as that
process could take years.
"The hope here is not litigation," said NDP MP Niki Ashton, whose
Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding includes TCN, at the same press
conference. "The hope here is for immediate action."
The class defined by the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench includes
any First Nation that was subject to a drinking water advisory
lasting more than one year since 1995 as well as all of its
members, said Rosenberg, who is also part of the legal team for a
class action lawsuit on the same subject filed in federal court by
Curve Lake First Nation.
First Nations have to opt in to be part of the lawsuit but their
members are automatically included in the class unless they opt
out.
"I wish many First Nations will rise up and join this," said TCN
Chief Doreen Spence, who thinks some may decide not to out of an
instinct for self-preservation. "I know that many First Nations
fear repercussions from Canada if they join the class action since
Canada continues to exercise control over First Nations. Canada
should provide First Nations with reassurance that they will not be
prejudiced by Canada for standing up for their human rights and
joining this class action."
TCN's boil-water advisory has been in place since May 5, 2017 and
was classified as a long-term advisory after one year.
According to a January article in The Globe & Mail, the First
Nation's water issues began following a flood in the spring of that
year and continue despite the federal government spending $12
million two year ago to upgrade the water treatment plant by adding
an ultraviolet light phase to kill bacteria and viruses.
"We've been under a drinking water advisory for four years," says
Spence. "I feel that it's Canada's responsibility to provide
[certain things] to all First Nations and clean drinking water is
one of them."
The Liberal government pledged in 2015 to end all long-term
drinking water advisories in First Nations in Canada by 2021 but
said last year they wouldn't meet that goal. There were 60
long-term water advisories in First Nations as of Nov. 1, according
to a report from the auditor general of Canada, and 28 of them had
been in place for more than a decade. Factors playing a role in
this include the operations and maintenance funding formula not
having been updated in the 30 years since it was developed, First
Nations not having enough money to pay water treatment plant
operators as much as other organizations like municipal governments
can, and Canada lacking a regulatory regime that sets standards for
First Nations water systems.
"Fifteen years after we first examined the issue, some First
Nations communities continue to experience a lack of access to safe
drinking water, " says the auditor general's Feb. 25 report,
referencing the office's first report on the subject back in 2005.
"Despite Tataskweyak leadership continually expressing their
concerns about their drinking water, the government of Canada has
repeatedly failed to take meaningful action in response" said
Ashton in letters to prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Indigenous
Services Minister Marc Miller and to United Nations special
rapporteurs.
A potential solution to the water problem that TCN believes could
be in place relatively quickly is building a pipeline to Assean
Lake, which many people on the First Nation use for non-drinking
water already because they believe that the water from Split Lake
is giving them skin rashes from bathing in it even after it has
been treated.
This plan was first studied in 2006 and another study was completed
in 2019 but no action has taken place.
Rosenberg says water studies of Split Lake have shown that it isn't
fit for human consumption, due in part to the presence of three
types of cyanobacteria (algae), which aren't even detectable with
the current tests used on First Nations water systems.
"The water treatment plant is not designed to remove all of those
toxins," he said.
A spokesperson for Miller told The Globe in January that the
Indigenous Services department respects the right of First Nations
to seek court intervention and said the department had spent $23.5
million on water and wastewater upgrades in TCN since 2016
When questioned about the issue in the House of Commons Feb. 16,
Miller noted that these expenditures included a new lagoon, lift
station, and distribution lines in addition to the treatment plant
repairs and upgrades and the detailed source of water study.
"Our government continues to support Tataskweyak in the repairs and
upgrades to their water system as the water quality does indeed
continue to meet approved guidelines," said Miller. "We will
continue to engage with the community and get to the root of this
problem." [GN]
CANOO INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law
firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Canoo Inc. ("Canoo"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) investors concerning the Company
and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities
laws.
If you suffered a loss on your Canoo investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/canoo-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On March 29, 2021, Canoo announced its fourth quarter and full year
2020 financial results in a press release, reporting a net loss of
$89.9 million for the year. The Company also announced that its
Chief Financial Officer had resigned.
The same day, The Verge released an article entitled "Canoo's deal
with Hyundai appears dead: The startup's [sic] also changed its
tune on selling EV tech to big companies." The article stated that
"[w]hen pressed on the startup's previous claims," the current
chairman pointed to its prior leadership and said "they were a
little more aggressive" and "that talk of potential partnerships
was 'presumptuous.'" Lastly, the article noted that "Canoo quietly
uploaded a new investor presentation to its investor relations
website that no longer mentions Hyundai."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.50 per share, or
21%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021, thereby
injuring investors.
Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding
Canoo should consider their options to aid the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150
or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.
About GPM
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing
investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex
class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has
consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018,
GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class
action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of
settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40
attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of
dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust,
consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled
cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including
cases involving financial restatements, internal control
weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and
forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading,
violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ
investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's
attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all
industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy,
consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs,
financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech,
cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past
successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry
publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times,
Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's,
Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Faces Business Tort Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chick-Fil-A, Inc., et
al. The case is captioned as Ronald Ortega, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc. and Does
1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00296245-CU-BT-GDS (Cal., Super., Sacramento
Cty., March 11, 2020).
The case arises from business tort-related claims.
Chick-fil-A is one of the largest American fast food restaurant
chains and the largest whose specialty is chicken sandwiches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1100 15th St NW, Fl4
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
CHINA AGRITECH: Hails Supreme Court's Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that class action defendants have hailed the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2018 decision in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh as a
major victory -- limiting the ability of the plaintiffs bar to file
"serial class action complaints against companies in order to game
the statute limitations. "[1] But the Supreme Court's decision
could have very negative consequences for consumers' ability to
hold companies accountable for corporate misconduct. [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Clover
Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV) ("Clover") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded securities
between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and/or purchased or acquired Clover securities pursuant
or traceable to Clover's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger.
Investor Deadline Alert: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover
publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later
than April 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne
Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail
atinfo@ktmc.com; orclick
https://www.ktmc.com/clover-health-investments-corp-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=clover
According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance
services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with
IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business
Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October
6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its
intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On
October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC
(the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was
amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared
effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted
Clover's growth as strong and organic.
On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research
published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship
platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including
illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed
related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's
sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales
practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell
$1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February
4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%,
to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021.
On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form
8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and
requesting document and data preservation for the period from
January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that
are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this
news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3%
during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants
(CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on
February 5, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ
for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing
practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's
investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it
derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were
driven by a major undisclosed related-party deal and misleading
marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class"
technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover sales were from an
undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of April 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of those who acquired Clover
Health Investments, Corp. ("Clover" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CLOV) securities from October 6, 2020 through February 4, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until April 6, 2021 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On January 7, 2021, Clover merged with SPAC Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. III and began to trade under the symbol
CLOV on NASDAQ. On February 4, 2021, Hindenburg Research issued a
report stating that prior to the merger, Clover had been under
active investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for issues
ranging from kickbacks to marketing practices to undisclosed
third-party deals. Clover did not reveal that it was under active
investigation by the DOJ. On this news, the price of Clover's
shares fell $1.72 per share, or approximately 12.3%, to close at
$12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, representing a one-day loss
in market capitalization of approximately $700 million.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil
Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are
driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to
disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's
subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with
Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv)
Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Clover securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
CLOVER HEALTH: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on March 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Clover Health
Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV). The case is currently in the lead
plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased CLOV stock or other
securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021 or
traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger, may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover to submit their information. Investors
may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover
The complaint alleges that Clover Health and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the Department
of Justice for at least 12 issues ranging from kickbacks to
undisclosed third-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation
presented an existential risk to Clover, since it derives most of
its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were not driven by
its purported "best-in-class" technology but rather misleading
marketing practices that targeted the elderly; and (4) a
significant portion of Clover's sales derived from an undisclosed
relationship between Clover and an outside brokerage firm
controlled by Clover's Head of Sales.
Interested Clover investors have until April 6, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Clover [GN]
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Curtis Markson Putative Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Curtis Markson.
On August 2, 2018, Curtis Markson, et al., filed a putative class
action case in United States District Court, Central District of
California generically claiming that five (5) specified trucking
companies (including the company subsidiary Southern Refrigerated
Transport, Inc.) entered into a "no poaching conspiracy" in which
they agreed not to solicit or hire employees in California who were
"under contract" with a fellow defendant.
The allegations center around new drivers in California who
received their commercial driver's license through driving schools
associated with, or paid for by, one of the named defendants, in
exchange for agreeing to drive for that defendant carrier for a
specified amount of time (typically 8-10 months).
Over the ensuing 18 – 24 months, the Plaintiffs added more
trucking companies as co-defendants in the lawsuit, including our
subsidiary, Covenant Transport, Inc., on April 23, 2020. The
lawsuit claims that the named co-defendants sent letters to one
another, providing notice of "under contract" status, if these new
California drivers were hired by another defendant carrier prior to
the driver completing their contractual obligations.
Plaintiffs contend that these notifications evidence a collusive
agreement by the named defendants to restrain competition among
trucking companies in California and suppress wages. Southern
Refrigerated Transport, Inc. and Covenant Transport, Inc. are
vigorously defending themselves against these claims.
Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of December
31, 2020."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
COVENANT LOGISTICS: Tabizon Class Action vs Subsidiary Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Covenant
Transport, Inc., a company subsidiary continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Richard Tabizon.
The company's subsidiary Covenant Transport, Inc. is a defendant in
a lawsuit filed on November 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
Richard Tabizon (a California resident and former driver) who is
seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action.
The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is from October 31, 2014 to the present and alleges claims for
failure to properly pay drivers for rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements and/or reimbursement of
business-related expenses, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to
pay proper minimum wage and overtime wages, failure to provide all
wages due at termination, and other related wage and hour claims
under the California Labor Code.
Since the original filing date, the case has been removed from the
Los Angeles Superior Court to the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California and subsequently the case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of
Tennessee where the case is now pending. Covenant Transport intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Covenant said, "We do not currently have enough information to make
a reasonable estimate as to the likelihood, or amount of a loss, or
a range of reasonably possible losses as a result of this claim, as
such there have been no related accruals recorded as of December
31, 2020."
Covenant Logistics Group, Inc. operates as a truckload carrier. The
Company offers temperature-controlled transportation service for
shippers primarily in the frozen food and consumer products
industries. Covenant Logistics Group serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
CURO GROUP: Yellowdog Partners Putative Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court granted
final approval of the $9 million settlement in Yellowdog Partners,
LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp. and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662
(the "Yellowdog Action").
On May 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming
the company's founders and Friedman Fleischer & Lowe Capital
Partners II, L.P (FFL) as additional defendants.
The complaint alleged that the Company and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that
certain defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as "control persons" based on alleged misleading statements and
omitted material information regarding the Company's efforts to
transition the Canadian inventory of products from Single-Pay loans
to Open-End Loans.
Plaintiff brought the claims on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018 and October
24, 2018.
On December 18, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the $9.0
million settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Company's directors' and officers' insurance carriers will pay
the amount in excess of the $2.5 million retention under the policy
and, as such, the Company recorded $2.5 million in expense in 2019.
As of December 31, 2020, the entire $9.0 million settlement was
paid with $1.4 million of it paid by the Company. As a result, the
Company has a remaining $1.4 million receivable in "Other assets,"
which will be collected from the insurance carrier, and no
remaining liability related to the settlement.
CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
CYTODYN INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn" or the
"Company") (OTC: CYDY) common stock between March 27, 2020 and
March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). CytoDyn investors
have until May 17, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/cytodyn-inc/ to participate.
On August 26, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported that, despite
earlier representations, CytoDyn was not being considered for
Operation Warp Speed, the federal government's program aimed at
fast-tracking virus treatments. According to a senior
administration official, "CytoDyn had only completed a preliminary
qualification for being included in the initiative."
On this news, the price of CytoDyn share price fell $0.66 per
share, or 17%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at
$3.15, thereby injuring investors.
On September 3, 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") filed a lawsuit against Iliad Research and Trading L.P.
("Iliad"), CytoDyn's lender, Iliad's principal John Fife ("Fife"),
and certain Fife-related entities. Specifically, the SEC alleged
that Iliad and its related entities operated as unregistered
securities dealers in violation of the federal securities laws by
buying convertible promissory notes, converting the notes into
newly issued shares of stock, then rapidly selling those shares
into the public at a profit.
On November 10, 2020, CytoDyn entered into an amended $28.5 million
Secured Convertible Promissory Note with Fife's company,
Streeterville Capital LLC, a related entity that was not
specifically named in the SEC action against Iliad and Fife.
On this news, the price of CytoDyn's share price closed at $2.02,
representing an 80% decline from the Class Period high.
On March 5, 2020, after the market closed, CytoDyn began issuing
press releases that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing
data for Leronlimab for the treatment of COVID-19. Masked by
positive titles, these releases disclosed that the primary endpoint
for the study (lowering all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not
statistically significant.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.14 per share, or
28%, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn
shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35, thereby
injuring investors further.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements touting Leronlimab as a potential treatment
for COVID-19 to pump up the CytoDyn's stock price while executives
aggressively sold their shares. The complaint also alleges that
CytoDyn engaged in a wrongful scheme whereby Iliad and other Fife
entities operated as an unregistered securities dealer for
CytoDyn.
If you purchased CytoDyn securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than May 17, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased CytoDyn securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CYTODYN INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against CytoDyn Inc.
("CytoDyn" or "the Company") (OTC: CYDY) for violations of Sec10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 27,
2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. CytoDyn touted Leronlimab as a treatment
for COVID-19 to pump the Company's stock price at the same time its
executives sold their shares. The Company engaged in a scheme with
Iliad Research and Trading L.P. amongst others in which Iliad's
principal John Fife acted as an unregistered securities dealer for
CytoDyn. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were
false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When
the market learned the truth about CytoDyn, investors suffered
damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
DORDT UNIVERSITY: Two Students Part of Anti-Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
kiwaradio.com reports that a pair of Dordt University students are
among thirty-three plaintiffs, from twenty-six different colleges,
who have brought a class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department
of Education.
According to court documents, the group is accusing the Education
Department of, "complicity in the abuses and unsafe conditions
thousands of LGBTQ+ students endure at hundreds of taxpayer-funded,
religious colleges and universities."
Dordt students Lauren Hoekstra and Avery Bonestroo are both parties
to the lawsuit. In court documents, Hoekstra said, "We are held to
a different, stricter level than straight students." Hoekstra says
Dordt students have sent her "harassing messages, professors have
taught that people who practice homosexuality will burn in hell,
and a Dordt administrator told her that she could come out but only
if she didn't blatantly promote homosexuality or put her
relationship "in the face" of the people on campus." She says,
"Homophobia is rampant at Dordt and LGBTQ+ students fear coming
out. They risk discipline, expulsion, and rejection and harassment
from other students."
Bonestroo says she fears that she will be forbidden to graduate or
be forced to participate in conversion therapy if she does come
out. In the court filing, she said she "feels compelled to remain
closeted because of Dordt University's policies." The lawsuit
contends that these policies indicate that Bonestroo could face
extreme discipline by the school, including possible expulsion or
forced therapy meant to "cure" her.
The lawsuit contends that homophobia is rampant at Dordt and LGBTQ+
students fear coming out.
The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies provide
billions of dollars annually in funding to religious colleges and
universities that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students, according
to the lawsuit. Title IX prohibits sex discrimination at all
educational institutions that receive federal funding. However,
Title IX provides an exemption for educational institutions that
are controlled by religious organizations to the extent that
complying with Title IX would conflict with the religious tenets of
the controlling organization.
The lawsuit is seeking an injunction declaring that the religious
exemption to Title IX, as applied to the class of sexual and gender
minority students, is unconstitutional, prohibition of the
Department of Education from granting further religious exemptions
to Title IX as applied to sexual and gender minority students, a
rescinding of all prior religious exemptions to Title IX as applied
to sexual and gender minority students, requiring the Department of
Education to ensure that all federally-funded educational
institutions respect the sexual orientation, gender identity and
gender expression of their students, as well as further relief the
Court deems necessary and proper, as well as plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' fees.
For their part, Dordt University stresses that the school is NOT a
party to the lawsuit. In a post on the university's website they
write, "There are statements made in the complaint that do not
represent the practices of Dordt University. As a Christian
university, Dordt does maintain community standards which are
obedient to Scripture. We seek to live these out with grace and
truth -- modeling Christ-like behavior in all areas of campus life.
We pledge to extend compassion, care, support, and accountability
for each member of our campus community as we develop into
effective Kingdom citizens."
The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court in
Eugene, Oregon. [GN]
DOSKOCIL MANUFACTURING: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doskocil
Manufacturing Company, Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc. doing
business as: Petmate, Case No. 1:21-cv-02751 (S.D.N.Y., March 31,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Inc., doing business as Petmate --
https://www.petmate.com/ -- manufactures and distributes pet
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
DYCOM INDUSTRIES: Preliminary Agreement Reached in Suit v. Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dycom Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2021, that the company has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle a purported class action suit
initiated by the employees of one of the company's subsidiaries.
On December 1, 2017, one of the Company's subsidiaries was named in
a lawsuit alleging that its nonexempt employees performing utility
locating services in California were not paid appropriate minimum
and overtime wages, provided required breaks, reimbursed for
necessary business expenses, provided with accurate wage
statements, and timely pay all wages at termination of employment.
The plaintiff seeks to pursue these allegations as a class action
under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004.
Although the Company believes these claims are without merit it has
engaged in early settlement discussions and has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle these claims on a class-wide basis
for an aggregate settlement value of $2.1 million.
This preliminary agreement is subject to finalization by the
parties and approval by the Court.
Dycom said, "If this preliminary settlement is not finalized, due
to the early stage of this litigation, it is not possible to
estimate a range of loss that could result from either an adverse
judgment or a later settlement of this matter."
Dycom Industries, Inc. provides specialty contracting services in
the United States. The company offers various specialty contracting
services, including program management, engineering, construction,
maintenance, and installation services, such as placement and
splicing of fiber, copper, and coaxial cables to telecommunications
providers. Dycom Industries, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based
in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
EBIX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Ebix, Inc. (EBIX)
Class Period: 11/9/2020 - 2/19/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 23, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ebix/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
EBIX INC: Kaskela Law Announces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on March 9 disclosed that a shareholder class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) on behalf of investors who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between November 9, 2020 and
February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
According to the complaint, on February 19, 2021, Ebix revealed
that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a
result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to
evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions
that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the
Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that
there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design
controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle
sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In
addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of
$30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust
account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020.
Following this disclosure, shares of Ebix's common stock fell
$20.24 per share, or nearly 40% in value, to close on February 22,
2021 at $30.50 per share.
Current Ebix stockholders who purchased or acquired shares of the
Company's stock prior to November 9, 2020 are encouraged to contact
Kaskela Law LLC (David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at
(484) 258 – 1585, or by email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or
online at https://kaskelalaw.com/case/ebix-der/. for additional
information about this action and their legal rights and options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com.
CONTACT:
David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 – 1585
(888) 715 – 1740
www.kaskelalaw.com
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com
This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain
jurisdictions. [GN]
EBIX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EBIX) investors
that acquired shares between November 9, 2020 and February 19,
2021. Investors have until April 23, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
The allegations of securities fraud focus on whether the company
misled investors regarding its compliance with applicable
accounting rules. On Friday, February 19, 2021, Ebix announced that
the Company's auditors, RSM resigned as the company's independent
registered public accounting firm. RSM said it was "resigning as a
result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to
evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions
that occurred" in 4Q. The Company further stated that the auditor
had a "disagreement" on the classification of funds of $30m that
was transferred to a trust account of Ebix's outside legal
counsel.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 23,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
EHANG HOLDINGS LTD: Klein Hits Share Drop from False Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ran Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EHang Holdings Limited, Huazhi Hu, Richard
Jian Liu and Edward Huaxiang Xu, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-09241
(C.D. Cal., February 26, 2020), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
EHang is an autonomous aerial vehicle technology platform company
headquartered in Guangzhou, the People's Republic of China. EHang
American depository shares have traded on the NASDAQ stock
exchange. Huazhi Hu, Richard Jian Liu and Edward Huaxiang Xu sit in
the board of directors. EHang's purported passenger grade vehicle
is the "EH216."
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company purported
regulatory approvals in Europe and North America for its EH216 were
for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers, that EHang's
relationship with its purported primary customer, Shanghai Kunxiang
Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. is allegedly built on largely
fabricated revenues based on fraudulent sales contracts, tha EHang
has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since its
ADSs began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019 and that the
company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and
lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees.
On this news, EHangs's stock price fell from their February 12,
2021 close of $124.09 per share to a February 16, 2021 close of
$46.30 per share, a one day drop of $77.79 per share, or
approximately 62.7%.
Klein purchased or otherwise acquired EHang securities. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
1200 Ashford Parkway, Suite 410
Atlanta, GA 30338
Tel: (770) 392-0090
Fax: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
EHANG HOLDINGS: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
EHang Holdings Limited (EH)
Class Period: 12/12/2019 - 2/16/2021 (2/16/21, purchases at or
above the price of $112.00).
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-eh/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
EHANG HOLDINGS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announced that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
XOM Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/exxon-mobil-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
EH Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
IQDNX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-fund-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM)
XOM Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 28, 2018
- January 14, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/exxon-mobil-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Exxon
Mobil Corporation made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Exxon forced its
employees to use unrealistic assumptions regarding the timelines
for well drilling in the Permian Basin; (ii) the foregoing
assumptions served to artificially inflate the value of the
Company's well operations in the Permian Basin; (iii) the foregoing
conduct, when revealed, subjected Exxon to a heightened risk of
regulatory investigation and oversight; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Ehang Holdings Limited (NASDAQ:EH)
EH Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 12, 2019
- February 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ehang-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ehang
Holdings Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported
regulatory approvals in Europe and North American for its EH216
were for use as a drone, and not for carrying passengers; (ii) its
relationship with its purported primary customer is a sham; (iii)
EHang has only collected on a fraction of its reported sales since
its ADS began trading on NASDAQ in December 2019; (iv) the
Company's manufacturing facilities were practically empty and
lacked evidence of advanced manufacturing equipment or employees;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund Institutional Class
(NASDAQ:IQDNX)
IQDNX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21,
2018 - February 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-fund-loss-submission-form?prid=13451&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Infinity
Q Diversified Alpha Fund Institutional Class made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Infinity Q's Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain
parameters within the third-party pricing model that affected the
valuation of the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity
Q would not be able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result,
the previously reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the
foregoing, the Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its
assets; and (5) as a result, the Prospectuses were materially false
and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be
stated therein.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
EM COSMETICS: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EM Cosmetics LLC. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. EM
Cosmetics LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01753 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Em Cosmetics LLC -- https://www.emcosmetics.com/ -- is located in
Culver City, California and is part of the Cosmetics, Beauty Supply
& Perfume Stores Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
EMBARK VETERINARY: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embark Veterinary,
Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Embark
Veterinary, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02757 (S.D.N.Y., March 31,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Embark -- https://embarkvet.com/ -- is a canine genomics and
biotechnology company based in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
EVENT ENTERTAINMENT: Corwin Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corwin Law, a consumer rights law firm based in Boca Raton, has
filed a class action lawsuit against Event Entertainment Group and
the City of Miami on behalf of Florida residents who purchased
tickets to the 2020 Ultra Music Festival that was scheduled to take
place March 20-22, 2020 at Bayfront Park in Miami Beach.
Attorney Marcus W. Corwin stated that the cancellation of the 2020
festival due to the COVID-19 pandemic was disguised as a
postponement, with promises of an enhanced benefits package for the
2021 festival to ticket purchasers in lieu of issuing refunds. Now
that the 2021 event has been canceled, promoters of the event have
once again contacted ticketholders offering more promises, but
still no refund.
"It is totally unconscionable for the promoters to withhold refunds
for two plus years, and for the City of Miami to allow it, with no
guarantees that this event will be able to take place in 2022 or
2023," Corwin said.
"This is an abuse of fairness, and of accepted and proper trade
practice," Corwin continued. "No one argues that the festival
should have gone forward, but when it didn't, the promoters should
have refunded the money. If ticketholders want to attend the
festival, if it happens, then they can decide and pay on their own
terms."
According to the eight-count Class Action Lawsuit, filed in the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, "Ultra engaged in
unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive trade practices by
advertising, offering, and promoting the festival, taking
individuals' money to attend said advertised festival, cancelling
the festival, and then failing to provide ticket purchasers with
the option of receiving a refund, effectively shifting all risk and
costs of Ultra's decision to cancel the Event to the consumers."
Gabriella Petroka, class representative stated, "As a loyal
attendee for many years, I'm grateful to Ultra for facilitating
many amazing memories and I'm hopeful that Ultra will continue for
many years to come. However, I'm also hopeful that Ultra will do
right by the consumers by allowing us the choice to receive refunds
and decide for ourselves how to use this money, and whether or not
we would like to attend future events, as I believe that is the
only fair outcome here, given the unconscionable duration of this
'postponement.'"
Corwin, who has been practicing since 1986, has litigated
successfully against Madonna, Live Nation, AT&T, Comcast, HBO, and
others, called the offer to replace old tickets with new ones for
dates that are not confirmed "utterly unacceptable."
The Corwin lawsuit is Filing #124094995 with the Miami-Dade County,
Florida Circuit Civil Division.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION SEEKING CLASS MEMBERS TO JOIN THE
LAWSUIT. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL
A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY UNLESS
YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT CORWIN LAW AT
SEEKINGJUSTICE@CORWINLAWFIRM.COM
Marcus Corwin
Attorney
Corwin Law
Seekingjustice@corwinlawfirm.com [GN]
EVENT ENTERTAINMENT: Hit With Another Lawsuit Over Ticket Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Belisle at edmtunes.com reports that Corwin Law, a consumer
rights law firm based in Boca Raton, is the latest firm to file a
class-action lawsuit against Event Entertainment Group and the City
of Miami. Precisely, the lawsuit demands refunds for tickets to the
2020 Ultra Music Festival in Miami. This time, it's on behalf of
Florida residents.
Attorney Marcus W. Corwin said that the cancellation of the 2020
edition of Ultra was disguised as a postponement. In fact,
organizers promised an enhanced benefits package for the 2021
festival to ticket holders instead of issuing refunds. "No one
argues that the festival should have gone forward, but when it
didn't, the promoters should have refunded the money", added
Corwin. Even with the 2021 event canceled, promoters still refuse
to issue refunds. Once again, they offered packages for the
subsequent year. Corwin continued, saying that "it is totally
unconscionable for the promoters to withhold refunds for two plus
years, and for the City of Miami to allow it, with no guarantees
that this event will be able to take place in 2022 or 2023".
Ticket Holders
Obviously, ticketholders felt like they had no say in this whole
situation. As Corwin said, "if ticketholders want to attend the
festival, if it happens, then they can decide and pay on their own
terms". Without the option of a refund, many think that Ultra did
not do right by the consumers. One of them is Gabriella Petroka,
one of the class' representatives, who has been a "loyal attendee
for many years". "I'm grateful to Ultra for facilitating many
amazing memories. I'm hopeful that Ultra will continue for many
years to come", she said. "However, I'm also hopeful that Ultra
will do right by the consumers by allowing us the choice to receive
refunds and decide for ourselves how to use this money". [GN]
FARM PROJECT: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Farm Project,
PBC. The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Farm
Project, PBC doing business as: Lettuce Grow, Case No.
1:21-cv-01747 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Farm Project -- https://www.thefarmproject.com/ -- was founded
by Zooey Deschanel and Jacob Pechenik with the mission to reconnect
people with food.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FATECH INTERNATIONAL: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fatech International,
LLC. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Fatech International, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02784 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fatech International -- http://www.fatech.net/-- is an IT
solutions and professional services provider headquartered in
Herndon, Virginia.[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
FORT INC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Calcano Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS CALCANO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. THE FORT, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-02064-VEC
(S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, https://www.fortbrands.com/ ,and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's Website is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers, resulting in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures so
that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition blindness in that they have a visual
acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some
blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
The Defendant offers the commercial Website to the public. The
Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services offered by the Defendant and which Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods throughout the United States
including New York State. The goods and services offered by
Defendant include the following, which allow consumers to purchase
western style clothing such as shirts, pants, boots, hats, as well
as decor items, gifts and other products available online for
purchase, and to ascertain information relating to pricing,
shipping, ordering merchandise and return and privacy
policies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fairness Hearing on Settlement Set for April
----------------------------------------------------------------
FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the final settlement
approval hearing is set for April.
On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of our initial public offering of common stock
("IPO").
The complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons
or entities who purchased the company's common stock in or
traceable to the company's IPO, and purports to allege claims
arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.
The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
damages in an amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
After removing the case from state to federal court in the Southern
District of Texas, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on
deficiencies in the pleadings on September 18, 2020.
Prior to a hearing on the motion, the parties settled the case on
October 16, 2020. The settlement is on a class-wide basis, and a
final hearing is set for April 2021 to conclude the case.
The company do not expect the ultimate resolution of this case to
have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements.
FTS International said, "We believe that costs associated with
other legal matters will not have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report."
FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.
FUBOTV INC: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
fuboTV Inc. (FUBO)
Class Period: 3/23/2020 - 1/4/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fubo/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
FUBOTV INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm on March 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of fuboTV Inc. (NYSE:
FUBO). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased FUBO stock or other securities between March 23, 2020
and January 4, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV.
The case alleges that fuboTV and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors which included
misrepresentations about fuboTV's ability to grow subscription
levels and future profitability, seasonality factors, cost
escalations and potentially shrinking addressable market, ability
to attract and generate advertising revenue, the Company's
valuation, and its prospects of entering the arena of online sports
wagering. Investors learned the truth when a series of research
reports revealed that: (i) fuboTV's growth in subscriber and
profitability was unsustainable past the one-time seasonal surge;
(ii) fuboTV's offering of products would be subject to cost
escalation; (iii) fuboTV could not successfully compete and perform
as sports book operator and could not capitalize on its online
sports wagering opportunity; (iv) fuboTV's data and inventory was
not differentiated to allow fuboTV to achieve its long-term
advertising growth goals; (v) fuboTV's valuation was overstated in
light of its total revenue and subscription levels; and (vi) the
acquisition of Balto Sports did not provide the stated synergies
and internal expertise, and did not expand the Company's
addressable market into sports wagering.
Interested fuboTV investors have until April 19, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/fuboTV [GN]
GEICO CASUALTY: Profits From Covid 19 Pandemic, Day Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA DAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY; GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY; and GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-02103-VKD (N.D. Cal., Mar. 25, 2021) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of unfairly profiting from the global COVID-19
pandemic.
According to the complaint, while many companies, industries, and
individuals have suffered financially as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, auto insurers like GEICO have scored a windfall. Not
surprisingly, as a result of state-wide social distancing and
stay-at-home measures, there has been a dramatic reduction in
driving, and an attendant reduction in driving-related accidents.
This decrease in driving and accidents has significantly reduced
the number of claims that auto insurers like GEICO have paid,
resulting in a drastic and unfair increase in GEICO's profits at
the expense of its customers, added the suit.
One published report calculates that at least a 30% average refund
of paid premiums would be required to make up for the excess
amounts paid by consumers for just the period between mid-March and
the end of April of 2020. Despite full knowledge of these facts,
GEICO has failed to issue refunds. The company's short-lived "GEICO
Giveback" program was woefully inadequate to compensate its
customers for overpayments resulting from COVID-19. The program
applied a 15% discount on new and renewal auto insurance policies
from April to October 2020. But it did not apply any discount to
the premiums that customers already paid and continued to pay on
policies already existing at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
And even with respect to new and renewal policies, the 15% credit
fell well short of what has been very conservatively estimated as
an adequate refund. Despite the inadequacy of its refund program,
GEICO falsely advertised to consumers that it was "passing its
COVID-related savings on" to its customers, says the complaint.
GEICO Casualty Company operates as an insurance company. The
Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life,
general liability, travel, and business insurance services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melody L. Sequoia, Esq.
THE SEQUOIA LAW FIRM
530 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 102
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 561-4791
Facsimile: (650) 561-4817
E-mail: melody@sequoialawfirm.com
-and-
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: helland@nka.com
GOOGLE LLC: Ridenti Consumer Suit Moved From D. Mass. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAULA RIDENTI, as parent and guardian of R.A. and
R.M.A., minors, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and YOUTUBE LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-10517-NMG, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 31, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02313-SK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Massachusetts General Laws by collecting personal information of
YouTube channels' minor viewers without express parental consent.
Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products,
headquartered in Mountain View, California.
YouTube LLC is an American online video-sharing platform company
headquartered in San Bruno, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Patrick Vallely, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
Seaport East
Two Seaport Lane, Floor 6
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
pvallely@shulaw.com
GULFPORT ENERGY: Woodley Securities Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a federal securities class action suit initiated by
Robert F. Woodley.
In March 2020, Robert F. Woodley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a federal securities class action
against the Company, David M. Wood, Keri Crowell and Quentin R.
Hicks in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages, the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and such other and further relief that may be deemed just
and proper.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Gulfport Energy Corporation is an independent oil natural gas
exploration and production company. The company focuses on the
exploration, exploitation, acquisition and production of natural
gas, natural gas liquids, and crude oil in the United States.
HARDWARE WORLD: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hardware World LLC.
The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Hardware World LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02785 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hardware World -- https://www.hardwareworld.com/ -- is a source for
home improvement, paint & sundries, lawn & garden, farm supply,
tools, workwear, automotive, household supplies, do-it-yourself
projects, caulk & sealants, electrical, lighting, plumbing, and
more.[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
HARTFORD FIRE: RV AgateSeeks Payment for COVID-19 Business Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RV AGATE BEACH, LLC and RIVERHOUSE PROPERTY, LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00460-MO (D.
Or., Mar. 26, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
insurance for losses due to COVID-19.
According to the complaint, beginning in March 2020, the Plaintiffs
were forced to suspend, in whole or in part, their business
operations due to certain orders and directives issued by Oregon
Governor Kate Brown and local civil authorities which, among other
things, restricted access to and operation of Plaintiffs' business,
limited groups of people, curtailed travel, and generally limited
commercial activity, each and all of which caused the Plaintiffs to
suffer loss or damage (the "Orders").
As a direct result of the Orders, the Plaintiffs were unable to
operate their business, in whole or in part, while the Orders
remained in effect. When Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
businesses were permitted to re-open, they could only do so with
significant alterations to their premises and business models at
great cost, including, loss of use of space, installation of
barriers, increased cleaning and sanitation protocols, changing
business hours and employee hours, decreased customer traffic, and
generally more expensive operations in order to comply with the
Orders. The Plaintiffs' business property cannot be used for its
intended purposes and their business activities have necessarily
been suspended or interrupted, says the suit.
Despite the promised coverage in the insurance policy, the
Defendant allegedly denied Plaintiff's claim for coverage under the
Policy. Despite the policy language and the coverages it promises,
the Defendant refuses to acknowledge that "direct physical loss"
and "direct physical damage" refer to distinct harms, resulting in
additional protection for Plaintiffs' loss and damage directly,
efficiently, and proximately caused by the Orders. The Plaintiffs
have experienced and will continue to experience loss or damage
covered by the policy, and continued harm naturally and foreseeably
occurring as a result of the Defendant's refusal to accept coverage
and pay for the Plaintiffs' covered loss and damage, added the
suit.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. operates as an insurance firm. The
Company offers auto, home, and fire insurance products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle A. Sturm, Esq.
Nicholas A. Thede, Esq.
FOREMAN STURM & THEDE, LLP
P.O. Box 13098
Portland, OR 97213
Telephone: (503) 206-5824
E-mail: kyle.sturm@foremansturm.com
nick.thede@foremansturm.com
-and-
Nicholas A Kahl, Esq.
NICK KAHL, LLC
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 400
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (971) 634-0829
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
E-mail: nick@nickkahl.com
-and-
Craig Lowell, Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 809-7707
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
E-mail: clowell@wigginschilds.com
HEXO CORP: New York Securities Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Mamta Mayani, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that HEXO
(NYSE:HEXO) has won a complete dismissal in the federal U.S.
securities class action pending in the District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Previously, HEXO and certain of officers and directors were named
in shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the New York State
and the Province of Quebec.
The suits alleged that HEXO made material misstatements and omitted
material information in its prior disclosures to investors
regarding various issues, including estimated sales revenues during
Q4 2019 and FY 2020, its supply agreement with the SQDC, and the
facilities acquired from Newstrike.
On March 8, 2021, the Southern District of New York granted HEXO's
motion to dismiss "in its entirety." The court agreed with HEXO
that the plaintiffs "failed to allege actionable misstatements or
omissions" under the U.S. securities laws.
The court also rejected the plaintiffs' allegations that HEXO
engaged in fraudulent or reckless conduct with respect to the
disclosures. Plaintiffs have a right to appeal. [GN]
HRG GROUP: Bernstein Litowitz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") announced that
investors who purchased publicly traded common stock of HRG Group,
Inc. ("HRG") (previously NYSE: HRG) from January 26, 2017 to
November 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") may seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff to represent a subclass of HRG
investors in a securities class-action lawsuit against HRG,
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc. ("Spectrum") (NYSE: SPB), and
certain of Spectrum's current and former senior executives
(collectively, "Defendants") in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin. The action, which is
captioned In re Spectrum Brands Securities Litigation, No.
19-CV-178, 19-CV-347 (W.D. Wis.), asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sec 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased
HRG's publicly traded common stock during the Class Period. A copy
of the Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the action (the
"Complaint") and other information about the action are available
on BLB&G's website at www.blbglaw.com.
HRG was previously a holding company whose principal asset was a
majority stake in Spectrum. Spectrum is a consumer-brands company
that provides a wide variety of consumer products through its
retail partners, including Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowe's. The two
companies merged on July 13, 2018, forming the current Spectrum.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
falsely stated that Spectrum was successfully executing two major
capital projects consolidating the operations of its critical
Global Auto Care ("GAC") and Home & Hardware Improvement ("HHI")
divisions. The Complaint alleges that Defendants repeatedly told
the market that the GAC and HHI consolidations were progressing
effectively and on schedule, and any issues were merely temporary
and transitory and were being quickly corrected. In truth,
Defendants allegedly knew that the GAC and HHI consolidations were
suffering from fundamental execution problems that were far more
serious than disclosed to investors.
On April 26, 2018, Spectrum disclosed disappointing financial
results for the second quarter of 2018 based on the poorly executed
consolidation projects, and Spectrum CEO Andreas Rouvé resigned.
HRG's stock price fell 22%, from $93.15 to $72.563 in one day
(adjusted for the subsequent merger). Defendants immediately
represented that the problems at the GAC and HHI facilities were
being swiftly corrected. In July 2018, HRG and Spectrum merged, and
the resulting company assumed the Spectrum name. Then, on November
16, 2018, Spectrum disclosed another disastrous quarter driven by a
$92.5 million goodwill write down for GAC, again because of the
poorly executed consolidations. Spectrum's stock price declined
19%, from $59.35 to $48.05 per share.
The action is pending before the Honorable James D. Peterson. In
June 2019, the Court appointed the Public School Teachers' Pension
and Retirement Fund of Chicago ("Chicago Teachers") and the
Cambridge Retirement System "Cambridge") as Lead Plaintiffs and
BLB&G as Lead Counsel in accordance with the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). In July 2019, Lead
Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stocks of
Spectrum and HRG during the Class Period. Defendants moved to
dismiss the Complaint, and that motion was fully briefed. In August
2020, Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement providing for a proposed settlement of the
action for $39 million in cash (the "Settlement"). In September
2020, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement.
On February 6, 2021, the Court entered an Order denying without
prejudice Lead Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
proposed Settlement and Lead Counsel's motion for an award of
attorney's fees and expenses. The Court directed Lead Plaintiffs to
either "publish a new notice that includes the claims of the HRG
class members, and then the court will choose an additional lead
plaintiff for those members in accordance with [the PSLRA]," or
"dismiss the claims of class members who purchased HRG stock" and
"allow them to file a separate lawsuit if they wish." Lead
Plaintiffs notified the Court that they would publish this notice
allowing HRG investors to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff for a
subclass of HRG investors.
On April 2, 2021, the Court entered an Order bifurcating the
action, providing for separate putative subclasses of (i) Spectrum
investors led by Chicago Teachers and Cambridge and (ii) HRG
investors, and directing publication of this notice to HRG
investors.
Per this notice published on April 2, 2021, in accordance with the
PSLRA, investors who purchased publicly traded common stock of HRG
during the Class Period and who wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for
the HRG subclass are required to file a motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff for the HRG subclass by no later than June 1, 2021.
The Spectrum Lead Plaintiffs and the Spectrum subclass will
continue to be represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys
with offices in New York, California, Delaware, Louisiana, and
Illinois. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
an attorney of your choice. If you have questions about this
notice, you may also contact Katherine M. Sinderson of BLB&G at
212-554-1392, or via email at KatieM@blbglaw.com. Please do not
contact the Court with questions about this notice.
Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity. Specializing in litigation
concerning securities fraud, corporate governance, and
shareholders' rights, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes
class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual
clients worldwide. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained
several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries
in history, recovering billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded
investors. More information about BLB&G can be found online at
www.blbglaw.com.
CONTACT:
Katherine M. Sinderson
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of Americas, 44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1392 [GN]
INDIVEST INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Rosales Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SALEM ROSALES, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. INDIVEST, INCORPORATED, a California corporation; PLAZA
LA REINA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-02195 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2020)
alleges that the Defendants failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually
impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Because the Defendant's website, https://www.plazalareina.com/ the,
is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers in violation of the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually
impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet
the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity
with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind
people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no
vision.
The Defendant offers the https://www.plazalareina.com/ website to
the public. The website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services which the Defendant
offers in connection with its physical location. The goods and
services offered by the Defendant include rooms such as the
superior studio suite, premier studio suite, grand premier one
bedroom suite, signature bedroom suite, work live loft suite, and
the mezzanine studio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
INFINITE PRODUCT: CBD Consumer Class Action Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that on March 3, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California invoked the primary jurisdiction
doctrine to stay a consumer class action asserting various causes
of action against Infinite Product Company, LLC (Infinite) related
to the allegedly improper sale of cannabidiol (CBD) products.
As we have previously covered in our blog, the federal regulatory
framework for CBD remains uncertain. The FDA has taken the position
that CBD is not a lawful dietary or food ingredient, even while the
market is flooded by CBD products and individual states, such as
New York, are forging ahead with their own regulatory frameworks.
And while industry had hoped that draft CBD enforcement guidelines
-- which had been under review by the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) since July 2002 -- would provide
clarity, the draft guidelines were withdrawn in January following
the change in administration. No timetable for their release, or
for any other FDA regulatory or Congressional action has been
announced.
The class action had alleged that Infinite improperly and
misleadingly marketed CBD products, including labeling of the
products as dietary supplements when they were in fact (allegedly)
misbranded drugs. The court found that it could not adjudicate the
claims "given the lack of clarity as to which of Defendant's CBD
products are drugs, dietary supplements, or food products, and what
standards apply to those Products." Instead, the court held that
the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which allows courts to stay
cases pending resolution of an issue within the special competence
of an administrative agency, was properly invoked because both FDA
and Congress have expressed interest in regulating CBD and uniform
regulation of CBD is necessary, especially given the potential
safety concerns. Therefore, the case was ordered stayed "until the
FDA completes its rulemaking and/or Congress passes legislation
regarding the definitions, marketing, and labeling of CBD
products."
While the order states that the stay will be in effect until
Congress or FDA act, it is likely that prolonged inaction might
also result in a reversal of the stay. Many courts had initially
stayed "natural" class actions pending FDA guidance on the
definition of "natural," but in light of continued FDA inaction,
courts have reversed course and refused recent requests to stay.
Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor the regulation of CBD
products and class-actions relating to their sale. [GN]
INFINITY Q: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of April 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming April 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund ("Infinity Q"
or the "Company") Investor Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDAX) or
Institutional Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDNX) between December 21,
2018 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Infinity Q investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/infinity-q-diversified-alpha-fund/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 23, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article
entitled, "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on $1.8 Billion Fund:
Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief investment officer
from trading after discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings."
The article reported that Infinity Q "asked the Securities and
Exchange Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds
and forbid its chief investment officer from trading after
discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings." The article
continued to state that, "[t]he fund was unable to calculate an NAV
on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when the fund will be
able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to satisfy requests
for redemptions of fund shares[.]"
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Infinity Q's
Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters
within the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of
the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not
be able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously
reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the
Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a
result, the prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Infinity Q shares during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 27, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
ITS TECHNOLOGIES: Ortega Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RUDY ORTEGA and CLEMENTE SANDOVAL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ITS TECHNOLOGIES &
LOGISTICS, LLC, CONGLOBAL INDUSTRIES, LLC, CONGLOBAL TRANSPORT,
LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2103309,
was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on March 31, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00562 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay meal
premiums, failure to pay rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages,
failure to timely pay final wages, non-compliant wage statements,
unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices.
ITS Technologies & Logistics, LLC is a provider of intermodal rail
terminal services headquartered in Darien, Illinois.
ConGlobal Industries, LLC is a transportation and logistics company
based in Atlanta, Georgia.
ConGlobal Transport, LLC is a transportation and logistics company
located in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarah E. Ross, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
E-mail: sross@littler.com
- and –
Elliot Wilson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: ewilson@littler.com
JUUL LABS: Richey Files Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Juul Labs, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Charleen Richey, on behalf of her son,
T.Y., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Juul Labs, Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Philip Morris USA, Inc.,
Altria Client Services, LLC, Altria Group Distribution Company,
James Monsees, Adam Bowen, Nicholas Pritzker, Hoyoung Huh, Riaz
Valani, Case No. 3:21-cv-02273 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Juul Labs, Inc. -- https://www.juullabs.com/ -- is an American
electronic cigarette company which spun off from Pax Labs in 2017.
It makes the Juul e-cigarette, which packages nicotine salts from
leaf tobacco into one-time use cartridges.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas Phillip Cartmell, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: (816) 701-1100
Fax: (816) 531-2372
Email: tcartmell@wcllp.com
KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
KDMN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
and docketed under 21-cv-01797, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Kadmon securities between October 1, 2020 and
March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Kadmon securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 2, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and
commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the
treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The Company's lead
product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an
orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated
coiled-coil kinase 2 ("ROCK2"), which is in Phase II clinical
development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease
("cGVHD").
On September 30, 2020, post-market, Kadmon announced the submission
of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment
of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").
Then, on November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the FDA's acceptance
of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had assigned the NDA a
Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of May
30, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was
incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the
Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to
an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA
submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA
submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led
investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to
extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA;
and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that
the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA
and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021,
the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its
Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30,
2021." Kadmon advised investors that "[t]he FDA extended the PDUFA
date to allow time to review additional information submitted by
Kadmon in response to a recent FDA information request," and that
"[t]he submission of the additional information has been determined
by the FDA to constitute a major amendment to the NDA, resulting in
an extension of the PDUFA date by three months."
On this news, Kadmon's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 10.57%,
to close at $4.40 per share on March 11, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
KENCKO FOODS: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kencko Foods, Inc.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Kencko
Foods, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01752 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Kencko -- https://www.kencko.com/ -- is a smart food company
reinventing organic fruit and vegetable products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
KROGER CO: Kinman Hits Artificial Smoke Flavor in Gouda Cheese
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Kinman, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-01154 (N.D. Ill., February 28, 2021), seeks to recover actual
damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs for breaches
of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and for
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and New York General
Business Law.
The Kroger Co. manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells
gouda cheese purporting to have been smoked under its "Private
Selection" brand. Kinman disputes its misrepresentation as "Smoked
Gouda" because the ingredient list reveals it contains "Smoke
Flavor," instead of being actually smoked. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cutter Mill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck NY 11021-3104
Tel: (516) 268-7080
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
LEGALZOOM.COM: Alhadeff Suit Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT ALHADEFF, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Case No. 21STCV02361 (Filed Jan. 20, 2021), was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the united States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 2, 2021.
The complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Florida
Security of Communications Act (FSCA). The Plaintiff purports to
bring the claim on behalf of himself and a proposed class, defined
as "[a]ll persons residing within the State of Florida who visited
the Defendant's website and whose electronic communications were
intercepted by the Defendant or on Defendant's behalf without the
prior consent of the person."
The Plaintiff seeks actual, liquidated, and/or punitive statutory
damages; declaratory relief; injunctive relief; and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.
LegalZoom.com is an online legal technology company that helps its
customers create legal documents without necessarily having to hire
a lawyer. Available documents include wills and living trusts,
business formation documents, copyright registrations, and
trademark applications.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
925 Century Park E #1700
Los Angeles, CA 9006
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
E-mail: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James G. Snell, Esq.
Brendan S. Sasso, Esq.
Nicola C. Menaldo, Esq.
Donald J. Kula, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Telephone: (650) 838-4300
Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
E-mail: JSnell@perkinscoie.com
BSasso@perkinscoie.com
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
DKula@perkinscoie.com
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 3, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LDOS) securities between May 4, 2020 and February
23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Leidos investors have
until May 3, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Leidos investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/leidos-holdings-inc.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce
Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things
that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of
fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international
revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was "concealing
numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive
detection systems at airports and borders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to
close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the
Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses
for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the
acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million
annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales.
The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst
estimates of $1.083 billion.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to
close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021.
On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had
"materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for
the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe
it is validating all the major points of our report."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to
close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos' products suffered
from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection
systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Leidos securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 3, 2021 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 8
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS)
between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 3, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Leidos securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Leidos class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2035.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 3, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported benefits of the
Company's acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation
businesses were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos' products
suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive
detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were
significantly overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
To join the Leidos class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2035.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or "the Company") (NYSE: LDOS) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 4,
2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Leidos significantly overstated the
purported benefits of its acquisition of L3Harris' Security
Detection & Automation businesses. The Company's products suffered
from multiple defects, including faulty bomb detection systems
installed at critical infrastructure points including airports and
ports. The Company's financial results were significantly
overstated as a result. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Leidos,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Lordstown Motors Corp.
("Lordstown" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIDE) and reminds investors
of the May 17, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Lordstown
stock or options between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/RIDE.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the Company's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (2) many of
the would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked
the means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible
demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (3) Lordstown is not and has not
been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in
September 2021; (4) the first test run of the Endurance led to the
vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Specifically, before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst
Hindenburg Research published a report entitled "The Lordstown
Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, and a
Prototype Inferno." In its report, Hindenburg continued that
"Lordstown is an electric vehicle SPAC with no revenue and no
sellable product, which we believe has misled investors on both its
demand and production capabilities. The company has consistently
pointed to its book of 100,000 pre-orders as proof of deep demand
for its proposed EV truck. Our conversations with former employees,
business partners and an extensive document review show that the
company's orders are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise
capital and confer legitimacy."
On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.
Then, on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call on which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown
had received an inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although
Lordstown also issued a press release and a Form 8-K announcing its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading
closed on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the
existence of the SEC inquiry in those reports.
On this news, the stock fell approximately another 9% in
aftermarket trading.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Lordstown's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/79346 [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lordstown-motors-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent
purchasers of the common stock of Lordstown Motors Corp.
(NASDAQ:RIDE), formerly known as DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.
(NASDAQ:DPHC), and the common stock warrants of Lordstown Motors
Corp. (NASDAQ:RIDEW) and of DiamondPeak Holdings Corp.
(NASDAQ:DPHCW and NASDAQ:DPHCU), between August 3, 2020 and March
24, 2021, and all holders of DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. common
stock entitled to participate in the August 22, 2020 shareholder
vote on the merger with Lordstown Motors (the "Class"). This action
was filed in the Northern District of Ohio and is captioned Zuod v.
Lordstown Motors Corp., No. 21-cv-00720.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Lordstown Motors common stock during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Lordstown
Motors class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Lordstown Motors class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Lordstown Motors class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Lordstown Motors
class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Lordstown
Motors class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than
60 days from March 18, 2021. If you wish to discuss the Lordstown
Motors class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
631-454-7719 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a
copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-lordstown-motors-corp-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Lordstown Motors class action lawsuit charges Lordstown Motors
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, Lordstown Motors is an automotive
company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing
light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers.
Lordstown Motors' purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an
electric full-size pickup truck. Until November 2020, Lordstown
Motors shares were privately held. DiamondPeak was a publicly
traded special purpose acquisition company (also known as a SPAC),
which was formed and taken public to raise funds to purchase one or
more other businesses. On August 3, 2020, Lordstown Motors and
DiamondPeak announced that they had entered into a definitive
agreement to merge, after which the combined company would remain
listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the new ticker symbols
"RIDE" and "RIDEW."
The Lordstown Motors class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, while defendants touted the 100,000 "pre-orders"
that Lordstown Motors had obtained for purportedly large "fleet"
sales of Endurance trucks, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Lordstown Motors had
been paying consultants to drum up nefarious pre-order customers;
(ii) many of the would-be customers who made these purported
pre-orders were either bogus entities or lacked the means to make
such purchases and thus would not have credible demand for
Lordstown Motors' Endurance; (iii) Lordstown Motors is not and has
not been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in
September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the
vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a
result, Lordstown Motors' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.
On March 12, 2021, stock research firm Hindenburg Research
published a research report accusing Lordstown Motors of touting
what were "largely fictitious" orders. According to Hindenburg
Research, in reality: (i) many of the purported pre-order customers
were mere sham operations; (ii) Lordstown Motors had paid
consultants to solicit pre-orders from entities that were either
unable and/or unwilling to ever make any actual purchases; (iii)
Lordstown Motors was not on track to begin final production by
September 2021 and instead may take years to begin actual
production; (iv) Lordstown Motors' Chief Executive Officer ("CEO")
had been terminated from his prior employment with the company that
purportedly developed Lordstown Motors' EV truck technology for
misconduct and failed management; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Lordstown Motors' positive statements during the Class
Period about the company's business metrics and financial prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
In response to this news, the price of Lordstown Motors Class A
common stock declined by approximately $3.00 per share on March 12,
2021, on unusually high trading volume of more than 7x the average
volume over the preceding 10 trading days.
Then, during a conference call held on the evening of March 17,
2021, after the close of trading, Lordstown Motors disclosed that
the company had received a request for information from the SEC.
When interviewed by CNBC on the morning of March 18, 2021, the
Lordstown Motors CEO now claimed that the company had "never said
we had orders," and admitted that the company "[didn't] have a
product yet," adding that "[b]y definition we can't have orders."
He further stated that the previously much hyped "preorders did
exactly what they were supposed to do. Gauge interest. Nobody knew
if fleets would buy an electric pickup truck. It was completely
unknown science, no data around it." He concluded, stating: "I
don't think anybody thought we had actual orders. That's just not
the nature of this business." On this news the market price of the
Class A common stock declined further, closing down more than $2.00
per share, again trading on unusually high trading volume.
Finally, on March 24, 2020, during the trading day, Hindenburg
Research published additional pictures of the Endurance EV truck
after it broke down and had to be loaded onto a tow truck during
the filming of a commercial that had been aired just days prior to
the common stock of Lordstown Motors being taken public via its
combination with DiamondPeak. On this news the stock price fell
another $1.21 per share, once again trading down on unusually high
trading volume.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For eight
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Mary K. Blasy, 800-449-4900
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Lordstown Motors Corp.
(NASDAQ:RIDE). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased RIDE stock or other securities between
August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Lordstown to submit their information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Lordstown Motors and its senior executives
made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose
that: (i) Lordstown's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii)
many would-be customers who made pre-orders lacked the means to
make such purchases or would not have credible demand for
Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown was not on track to commence
production of the Endurance in September 2021; and (iv) the first
test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames
within 10 minutes.
Interested Lordstown investors have until May 17, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts as a representative of
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Lordstown [GN]
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Customers Still Waiting for Cash Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stoogenke at wsoctv.com reports that local residents are
waiting on their share of a Lumber Liquidators settlement you may
not have heard about.
Daphne Champion, of Rock Hill, said she bought Morning Star Strand
Bamboo flooring from Lumber Liquidators. She showed Action 9's
Jason Stoogenke the floors are uneven, buckling and separating.
"I should not be experiencing this from the floor is only 4 1/2
years old," she said. "This is an eyesore. This makes you very
depressed. You don't want to have company because you're
embarrassed."
Customers sued Lumber Liquidators in what became a class action
suit.
The plaintiffs say the bamboo flooring can't "withstand typical
ambient moisture variations causing the product to cup, shrink,
delaminate, buckle, splinter, scratch, crack, warp, swell, gap and
ultimately fail prematurely." They claim the store knew about it,
but didn't say anything.
The company says it didn't do anything wrong, but settled the
lawsuit. It agreed to pay customers $14 million in cash and $14
million in store credit if they bought the flooring between January
1, 2012 and March 15, 2019.
The court signed off on the deal in late October.
According to one document, customers were supposed to get money
within 60 days, which would have been the end of 2020.
Champion applied for the money and was wondering what was taking so
long. "I feel used and neglected," Champion said.
According to the settlement website, checks should go out in July
2021.
Action 9 is asking what changed, if anything.
Lumber Liquidators previously had a legal settlement about flooring
some claimed had high levels of the cancer-causing chemical
formaldehyde. In that settlement, the company agreed to pay
customers $22 million in cash and $14 million in store credit. [GN]
MARATHON OIL: Robert Balks at Improper Gas Royalty Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT AND LORI ARNSON MINERALS LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00065-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., Mar. 26, 2021)
is a class action arising from the Defendant's willful and ongoing
violations related to the payment of oil-and-gas royalties.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
improperly deducted from the sales price of the oil various costs
related to transporting the oil from the well to and through a
transportation pipeline, or related to transporting the oil to a
delivery point where the oil has been sold to third parties. The
Defendant has also improperly deducted other costs not permitted
under the contract of lease, says the suit.
The Defendant's alleged deduction of the costs in the royalties
paid to the Plaintiff on oil sales is not permitted under the oil
royalty provision in the contract of lease. The Defendant has
materially breached its contractual obligations to the Plaintiff
under the contract of lease by taking such deductions in its
calculation and payment of oil royalties to the Plaintiff, added
the suit.
Marathon Oil Company operates as an energy company. The Company
offers exploration and production, oil sands mining, integrated
gas, refining, marketing, and transportation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy A. Burrows, Esq.
Taylor P. Foye, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE A. BARTON, P.C.
7227 Metcalf Avenue, Suite 301
Overland Park, KS 6624
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
E-mail: gab@georgebartonlaw.com
stacy@georgebartonlaw.com
taylor@georgebartonlaw.com
-and-
Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
VOGEL LAW FIRM
218 NP Avenue
Fargo, ND 58102
Telephone: (701) 237-6983
E-mail: jswanson@vogellaw.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Parish Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
PARISH OF LIVINGSTON, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.;
MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC.
WASHINGTON D.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00179-SDD-SDJ (M.D.
La., March 31, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, fraud and misrepresentation, public nuisance, civil
conspiracy, wanton-intentional conduct, false advertising, and
violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.
The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in
creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Louisiana. The
Defendants knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the misconduct of
opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma, but nonetheless advised Purdue
to improperly market and sell OxyContin, a brand-name opioid. The
Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages from the Defendants
and to eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by
the opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to
recoup monies that has been spent, or will be spent, because of the
Defendants' conduct in fueling the epidemic, the suit asserts.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 1200 19th
Street, NW, Suite 1100, Washington D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
Hannah Honeycutt Calandro, Esq.
FAYARD & HONEYCUTT
519 Florida Avenue, SW
Denham Springs, LA 70726
Telephone: (225) 664-0304
E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com
- and –
Frank C. Dudenhefer, Jr., Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
2721 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2A
New Orleans, LA 70115
Telephone: (504) 616-5226
E-mail: fcdlaw@aol.com
MERCEDES-BENZ: Response Filed in Sunroof Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Emmariah Holcomb at glassbytes.com reports that another amended
complaint has been filed by Bruce Pickens against Mercedes-Benz USA
(Mercedes-Benz) for spontaneous sunroof breakage. Originally the
class action lawsuit included Saint-Gobain Sekurit (Saint Gobain),
and Napleton Autowerks of Indiana, Inc. (Napleton Autowerks) as
defendants. The amended complaint comes after a motion to dismiss
were filed by Saint Gobain and Napleton Autoweks.
The presiding judge denied both motions to dismiss and stated that
since the new class action complaint does not include Saint Gobain
or Napleton Autowerks the motions are moot. Pickens alleged that
Mercedes-Benz is at fault for misrepresenting the safety of its
vehicles and states spontaneous sunroof breakage as a main factor
in his amended complaint. He also alleges the German luxury auto
manufacturer engaged in "the practice of misrepresenting the safety
of the vehicles," which resulted in harm to vehicle owners and
passengers.
"The Class Vehicles' sunroof systems have one or more serious
design defects, including that they were installed with a defective
bonding agent between the glass panel and the sliding roof frame
that causes the sunroof to detach from the roof frame and shatter
and thus become unusable for its intended purpose," a portion of
the amended complaint reads.
Mercedes-Benz recently filed a motion to dismiss on Pickens'
amended complaint and requested the judge deny class action
certification.
"This action, and the second amended complaint (SAC) in particular,
is a copycat of three failed class action complaints filed against
Mercedes-Benz USA, all of which were voluntarily dismissed by their
plaintiffs," a portion of Mercedes-Benz memorandum in support of
its motion to dismiss reads.
The auto manufacturer also noted that two previous cases were
abandoned neatly, of which Pickens didn't mention in his second
amended complaint.
Mercedes-Benz says Pickens' allegations fail to acknowledge the
multiple prior actions brought against the manufacturer or explain
how this action differs. "The Court should not entertain
plaintiff's improper attempt to manufacture a dispute using
specious allegations previously abandoned four times," a portion of
Mercedes-Benz memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss
reads.
The original and amended class action complaints allege large
panoramic sunroofs require exact engineering as well as precise
strengthening and attachment of the glass. Mercedes allegedly
failed to meet the required standards according to owners who claim
the sunroofs cracked, shattered or exploded, according to the class
action complaint.
Pickens alleges customers say they were dangerously distracted when
the sunroofs exploded, yet Mercedes-Benz allegedly refuses to
recall the vehicles. In addition, after receiving multiple
complaints from Mercedes-Benz owners the automaker allegedly offers
$250 to $500 as good faith gestures as long as the customers agree
not to sue. According to the class action complaint, replacing the
panoramic sunroof can cost up to $2,000, but Pickens claims he was
quoted a price of $9,000 to replace his sunroof.
Following Pickens' original complaint both Saint Gobain and
Napleton Autoweks filed a motion to dismiss prior to an amended
complaint being filed.
Pickens and the presiding judge have yet to respond to
Mercedes-Benz latest motion to dismiss. Look to a future edition of
glassBYTEs for more information on this suit. [GN]
MIDDLE TENNESSEE: Hawkins Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDDLE TENNESSEE PIZZA, INC.; PATRICIA
HOUSEMAN; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00266 (M.D. Tenn., March 31, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act by failing to adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum
wages for all hours worked.
The Plaintiff has worked as a delivery driver at the Defendants'
Domino's store at 757 Madison Street in Shelbyville, Tennessee from
approximately 2019 to the present.
Middle Tennessee Pizza, Inc. is a company that operates Domino's
Pizza locations in Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
Philips Plaza
414 Union Street, Suite 900
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
- and –
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
MINNESOTA: ACLU's COVID Class Action Lawsuit Can Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
bringmethenews.com reports that a Ramsey County Court judge ruled
that the ACLU of Minnesota can go ahead with a lawsuit alleging the
state's COVID-19 approach in prisons violated inmates'
constitutional rights.
Judge Sara Grewing ruled that all inmates in the Minnesota
Department of Corrections can be included in the class action
lawsuit, which was filed in October.
The ACLU of Minnesota can also add Gov. Tim Walz, the Minnesota
Department of Health and MDH Commissioner Jan Malcolm as defendants
along with the DOC.
The lawsuit alleges that the DOC's vaccination program violates
state inmates' constitutional rights to "equal protection, due
process and protection against cruel or unusual punishment."
The ACLU points to state vaccination rates for inmates, which show
around 20% of Minnesota's roughly 7,600 inmates are fully
vaccinated.
Given the conditions of prisons, in which inmates live and work
closely together, the numbers are "deeply troubling," according to
Grewing's ruling.
"We are pleased and gratified by the Court's decision, which will
allow us to continue to press ahead vigorously to require the State
to comply with its legal duty to protect those in its care and
custody from COVID-19 so long as the pandemic is with us," said
ACLU of Minnesota staff attorney Dan Shulman in a statement.
The lawsuit also alleges that the DOC did not take adequate
measures to protect inmates from COVID-19, including denying
medical release to some inmates with underlying conditions.
"There has been one blind spot in Minnesota's leadership on the
COVID-19 pandemic: jails and prisons," the lawsuit reads.
"In contrast to the speed with which Minnesota has followed public
health officials' other warnings, it has failed almost completely
to act in any coordinated way to prevent COVID-19 from spreading
rapidly through correctional facilities and overwhelming medical
resources in nearby communities."
According to Grewing's ruling, the DOC told the court it would have
all inmates vaccinated by April 9. Grewing wrote that the court
will await verification on that promise. [GN]
MOBILITYWARE LLC: Komins Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Rona Komins, on behalf of herself, her children;
B.K., M.K., and all others similarly situated v. Dave Yonamine,
John Libby, MobilityWare, LLC; DOES 1-100, inclusive; ROES Software
Development Kit Business Entities 1-100, inclusive; Case No.
19STCV24865 was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
31, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02757 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Dave Yonamine is the Founder & Chairman of the Board at
MobilityWare.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Carolyn Sing Toto, Esq.
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 488-7238
Fax: (213) 629-1033
Email: carolyn.toto@pillsburylaw.com
MULTIPLAN CORP: Faces Amo Suit Over Polaris Proposed Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
KWAME AMO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN CORP. f/k/a CHURCHILL CAPITAL
CORP. III; MICHAEL KLEIN; JAY TARAGIN; JEREMY PAUL ABSON; GLENN R.
AUGUST; MARK KLEIN; MALCOLM S. McDERMID; KAREN G. MILLS; MICHAEL
ECK; BONNIE JONAS; M. KLEIN AND COMPANY, LLC; CHURCHILL SPONSOR
III, LLC; and THE KLEIN GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0258
(Del. Ch., Mar. 25, 2021) is an action alleging breach of fiduciary
duty claims stemming from the Company's merger (the "Merger") with
Polaris Parent Corp. ("MultiPlan").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the process surrounding
the merger by Churchill of MultiPlan fails any entire fairness
review for multiple reasons, including: First, the Board did not
bother retaining their own independent, third-party financial
advisor to assess the Merger; Second, while the Board had a duty to
diligence MultiPlan before agreeing to buy the company, it either
failed in that duty or ignored and concealed basic facts making
clear the acquisition was a disaster waiting to happen; and Third,
the disclosures surrounding the deal were not just marginally
flawed but were affirmatively false and misleading.
MultiPlan Corporation provides software solutions. The Company
offers cost management solutions with payment integrity, healthcare
networks, and data analytics services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3601
-and-
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
Joseph Caputo, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
-and-
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
MULTIPLAN CORP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against MultiPlan Corporation (NYSE: MPLN; MPLN.WS)
("MultiPlan") f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III")
on behalf of: (1) those who purchased or acquired MultiPlan
securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"); and (2) all holders of Churchill III Class A
common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger with and
acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated
subsidiaries consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired MultiPlan
securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 26,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/multiplan-corp-securities-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=multiplan.
Churchill III was formed in October 2019 as a special purpose
acquisition vehicle. On February 14, 2020, Churchill III completed
its initial public offering, selling 110 million ownership units to
investors for gross proceeds of $1.1 billion (the "IPO"). Pursuant
to the IPO prospectus, Churchill III was required to acquire a
target business with an aggregate fair market value of at least 80%
of the assets held in trust from the IPO proceeds and to do so
within two years of the IPO.
The Class Period commences on July 12, 2020, when Churchill III and
MultiPlan, a healthcare cost specialist, issued a joint press
release announcing their agreement to combine. The Merger,
initially valued at $5.7 billion, would be funded by the IPO
proceeds as well as billions of dollars in new debt and equity
issuances.
On September 18, 2020, Churchill III issued the proxy statement for
the Merger which urged shareholders to vote in favor of the deal
(the "Proxy"). The Proxy stated that Churchill had identified
MultiPlan as a potential acquisition target soon after the IPO. On
the basis of the Proxy, on October 7, 2020, shareholders voted to
approve the Merger at a special shareholders meeting. Because of
the Proxy, shareholders were prevented from the fully informed
opportunity to redeem their shares as was their right. The shares
subject to redemption were valued in the Proxy at approximately $10
per share.
On November 11, 2020, one month after the close of the Merger,
Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled "MultiPlan:
Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab", which
was based on extensive non-public sources such as interviews with
former MultiPlan executives and other industry experts, as well as
proprietary analysis. The report revealed, in part, that: (1)
MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client,
UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost Churchill III up to
35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within
two years; (2) MultiPlan was in significant financial decline
because of its fundamentally flawed business model, which profited
from excessively high healthcare costs; (3) UnitedHealthcare had
purportedly launched a competitor, Naviguard, to reduce its
business with MultiPlan and bring the over-priced and conflicted
services offered by MultiPlan inhouse; and (4) MultiPlan had
suffered from material, undisclosed pricing pressures that had
caused it to slash the "take rate" it charged customers in half in
some instances and falsely characterized revenue declines as
"idiosyncratic" when in fact they were due to sustained, negative
pricing trends afflicting MultiPlan's business.
Following this news, the price of Churchill III's securities
declined. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III's Class
A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
The complaint alleges that the Proxy failed to disclose among other
things that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars
in sales and revenues to Naviguard, which threatened up to 35% of
Churchill III's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022;
(b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the
Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as
represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in
demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition; (c)
MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services
and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead
up to the Merger by insurers; (d) as a result of the foregoing,
MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings
declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics
following the Merger; and (e) as a result of the foregoing,
Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of
MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far
less than represented to investors.
MultiPlan investors may, no later than April 26, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in
this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
(610) 667-7706
info@ktmc.com [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Kahn Swick Reminds of April 26 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III (MPLN)
Class Period: 7/12/2020 - 11/10/2020 and/or were holders of
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill") Class A common stock
entitled to vote on Churchill's merger with and acquisition of
Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries completed in
October 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: April 26, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-mpln/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
NURTURE INC: Faces Westin Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture Inc. The case
is captioned as Amy Westin v. Nurture, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02101-VSB (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over contract-related violations. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Vernon S. Broderick.
Happy Family is an organic baby and toddler food company in the US.
It was ranked No. 2 in Inc. Magazine's 2011 list of the 500
Fastest-Growing Companies in the food industry category.
Defendant Nurture, Inc. is doing business as: Happy Family
Brands.[BN]
Plaintiff Amy Westin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
OCULUS SYSTEMS: Dut Sues Over Security Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
GUOT DUT, AJAK CHOL, and PAULINO CHOL on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OCULUS SYSTEMS
SECURITY, LLC, and ERIC DANKS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00725 (D. Colo.,
March 10, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint for
unpaid Wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage
Claim Act.
The Plaintiffs were formerly employed by the Defendants to work
long hours for low wages in the Defendants' security services
business. This action concerns work performed between March 10 2016
and the present. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated all required minimum and
overtime wages for hours worked.
Oculus is located in Lakewood, Colorado, and is part of the
Security guard services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
2400 Broadway - Suite B
Boulder, CO. 80304
Telephone: (303) 305-8230
Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
E-mail: andrew@milsteinturner.com
OLD NAVY: Holden Suit Removed from State Court to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN HOLDEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
OLD NAVY, LLC, Case No. 16-2021-CA-000672 (Filed Feb. 4, 2021), was
removed form the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in
and for Duval County, Florida, to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division on March
11, 2021.
The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case
No.16-2021-CA-000672 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges Old Navy was intercepting website visitor's
electronic communications. Since Plaintiff seeks statutory damages
of at least $1,000 per class member, the amount of alleged
statutory damages alone exceeds $5,000,000. The Plaintiff's claims
for attorney's fees and injunctive relief, including the cost of
implementing the requested relief, only further confirm that the
amount in controversy requirement is met.
Old Navy is an American clothing and accessories retailing company
owned by American multinational corporation Gap Inc. It has
corporate operations in the Mission Bay neighborhood of San
Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 14
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashley Bruce Trehan, Esq.
Jordan D. Maglich, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 228-8180
Facsimile: (813) 229-8189
E-mail: ashley.trehan@bipc.com
jordan.maglich@bipc.com
ONTRAK INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OTRK). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors
who purchased OTRK stock or other securities between November 5,
2020 and February 26, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's
investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ontrak to
submit their information. Investors may also email
investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ontrak
The case alleges that Ontrak and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
Ontrak's largest customer evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis,
valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per
medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost
savings; (2) as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find
Ontrak's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to
terminate its contract with Ontrak; and (3) because this customer
accounted for a significant portion of Ontrak's revenue, the loss
of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial
results.
Interested Ontrak investors have until May 3, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ontrak
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ontrak [GN]
PERFORMANCE SHIPPING: Bid to Dismiss Robinson Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Performance Shipping Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is
awaiting the court's decision on the motion to dismiss filed in the
consolidated case, Jimmie O. Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc.
Between October 23, 2017, and December 15, 2017, three largely
similar lawsuits were filed against the Company and three of its
executive officers.
On October 23, 2017, a complaint captioned Jimmie O. Robinson v.
Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6160, was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint is brought as a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of common
shares of the Company between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017.
On October 25, 2017, a complaint captioned Logan Little v. Diana
Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-6236, was filed in the
Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of common shares of the Company between January 26,
2017, and October 3, 2017.
On December 15, 2017, a complaint captioned Emmanuel S. Austin v.
Diana Containerships Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-7329, was filed in the
Eastern District. The complaint is brought as a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of common shares of the Company between June 9, 2016,
and October 3, 2017.
The complaints name as defendants, among others, the Company and
three of its executive officers. The complaints assert claims under
Sections 9, 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On April 30, 2018, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits into
the first-filed Robinson lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and
approved lead plaintiffs' selection of lead plaintiffs' counsel.
On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint (superseding the three initial complaints).
On September 21, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. Briefing on that motion was concluded on November 30,
2018. On May 28, 2020, prior to any ruling on that motion, lead
plaintiffs filed a superseding second amended complaint.
On July 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. Briefing on that motion concluded on
October 9, 2020.
The Company and its management believe that the complaints are
without merit and plan to vigorously defend themselves against the
claims.
Performance Shipping Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides
shipping transportation services through its ownership of
containerships. The company was founded in 2010 and is based in
Athens, Greece.
PLUG POWER: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on March 9 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Plug Power, Inc. ("Plug Power" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) from November 9, 2020, through March 1, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Plug Power securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Plug Power
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors:(1) that the Company would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
that the Company was reasonably likely to report material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The share price continued to decline by $9.48, or 19.4%,
over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $39.30 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The
complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Plug Power securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/plugpowerinc-plug-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-378/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
Contact Information:
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
PLUG POWER: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on March 10 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Plug
Power, Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) securities between November 9, 2020 and
March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until
May 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff
in the lawsuit.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.68, or 7%, to close
at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021. The share price continued to
decline by $9.48, or 19.4%, over three consecutive trading sessions
to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 202.
The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; (2) that the Company was reasonably likely to
report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased Plug securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PLUG POWER: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Plug Power Inc. ("Plug Power")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Plug Power between November 9, 2020 and March 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in
its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Plug Power
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 7,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
PLUG POWER: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on March 10 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) securities
from November 9, 2020 through March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until May 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to
be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On March 2, 2021, before the market opened, Plug filed a
Notification of Late Filing with the SEC stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "[i]t is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell by $3.68, or
approximately 7%, to close at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The share price declined by $9.48,
or approximately 19.4%, over the next three consecutive trading
sessions to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021.
The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report
due to delays related to the review of classification of certain
costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with
certain leases; (2) that the Company was reasonably likely to
report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial
reporting; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Plug securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
PLUG POWER: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on March 9 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Plug Power Inc. ("Plug Power" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: PLUG) for
violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November
9, 2020 and March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before May 7, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Plug Power failed to file its annual
report for 2020 in a timely manner due to delays in reviewing the
classification of certain costs and other matters. The Company was
likely to report a failure to maintain appropriate internal
controls over financial reporting. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Plug Power, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Plug Power Inc. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ:PLUG)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14323&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
Class Period: November 9, 2020 - March 1, 2021
Allegations against PLUG include that: (1) the Company would be
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related
to the review of classification of certain costs and the
recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2)
the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in
its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
PLUG POWER: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who acquired Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) securities from November 9, 2020 through March 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Plug Power Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Plug Power Inc., you
may, no later than May 7, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
shares of Plug Power Inc.
On March 2, 2021, prior to the commencement of the day's trading,
the Company filed a Notification of Late Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stating that it could not
timely file its annual report for the period ended December 31,
2020 because the Company was completing a "review and assessment of
the treatment of certain costs with regards to classification
between Research and Development versus Costs of Goods Sold, the
recoverability of right of use assets associated with certain
leases, and certain internal controls over these and other areas."
The Company stated that "it is possible that one or more of these
items may result in charges or adjustments to current and/or prior
period financial statements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell by $3.68, or
approximately 7%, to close at $48.78 per share on March 2, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. The share price declined by $9.48,
or approximately 19.4%, over the next three consecutive trading
sessions to close at $39.30 per share on March 5, 2021.
Subsequently, on March 16, 2021, Plug announced that it would have
to restate financial statements for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 as
well as quarterly filings for 2019 and 2020. As a result of the
restatement, Plug will not file its form 10K as planned and said it
will do so "as soon as possible."
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com,
kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
POST CEREAL: Faces Suit Over How Healthy the Cereal Really Is
-------------------------------------------------------------
guiltyeats.com reports that how healthy is your Post Cereal really?
Well it turns out that is actually the question when it comes to a
current Class Action against the cereal company.
Don't get me wrong, I know that not all cereals are as healthy as
they say they are. But at the same time, companies need to be
careful when they use certain buzzwords, such as healthy. After
all, that's how confusion happens.
According to Totally the Bomb, there is currently a Class Action
against Post Cereal over their claims about certain cereals being
healthy. It turns out that while they were touting these cereals as
being good for you, they were actually filled with a lot more sugar
than you may have thought.
As someone who has had their fair share of Honey Bunches of Oats
and Raisin Bran Cereal, it is a bit surprising to learn about this
Class Action. It's not that I expect my cereal to be the height of
healthy eating, but at the same time, if you say something is
better for you or part of a healthy lifestyle, I guess I expect
more.
Post Cereal is involved in a Class Action over how healthy some of
their cereals really are
It seems that this Class Action involves multiple cereals in the
Post family including Golden Crisp, Honey Comb, Raisin Bran, and of
course Honey Bunches of Oats, and it goes back as far as August of
2012 (that's a lot of cereal!). While there is no set amount that
someone who is eligible for a payout will receive, it looks like
maximum amount a person will receive as a settlement is around
$14.28.
As a cereal lover, I can admit that just because there is a Class
Action against a brand I love, that doesn't mean I am giving up my
cereal. In fact, this just reminds me I need to check the
nutritional panel more often when I am grabbing the cereal. [GN]
POSTAL FLEET SERVICES: Garner Slams Workplace Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Postal Fleet Services, Inc., Vilano
Employment Services, Inc. and the Stageline Company, Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-00385 (N.D. Tex., February 26, 2021), seeks
equitable relief, back and future pay, lost benefits,
reinstatement, liquidated, compensatory and punitive damages, and
any and all other damages allowed for violations of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, for race discrimination, and retaliation for
engaging in protected activity, to seek relief and correct unlawful
employment practices by Defendants.
Postal Fleet Services, Stageline Company and Vilano Employment
Services are companies primarily engaged in transportation services
for the United States Postal Service. Garner, an African-Americans,
began his career with the Defendants as a driver on 2018. He claims
that management ignored his concerns regarding work-related issues,
including but not limited to, route assistance and truck equipment.
In August of 2019, alleging that he was continuously discriminated
against, Garner filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission citing race discrimination. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
TB ROBINSON LAW GROUP, PLLC
7500 San Felipe St., Suite 800
Houston, TX 77063
Phone: (713) 568-1723
Facsimile: (713) 965-4288
Email: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action initiated by "Logan" is still pending.
In July 2020, the Logan Lawsuit Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje
Administration A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement
System and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire Retirement
System of the City of Detroit, individually and on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020, filed a third
amended class action complaint against the Company and certain of
its then current and former officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate
or misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects.
In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Logan
Lawsuit and in September 2020, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition.
In October 2020, the Company filed its reply brief in support of
the motion to dismiss.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland,
Texas.
PUBLIC HEALTH: Govens FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tamika Govens, on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Public Health Management Corporation, Case No.
072020-000483 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas
Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on March 31, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01535 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Public Health Management Corporation -- https://www.phmc.org/ -- is
a nonprofit provider of public health resources, and has been
helping to build healthy communities in the Delaware Valley for
more than 40 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: (954) 318-0268
Email: amurthy@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew B. Adair, Esq.
Christine D. Steere, Esq.
DEASEY MAHONEY VALENTINI NORTH, LTD.
103 Chesley Drive, Suite 100
Media, PA 19063
Phone: (610) 892-2732
Fax: (215) 587-9456
Email: abadair@dmvnlaw.com
csteere@dmvlawfirm.com
QUANTUM GLOBAL: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Noah DiPasquale, Esq., Scott Kelly, Esq., and David N. Anthony,
Esq., of Troutman Pepper, in an article for Lexology, report that a
federal magistrate judge in the Northern District of California
approved a class settlement of nearly $175,000 for an alleged
violation of the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement. The
class was comprised of over 1,000 job applicants who signed a
standard form as part of their application, which included both a
consumer report disclosure and a liability waiver. The case is
Taafua v. Quantum Global Technologies.
According to the complaint, defendant Quantum Global Technologies,
LLC (QGT) is a company that provides outsourced cleaning and
engineering services for process tool parts. Plaintiff Paniani
Taafua applied for and obtained employment with QGT. During the
application process, QGT required each applicant to sign a standard
form authorizing QGT to obtain a consumer report on the applicant
from a third-party background screening company. In addition to the
consumer report disclosure, however, the form also included a
liability waiver. Taafua asserted that the inclusion of the
liability waiver violated the FCRA, which requires a person seeking
to procure a consumer report for employment purposes to first
provide the applicant with a "clear and conspicuous disclosure . .
. in a document that consists solely of the disclosure," and to
obtain the applicant's written consent. As the court noted in an
earlier order, "The Ninth Circuit has held that this provision
unambiguously requires a disclosure document that 'consists solely
of the disclosure,' and does not permit the inclusion of a
liability waiver in the same document." See Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853
F.3d 492, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). Taafua filed suit on behalf of
himself and over 1,000 other job applicants. In support of his
claims, he alleged he "was confused by the standard disclosure
authorization form and did not understand that [QGT] would be
requesting a consumer report as defined in the FCRA."
The court denied an earlier settlement payment of $125,902 because
it appeared to account for a potential statute of limitations
defense that did not apply to half of the settlement class and
because the court disapproved of the proposed attorney's fees and
service award to Taafua. The parties subsequently agreed to a total
settlement of $174,980. The court found this amended settlement was
"reasonable in light of the risks Mr. Taafua would face in
litigating this matter," particularly noting QGT's arguments that
its liability should be limited to individuals who could show they
were actually confused by the inclusion of the liability waiver and
would not have otherwise signed the form, and that many of the
plaintiffs' claims, including Taafua's, were potentially untimely.
[GN]
RALLYE MOTORS: Faces Stile Suit Over Deceptive & Inaccurate Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE J. STILE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RALLYE MOTORS LLC, RALLYE MOTORS HOLDING LLC, JULIANA
TERIAN, any other related entities, Case No. 608131/2020 (N.Y.
Super., Nassau Cty., March 9, 2020) is a class action suit arising
after the Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class did not
receive the high-quality service and parts and in fact failed to
receive all material information about the repairs performed by
Rallye, the nature of those transaction, and the Defendants'
improper financial relationships with insurance adjusters.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants engaged in a pervasive
deceptive scheme, whereby Rallye induced customers into utilizing
the Defendants' services based on deceptive and inaccurate
documents, provided documents to its customers that reflected work
and labor that was not actually provided, provided documents to its
customers that reflected parts that were not actually going to be
replaced, and improperly made payments directly to auto-insurance
adjusters in exchange for those adjusters submitting false or
deceptive documents.
Rallye holds itself out to the general public as being fully
competent to operate a collision repair shop, and Rallye markets
and advertises its reputation, history, experience, and quality of
service in advertising and promotional materials provided to
customers and the public at large.
Indeed, as part of its promotional materials and marketing, Rallye
represents that its Collision Center is the "preferred destination
for collision repair on Long Island." As part of its promotions and
marketing for its collision repair shop, Rallye represents the
superior quality of its services and the methodologies that the
Collision Center utilizes, the suit says.
The Defendants jointly own, operate, and manage several car
dealerships under the "Rallye" umbrella or brand including Rallye
Mercedes-Benz, Rallye BMW, Rallye Lexus, and Rallye Acura
franchises, amongst its most prominent dealership locations on Long
Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Aaron Ferri, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
aferri@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on March 9 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of investors that purchased
Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC) common stock between April
29, 2016 and February 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until May 3, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas
liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its
subsidiary, Range Resources – Appalachia, LLC, engage in the
exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil
properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County,
Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly
owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian
region, including Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Protection (the "DEP") enforces the regulations
governing the correct designation of a well's status.
On February 10, 2021, the DEP issued a press release announcing
that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the
agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act.
The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found
conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company
well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania—specifically concerning
whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive
for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range
Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested
to designate as inactive, the DEP found that "between July 16,
2013, and October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional
wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and
that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12
months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for
inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no
production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be
plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range
Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency
identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue.
The following day, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per
share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to
close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Range
Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in
Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory
investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased
the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and
abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP
investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021
for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP
investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the
Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
If you purchased Range Resources common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have
information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon
Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
REPRO MED SYSTEMS: Faces Humenik Suit Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HUMENIK, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REPRO MED SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a/
KORU MEDICAL SYSTEMS, DON PETTIGREW, and KAREN FISHER, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02632 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 26, 2021) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired KORU securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of allowances,
including growth rebates, to retain key customers and to
incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's net
sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Repro-Med Systems, Inc. designs and manufactures medical devices
directing resources to the global markets for emergency medical
products and infusion therapy. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com
-and-
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
-and-
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
The Law Offices Of Frank R. Cruz
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
REPRO MED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Repro Med Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: KRMD) between August
4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 25,
2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Repro Med securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Repro Med class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2068.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 25, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) starting in January 2020, Repro
ramped up the use of allowances, including growth rebates, to
retain key customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates
accrued, Repro Med's net sales were reasonably likely to decline;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about Repro Med's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
To join the Repro Med class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2068.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
REPRO MED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Hers LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Repro Med
Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KORU" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: KRMD) securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a
KORU Medical Systems and incurred losses are urged to contact the
firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning
the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Repro Med Systems,
Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems you may, no later than May 25,
2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about
your rights as an investor in the shares of Repro Med Systems, Inc.
d/b/a KORU Medical Systems.
On November 3, 2020, after the market closed, KORU announced its
third quarter 2020 financial results, reporting that net sales
declined sequentially to $6.1 million. During the conference call
the next day, the Company attributed the lower sales to, among
other things, "higher allowances for gross rebates for certain
customers" and "payment discounts and distribution fees."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.97, or 32%, to
close at $4.16 per share on November 4, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, on January 25, 2021, after the market closed, KORU announced
its preliminary financial results for fiscal 2020, expecting
revenue of approximately $24.0 million, an increase of 3.4% over
the prior year. The Company attributed the results to, among other
things, "[s]lower growth in net revenue as a result of
strengthening our contractual position with large customers." In
the press release, KORU also announced that its CEO, Donald
Pettigrew, resigned, effective immediately.
On this news, KORU's stock price fell $0.80, or 15.5%, to close at
$4.33 per share on January 26, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
RING LLC: Foster Sues Over Defective Remote-Access Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Foster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ring, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation,
Case No. (March 10, 2020) addresses Ring's egregious failure to
provide the safety and security it ostensibly promises its
customers and to respect the most fundamental of its customers'
autonomy and privacy rights -- the right to privacy in one's home
-- and the very principles upon which the company was purportedly
built.
Ring markets and sells home security remote-access cameras and
appurtenant software (devices). Intended for use in and around the
home, Ring's devices feature motion-activated cameras; a "live
view" that allows users to "check in on" their homes remotely; and
a two-way talk feature that allows users to communicate through the
devices. According to Ring, its home security devices offer "smart
security here, there, everywhere." Ring promises users that it
takes cybersecurity seriously and will safeguard users' private
information.
Despite Ring expressly promising to provide its customers with
"peace of mind" and to put its customers' "security first," its
devices actually expose the most intimate areas of customers' homes
-- and consequently the most private aspects of customers' lives --
to unauthorized third parties through its deliberately inadequate
security measures that allows hackers to invade and terrorize their
homes. Ring has failed to protect consumers against ill-meaning
hackers despite the fact that it had been on notice of the
inadequacies of its cybersecurity because of previous breach
incidents, the suit says.
Instead of helping families protect their homes, Ring's devices --
which were plagued with cyber-security vulnerabilities -- have
provided hackers a wide-open back door to enter the very homes the
devices were supposed to protect. These simple vulnerabilities
permit vicious criminals to hack into Ring devices and potentially
their home networks. Based on the in-built vulnerabilities in the
Ring devices, the Plaintiff is at a high risk of injury based on
hacking or data breach, added the complaint.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to hold Ring responsible for
selling defective, dangerous devices and proliferating
misrepresentations, and to prevent the public from being similarly
harmed in the future. The Plaintiff requests that the Court order
Ring to take all necessary measures to secure the privacy of user
accounts and devices, to stop sharing customers' personal
identifying information (PII) with third parties without their
clear, informed consent, and to compensate Plaintiff and the Class
members for the damage that Ring's acts and omissions have caused.
Plaintiff Foster is a resident and citizen of Massachusetts and is
a member of the Purchaser/Accountholder Class.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
Timothy Devlin, Esq.
Robert Kiddie, Esq.
Robyn Williams, Esq.
DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
3120 Scott Blvd. No. 13
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Telephone: (650) 254-9805
E-mail: dbrahmbhatt@devlinlawfirm.com
tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
rkiddie@devlinlawfirm.com
rwilliams@devlinlawfirm.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Kadin Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL S. KADIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02566 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 25, 2021) is a class action brought
against the Defendants for prohibiting their customers from buying
multiple publicly traded stock options, including but not limited
to GameStop ("GME"), AMC Entertainment ("AMC"), Nokia ("NOK"),
BlackBerry Limited ("BB"), Bed Bath & Beyond ("BBBY"), Express
("EXPR"), Koss Corporation ("KOSS"), and Naked Brand Group ("NAKD")
(collectively, the "Stocks"), during an unprecedented rise in
valuation of the aforementioned Stocks.
According to the complaint, on or about January 11, 2021, stocks of
GME, AMC, and NOK, among others (the "Stocks") began to rise,
jeopardizing the trades of major institutional investors and hedge
funds who had shorted those Stocks betting that their price would
drop (the "Short Squeeze"). However, on or around January 28, 2021,
the Stocks were no longer available for purchase from retail
investors on Robinhood's platforms, the suit says.
Robinhood's alleged actions not only deprived its customers from
taking advantage of the rise of the Stocks valuation, but also
manipulated the free and open market, causing a substantial
decrease in the Stocks valuation, in violation of federal
securities laws and state common law.
Robinhood Financial LLC operates as an institutional brokerage
company. The Company provides online and mobile application-based
discount stock brokerage solutions that allows users to invests in
publicly-traded companies and exchange-traded funds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI LAW, PLLC
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
Facsimile: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gucovschi-law.com
ROOT INC: Faces Kitzler Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------
JERAD KITZLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROOT, INC.; ALEXANDER TIMM; DANIEL
ROSENTHAL; MEGAN BINKLEY; CHRISTOPHER OLSEN; DOUG ULMAN; ELLIOT
GEIDT; JERRI DEVARD; LARRY HILSHEIMER; LUIS VON AHN; NANCY KRAMER;
NICK SHALEK; SCOTT MAW; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01301-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 25,
2021) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the Class A common stock of Root pursuant and traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Root's October 29, 2020 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the statements in the
Defendants' Registration Statement and Prospectus were inaccurate
statements of material fact because they failed to disclose the
following material facts which existed at the time of the IPO: (a)
Root had been paying on average at least $600 per customer in
customer acquisition costs at the time of the IPO; (b) Root's
increased customer acquisition costs would continue to remain
elevated as it sought to aggressively expand its business into more
states; and (c) As a result of the foregoing, Root was not on track
to achieve the operational or financial results represented in the
Registration Statement.
Then on March 9, 2021, BofA Securities stock research analyst
Joshua Shanker initiated coverage on Root with an "Underperform"
rating based on Root's inability to become cash flow positive until
2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash
infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs."
On March 9, 2021, Root's stock price closed at $12.17 per share, a
more than 50% decline from the IPO price less than five months
previously, says the suit.
Root, Inc. of Ohio operates as a technology company in the
insurance industry. The Company offers mobile telematics and
technology platform to segment individual risk based on complex
behavioral data and a customer experience to make pricing decision
and grow business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murray@mmmb.com
-and-
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
-and-
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Gregory Del Gaizo, Esq.
ROBBINS LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-3990
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsllp.com
gdelgaizo@robbinsllp.com
ROOT INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders of Root, Inc. If you
suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be
no obligation or cost to you.
Root, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROOT)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/root-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14323&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020.
Allegations against ROOT include that: (i) Root would foreseeably
fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years
following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably
require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs;
(iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly
unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's
established industry peers in fact possessed significant
competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia,
telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION: Anaya Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Pablo Anaya, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. CVRI2100430 was removed from the Riverside
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on March 31, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00563 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Jobs.
Rust-Oleum -- https://www.rustoleum.com/ -- is a manufacturer of
protective paints and coatings for home and industrial use.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
633 West Fifth Street, Suite 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4300
Fax: (213) 443-4299
Email: jgovea@littler.com
SNOW TEETH: Blasts Suit Over Whitening Products for Extortion
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Burton Kraus, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC d/b/a Snow,
Foresold LLC d/b/a Foresold, Joshua Elizetxe, Floyd Mayweather, and
Robert James Gronkowski, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-06085, (E.D.
N.Y., December 14, 2020), defendants Snow Teeth Whitening, Foresold
and Elizetxe fired back at Kraus, calling the lawsuit a "sham" and
never should have been filed.
Snow contends the Plaintiff's lawyers "appear to have recruited him
to file this case to extort Snow and the celebrities who promoted
its products, not to redress any actual harm." The Complaint is
replete with false statements and misrepresentations, Snow says.
The lawsuit also names as defendants Robert Gronkowski, a four-time
Super Bowl champion and future hall of famer, and Floyd Mayweather,
an undefeated world champion who is widely considered to be among
the best pound-for-pound boxers in history.
"As Plaintiffs lawyers know, neither of these individuals has
anything to do with the purported misrepresentations cited in the
pleading, and they have zero involvement in managing the company or
making any sort of strategic business decisions regarding the
marketing of Snow's products," Snow contends.
As reported by the Class Action Reporter, Kraus seeks to recover
money damages resulting from fraudulent, false, and misleading
advertising and marketing of the at-home teeth whitening products,
treble damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, punitive damages and
such other further relief for breach of express and implied
warranty and for violation of New York General Business Law. Kraus
claims the teeth whitening products "The Accelerating LED
Mouthpiece" and the "At-Home Teeth Whitening All-in-One Kit" are
basically LED lights and are ineffective for whitening teeth and a
scam.
Snow says it is a small and growing dental cosmetics startup
"founded to help ordinary consumers achieve better, longer lasting
bright smiles." Snow says its flagship product is a teeth-whitening
system that "has helped thousands of consumers demonstrably improve
their smiles. The product works so well that thousands of Snow's
consumers post raving reviews about Snow's products, including
unequivocal before-and-after photos showing the product's effect on
their teeth and personality."
Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven G. Mintz, Esq.
Steven W. Gold, Esq.
MINTZ & GOLD LLP
600 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 696-4848
Fax: (212) 696-1231
Email: mintz@mintzandgold.com
gold@mintzandgold.com
Counsel for Defendants Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, Foresold LLC,
Joshua Hlizetxe, and Floyd Mayweather, and Co-counsel for Defendant
Robert James Gronkowski are:
J. Noah Hagey, Esq.
Douglas S. Curran, Esq.
BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY I 0036-6524
Tel. & Fax: (646) 829-9403
E-mail: hagey@braunhagey.com
curran@braunhagey.com
SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of June 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors that purchased SOS Limited (NYSE:
SOS) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between July 22, 2020 and
February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until June 1, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
When the Company went public in April 2017, it was known as "China
Rapid Finance Limited" and claimed to focus on a peer-to-peer,
micro-lending business. The Company later changed its name to "SOS
Limited" in July 2020 and sold its peer-to-peer, micro-lending
business in August 2020, rebranding itself into an emergency
services business. In January 2021, the Company again shifted its
business focus, this time to cryptocurrency mining.
Critical to SOS's purportedly successful transition into a
cryptocurrency mining business were the Company's claims to have
entered into an agreement with HY International Group New York Inc.
("HY"), which calls itself the "world's largest mining machine
matchmaker," to acquire 15,645 mining rigs—i.e., personal
computing machines built specifically for cryptocurrency
mining—for $20 million, and the Company's plans to purchase FXK
Technology Corporation ("FXK"), a purported Canadian cryptocurrency
technology firm.
On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto mining rigs to create an
illusion of success. The analysts noted, for example, that SOS's
SEC filings listed a hotel room as the Company's headquarters. The
analysts also questioned whether SOS had actually purchased mining
rigs that it claimed to own, as the entity from which SOS
purportedly bought the mining rigs appeared to be a fake shell
company. The analysts further alleged that the photos SOS had
published of their purported "mining rigs" were phony. Culper noted
that photographs of SOS's "miners" did not depict the A10 Pro
machines that the Company claimed to own and instead appeared to
show different devices altogether. Hindenburg, for its part, found
that the original images from SOS's website actually belonged to
another company.
On this news, SOS's American depositary share price fell $1.27 per
share, or 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADS on February 26, 2021.
The complaint, filed on March 30, 2021, alleges that, throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SOS had
misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at
least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC
filings; (ii) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties
and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had
misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it
claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
If you purchased SOS ADSs during the Class Period and suffered a
loss, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at
investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by
filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contacts
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
SOS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) investors to submit
their losses now.
Class Period: July 22, 2020 - Feb. 25, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SOS
Contact An Attorney Now: SOS@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
SOS Limited (SOS) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The complaint centers on SOS's purported entry into the bitcoin
mining business. The complaint alleges that, in truth, SOS is a
fraudulent stock promotion scheme that has concealed related party
transactions, and has misrepresented the bitcoin mining rigs SOS
claimed to have purchased.
Investors allegedly began to learn the truth on Feb. 26, 2021, when
Hindenburg Research and Culper Research released scathing
commentary, claiming that SOS was an intricate "pump and dump"
scheme that used fake addresses and doctored photos of crypto
miners to create an illusion of success. The analysts pointed out
that the company's SEC filings, for instance, listed a hotel room
as the firm's headquarters. Most damaging, the analysts alleged
that the photos SOS had published of their "mining rigs" were
phony. Culper noted that the photographed SOS "miners" weren't the
A10 Pros the company claimed to own. Instead, they were pictures of
Avalon's A1066 miners. Hindenburg further found the original images
from SOS's site belonged to a legitimate rival, RHY.
After the class period, Hindenburg and Culper provided additional
information on SOS that further supported their earlier
allegations, including evidence of related party transactions and
SOS attempting to hide the misconduct noted in the February 26,
2021 corrective disclosures.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving SOS is a false
promotion scheme," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you are a SOS investor, click here to discuss your legal rights
with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding SOS
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email SOS@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein
844-916-0895 [GN]
SOS LIMITED: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of those who acquired SOS Limited ("SOS" or
the "Company") (NYSE: SOS) securities during the period from July
22, 2020, through February 25, 2021 (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until June 1, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors: (i) SOS had misrepresented the
true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the
principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and
FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities
fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the
type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have
purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 26, 2021 Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto rigs to create an illusion
of success.
On this news, the price of SOS's American depositary share ("ADS")
declined by $1.27 per ADS, or approximately 21.03%, to close at
$4.77 per ADS on February 26, 2021.
If you acquired SOS securities, have information, or would like to
learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]
SOS LIMITED: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) between July 22, 2020 and
February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased SOS securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the SOS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2070.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose information that resulted in a scheme
that: (1) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or
existence of at least one of its principal executive offices listed
in its SEC filings; (2) HY International Group New York Inc. and
FXK Technology Corporation were either undisclosed related parties
and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (3) the Company had
misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it
claimed to have purchased; and (4) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the SOS class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2070.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: Kubicek Sues Over Sale to Great Outdoors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Kubicek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., Jon Barker,
Martha Bejar, Philip C. Williamson, Christopher Eastland, Gregory
P. Hickey, Richard Mcbee and Joseph P. Schneider, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-00302 (D. Del., February 26, 2020), seeks to enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of
Sportsman's Warehouse by Great Outdoors Group through Great
Outdoors Group's subsidiary Phoenix Merger Sub I, Inc., rescinding
it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event
defendants consummate the merger, costs of this action, including
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such
other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
Under the transaction, each Sportsman's Warehouse stockholder will
receive $18.00 in cash for each share of Sportsman's Warehouse
common stock they own.
The complaint asserts that the proxy statement, which recommends
that Sportsman's Warehouse stockholders vote in favor of the
merger, omits or misrepresents the company's financial projections
and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that support the fairness opinion provided by the Sportsman's
financial advisor, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated and Baird's
and Sportsman's insiders' potential conflicts of interest.
Sportsman's Warehouse is a Delaware corporation, with its principal
executive offices located at 1475 West 9000 South Suite A, West
Jordan, Utah 84088. Its common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global
Select Market under the ticker symbol "SPWH." Kubicek is, and has
been at all times relevant hereto, a continuous stockholder of
Sportsman's Warehouse.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
Email: BDLong@longlawde.com
STASHER INC: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stasher, Inc. The
case is styled as Marion Kiler, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Stasher,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01750 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Stasher is a company that creates reusable silicone bags and other
items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
STATE FARM: Toms Sues Over Improper Charging of Insurance Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID TOMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00736-KKM-JSS (M.D. Fla., Mar. 26,
2021) seeks to recover amounts that the Defendant charged and
collected from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated life
insurance policy owners in excess of amounts authorized by the
express terms of their policies.
According to the complaint, the terms of the Plaintiff's life
insurance policies provide for an "Account Value" consisting of
monies held in trust by the Defendant for the Plaintiff. Over the
course of several years, the Defendant deducted monies from the
Plaintiff's Account Values in breach of his policies' terms. The
Defendant is contractually bound to deduct only those charges
explicitly identified and authorized by the terms of its life
insurance policies, which are fully integrated agreements.
Defendant deducts charges from the Account Values of the Plaintiff
and the proposed class members in excess of amounts specifically
permitted by their life insurance policies, the suit asserts.
The Defendant has allegedly caused material harm to the Plaintiff
and the proposed class members by improperly draining monies they
accumulated in the Account Values of their policies. Every
unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one less dollar on
which policy owners earn interest and one less dollar that can be:
applied to pay future premiums; used to increase the death benefit;
used as collateral for policy loans; or withdrawn as cash.
State Farm Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers life insurance products, as well as insures
cars, boats, motorcycles, homes, and businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 275-5272
Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
-and-
John J. Schirger, Esq.
Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
MILLER SCHIRGER LLC
4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 561-6500
Facsimile: (816) 561-6501
E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
mlytle@millerschirger.com
feierabend@millerschirger.com
-and-
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
Ethan Lange, Esq.
Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
perkins@stuevesiegel.com
STMM INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against STMM Inc. The case is
styled as Mary Conner, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. STMM Inc. doing business as:
Great Jones, Case No. 1:21-cv-01748 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Great Jones -- https://greatjonesgoods.com/ -- is a modern kitchen
company that marries substance with style and encourages, and
inspires people to cook more frequently.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
TBD PIZZA: Winsor FLSA Suit Transferred From D.N.H. to D. Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA WINSOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TBD PIZZA, INC., ERIC DELORENZO,
ROBERT P. RIVARD, JOHN DOE CORPORATION 1-10, JOHN DOE 1-10, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00992, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Hampshire to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on March 31, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-10551-LTS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Hampshire law by failing to
adequately reimburse the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses,
thereby failing to pay them the legally mandated minimum wages for
all hours worked.
TBD Pizza, Inc. is an owner and operator of Domino's Pizza stores
in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Biron L. Bedard, Esq.
1 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 600
Concord, NH 03302-0600
Telephone: (603) 228-0477
E-mail: bbedard@ranspell.com
- and –
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Phillip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
325 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
- and –
Frank V. Raimond, Esq.
RAIMOND & STAINES, LLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 884-9636
E-mail: frank@raimondstaines.com
TIKTOK INC: Settlement Shows Class Action Bar is "Broken"
---------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, writing for Reuters, reports that in the span of
three months, Jay Edelson has helped upend the career of Tom
Girardi, wrested $650 million from Facebook, and thrown a wrench
into a planned $92 million settlement with TikTok.
But Edelson says his ambition is bigger: He wants to reshape the
class action system that's made him and his Chicago law firm
millions. Six years after The New York Times dubbed him "the most
hated person in Silicon Valley," Edelson is picking a fight on his
own turf.
"The plaintiffs bar is broken," said Edelson, whose 14-year-old
firm, Edelson PC, made its name suing tech companies.
Edelson said he's backing a bill introduced in February in the
Illinois House of Representatives that would bar attorneys from
advertising settlements to potential clients when no settlement
fund yet exists.
He also wants to make it easier for class-action plaintiffs to
discover if their lawyers have been accused of misappropriating
funds. And he's pushing for a class action task force in Illinois
that would "seek aggressive reforms" like tying attorneys fees to
claims rates in settlements, as well as measures to bolster the
diversity of the plaintiffs bar.
The legal drama surrounding Girardi, the famed plaintiffs lawyer
who's mired in bankruptcy proceedings and facing prosecutors'
scrutiny after he failed to disburse at least $2 million in
settlements funds, is "very instructive" on the need for reforms,
Edelson said.
Edelson sued Girardi in December, alleging he and his soon-to-be
ex-wife, "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star Erika Jayne, used
money set aside for victims of Lion Air Flight 610 to fund their
lavish Hollywood lifestyle. The claims helped spark a flurry of
complaints against Girardi that led to him and his firm being
forced into bankruptcy in January.
A California state judge in February appointed Girardi's brother
Robert Girardi as his temporary conservator. Robert Girardi has
asserted that his brother is mentally incompetent, but Edelson's
firm has argued in Los Angeles bankruptcy court that Girardi is
faking it.
"Now he's arguing that he is mentally incapacitated, which we think
is not true," Edelson said.
Robert Girardi hasn't responded in court to those allegations, and
his attorney, Leonard Pena, was not available for comment.
Attorneys for Tom Girardi and Girardi Keese in the Lion Air Flight
610 case, Evan Jenness and Michael Monico, respectively, did not
respond to requests for comment.
'TIMES ARE CHANGING'
As evidence that the plaintiffs bar cares mainly about itself,
Edelson also pointed to a proposed $92 million class-action
settlement between ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok,
and U.S. users of the short video app. The TikTok app has been
accused of infiltrating users' devices to extract private data.
In a March 1 filing in Chicago federal court, Edelson slammed the
national settlement as "hastily drawn up," with "an embarrassingly
low 1.5% claims rate." Class members would only receive $3 each,
which Edelson argued was inadequate.
He compared the "joke" TikTok settlement with his own $650 million
class settlement with Facebook, which a Chicago federal judge
approved in late February. Facebook was sued for allegedly
violating an Illinois biometric law with the facial recognition
settings on its platform.
Under the Facebook deal, which Edelson secured along with attorneys
from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Labaton Sucharow, members of
the class are set to get at least $345 each.
"Then you look at TikTok, and it's exactly the opposite," Edelson
said.
The plaintiffs lawyers spearheading the TikTok settlement called
Edelson's comments "inflammatory and false," as well as
self-serving.
"The $92 million settlement ranks among the most comprehensive
privacy settlements ever – particularly compared to Mr. Edelson's
own track record of settlements where millions of class members did
not receive any money at all," co-lead counsel Elizabeth Fegan,
Ekwan Rhow and Katrina Carroll said in a joint statement.
They rejected Edelson's "angry rhetoric" about the plaintiffs bar,
and said the TikTok settlement represents a "consensus in the best
interests of the class." U.S. District Judge John Lee in Chicago
must still approve the deal.
Edelson, 48, said while he's still committed to plaintiffs-side
work, the class action practice is "plagued by attorneys who don't
believe in servicing clients."
"Times are changing," he said, again contrasting the Facebook and
TikTok cases. "It's such a fun moment where you just see there is a
clear battle between the old guard and the new guard."
Update: This story was updated to reflect that the Nick Larry Law
firm did not take part in the Facebook settlement, as it had
withdrawn from the case. [GN]
TOWER RESEARCH: Lowey Discloses Notice of Proposed Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Boutchard, et al. v. Gandhi, et al.
Case No. 18-cv-7041 (N.D. Ill)
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
If you purchased or sold any E-Mini Index Futures or Options on
E-Mini Index Futures on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange ("CME")
and/or the Chicago Board of Trade ("CBOT") from at least March 1,
2012, through October 31, 2014, your rights may be affected by a
pending class action settlement and you may be entitled to a
portion of the Settlement Fund.
This Summary Notice is to alert you of a proposed Settlement
totaling $15,000,000 reached with Tower Research Capital LLC
("Tower") in a pending class action (the "Action"). Tower does not
admit Plaintiffs' allegations and maintains that it has good and
meritorious defenses.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") authorized this Summary Notice and has
appointed the lawyers listed below to represent the Settlement
Class in this Action:
Vincent Briganti
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 733-7221
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
Who is a member of the Settlement Class?
Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class
consists of all persons and entities that purchased or sold any
E-Mini Index Futures or Options on E-Mini Index Futures on the CME
and/or the CBOT from at least March 1, 2012, through October 31,
2014 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Settlement Class are
the Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or agent of
any Defendant or any co-conspirator whether or not named as a
Defendant, and the United States Government.
"E-Mini Index Futures" means E-mini Dow Futures contract(s), E-mini
S&P 500 Futures contract(s), or E-mini NASDAQ 100 Futures
contract(s), and "Options on E-Mini Index Futures" means any option
on any E-Mini Index Futures.
The other capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice are defined
in the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, July
30, 2021, Fairness Hearing Thereon, and Class Members' Rights
("Notice") and the Settlement Agreement, which are available at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com.
If you are not sure if you are included in the Settlement Class,
you can get more information, including the detailed Notice, at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-933-3281 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-7838).
What is this lawsuit about and what does the Settlement provide?
Class Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, a group of futures traders
and the trading firm that employed them, unlawfully and
intentionally manipulated E-Mini Index Futures traded on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade, and
Options on E-Mini Index Futures from at least March 1, 2012,
through October 31, 2014 (the "Class Period"), in violation of the
Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec 1, et seq. and the common
law.
Tower does not admit Class Plaintiffs' allegations and maintains
that it has good and meritorious defenses to Class Plaintiffs'
claims and would prevail if the case were to proceed. Nevertheless,
to settle the claims in this lawsuit, and thereby avoid the expense
and uncertainty of further litigation, Tower has agreed to pay a
total of $15 million (the "Settlement Fund") in cash for the
benefit of the proposed Settlement Class. If the Settlement is
approved, the Settlement Fund, plus interest earned from the date
it was established, less any Taxes, the reasonable costs of Class
Notice and administration, any Court-awarded attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs, Incentive Awards for Class
Plaintiffs, and any other costs or fees approved by the Court (the
"Net Settlement Fund") will be divided among all Class Members who
file valid Proof of Claim and Release Forms ("Claim Form").
If the Settlement is approved, the Action will be resolved against
all Defendants. If the Settlement is not approved, Tower and the
other Defendants will remain as defendants in the Action, and Class
Plaintiffs will continue to pursue their claims against
Defendants.
Will I get a payment?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will be eligible for a payment under the Settlement if you file a
Claim Form. You also may obtain more information at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com or by calling toll-free
1-877-933-3281 (if calling from outside the United States or
Canada, call 1-414-961-7838). Claim Forms must be postmarked by
August 12, 2021, or submitted online at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com on or before 11:59 p.m.
Eastern time on August 12, 2021.
What are my rights?
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not opt out, you
will release certain legal rights against Tower, the other
Defendants, and Released Parties as explained in the detailed
Notice and Settlement Agreement, which are available at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com. If you do not want to
take part in the proposed Settlement, you must opt out by June 10,
2021. You may object to the proposed Settlement, the Distribution
Plan, and/or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and payment
of litigation costs and expenses. If you want to object, you must
do so by June 10, 2021. Information on how to opt out or object is
contained in the detailed Notice, which is available at
www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com.
When is the Fairness Hearing?
The Court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen
U.S. Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 on
July 30, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Central time to consider whether to
finally approve the proposed Settlement, Distribution Plan, the
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
litigation costs and expenses, and the application for service
awards for the Class Plaintiffs. Given the current COVID-19
situation, the Court may conduct the Fairness Hearing remotely. You
or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your
own expense, but you do not have to. Any changes to the time and
place of the Fairness Hearing, or other deadlines, will be posted
to www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com as soon as is
practicable.
For more information, call toll-free 1-877-933-3281 (if calling
from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-7838) or
visit www.eminifuturesclassactionsettlement.com. [GN]
TRANSUNION: Court Considers Standing, Typicality for No-Injury Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, a case in which the Supreme Court is once again grappling
with the requirements of Article III standing -- this time in the
context of class actions. The argument confirmed this case is one
to watch, as the eventual decision may clarify the standing
requirements for class-action plaintiffs in cases where no actual
injury can be proven. The decision will likely address whether a
"material risk of harm" is sufficient to confer standing in and of
itself, or whether Article III requires something more.
Background
The case arose from a product offered by TransUnion, which attached
a "potential match" alert to the credit files of individuals with
names matching a name designated by the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Assets Control (OFAC) as individuals
restricted from certain transactions for national security reasons
(e.g., terrorists, drug traffickers, etc.). The named plaintiff,
Sergio Ramirez, alleged he suffered actual injury in the form of
denied credit, embarrassment in front of his family, and having to
cancel a vacation because a car dealer from whom he sought to buy a
car received a consumer report from TransUnion indicating his name
matched a name on the OFAC list.
After his experience, Ramirez contacted TransUnion and requested a
copy of his consumer file. In response, TransUnion mailed him a
copy of his credit file that did not contain the OFAC alert, but
contemporaneously mailed Ramirez a separate letter referencing the
file disclosure letter and explaining that his name was a
"potential match" to a name on the OFAC list. Ramirez received the
file disclosure first, a few days before receiving the "OFAC-alert"
letter.
Ramirez filed a class-action suit in California under the FCRA. The
suit alleged two types of FCRA claims. First, it alleged TransUnion
failed to maintain reasonable procedures to assure the maximum
possible accuracy of the information in its consumer reports (the
"reasonable procedures" claim). Second, it alleged TransUnion
violated the FCRA's requirement to provide consumers, upon request,
with all information in their files by providing the OFAC
"potential match" information in a separate mailing, and TransUnion
violated the FCRA's requirement to provide consumers with a summary
of their rights with each file disclosure by not including a
summary of rights in the OFAC-alert mailing (the "disclosure"
claims). The suit also asserted similar claims under the California
Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), for which Ramirez
sought injunctive relief.
Ramirez filed the suit on behalf of a class of over 8,000 persons
to whom TransUnion sent a similar OFAC-alert letter. Unlike
Ramirez, however, a majority of the putative class members (over
75%) did not allege that TransUnion sent any inaccurate information
to any creditor. Although the "potential match" alert was attached
to the credit files of all class members and stored in TransUnion's
database, only the files of roughly 25% of the class members were
disseminated to third parties. Further, even among those class
members for whom an OFAC alert was disseminated, only Ramirez
alleged he was denied credit based on the OFAC alert. The suit also
alleged each class member was injured by receiving nonconforming
file disclosures, but only Ramirez alleged he even read the
letters, let alone was confused by them.
The district court certified a national class for the FCRA claims
and a California subclass for the CCRAA injunctive relief claim. At
trial, a jury awarded Ramirez and the class members $8 million in
statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. On appeal,
the Ninth Circuit affirmed certification and the statutory damages
award, but reduced the punitive damages award to $32 million.
Regarding the reasonable procedures claim, even though most of the
class members could not allege their credit file with an OFAC alert
was ever transmitted to a third party, a divided Ninth Circuit
panel held a "material risk of harm" existed sufficient to
establish Article III standing simply because TransUnion had
compiled the allegedly false information in its database and could
have disseminated it upon request. The Ninth Circuit further held
every class member suffered an injury by receiving the
nonconforming disclosures since the separate credit file and
OFAC-alert mailings were "inherently shocking and confusing." The
Ninth Circuit also held Ramirez satisfied the typicality
requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, despite the
differences in the nature and degree of injury he suffered when
compared to the members of the classes.
Petition for Certiorari
TransUnion petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case,
and the Court agreed to do so. The question presented to the Court
relating to Article III standing was: "Whether either Article III
or Rule 23 permits a damages class action, where the vast majority
of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury
anything like what the class representative suffered."
Oral Argument
At oral argument, the Supreme Court heard three different
perspectives. TransUnion argued the class should be decertified for
both lack of standing and lack of typicality; Ramirez argued
standing and typicality were both met; and the U.S. solicitor
general's office argued the requirements of standing were met, but
the Court should remand the case to the trial court to properly
assess typicality. The Court's remote-argument procedures
significantly changed the pace of the argument from the traditional
approach. Instead of each advocate arguing his or her case with
interjections from the justices, the advocates were each given an
opportunity for a short introduction, after which each justice was
allotted a few minutes for questioning. These time constraints were
strictly observed, with a justice often interrupting an advocate's
answer to announce that the justice's time had expired. Thus, the
arguments proceeded in a regimented fashion, with every justice
asking questions of each advocate sequentially, in order of the
justices' seniority.
The justices shifted their questioning repeatedly between the
issues of standing and typicality, but most of the questions
targeted standing. In many ways, this case was framed as a sequel
to the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo v. Robins -- also an
FCRA case -- where the Court held a plaintiff "cannot satisfy the
demands of Article III by alleging a bare procedural violation"
and, instead, must demonstrate a "concrete" and "particularized"
harm. 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1550 (2016). The justices and the advocates
referenced Spokeo repeatedly, though differing views of what Spokeo
requires emerged. TransUnion emphasized that the core message of
Spokeo was that a plaintiff must have an injury in fact; an injury
at law is not sufficient. Ramirez, on the other hand, insisted
Spokeo contemplated injury in the form of a material risk of harm,
and not in terms of the plaintiff's subjective knowledge of the
risk.
On standing, TransUnion argued a distinction must be made between a
material risk of harm that exists currently and a material risk of
harm that exists only in retrospect. TransUnion argued this case
falls into the latter category. TransUnion has already discontinued
the practices at issue, so there is no longer a risk that any of
the non-disseminated credit files would ever be disseminated.
Further, since many class members may not have even read the
disclosure letters, they would not have even known they were
subject to a risk until after it could no longer materialize. The
justices pressed TransUnion on this point, asking whether timing
should have such a drastic effect on standing. If the class members
suffered an injury from the material risk of harm that their credit
file might be disseminated before TransUnion remedied the issue,
Justice Kagan asked, then why would they not continue to have
standing to recover for that injury even after it has been
remedied? TransUnion responded that no injury could be suffered if
the individual never had knowledge of the risk in the first
instance.
The justices seemed eager to draw a line as to what constitutes a
"concrete" injury, invoking a litany of hypothetical circumstances
in their questioning. For instance, the chief justice questioned
whether standing would exist under a hypothetical statute that
creates a claim for anyone who drives within a quarter mile of a
drunk driver, even if they never knew they were at risk at the
time. Ramirez insisted standing would exist there, though there
might be a merits question as to the harm suffered. Justice Kagan,
on the other hand, suggested a more deadly hypothetical involving a
carcinogen with a 50% chance of causing cancer, but stipulated that
persons exposed either would or would not get cancer within five
years. If Congress created a claim for persons exposed, would a
class have standing to sue in the fifth year? And if so, would they
still have standing to sue in the sixth year? TransUnion responded
(1) if the risk never materialized, and the class members never had
knowledge that they were at risk, then they were not injured, and
(2) a 50% chance of getting cancer is much more severe than a 25%
risk of having a credit file disseminated, especially since no one
other than Ramirez has alleged they were actually harmed by
dissemination. Justice Barrett piggy-backed on this hypothetical:
Suppose the class sued in the second year, but the case dragged on
and did not reach the damages phase until the sixth? TransUnion
suggested that case might be better framed as a mootness issue, but
it stressed Supreme Court precedent requires standing to be
maintained at every stage of the case.
Multiple justices also questioned whether a "material risk of harm"
is, in and of itself, an injury sufficient to confer standing. Some
viewed Ramirez's argument as requiring this conclusion: For a class
to have standing based on a risk that never materialized and of
which many class members did not become aware while it existed, the
risk must be considered an independent injury. Justices Gorsuch,
Kavanaugh, and Barrett each expressed concern that Ramirez's
position pushed beyond the holding of Spokeo, where the information
had been published on the internet. According to Justice Kavanaugh,
Spokeo addressed a material risk of harm beyond publication, in
contrast to a case, such as this one, where no publication
occurred.
Parts of the discussion also centered on the distinction between
the alleged injury for the reasonable procedures claim and the
alleged injury for the disclosure claims. Justice Kagan, who stated
she "got the harm on the procedures claims," asked pointedly why
the disclosures claim amounted to anything more than a "no harm, no
foul" situation. Justice Barrett also addressed this issue,
pressing Ramirez's counsel with the question: If this is not a
"bare procedural violation" under the FCRA, then what is?
Most of the standing discussion centered on whether the 75% of
class members whose files were not disseminated to third parties
suffered any injury, as opposed to the 25% whose files were
disseminated. Several justices, including conservative ones, such
as Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch, signaled a belief that the 25%
whose files were disseminated did suffer an injury sufficient to
confer standing. There was also discussion on whether the allegedly
false information was indeed "false" at all. Chief Justice Roberts
pointed out during the solicitor general's argument that all the
names identified as "potential" matches to the OFAC list were, in
fact, matched names between the consumer and the individual on the
list. TransUnion picked up on this in rebuttal, noting that a
search of the class members' names on the OFAC's website will flag
a match on the list as well.
Justices Breyer and Sotomayor kept their cards close to the vest on
the standing issue, spending their allotted time asking only about
typicality. Their eagerness to discuss typicality instead of the
jurisdictional issue of Article III standing, however, may suggest
that these justices believe standing exists for the class members.
Regarding typicality, they suggested numerous times that the
difference between the damages sustained by Ramirez and the other
class members was an issue that should be addressed at trial, by
objecting to the relevance of Ramirez's damages evidence, and that
typicality only requires typical claims, not typical damages.
Justice Kagan appeared to agree on this point.
Finally, although the Ninth Circuit expressly held all members of
the class must have standing at the damages phase to recover, the
Court did not comment on this question hardly at all. The sole
exception was one question from Justice Thomas to Ramirez's
counsel, asking simply: "Do you agree that all members of the class
must have standing?" Ramirez's counsel agreed, conceding the point.
The Court's lack of robust questioning on this point may signal at
least an implicit acceptance of the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that
all class members must have standing to recover damages.
Take Away
As is often the case with a Supreme Court oral argument, it is
difficult to make any precise predictions about how the Court will
ultimately decide the case. Yet, a few points seem clear.
First, there was substantial concern among the justices with the
Article III standing issue, with five of the nine justices focusing
almost exclusively on this issue. A key theme in this discussion
was the distinction between how the 25% whose files were
disseminated and the 75% whose files were not would be treated for
Article III standing purposes.
Second, the decision will likely address whether a material risk of
harm is an injury sufficient to confer standing on class members in
and of itself, or whether Article III requires something more.
A written decision is expected in June. [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors of the upcoming
April 5, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who acquired Tyson Foods, Inc.
("Tyson" or the "Company") (NYSE: TSN) securities between March 13,
2020 and December 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
On December 15, 2020, the New York City Comptroller, Scott M.
Stringer, issued a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") calling for an investigation into Tyson's
failures to carry out its stated coronavirus protection policies.
The letter stated that Tyson's steps "to protect employees were
grudging and minimal, such as letting workers use bandanas or sleep
masks." The Company also "penaliz[ed] workers who take sick leave
to avoid contact with any exposed workers" and, "as of December 3,
2020, Tyson ha[d] the highest number of COVID-19 cases of any
company in the meatpacking industry [and] twice as many deaths as
any other meatpacking company."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.78 per share, or
2.5%, to close at $68.25 per share on December 15, 2020, thereby
damaging investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Tyson knew, or should have known, that the highly
contagious coronavirus was spreading throughout the globe; (2)
Tyson did not in fact have sufficient safety protocols to protect
its employees in its facilities; (3) as a result, Tyson employees
contracted and spread the coronavirus within the facilities; (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Tyson would face negative impact to its
production, including complete shutdowns of certain facilities; (5)
due to the failure to protect its employees, Tyson would suffer
financial harm related to its lowered production; and (6) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Tyson securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 5, 2020 to
request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action
lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact
Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our
website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitrator Orders to Pay Blind Rider Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
sfexaminer.com reports that in an award discloses a private
arbitrator ordered Uber Technologies, Inc. to pay $1.1 million on
account of more than a dozen instances in which its drivers denied
service to Bay Area resident Lisa Irving, a blind rider who was
accompanied by her guide dog, Bernie.
The arbitrator rejected Uber's argument that it was not responsible
for its drivers' conduct because the drivers were -- in Uber's view
-- independent contractors, not employees. The arbitrator found
that Uber was covered directly by the Americans with Disabilities
Act, whether or not its drivers were technically independent
contractors.
Complaints about denial of service to blind riders based on their
service animals have been around since the early days of Uber's
ride-sharing service.
In 2014, the National Federation of the Blind and others brought a
class action against Uber in federal court in San Jose targeting
denial of service when blind riders were accompanied by service
animals.
NFB and Uber settled the class action case in 2016.
In its press release to announce the class action settlement, NFB
proclaimed it had reached a "Groundbreaking Settlement to End
Discrimination Against Blind Uber Riders Who Use Guide Dogs."
Under the class action settlement agreement, Uber was responsible
for making sure its drivers knew that blind customers with guide
dogs could not be denied service under the ADA even on the ground
of allergies or religious objections.
The agreement required Uber to terminate drivers who knowingly
refused to transport a rider because of their service animal.
In the years since 2016, it has become apparent that the settlement
agreement did not resolve all such discrimination.
The service denials that Irving sued over occurred between October
of 2016 and June of 2017, four of them after the settlement
agreement had gone into effect.
Under the settlement, Uber was required to collect data on service
animal denials of service and share it with plaintiffs' counsel.
While confidentiality provisions cover the public dissemination of
much of the raw data, in court filings and communications with
class members, some information has emerged.
Plaintiffs stated in a 2020 court filing reporting that "Since the
Settlement term began in January 2017, Uber has reported that it
has received over 21,000 complaints of service animal-related
discrimination. Uber's data shows no material decrease in the
number of complaints during the Settlement term."
Data presented to the court by plaintiffs showed that the
percentage of trip requests that resulted in denials for riders
with service animals averaged 13 percent over the period from May
2017 to December 2019. The filing noted that the numbers were based
on self-reporting by riders and because the reporting process was
allegedly "burdensome," there was substantial under-reporting.
The settlement agreement had a 3 1/2-year term but under certain
conditions -- including breach by Uber -- it could be extended to
five years.
In June of 2020, counsel for the plaintiffs sought an order
extending the settlement agreement until Jan. 16, 2022. In its
filing, plaintiff alleged "discrimination by Uber drivers against
people who use Uber with their service animals remains pervasive."
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion.
The judge said that Uber hadn't been shown to have violated the
settlement agreement and plaintiff's case was simply a complaint
that that "service animal discrimination remains pervasive." The
judge said plaintiffs could file a new lawsuit if they believed
there was a basis to do so.
Timothy Elder, a San Francisco lawyer who represented NFB in the
class action said, "we are in conversation with Uber about the
issue and what happens next." He said that even with the reduced
ridership during the pandemic "we do still hear a regular flow of
people who are getting denied . . .. It is still a problem. It is a
systemic problem."
Irving's suit for damages was not part of the class action and she
sought recovery both under the ADA and the Unruh Act, California's
own version of the ADA. The Unruh Act provides damages beginning at
$4,000 per violation and the amount can be increased if
circumstances show aggravated severity.
The arbitrator considered 14 specific instances and ordered payment
in all of them. The damages ranged from the statutory floor of
$4,000 up to two for $75,000 apiece -- one of those for a situation
where the driver was verbally abusive and made Irving fear for her
safety.
The total damages awarded to Irving was $324,000. In addition, the
court awarded attorney's fees in excess of $800,000. In a
statement, Irving's counsel stated, "We believe this may be the
largest award ever issued to a single blind claimant for repeated
violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and California's
Unruh Act."
Elder, who was not counsel in the Irving case but is familiar with
the award, described the outcome as a "great result." [GN]
UNITED STATES: LGBTQ+ Students File Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
gaytimes.co.uk reports that a group of LGBTQ+ students have filed a
lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education due to LGBTQ+
discrimination at religiously affiliated colleges and universities.
According to a report from The Hill, the suit was filed by the
Religious Exemption Accountability Project (REAP).
33 current and former students have brought the suit to an Oregon
federal court.
"Thirty-three Plaintiffs bring this class action suit to put an end
to the U.S. Department of Education's complicity in the abuses and
unsafe conditions of LGBTQ+ students endure at hundreds of
taxpayer-funded, religious colleges and universities," the suit
states.
"The Plaintiffs seek safety and justice for themselves and for the
countless sexual and gender minority students whose oppression,
fuelled by government funding, and unrestrained by government
intervention persists with injurious consequences to mind body and
soul."
The legal filing also references Title IX, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs.
Currently, religiously affiliated schools are exempt from this law
which has indirectly permitted these institutions to practice
discriminatory behaviour towards their LGBTQ+ students.
Around 25 schools are listed in the suit.
Baylor University students, Jake Picker and Veronica Penales opened
up about the lawsuit in an interview with 6 News.
"Baylor is happy to take our tuition money and they claim that we
are loved, the university loves us, and that we are welcomed on
campus. . . . yet the second we as students try to organise in any
official capacity we are immediately shut down," Picker states.
With the impending suit, Penales hopes that change will be brought
to religiously affiliated schools.
"This has been an ongoing fight for the past 10 years. So Baylor
has just kinda been silencing this issue for that long and I know
this time, with this lawsuit, it's going to be a little harder to
keep quiet," she said.
This suit comes shortly after President Joe Biden issued an
executive order on International Women's Day (March 8) calling for
a discrimination-free environment within federally funded
educational institutions.
The President called upon the Biden administration to protect and
ensure educational environments would be free from discrimination
on the basis of sex, sexual harassment, sexual violence, and sexual
orientation or gender identity, which includes the LGBTQ+
community.
"For students attending schools and other educational institutions
that receive Federal financial assistance, this guarantee is
codified, in part, in Title IX of the Education Amendments of
1972," Biden ordered.[GN]
UNITI GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniti Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re Uniti
Group Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending.
Beginning on October 25, 2019, several purported shareholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, based
on claims similar to those asserted in the action initiated by SLF
Holdings, LLC.
On March 12, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas consolidated the Shareholder Actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the consolidated cases under the
caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation.
On May 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated Shareholder Actions.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent investors who
acquired the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and
February 15, 2019.
The Shareholder Actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
alleging that the Company made materially false and misleading
statements by allegedly failing to disclose, among other things,
the risk that the Spin-Off and entry into the Master Lease violated
certain debt covenants of Windstream and/or the risk that the
Master Lease purportedly could be recharacterized as a financing
instead of “true lease.” The Shareholder Actions seek class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees and other relief.
On July 10, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. Briefing on that motion is complete, but no
decision has been issued.
Uniti said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously, and,
because it is still in its preliminary stages, we have not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our
financial position or results of operations."
Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the United
States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on March 9 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne Lidar, Inc.
("Velodyne" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR) securities between
November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Velodyne investors have until May 3, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had
"removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta
Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after
the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and
Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board
and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty,
integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and
directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's
Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would
remain directors of Velodyne.
On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately
15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants
fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on
February 22, 2021.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to
operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their
dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) that the
Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant
times.
If you purchased Velodyne securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Velodyne securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR, VLDRW)
("Velodyne") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Velodyne
securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Velodyne
securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 3, 2021,
seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484)
270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com;
or click
https://www.ktmc.com/velodyne-lidar-inc-securities-fraud-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=velodyne
The Class Period commences on November 9, 2020, when Velodyne filed
its quarterly report on a Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended September 30, 2020. The
report stated "[b]ased on the evaluation of our disclosure controls
and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, our chief executive officer and
chief financial officer concluded that, as of such date, our
disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable
assurance level."
However, the truth began to be revealed on February 22, 2021,
before the market opened, when Velodyne announced that its Board of
Directors had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and
terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of
the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded
that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard
to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with
respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with
[Velodyne] officers and directors." In addition, Velodyne's Board
formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but they would remain
directors of Velodyne.
Following this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or
approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22,
2021. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or
approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22,
2021.
Velodyne investors may, no later than May 3, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
VIATRIS INC: Ranitidine End-Payor Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris 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 end-payor plaintiffs in the
ranitidine matter have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.
The Company, along with numerous other manufacturers, retailers,
and others, are parties to litigation relating to alleged trace
amounts of nitrosamine impurities in certain products, including
valsartan and ranitidine.
The vast majority of these lawsuits in the United States are
pending in two MDLs, namely an MDL pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey concerning valsartan
and an MDL pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida concerning raniditine.
The lawsuits against the Company in the MDLs include putative class
actions seeking the refund of the purchase price and other economic
and punitive damages allegedly sustained by consumers and end
payors as well as individuals seeking compensatory and punitive
damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by ingestion of the
medications. Similar lawsuits pertaining to valsartan have been
filed in Canada and other countries.
The Company has also received claims and inquiries related to these
products, as well as requests to indemnify purchasers of the
Company's active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) and/or finished
dose forms of these products.
The original master complaints concerning ranitidine were dismissed
on December 31, 2020.
The Company has not been named as a defendant in the amended master
complaints, though it is still named in certain short form personal
injury complaints.
The end-payor plaintiffs in the ranitidine matter have filed an
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Viatris is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIEWRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss PCRA Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------
ViewRay Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in
the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement
Association v. ViewRay, Inc., et al., is pending.
On September 13, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of
federal securities laws was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief scientific officer, and former chief financial
officer.
On December 19, 2019, the court appointed Plymouth County
Retirement Association as the lead plaintiff, and on February 28,
2020 the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
securities fraud claims against the Company, its chief executive
officer, chief operating officer, chief scientific officer, and
former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer.
Now captioned Plymouth County Retirement Association v. ViewRay,
Inc., et al., the amended complaint alleges that the company
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements that failed to disclose adverse facts
concerning the company's business, operations, and financial
results, and seeks damages, interest, and other relief.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
28, 2020.
While the initial motion to dismiss was pending, the plaintiff was
granted leave to file a second amended complaint. A motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on September 16,
2020. That motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the
District Court.
ViewRay said, "We believe the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation."
ViewRay Inc. develops radiation therapy technology for the
treatment of cancer. The Company offers radiation therapy systems
that images and treats cancer patients simultaneously. ViewRay
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Oakwood
Village, Ohio.
VILLAGE OF NEWBURGH: Illegally Issued Tickets, Sekki Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SEKKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VILLAGE OF NEWBURGH HEIGHTS, Defendant, Case
No. CV 21 945740 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., March 31, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and
Revised Code violations.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a notice of
liability from the Defendant's traffic camera program, which
violated the Revised Code by instructing the Plaintiff that he had
to request an administrative hearing if he wanted to challenge the
ticket; and by failing to tell the Plaintiff how to challenge the
ticket in municipal court, as required by law. The Defendant
unjustly enriched itself by collecting a fine from the Plaintiff
through an illegal issuance of ticket, added the suit.
Village of Newburgh Heights is a political subdivision in Ohio.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
- and –
John D. Gugliotta, Esq.
Nathan J. Gugliotta Esq.
GUGLIOTTA & GUGLIOTTA, L.P.A.
3020 W. Market Street
Akron, OH 44333
Telephone: (330) 253-2225
Facsimile: (330) 253-6658
E-mail: johng@inventorshelp.com
nathan@inventorshelp.com
VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM)
from November 11, 2020, through March 3, 2021 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Vroom Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose to investors:(1) that Vroom had not demonstrated
that it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its
salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move
through its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale
channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross profit per
unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press
release. Therein, the Company reported that fourth quarter
"Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878,
driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by
improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per
unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et
loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per
share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vroominc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-383/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
VROOM INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) and reminds investors of the May 21, 2021
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities
class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Vroom stock
or options between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021 and would like to
discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also
click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/VRM.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion of existing
inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and
overreliance on third-party sales support; (2) Vroom's lack of
adequate sales and support staff had resulted in severe growth
constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales opportunities
and a greater than 10% increase in average days to sale for Vroom
products; (3) Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate
existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Vroom's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
Specifically, on March 3, 2021, Vroom announced its fourth quarter
and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, Vroom reported that
fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased
13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially
offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning
costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter,
its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." During the
accompanying earnings call, defendants revealed that Vroom was
suffering from serious sales and support bottlenecks which had
severely constrained the Company's growth and profits per vehicle.
On this news, Vroom's stock price fell 28%, damaging investors.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Vroom's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.[GN]
WALMART INC: Litigation Provides Guidance on Data Breach Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that Gardiner v. Walmart provided some
guidance as to the specificity required to state a claim under the
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the types of damages
that may be recoverable for breaches of California consumer data.
On July 10, 2020, Lavarious Gardiner filed a proposed class action
against Walmart, alleging that unauthorized individuals accessed
his personal information through Walmart's website. Although
Walmart never disclosed the alleged breach or provided any formal
notification to consumers (and maintains that no breach occurred),
Gardiner claimed that he discovered his personal information on the
dark web and was told by hackers that the information came from his
Walmart online account. He also claims that by using cybersecurity
scan software he discovered many vulnerabilities on Walmart's
website.
Gardiner claimed Walmart violated the CCPA and California's Unfair
Competition Law. In response, Walmart filed a motion to dismiss,
which was granted on March 5, 2021 (of note - with leave to amend).
While Gardiner has now amended his complaint, the court's ruling on
Walmart's motion to dismiss addresses some important points related
to data breach class actions, including:
The complaint MUST state when the alleged breach occurred. Gardiner
had only alleged that his information was on the dark web, not when
the breach actually occurred. The court also stated that for
purposes of a CCPA claim, the relevant conduct is the actual data
breach resulting from a "failure to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices." This means that the
breach must have occurred on or after January 1, 2020, the
effective date of the CCPA.
The complaint must sufficiently allege disclosure of personal
information. Gardiner had only alleged that his credit card number
was disclosed, but had not alleged that his 3-digit access code was
affected.
Plaintiff's damages arising from a data breach MUST not be
speculative -this is common across courts that dismiss class action
data breach suits. Here, Gardiner had not alleged that he incurred
any fraudulent charges or suffered any identity theft or other
harm.
The court also dismissed Gardiner's unfair competition claims that
were based on a benefit of the bargain theory.
The court also addressed the disclaimers in Walmart's privacy
policy; Walmart argued that Gardiner's contract-based claims were
barred by the its website Terms of Use, which included a warranty
disclaimer and limitation of liability for data breaches. The court
said that the limitation of liability was clear and emphasized with
capitalization, which put Gardiner on notice of its contents. This
is an important part of the decision for ANY company with online
presence - a company's website Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
could be the final line of defense.
Gardiner has since amended his complaint. Whether the amendments
will avoid another motion to dismiss is unknown. Still, this
decision provides valuable insight for claims made under the CCPA
and important lessons about website Privacy Policies and Terms of
Use. [GN]
WANDERING BEAR: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wandering Bear Inc.
The case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Wandering Bear Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01754 (E.D.N.Y., March 31,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wandering Bear -- https://wanderingbearcoffee.com/ -- makes extra
strong organic coffee in multiple formats, including cold brew
"coffee on tap" boxes, k-cup pods and grounds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
WASTE PRO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Delayed Trash Pickup
----------------------------------------------------------------
localmemphis.com reports that the bad blood between the city of
Memphis and Waste Pro continues and thousands of people the company
services in Cordova and certain parts of east Memphis and Hickory
Hill are stuck in the middle.
It comes as several residents filed a lawsuit against the city of
Memphis.
"It's been really, really awful," Barbara Nowlin of Cordova said.
"It's been inconsistent for months," Craig Mullen of Cordova
added.
Those are the complaints from those living in Cordova, as they look
at piled trash and weigh in about the delayed trash pickup by the
company Waste Pro, which the city of Memphis contracted for waste
services to thousands of people living in Area E.
"We can send a rover to Mars but we can't get our trash picked up
on a weekly basis," Mullen said. "It just doesn't make sense."
After two Memphis City Council members asked to terminate Waste
Pro's contract, the company responded that it wanted to end its
contract with the city.
Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland said in part: "I take full
responsibility. The lack of service is completely unacceptable. I
want you to know that we are actively working to find a long-term
solution."
"We are at the point now - I don't care whose fault it is, just fix
it," Mullen said.
The trash drama continued, when several Cordova residents sued the
city of Memphis and MLGW in a class action lawsuit.
It seeks nearly $39 million in damages, which the complaint
contends is overpaid trash collection charges based on timely
pickup estimates. The lawsuit also claims those who live and work
in the coverage area didn't receive the services which they had
paid.
"It's really a health hazard, not just that it's unsightly,
unkept," Patti Possel said, who is one of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.
"It actually hurts my heart to drive through Cordova and to see the
mess that's out there," Possel said.
A Waste Pro spokesperson declined further comment by email and the
city of Memphis' communications staff didn't respond to an email
seeking an updated comment.
Waste Pro said the city denied a request for trash pickup on Good
Friday, a public holiday.[GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Workhorse Group Inc. ("Workhorse")
(NASDAQ: WKHS) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Workhorse between July 7, 2020 and February 23,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as
its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or
indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) the Company had
concealed the fact that -- as revealed by the postmaster general in
explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle
-- electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and
astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Workhorse's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Workhorse
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 7,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Investors File Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan O'Brien, writing for Business Journal Daily, reports that a
group of investors has filed a class action lawsuit against
electric-vehicle manufacturer Workhorse Group, alleging the company
presented false and misleading public statements related to its
failed bid for a lucrative U.S. Postal Service contract.
The complaints, filed on March 8 in the U.S. District Court for
Central California, alleges that Workhorse failed to disclose
"adverse facts pertaining to the company's business, operational,
and financial results."
The lawsuit alleges that two media interviews with Workhorse CEO
Duane Hughes and chief financial officer Steve Schrader contained
statements that were misleading. [GN]
WORKHORSE GROUP: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:WKHS) securities between July 7, 2020
and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until
May 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Workhorse
class action lawsuit, Farrar v. Workhorse Group, Inc., No.
21-cv-02072 (C.D. Cal.), which is assigned to Judge Cormac J.
Carney.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Workhorse securities during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Workhorse class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Workhorse class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Workhorse class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Workhorse class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Workhorse class action lawsuit or have questions
concerning your rights regarding the Workhorse class action
lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel,
Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff
motions for the Workhorse class action lawsuit must be filed with
the court no later than May 7, 2021.
Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and
manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United
States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation
Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multi-year
acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package
delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the
NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3
billion.
The Workhorse class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Workhorse was merely hoping
that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV and
had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case;
(ii) Workhorse had concealed the fact that - as revealed by the
postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to
select an electric vehicle - electrifying the USPS's entire fleet
would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (iii) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On February 23, 2021, the USPS issued a press release entitled
"U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar
Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle Fleet," announcing that
Oshkosh Defense - not Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV
contract. On this news, the price of Workhorse stock fell more than
50%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
XL FLEET: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on March 9 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet") (NYSE:
XL) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of XL Fleet between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for investors under the federal securities laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's
salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to
boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of
the 33 customers that XL Fleet featured were inactive and had not
placed an order since 2019; (3) XL Fleet's technology had been
materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings;
(4) XL Fleet lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new
products on the announced timeline; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of XL Fleet
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the May 7,
2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
XL FLEET: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of those who acquired XL Fleet Corp.
("XL" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) securities from October 2, 2020
through March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
have until May 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research published a report entitled
"XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other
things, that salespeople "were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors"
and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to
"poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with
former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33
customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed
that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future
class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too
technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised
timeline." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by
$2.09 per share, or approximately 13%, to close at $13.86 per share
on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share
price continued to decline by $2.69 per share, or approximately
19.4%, over two consecutive trading days to close at $11.17 per
share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (2) that at least 18 of the
33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an
order since 2019; (3) that XL's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) that XL
lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on
the announced timelines; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired XL securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq., (212) 371-6600
investigations@kmllp.com
www.kmllp.com [GN]
XL FLEET: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of May 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) between
October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important May 7, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased XL Fleet securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the XL Fleet class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2055.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople were
pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's
reported sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33 customers
that XL Fleet featured were inactive and had not placed an order
since 2019; (3) XL Fleet's technology had been materially
overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL
Fleet lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products
on the announced timeline; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about XL Fleet's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the XL Fleet class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2055.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
XL FLEET: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL).
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased XL stock or other securities between October 2, 2020 and
March 2, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/XLFleet to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.
The case alleges that XL Fleet and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales
pipelines to boost XL Fleet's reported sales and backlog; (2) at
least 18 of the 33 customers that XL Fleet featured were inactive
and had not placed an order since 2019; (3) XL Fleet's technology
had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet
savings; and (4) XL Fleet lacks the supply chain and engineers to
roll out new products on the announced timelines.
Interested XL Fleet investors have until May 7, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be
a class member. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. If investors
choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member.
The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/XLFleet
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/XLFleet [GN]
XPO LOGISTICS: District of Connecticut Dismisses Putative Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 19, 2021, Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed with
prejudice a putative class action asserting claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a transportation and
logistics company and certain of its executives. Labul, et al. v.
XPO Logistics, et al., No. 3:18-cv-2062 (SRU), slip op. (D. Conn.
Mar. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that the company misrepresented
the extent to which it relied on a single customer to drive revenue
growth and the financial impact of declining business from that
customer. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege the existence of material misrepresentations, scienter, or
loss causation, and therefore dismissed the action.
Plaintiffs alleged that the company made various statements
regarding its revenue growth in the first quarter of 2018, which
were allegedly misleading because they omitted that the company's
largest customer "accounted for more than half" of total growth
during that time. Id. at 12-13. In addition, plaintiffs alleged
that, after that customer began withdrawing a portion of its
business, the company made misrepresentations by reaffirming its
financial targets, stating that there were "no material changes to
the risk factors previously disclosed," and by attributing
declining shipping volume to causes other than the decline in that
customer's business. Id. at 32-33.
With respect to the statements regarding revenue growth, the Court
held that plaintiffs' allegations regarding growth in 2017 and 2019
were insufficient to establish the portion of growth that the
customer contributed in the first quarter of 2018. Id. at 13.
Moreover, the Court determined that the alleged misstatements
concerning customer diversification and the contribution of
different business lines to revenue growth would not be rendered
misleading even if the largest customer had accounted for a large
portion of revenue growth. Id. at 14-15. The Court further held
that plaintiffs failed to establish that statements regarding the
company's financial targets and declining shipping volume were
false when made; the fact that one customer was withdrawing some
business was not enough, the Court held, to show that the company
would not meet its financial projections or that overall shipping
volume would decline. Id. at 34.
The Court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege
that the alleged omissions were material. The Court emphasized that
plaintiffs' allegations failed to quantify the extent of the
customer's contribution to revenue growth in the quarter in
question or the "scale of the alleged discontinuation" by the
customer, and there was no indication that the alleged
misrepresentation changed the underlying financials of the company.
Id. at 17-18, 39. Moreover, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the
materiality of the growth-related statements was shown by a
subsequent stock drop, the Court noted that the stock drop followed
an announcement that the customer had pulled back a portion of its
business, and that the "drop in stock price therefore does not
suggest that the disclosure of [the company's] alleged reliance on
[a single customer], without more, would have triggered a similar
market reaction." Id. at 18-19. While plaintiffs alleged that the
company ultimately "would be losing two-thirds of $900 million
projected business" from the customer, the Court observed that the
ultimate decrease in the company's overall revenue was only 3.7% in
2019, and the complaint did not "shed adequate light on the
likelihood of [the customer] pulling two-thirds of its business" at
the time of the challenged statement. Id. at 40. For the same
reasons, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument under Item 303 of
Regulation S-K -- requiring the disclosure of "known trends or
uncertainties" -- holding that plaintiffs failed to establish any
material omission or that defendants had "actual knowledge" of a
trend. Id. at 41-42.
The Court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
scienter. First, the Court rejected plaintiffs' allegation that the
company had a motive to conceal its reliance on its largest
customer so as to inflate its stock price prior to pursuing an
acquisition of another company. Id. at 22. The Court explained that
this argument was speculative and that a "'generalized desire' to
achieve a lucrative acquisition" is not the sort of "concrete
benefit" that can be used to infer scienter. Id. at 23-24. The
Court also rejected plaintiffs' attempt to establish scienter
through allegations of recklessness, concluding that plaintiffs'
allegations "may establish that [one executive] had a broad
understanding of [the company's] diversification levels, sources of
growth, and [the company's] largest customers," but did not
specifically address the customer's role in the company's growth.
Id. at 26-27. In addition, the Court explained that the fact that
one executive "had access to reports providing overall tonnage
numbers" was "irrelevant" because those numbers did not indicate
that a specific customer was reducing its business with the
company, and a statement that the company knew the customer "wasn't
going to stay . . . forever and ever" did not show that the
executive knew of specific plans for the customer to leave at the
time he made the challenged statements. Id. at 43-44.
With respect to the element of loss causation, the Court held that
plaintiffs' allegations relating to revenue growth were
insufficient because none of the alleged corrective disclosures
specifically mentioned the customer's role in generating the
company's growth. Id. at 29-30. The Court rejected the theory that
the losses alleged were a "foreseeable materialization of the risk
concealed," because plaintiffs had not quantified the extent to
which the omitted information contributed to the losses. Id. at 28,
30. The Court stated that for similar reasons plaintiffs failed to
allege loss causation with respect to their allegations relating to
the decline in business from the primary customer. Id. at 46.
Because the Court had previously permitted plaintiffs to replead,
the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Id. at 48. [GN]
[*] Cameron Goodwin Attorneys Discuss COVID-19 Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Esq., Donald R. Frederico, Esq., Cameron
Goodwin, Esq. and Kyle Goodwin, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that when the COVID-19
pandemic began unfolding in March 2020, we began tracking an
emerging wave of class actions related to the coronavirus. Despite
unprecedented court closures and changing procedural rules,
COVID-19 class actions steadily proliferated across industries,
jurisdictions, and areas of law. The impact of COVID-19 on business
operations, consumer activity, and economic forecasts made clear
that the filings to date are only an early indication of what is to
come as the effects of the pandemic continue to reverberate
throughout all sectors and regions of the country. Litigation
related to COVID-19 executive orders, reopening plans, and relief
legislation will also continue to develop as governmental actions
continue into the future.
The following is a categorized summary of more than 1,400
coronavirus-related class action complaints filed in 2020,
highlighting the core allegations of each complaint. We note that
significant litigation is ongoing and anticipated to continue
throughout 2021.
Banking and Debt Collection
Banks and financial institutions are facing class action litigation
aimed at preventing foreclosures and suspending debt collection.
These businesses may also encounter class action litigation from
commercial clients based on their role in providing access to
government relief under the CARES Act and other legislation.
CARES/PPP
Cases filed to date against banks concerning their administration
of loans under the CARES Act Payroll Protection Program seeking
monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief include:
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. Kabbage, Inc., No. 20-cv-02955 (D.S.C. Aug.
14, 2020); Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. Citizens Bank, No. 20-cv-02240
(D.S.C. June 12, 2020); Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. Intuit Inc., No.
20-cv-02241 (D.S.C. June 12, 2020); Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. First
Reliance Bank, No. 20-cv-02208 (D.S.C. June 11, 2020); Ratliff CPA
Firm, PC v. Pinnacle Bank, No. 20-cv-02225 (D.S.C. June 11, 2020);
Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. Truist Bank, No. 20-cv-02207 (D.S.C. June
11, 2020); Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co.,
No. 20-cv-02041 (D.S.C. May 29, 2020);
Compu-Tax & Accounting, LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., No.
20-cv-01554 (D. Ariz. Aug. 5, 2020); Profitwise Accounting Inc. v.
Bank of America, N.A., No. 20-cv-01395 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2020);
Fisher, P.A. v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 20-cv-00405 (W.D.N.C.
July 21, 2020); Manoloff v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 20-cv-02451
(S.D. Tex. July 13, 2020); Guerriero v. Bank of America, N.A., No.
20-cv-11267 (D. Mass. July 6, 2020); Lopez v. Bank of America,
N.A., No. 20-cv-04172 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2020); E-Dealer Direct,
LLC v. Bank of America Corp., No. 20-cv-00139 (W.D. Tex. May 19,
2020); Panda Group, PC v. Bank of America Corp., No. 20-cv-00045
(D. Utah May 11, 2020); Studio 1220, Inc. v. Bank of America,
N.A., No. 20-cv-03081 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2020); Profiles, Inc. v.
Bank of America Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00894 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020);
Accountek Financial Management, Ltd. v. Synovus Bank, No.
20-cv-00047 (W.D. Va. Aug. 2, 2020); Ratliff CPA Firm, PC v.
Synovus Financial Corp., No. 20-cv-02614 (D.S.C. July 14, 2020);
Ajira AI LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-04428 (N.D.
Ill. July 29, 2020); M&M Consulting Group LLC v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-01318 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2020); Tax Divas,
LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 20-cv-05311 (S.D.N.Y. July 10,
2020); Johnson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-04858
(S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2020); Quinn v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No.
20-cv-04100 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2020); Smukler v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-03413 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2020); VR
Consultants, Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 20-cv-06110 (D.N.J.
May 20, 2020); KPA Promotions & Awards, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase &
Co., No. 20-cv-03910 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020); ImpAcct, LLC v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 20-cv-01344 (D. Colo. May 12, 2020); TDD
Dallas LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. DC-20-06259 (Tex.
Dist. Ct. Apr. 30, 2020); Sha-Poppin Gourmet Popcorn LLC v. JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:20-cv-02523 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24,
2020); Hyde-Edwards Salon & Spa v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No.
20-cv-00762 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020); Starwalk of Dallas, LLC v.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 20-cv-01005 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2020);
Picker & Associates, LLC v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-04462
(N.D. Ill. July 29, 2020);
2 Andy Enterprise Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-cv-05212 (N.D.
Cal. July 29, 2020); T.C. Koziara, PLLC v. Wells Fargo & Co., No.
20-cv-00588 (M.D.N.C. June 26, 2020); BAM Navigation, LLC v. Wells
Fargo & Co., No. 20-cv-01345 (D. Minn. June 11, 2020); Marselian v.
Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-cv-03166 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2020); DNM
Contracting, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 2020-25807 (Tex.
Dist. Ct. Apr. 24, 2020);
DNM Contracting was removed to the Southern District of Texas: No.
20-cv-01790 (S.D. Tex. May 22, 2020);
Castellon v. Am. Express Nat'l Bank, No. 20-cv-04894 (N.D. Cal.
July 22, 2020);
Prinzo & Associates LLC v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc., No.
20-cv-01097 (W.D. Pa. July 21, 2020); Prinzo & Associates LLC v.
Huntington Bancshares Inc., No. 20-cv-01061 (W.D. Pa. July 15,
2020); Prinzo & Associates LLC v. KeyCorp, No. 20-cv-01062 (W.D.
Pa. July 15, 2020); Prinzo & Associates LLC v. Dollar Bank FSB, No.
20-cv-00961 (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2020); Prinzo & Associates LLC v.
IberiaBank Corp., No. 20-cv-00904 (W.D. Pa. June 17, 2020); Prinzo
& Associates, LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-03256 (N.D.
Ill. June 2, 2020);
Chestnut Street Consulting, LLC v. Stearns Bank Nat'l Association,
No. 20-cv-01013 (D. Conn. July 20, 2020);
Anevski v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-03646 (S.D. Ohio
July 18, 2020);
Daniel T.A. Cotts PLLC v. American Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00185
(S.D. Tex. July 17, 2020);
JEK Services Inc. v. Simmons Bank, No. 20-cv-00836 (E.D. Ark. July
14, 2020);
Fahmia, Inc. v. Bank of America Corp., No. 20-cv-00642 (M.D.N.C.
July 13, 2020); Fahmia, Inc. v. Comerica Inc., No. 20-cv-01536
(N.D. Tex. June 11, 2020); Fahmia, Inc. v. Zions Bancorporation,
N.A., No. 20-cv-05104 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2020);
Johnson v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach, No. 20-cv-06078
(C.D. Cal. July 8, 2020);
Henning v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-00905
(W.D. Pa. June 17, 2020); Winner v. PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., No. 20-cv-03515 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2020); Lincoln Network,
Inc. v. PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-02824 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 23, 2020);
Henning v. Summit Bank, No. 20-cv-00899 (W.D. Pa. June 17, 2020);
Fruci & Associates, PS v. A10 Capital LLC, No. 20-cv-00864 (W.D.
Wash. June 6, 2020);
Aloha Accounting & Tax LLC v. First Hawaiian Bank, No. 20-cv-00254
(D. Haw. June 2, 2020);
Pinehurst v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. (N.C. Super. Ct. June
1, 2020);
Notice of removal filed: No. 20-cv-00636 (M.D.N.C. July 10, 2020);
Fahmia, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., No. 20-cv-04146 (S.D.N.Y. May 29,
2020); Am. Video Duplicating, Inc. v. Citigroup Inc., No.
20-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020);
Fahmia, Inc. v. MUFG Americas Holding Co., No. 20-cv-04145
(S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020);
Quinn v. Signature Bank Corp., No. 20-cv-04144 (S.D.N.Y. May 29,
2020);
Motion to dismiss granted on September 21, 2020.
Fahmia, Inc. v. Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., No. 20-cv-00965
(C.D. Cal. May 26, 2020);
Panda Accounting LLC v. Academy Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-00985 (D.
Ariz. May 20, 2020);
Hallockshannon, PC v. Citizens & Northern Corp., No. 20-cv-00714
(W.D. Pa. May 15, 2020);
Alliant CPA Group, LLC v. Bank of America, No. 20-cv-02026 (N.D.
Ga. May 11, 2020);
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group, LLC v. BBVA USA, No. 20-cv-00579 (W.D.
Tex. May 11, 2020);
Brunner Accounting Group v. SVB Financial Group, No. 20-cv-04235
(C.D. Cal. May 8, 2020);
Byrnes v. Fountainhead Commercial Capital, LLC, No. 20-cv-04149
(C.D. Cal. May 6, 2020);
Bookmyer v. PNC Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-02284 (S.D. Ohio May 5,
2020);
In re JP Morgan Chase Paycheck Protection Plan Litigation, MDL No.
2944 (May 1, 2020);
Am. Video Duplicating, Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, No.
2:20-cv-04036 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2020);
A.D. Sims, LLC v. Wintrust Financial Corp., No. 20-cv-02644 (N.D.
Ill. Apr. 30, 2020);
Lowry v. U.S. Bancorp., No. 1:20-cv-00348 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 30,
2020); Ryan M. Kull Licensed Clinical Social Work LLC v. Chase Bank
USA, N.A., No. 1:20-cv-03138 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020);
Leigh, King, Norton & Underwood, LLC v. Regions Financial Corp.,
No. 2:20-cv-00591 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 28, 2020);
Zamora-Orduna Realty Group, LLC v. BBVA USA, No. 2020CI07450 (Tex.
Dist. Ct. Apr. 21, 2020);
Defendant filed a notice of removal to the District Court for the
Western District of Texas on May 11, 2020: No. 20-cv-00579;
Kennard Law, P.C. v. Frost Bank, No. 2020-24432 (Tex. Dist. Ct.
Apr. 18, 2020);
Scherer v. Frost Bank, No. 4:20-cv-01297 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2020);
Scherer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 4:20-cv-01295 (S.D. Tex.
Apr. 11, 2020).
Debt Relief and Credit Reporting
Cases filed to date against financial institutions challenging
forbearance policies or seeking the suspension of loan repayment,
debt collection, and foreclosure include:
Mitchell v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, No. 20STCV37533 (Cal.
Super. Ct. Sept 30, 2020): alleging defendant harmed borrowers
under consumer credit reporting laws by reporting forbearances to
credit bureaus as deficiencies;
Notice of Removal: No. 20-cv-10455 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2020);
Thomas v. Barclays Bank Delaware, No. 20-cv-05937 (W.D. Wash. Sept.
21, 2020): asserts claims of defamation, violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, and breach of contract for alleged inaccurate
credit reporting while loans were in deferment;
Healy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-01838 (S.D. Cal. Sept.
18, 2020); Urista v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-cv-01689 (S.D. Cal.
Aug. 29, 2020); Delpapa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 20-cv-06009
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020); Green v. Wells Fargo & Co., No.
20-cv-05296 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2020); Forsburg v. Wells Fargo &
Co., No. 20-cv-00046 (W.D. Va. July 23, 2020): alleging defendant
harmed borrowers under consumer credit reporting laws by
unilaterally placing their loans into forbearance status without
consent, negatively impacting borrower credit reports;
Hafez v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No. 20-cv-09019 (D.N.J.
July 16, 2020); Grauman v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, No.
20-cv-03152 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020): alleging that loan servicers
and credit reporting agencies inaccurately reported information
regarding loans that were suspended by the CARES Act;
Harlow v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-07028 (Bankr. W.D. Va. June 26,
2020): alleging that bank is filing false notices regarding
unauthorized temporary forbearances in debtors' bankruptcy
proceedings;
Fisher v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage Inc., No. 20-cv-01222 (E.D. Cal.
June 17, 2020): alleging defendant failed to comply with the CARES
Act by restricting the forbearance period on mortgages;
Sass v. Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc., No.
20-cv-03424 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2020) (alleging that loan servicers
and credit reporting agencies inaccurately reported information
regarding loans that were suspended by the CARES Act);
Oksenendler v. Northstar Education Finance, Inc., No. 20-cv-00805
(D. Minn. Mar. 26, 2020) (seeks suspension of a student loan
repayment program based on changed conditions);
Shuff v. Bank of America, No. 5:20-cv-00184 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 16,
2020) (seeks an injunction to temporarily suspend foreclosure
actions).
Education
Educational programs and institutions, in particular colleges and
universities, are facing class action claims by students related to
campus closures, access to resources, and future operations. Cases
filed to date against educational institutions seeking the refund
of university tuition, room, board, and other fees paid by students
based on breach of contract and other theories include:
Sweetland-Gil v. University of the Pacific, No. 20-cv-02545 (E.D.
Cal. Dec. 29, 2020); Saroya v. University of the Pacific, No.
20-cv-03196 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2020);
Gaviria v. Lincoln Educational Svcs. Corp., No. 20-cv-18552 (D.N.J.
Dec. 9, 2020);
Hyatte v. University of Minnesota, No. 27-cv-20-15837 (Minn. Dist.
Ct. Dec. 1, 2020);
Chavarria v. University of San Diego, No. 20-cv-02215 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 13, 2020); Holden v. University of San Diego, No. 20-cv-02169
(S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020);
Bruckno v. Tufts University, No. 20-cv-11940 (D. Mass. Oct. 28,
2020);
Toro v. University of Bridgeport (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 27, 2020);
Notice of Removal: No. 20-cv-01701 (D. Conn. Nov. 12, 2020);
Porter v. Emerson College, No. 20-cv-11897 (D. Mass. Oct. 21,
2020);
Lozada v. Case Western Reserve University, No. 20-cv-02336 (N.D.
Ohio Oct. 13, 2020);
Lawson v. Pennsylvania College of Technology, No. 201000698 (Pa.
Ct. Com. Pl. Oct. 12, 2020);
Joplin v. University of Southern California, No. 20-cv-09338 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 9, 2020); Choi v. University of Southern California, No.
20-cv-05573 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2020); Doe v. University of
Southern California, No. 20-cv-04172 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2020);
Watson v. University of Southern California, No. 20-cv-04107 (C.D.
Cal. May 5, 2020); Diaz v. University of Southern California, No.
20-cv-4066 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020);
Adavenaixx v. Howard University, No. 20-cv-02872 (D.D.C. Oct. 7,
2020);
Brill v. Landmark Property Services, LLC, No. 20-cv-62033 (S.D.
Fla. Oct. 6, 2020) (campus housing);
Nicolato v. Herzing University, Ltd., No. 20-cv-01793 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 30, 2020);
Stewart v. University of Maine, No. 20-cv-00347 (D. Me. Sept. 24,
2020);
Mooers v. Middlebury College, No. 20-cv-00144 (D. Vt. Sept. 24,
2020);
Barry v. University of Washington, No. 20-2-13924-6 SEA (Wash.
Super. Ct. Sept. 16, 2020);
Craig v. Nova Southeastern University, No. 20-cv-23818 (S.D. Fla.
Sept. 15, 2020);
Miller v. Lewis University, No. 20-cv-05473 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15,
2020);
Ellis v. Tulane University, No. 20-cv-02518 (E.D. La. Sept. 15,
2020); Jones v. Tulane University, No. 20-cv-02505 (E.D. La. Sept.
14, 2020);
Cordero v. Montana State University, No. 20-cv-00046 (D. Mont.
Sept. 14, 2020);
Carstairs v. University of Rochester, No. 20-cv-06690 (W.D.N.Y.
Sept. 10, 2020);
Rodrigues v. Boston College, No. 20-cv-11662 (D. Mass. Sept. 8,
2020);
Troia v. North Central College, No. 20-cv-05229 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 3,
2020);
Montalvo v. California Lutheran University, No. 20-cv-07698 (C.D.
Cal. Aug. 24, 2020);
Foti v. Suffolk University, No. 20-cv-11581 (D. Mass. Aug. 24,
2020); Durbeck v. Suffolk University, No. 20-cv-10985 (D. Mass. May
21, 2020);
Martin v. Lindenwood University, No. 20-cv-01128 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 24,
2020);
Arredondo v. University of La Verne, No. 20-cv-07665 (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 23, 2020);
Hofmann v. Long Island University, No. 20-cv-04027 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.
28, 2020);
Moore v. Long Island University, No. 20-cv-03843 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 21,
2020); Irizarry v. Long Island University, No. 20-cv-03160
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2020);
Surya v. Northwestern University, No. 20-cv-04892 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
20, 2020); Polley v. Northwestern University, No. 20-cv-04798 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 14, 2020);
Sutton v. Roosevelt University, No. 20-cv-04902 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20,
2020); Felix v. Roosevelt University, No. 20-cv-04793 (N.D. Ill.
Aug. 14, 2020);
Walsh v. Chapman University, No. 20-cv-01538 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
2020);
Weiman v. Miami University, No. 20-cv-00640 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18,
2020);
Langert v. George Mason University, No. 20-cv-00944 (E.D. Va. Aug.
17, 2020);
Russo v. University of Delaware, No. N20C-11-164 (Del. Super. Ct.
Nov. 18, 2020); Ninivaggi v. University of Delaware, No.
N20C-08-121 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 14, 2020); Ninivaggi v.
University of Delaware, No. 20-cv-02762 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020)
(voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 7, 2020);
Notice of Removal: Ninivaggi v. University of Delaware, No.
20-cv-01478 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2020);
Migliore v. Hofstra University - Maurice A. Deane School of Law,
No. 20-cv-03671 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020);
Hogan v. Southern Methodist University, No. DC-20-11139 (Tex. Dist.
Ct. Aug. 12, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed: No. 20-cv-02899 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20,
2020);
Glaspie v. American Career College, Inc., No. 30-2020-01153323
(Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2020);
Hiatt v. Brigham Young University, No. 20-cv-00100 (D. Utah Aug. 5,
2020);
Kaldes v. California Baptist University, No. 20-cv-01535 (C.D. Cal.
July 31, 2020);
Utsay v. California State University System, No. 20-cv-06902 (C.D.
Cal. July 31, 2020);
Quattrociocchi v. Rochester Institute of Technology, No.
20-cv-06558 (W.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020); Mycek v. Rochester Institute
of Technology, No. 20-cv-06324 (W.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020); Bergeron v.
Rochester Institute of Technology, No. 20-cv-06283 (W.D.N.Y. May 1,
2020);
Michel v. Yale University, No. 20-cv-01080 (D. Conn. July 29,
2020);
Perna v. American Campus Communities, Inc., No. 20-cv-00846 (M.D.
Fla. July 29, 2020) (campus housing);
Minichelli v. Syracuse University, No. 20-cv-00839 (N.D.N.Y. July
26, 2020);
Marrero v. Central Texas College, No. 20-cv-00676 (W.D. Tex. July
24, 2020);
Lamberth v. Texas A&M University System, No. 20-cv-02605 (S.D. Tex.
July 23, 2020);
Lafleur v. Florida Bd. of Governors, No. 20-cv-01665 (M.D. Fla.
July 21, 2020);
Gallagher v. St. John's University, No. 20-cv-03274 (E.D.N.Y. July
21, 2020);
Goldberg v. Pace University, No. 20-cv-03665 (S.D.N.Y. July 19,
2020); Marbury v. Pace University, No. 20-cv-03210 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
23, 2020);
Ferretti v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., No. 20-cv-61431
(S.D. Fla. July 15, 2020);
Doe v. Bradley University, No. 20-cv-01264 (C.D. Ill. July 14,
2020);
Fusca v. Temple University, No. 20-cv-03434 (E.D. Pa. July 14,
2020); Ryan v. Temple University, No. 20-cv-02164 (E.D. Pa. May 5,
2020);
McClanahan v. Webster University, No. 20-cv-00907 (E.D. Mo. July
10, 2020);
Miranda v. Xavier University, No. 20-cv-00539 (S.D. Ohio July 10,
2020);
Plank v. Kansas State University, No. 20-cv-02335 (D. Kan. July 6,
2020);
Zhao v. CIEE Inc., No. 20-cv-00240 (D. Me. July 6, 2020) (study
abroad program);
All claims were dismissed on August 31, 2020, based on unambiguous
terms in the contract, including a clause limiting the defendant's
responsibility for epidemics;
Lindner v. Occidental College, No. 20-cv-08290 (D.N.J. July 6,
2020);
Mears v. California Western School of Law, No. 37-2020-00023126
(Cal. Super. Ct. July 6, 2020);
Reyes v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 20-cv-00607 (W.D. Tex.
July 3, 2020);
Chandler v. Regents of the University of California, No.
30-2020-01169261 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 9, 2020); Kang v. Regents of
the University of California, No. 20-cv-04443 (N.D. Cal. July 2,
2020); Yoo v. Regents of the University of California, No.
30-2020-01140827 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 26, 2020); Lee v. Regents of
the University of California, No. 20-cv-03241 (N.D. Cal. May 12,
2020); Ritter v. Regents of the University of California, No.
20-cv-02925 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2020); Brandmeyer v. Regents of the
University of California, No. 20-cv-2886 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27,
2020);
Lawrence v. FPA Multifamily, LLC, No. 20-cv-01517 (M.D. Fla. July
2, 2020) (campus housing);
Bailey v. Auburn University, No. 20-cv-00457 (M.D. Ala. June 30,
2020);
Tran v. Grand Canyon University, No. 20-cv-01283 (D. Ariz. June 29,
2020);
Nguyen v. Stephens Institute, No. 20-cv-04195 (N.D. Cal. June 25,
2020);
Nedley v. University of Pennsylvania, No. 20-cv-03109 (E.D. Pa.
June 25, 2020); Coffman v. California University of Pennsylvania,
No. 20-cv-00733 (W.D. Pa. May 20, 2020); Smith v. University of
Pennsylvania, No. 20-cv-2086 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2020);
Schultz v. Emory University, No. 20-cv-022661 (N.D. Ga. June 24,
2020); DeMasi v. Emory University, No. 20-cv-02002 (N.D. Ga. May 8,
2020);
Barkhordar v. Harvard University, No. 20-cv-11203 (D. Mass. June
22, 2020); Student A v. Harvard University, No. 20-cv-10968 (D.
Mass. May 20, 2020);
Doemel v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 20-cv-01203 (D. Ariz. June
17, 2020); Diaz v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 20-cv-01126 (D.
Ariz. June 8; 2020); Raftopoulous-Johnson v. Arizona Bd. Of
Regents, No. 20-cv-04399 (D.N.J. Apr. 17, 2020); Rosenkrantz v.
Arizona Bd. of Regents, No. 20-cv-00613 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2020);
Student A v. Santa Clara University, No. 20-cv-04045 (N.D. Cal.
June 17, 2020);
Ballas v. State of Nevada ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada
System of Higher Education, No. CV20-00922 (Nev. Dist. Ct. June 17,
2020);
Romankow v. New York University, No. 20-cv-04616 (S.D.N.Y. June 16,
2020); Morales v. New York University, No. 20-cv-04418 (S.D.N.Y.
June 9, 2020); Zagoria v. New York University, No. 20-cv-03610
(S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2020); Rynasko v. New York University, No.
20-cv-03250 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020);
Longo v. Campus Advantage, Inc., No. 20-cv-02651 (M.D. Fla. Nov.
12, 2020); Longo v. Campus Advantage, Inc., No. 20-cv-01363 (M.D.
Fla. June 12, 2020) (campus housing);
Placko v. University of Illinois, No. 20-cv-03451 (N.D. Ill. June
12, 2020);
Crawford v. Board of Regents of Georgetown University, No.
20-cv-01539 (D.D.C. June 11, 2020); Doe v. Georgetown University,
No. 20-cv-01370 (D.D.C. May 21, 2020); Student A v. Georgetown
University, No. 20-cv-05937 (D.N.J. May 15, 2020);
Oyoque v. DePaul University, No. 20-cv-03431 (N.D. Ill. June 11,
2020); Chavez v. DePaul University, No. 20-cv-02865 (N.D. Ill. May
12, 2020);
Buschauer v. Columbia College Chicago, No. 20-cv-03394 (N.D. Ill.
June 9, 2020);
Montesano v. Catholic University of America, No. 20-cv-01496
(D.D.C. June 8, 2020);
Birdsall v. BYU, No. 20-cv-00270 (D. Idaho June 8, 2020);
Metzner v. Quinnipiac University, No. 20-cv-00784 (D. Conn. June 5,
2020); Hotter v. Quinnipiac University, No. 20-cv-05592 (D.N.J. May
6, 2020);
Gunter v. Louisiana State University & Agricultural & Mechanical
College, No. 20-cv-00346 (M.D. La. June 5, 2020);
Salerno v. Florida Southern College, No. 20-cv-04314 (S.D.N.Y. June
5, 2020);
Desai v. Carnegie Mellon University, No. 20-cv-00844 (W.D. Pa. June
5, 2020); Pfingsten v. Carnegie Mellon University, No. 20-cv-716
(W.D. Penn. May 15, 2020);
Camarena v. Baylor University, No. 20-cv-01436 (N.D. Tex. June 5,
2020); King v. Baylor University, No. 20-cv-00504 (W.D. Tex. June
5, 2020);
Rezvani v. Pepperdine University, No. 20STCV25498 (Cal. Super. Ct.
July 6, 2020); Pinzon v. Pepperdine University, No. 20-cv-04928
(C.D. Cal. June 3, 2020);
Notice of Removal: Rezvani v. Pepperdine University, No.
20-cv-08582 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2020;
Gold v. University of Miami, No. 20-cv-22316 (S.D. Fla. June 3,
2020); Weiss v. University of Miami, No. 20-cv-22207 (S.D. Fla. May
27, 2020);
Rabinowitz v. American University, No. 20-cv-01454 (D.D.C. June 2,
2020); Arif v. American University, No. 20-cv-60902 (S.D. Fla. May
4, 2020); Qureshi v. American University, No. 20-cv-01141 (D.D.C.
May 1, 2020);
Washington v. Johnson & Wales University, No. 20-cv-00246 (D.R.I.
June 2, 2020); Hazel v. Johnson & Wales University, No. 20-cv-22251
(S.D. Fla. May 31, 2020); Alexander v. Johnson & Wales University,
No. 20-cv-01092 (M.D. Fla. May 11, 2020);
Talab v. Board of Trustees of Duke University, No. 20-cv-00480
(M.D.N.C. June 1, 2020); Doe v. Duke University, No. 20-cv-00414
(M.D.N.C. May 8, 2020);
Rahman v. Cornell University, No. 20-cv-00592 (N.D.N.Y. May 31,
2020); Faber v. Cornell University, No. 20-cv-00471 (N.D.N.Y. Apr.
25, 2020); Haynie v. Cornell University, No. 20-cv-00467 (N.D.N.Y.
Apr. 23, 2020);
Omoro v. Brandeis University, No. 20-cv-11030 (D. Mass. May 29,
2020); Doe v. Brandeis University, No. 20-cv-11021 (D. Mass. May
28, 2020);
Botts v. Johns Hopkins University, No. 20-cv-01335 (D. Md. May 29,
2020);
Rhodes v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc., No.
20-cv-00927 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2020);
Alfred v. Dartmouth College, No. 20-cv-00637 (D.N.H. May 28,
2020);
Mauldin v. George Washington University, No. 20-cv-01417 (D.D.C.
May 28, 2020);
Dougherty v. Drew University, No. 20-cv-06518 (D.N.J. May 28,
2020);
Vijay v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, No.
20-cv-00499 (W.D. Okla. May 28, 2020);
Taylor v. Charleston Southern University, No. 2020CP1002357 (S.C.
Ct. Com. Pl. May 28, 2020);
Lynn v. Merrimack College, No. 20-cv-00632 (D.N.H. May 27, 2020);
Buckley v. Hofstra University, No. 20-cv-02424 (E.D.N.Y. June 1,
2020); Latvala v. Hofstra University, No. 20-cv-02368 (E.D.N.Y. May
27, 2020); Stellato v. Hofstra University, No. 20-cv-01999
(E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020);
McCarthy v. Loyola Marymount University, No. 20-cv-04668 (C.D. Cal.
May 26, 2020); Shoham v. Loyola Marymount University, No.
20-cv-04329 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2020);
Gociman v. Loyola University Chicago, No. 20-cv-03116 (N.D. Ill.
May 26, 2020);
Ramey v. Pennsylvania State University, No. 20-cv-00753 (W.D. Penn.
May 26, 2020); Thomson v. Pennsylvania State University, No.
20-cv-00725 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2020);
Chapusette v. Touro College and University System, No. 20-cv-04018
(S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2020)
Hannibal-Fisher v. Grand Canyon University, No. 20-cv-01007 (D.
Ariz. May 22, 2020); Little v. Grand Canyon University, No.
20-cv-00795 (D. Ariz. Apr. 24, 2020);
Thiele v. Illinois State University, No. 20-cv-01197 (C.D. Ill. May
21, 2020);
Simmons-Telep v. Roger Williams University, No. 20-cv-00226 (D.R.I.
May 21, 2020);
Hernandez v. Illinois Institute of Technology, No. 20-cv-03010
(N.D. Ill. May 20, 2020);
Doe v. Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, No.
MDL-L-003039-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. May 20, 2020);
Castro v. University of Chicago, No. 20-cv-07280 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9,
2020); Kincheloe v. University of Chicago, No. 20-cv-03015 (N.D.
Ill. May 20, 2020);
Legge v. University of San Francisco, No. 20-cv-03406 (N.D. Cal.
May 19, 2020);
Awlia v. Southern New Hampshire University, No. 20-cv-00609 (D.N.H.
May 19, 2020);
Bahrani v. Northeastern University, No. 20-cv-10946 (D. Mass. May
18, 2020); Satam v. Northeastern University, No. 20-cv-10915 (D.
Mass. May 13, 2020); Chong v. Northeastern University, No.
20-cv-10844 (D. Mass. May 1, 2020);
Doval v. Fairleigh Dickinson University, No. 20-cv-06010 (D.N.J.
May 18, 2020);
Bolland v. Seattle Pacific University, No. 20-cv-00741 (W.D. Wash.
May 18, 2020);
Jones v. Carrington College, Inc., No. 20-cv-00989 (E.D. Cal. May
15, 2020);
Amable v. The New School, No. 20-cv-03811 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2020);
Gibson v. Lynn University, Inc., No. 2020-CA-005378 (Fla. Circ. Ct.
May 14, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed: No. 20-cv-81173 (S.D. Fla. May 14, 2020);
Fiore v. The University of Tampa, No. 20-cv-03744 (S.D.N.Y. May 14,
2020);
Burt v. Board of Trustees of the University of Rhode Island, No.
20-cv-00465 (D.R.I. Oct. 29, 2020); Thomson v. Board of Trustees of
the University of Rhode Island, No. WC-2020-0209 (R.I. Super. Ct.
May 14, 2020);
Notice of removal filed: 20-cv-00295 (D.R.I. July 2, 2020);
Soriano v. University of New Haven, No. 20-cv-00662 (D. Conn. May
13, 2020);
Silulu v. Trustees of Boston University, No. 20-cv-10914 (D. Mass.
May 13, 2020); Bornstein v. Trustees of Boston University, No.
20-cv-11118 (D. Mass. May 5, 2020); Tran v. Boston University, No.
20-cv-11260 (D. Mass. May 5, 2020); Cox v. Trustees of Boston
University, No. 1:20-cv-10834 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2020); Dutra v.
Trustees of Boston University, No. 1:20-cv-10827 (D. Mass. Apr. 29,
2020);
Student A v. Wagner College, No. 20-cv-02170 (E.D.N.Y. May 13,
2020);
Raimo v. Washington University in St. Louis, No. 20-cv-00634 (E.D.
Mo. May 12, 2020);
Egleston v. University of Florida Board of Trustees, No.
20-cv-00106 (N.D. Fla. May 11, 2020);
Klein v. Parker University, No. 20-cv-03194 (N.D. Cal. May 9,
2020);
Mitelberg v. Stevens Institute of Technology, No. 20-cv-05748
(D.N.J. May 8, 2020);
Patel v. St. John's University, No. 20-cv-02114 (E.D.N.Y. May 8,
2020);
Hickey v. University of Pittsburgh, No. 20-cv-00690 (W.D. Pa. May
8, 2020);
Fedele v. Marist College, No. 20-cv-03559 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020);
Thomas v. Mercy College; No. 20-cv-03584 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020);
Quiroz v. Rider University, No. 20-cv-05620 (D.N.J. May 6, 2020);
Spiegel v. Indiana University, No. 53C06-2005-CT-000771 (Cir. Ct.
Monroe Cty., Ind., May 6, 2020);
Lawson v. Pennsylvania College of Technology, No. 20-cv-00736 (M.D.
Pa. May 5, 2020);
Schoening v. Seton Hall University, No. 20-cv-05566 (D.N.J. May 5,
2020);
Pinkney v. State University of New York, No. 20-cv-02048 (E.D.N.Y.
May 5, 2020);
Fittipaldi v. Monmouth University, No. 20-cv-05526 (D.N.J. May 4,
2020);
Paris v. University of Connecticut, No. 20-cv-02018 (E.D.N.Y. May
4, 2020);
Deecher v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. 20-cv-00498
(N.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020);
Rojas v. Florida Board of Governors Foundation, Inc., No.
2020-CA-000846 (Fla. Circ. Ct. May 4, 2020);
Mebrahtu v. Manchester University, No. 20-cv-05457 (D.N.J. May 1,
2020);
Hewitt v. Pratt Institute, No. 20-cv-2007 (E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020);
Yin v. Syracuse University, No. 20-cv-00494 (N.D.N.Y. May 1,
2020);
Rosado v. Barry University, Inc., No. 20-cv-21813 (S.D. Fla. May 1,
2020);
Rocchio v. Rutgers, No. 20-cv-05390 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2020);
Doe v. Brown University, No. 20-cv-00191 (D.R.I. Apr. 30, 2020);
Shak v. Adelphi University, No. 20-cv-01951 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 28,
2020);
Doe v. Vanderbilt University, No. 20-cv-00356 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28,
2020); Doe v. Vanderbilt University, No. 20-mc-09999 (M.D. Tenn.
Apr. 27, 2020);
Rifat v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, No.
20-cv-04421 (C.D. Cal. May 15, 2020); Miller v. Board of Trustees
of the California State University, No. 20-cv-03833 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
27, 2020);
Dieckhaus v. University of North Carolina System, No. 20-cv-00069
(E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2020); McAllister v. University of North
Carolina System, No. 20-cv-00078 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2020); Allen v.
University of North Carolina System, No. 20-cv-00254 (W.D.N.C. Apr.
27, 2020); Burnett v. University of North Carolina System, No.
20-cv-00103 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 27, 2020);
Friedman v. Drexel University, No. 20-cv-05147 (D.N.J. Apr. 27,
2020); Rickenbaker v. Drexel University, No. 20-cv-1358 (D.S.C.
Apr. 8, 2020);
Dimitryuk v. University of Miami, No. 20-cv-60851 (S.D. Fla. Apr.
26, 2020);
Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. 20-cv-00470 (N.D.N.Y.
Apr. 25, 2020);
Hassan v. Fordham University, No. 20-cv-03265 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25,
2020);
Beck v. Manhattan College, No. 20-cv-03229 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23,
2020);
Brittain v. Columbia University, No. 20-cv-09194 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4,
2020) ; Student A v. Columbia University, No. 20-cv-3208 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 23, 2020); Bennett v. Columbia University, No. 20-cv-3227
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2020);
Kai v. Western Michigan University, No. 20-000063-MK (Mich. Ct.
Claims Apr. 22, 2020);
Patel v. University of Vermont, No. 20-cv-00061 (D. Vt. Apr. 21,
2020);
Burgos v. Pa. State University, No. 20-cv-03143 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20,
2020);
Peyton v. Wayne State University, No. 20-000059-MK (Mich. Ct.
Claims. Apr. 20, 2020);
Carpey v. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, No. 20-cv-01064 (D. Colo.
Apr. 15, 2020);
Student A v. Liberty University, Inc., No. 20-cv-00023 (W.D. Va.
Apr. 13, 2020);
Kliment v. University of Michigan, No. 20-000056-MK (Mich. Ct.
Claims. Apr. 16, 2020);
Allen v. Michigan State University, No. 20-000057-MK (Mich. Ct.
Claims. Apr. 16, 2020);
Church v. Purdue University & Trustees, No. 20-cv-00025 (N.D. Ind.
Apr. 9, 2020);
Dixon v. University of Miami, No. 20-cv-1348 (D.S.C. Apr. 8,
2020);
Employment
Employers are facing wage and hour, workplace safety, paid leave,
WARN Act, ERISA, employee privacy, worker classification,
disability accommodation, and discrimination claims. Cases filed to
date include:
Adegbola v. SouthStar Capital LLC, No. 20-cv-04506 (D.S.C. Dec. 31,
2020): asserts claims under Families First Coronavirus Response Act
and FLSA for retaliatory termination related to the care of a
dependent infected with COVID-19;
Koger v. THI of South Caroline at Charleston, LLC, No. 20-cv-04279
(D.S.C. Dec. 9, 2020): asserts claim under Families First
Coronavirus Response Act for termination related to infection with
COVID-19;
Jones v. Scribe Opco, Inc., No. 20-cv-02945 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9,
2020): asserts claims under WARN Act for alleged failure to provide
written notice concerning employee impact of COVID-19;
Higgins v. United States, No. 20-cv-01700 (Fed. Ct. Cl. Nov. 30,
2020): asserts claims for hazard and environmental differential pay
for TSA employees;
Mayle v. U.S., No. 20-cv-01818 (Fed. Ct. Cl. Dec. 10, 2020);
Alvarez v. U.S., No. 20-cv-01533 (Fed. Ct. Cl. Nov. 5, 2020);
Medrano v. U.S., No. 20-cv-01245 (Fed. Ct. Cl. Sept. 22, 2020)
Adegbite v. U.S., No. 20-cv-01183 (Fed. Ct. Cl. Sept. 11, 2020):
assert claims under FLSA for alleged failure to pay overtime
wages;
Thompson v. Elev8 Found. Inc., No. 20-cv-09581 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13,
2020): assert claims under FLSA and state labor laws for alleged
failure to pay wages;
Poston v. Stericycle Inc., No. 20-cv-00655 ( W.D.N.C. Nov. 24,
2020): assert claims under FLSA and state labor laws for alleged
failure to pay overtime wages;
Rendon v. S. Dade Chamber of Commerce, Inc., No. 20-cv-24505 (S.D.
Fla. Nov. 2, 2020): asserts claim under Families First Coronavirus
Response Act for termination related to infection with COVID-19;
Lucyk v. Materion Brush Inc., No. 20-cv-02340 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 14,
2020): asserts claims under FLSA for, inter alia, alleged failure
to pay adequate overtime wages for hours worked during the
pandemic;
Marinos v. District of Columbia, No. 20-cv-02828 (D.D.C. Oct. 5,
2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged failure to pay
adequate overtime wages for hours worked during the pandemic;
Stevens v. Saginaw Products Corp., No. 20-cv-12604 (E.D. Mich.
Sept. 23, 2020): asserts claims under Families First Coronavirus
Response Act for alleged failure to inform employees of their right
to paid leave and subsequent denial of paid leave;
Chowdhury v. Raja 786 Food Inc., No. 20-cv-04235 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.
10, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and state labor laws for
alleged failure to pay owed wages and tips for hours worked during
the pandemic;
Calero v. Fanatics, Inc., No. 20-cv-02114 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9,
2020): asserts claims under WARN Act for allegedly terminating
hundreds of employees without advance written notice;
Castelluccio v. Alphera International N.A., No. 20-cv-04050
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and New York
Labor Laws for alleged failure to pay owed wages and overtime pay;
Harwell-Payne v. Cudahy Place Senior Living, LLC, No. 20-cv-00804
(W.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and Wisconsin
law for alleged failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages;
Livingston v. Qualfon Data Services Group, LLC, No. 20-cv-12302
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and South
Carolina law for alleged failure to pay owed wages and overtime
pay;
McBride v. DMI GC Holdings, LLC, No. 20-cv-12305 (E.D. Mich. Aug.
26, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and Michigan law for alleged
failure to pay owed wages and overtime pay;
Gonzalez v. Colwill Engineering Electrical, Inc., No. 20-cv-01986
(M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged
unpaid overtime wages and claims under FMLA and FFCRA for alleged
retaliation based on employees' positive COVID-19 diagnosis;
Canas v. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp., No. 20-cv-04937 (N.D.
Ill. Aug. 21, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and Illinois Minimum
Wage Law for alleged failure to pay owed wages and overtime pay to
factory workers during the pandemic;
Woodward v. VanCuren Services, Inc., No. 20-cv-01818 (N.D. Ohio
Aug. 17, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged failure to
pay overtime and claims under FFCRA for alleged retaliation based
on employee's positive COVID-19 diagnosis;
Saleba v. Medpace, Inc., No. 20-cv-00634 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2020):
asserts claims under ADEA for alleged discrimination by firing a 67
year old employee, using the COVID-19 pandemic as pretense;
Janicijevic v. Classica Cruise Operator, LTD., No. 20-cv-23223
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2020): asserts claims under federal law and
admiralty law based on alleged failure to pay wages owed to
crewmembers of cruise ships and failure to provide them with
adequate travel arrangements home;
Wright v. Denali Ingredients, LLC, No. 20-cv-01185 (E.D. Wis. Aug.
3, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and state equivalent for
alleged failure to pay wages owed and overtime pay as well as
individual claims under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
and FMLA for alleged failure to provide paid sick leave and
termination of employment after a COVID-19 diagnosis;
Pacheco v. Yorkshire Building Services, Inc., No. 20-cv-61540 (S.D.
Fla. July 29, 2020): asserts claims under Families First
Coronavirus Response Act, FMLA, and FLSA for alleged failure to pay
overtime wages and for alleged improper firing of plaintiff based
on positive COVID diagnosis;
Skiba v. GHG - The Fitness Group, LLC, No. 20-cv-02656 (S.D. Tex.
July 29, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged failure to
pay owed wages and overtime pay;
Adams v. U.S., No. 20-cv-00909 (Fed. Ct. Cl. July 27, 2020):
asserts claims under FLSA for hazard pay related to exposure to
COVID-19 in correctional facilities;
Does v. Scalia, No. 20-cv-01260 (M.D. Pa. July 22, 2020): asserts
claims under Occupational Safety and Health Act and seeks to compel
OSHA to protect workers at a Pennsylvania meatpacking plant;
Endries v. Board of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Health
Plan, No. 20-cv-06347 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2020): asserts claims
under ERISA for alleged failure to provide relief from health plan
requirements for union members during the pandemic;
Emery v. Home Caregivers of Cookeville, LLC, No. 20-cv-00038 (M.D.
Tenn. July 15, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged failure
to pay overtime wages;
Mackie v. Coconut Joe's IOP LLC, No. 20-cv-02562 (D.S.C. July 9,
2020): asserts claims under Families First Coronavirus Response Act
and FLSA for alleged improper termination and failure to pay
minimum wage;
Connors v. American Medical Response, Inc., No. 20-cv-05046
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020): asserts claims under New York Labor Laws
and FLSA for alleged failure to pay overtime and to timely pay
wages;
Professional Staff Congress/CUNY v. City University of New York,
No. 20-cv-05060 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2020): alleges violation of the
CARES Act based on layoffs of employees;
Brent v. AmazonFresh LLC, No. CGC-20-584828 (Cal. Super. Ct. June
26, 2020): asserts tort claims and claims under California Labor
Code for alleged failure to implement reasonable safety protocols
to keep employees safe during the pandemic;
Richard v. Ambulnz Health, LLC, No. 510337/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June
17, 2020): asserts claims under New York Labor Laws based on
alleged unpaid wages and coerced release agreements;
Rodriguez v. Allen Distribution, LP, No. 20-at-00573 (E.D. Cal.
June 16, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA and California Labor Code
for alleged unpaid compensation and policy of rounding time;
Arias v. High Tech Landscapes, Inc., No. 20-cv-07046 (D.N.J. June
10, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged failure to pay
overtime wages;
Garcia Chantez v. Victory Hospitality Management LLC, No.
20-cv-02590 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for
alleged unpaid wages, including overtime wages;
Esco v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 2020-00280479 (Cal. Super.
Ct. June 10, 2020): asserts claims under California Unfair Business
Practices Act based on alleged failure to provide proper safety
measures for in-store employees;
Porter v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, No. 20-cv-09496 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
16, 2020): asserts California Labor Code claims for failure to
timely pay wages and provide meal and rest periods;
Palmer v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 20-cv-02468 (E.D.N.Y. June 3,
2020): asserts claims of public nuisance and New York labor laws
based on allegedly inadequate safety protocols for fulfillment
center employees;
Osvatics v. Lyft, Inc., No. 20-cv-01426 (D.D.C. May 29, 2020):
asserts claims under worker protection statutes based on alleged
failure to provide paid sick leave to Lyft drivers;
Benson v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., No. 20-cv-00891 (M.D. Fla. May
27, 2020): asserts claims under WARN Act for alleged failure to
provide notice before laying off hundreds of employees;
Toc v. SNL Meat & Produce Corp., No. 20-cv-02339 (E.D.N.Y. May 26,
2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged unpaid wages,
including overtime wages;
Lange v. 24-Hour Medical Staffing Servs. LLC, No. 30-2020-01140958
(Cal. Super. Ct. May 26, 2020): asserts claims under California
Labor Code for alleged unpaid wages and failure to provide adequate
rest periods;
Hernandez v. Galenos Medical Center Corp., No. 20-cv-22162 (S.D.
Fla. May 25, 2020): asserts claims under FLSA for alleged unpaid
overtime wages;
Morales v. Sunrise Meats, Inc., No. 20-cv-61017 (S.D. Fla. May 22,
2020): asserts claims under FLSA and Florida Whistleblower Act for
alleged failure to pay wages;
McGhee v. Postmates, Inc., No. CGC-20-584341 (Cal. Super. Ct. May
22, 2020): asserts claims under California Labor Code for alleged
unpaid wages and failure to provide necessary PPE;
Maglana v. Celebrity Cruise Inc., No. 20-cv-221233 (S.D. Fla. May
21, 2020): asserts claims for, inter alia, employment
discrimination on the basis of national origin;
De La Cruz v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., No. 20-cv-04558 (C.D. Cal. May
21, 2020): asserts claims under WARN Act, FLSA, and California
Labor Code for alleged improper termination and alleged failure to
pay wages owed and to provide required employee protections;
Massey v. McDonald's Corp., No. 2020CH04247 (Ill. Circ. Ct. May 19,
2020): asserts claims of public nuisance and negligence for
allegedly inadequate safety protocols for restaurant employees;
Hess v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. RG20078425 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Oct. 30, 2020): asserts claims of public nuisance and unfair
competition for allegedly inadequate safety protocols for
employees;
Zhang v. Fortune No. 1 Inc., No. 20 GDCV 00456 (Cal. Super. Ct. May
17, 2020): asserts claims under California Labor Code for alleged
failure to pay minimum compensation and provide adequate rest
periods;
Gomez v. Chamiara, No. 20-cv-02190 (E.D.N.Y. May 14, 2020): asserts
claims under Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failure to pay
employees' minimum compensation.
England v. United Airlines, No. 20-cv-02877 (N.D. Ill. May 13,
2020): asserts breach of contract claims on behalf of employees;
Smith v. Ideal Image Development Corp., No. 20SL-CC02511 (Mo. Circ.
Ct. May 6, 2020): asserts claims under WARN Act and state
employment laws for alleged improper layoffs during pandemic and
failure to pay wages owed;
Notice of Removal filed on June 12, 2020: No. 20-cv-00761 (E.D. Mo.
June 12, 2020);
Middleton v. Andino, No. 20-cv-01730 (D.S.C. May 1, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging state law requirement that
absentee ballots be witnessed in order to be valid;
The District Court sided with the plaintiffs and stayed the
requirement as unduly burdensome during the pandemic. The Circuit
Court and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and allowed the
requirement to stay in effect;
Green v. Hertz Corp., No. 20-cv-01006 (Apr. 30, 2020): asserts a
violation of the WARN Act for failure to provide written notice
before termination of employees;
Hartstein v. Hyatt Corp., No. 20-cv-04874 (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 24,
2020): asserts a violation of the WARN Act and alleges failure to
pay accrued wages and vacation time;
Notice of Removal filed on June 1, 2020 - No. 20-cv-04874 (C.D.
Cal. June 1, 2020);
Evans v. Dart, 20-cv-02453 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 2020): asserts
claims under Fair Labor Standards Act for alleged failure to pay
employees' minimum compensation.
Miller v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc., 20-cv-00912 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
20, 2020): asserts claims under Fair Labor Standards Act for
alleged failure to pay wages for the two weeks preceding closure of
the restaurant;
Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, No. 20STCV15082 (Cal. Super.
Ct. Apr. 17, 2020): asserts claims under California Labor Code for
alleged failure to timely pay wages and compensation;
Notice of removal filed on July 6, 2020: No. 20-cv-06006 (C.D. Cal.
July 6, 2020);
Scott v. Hooters III, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00882 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 16,
2020): asserts a violation of the WARN Act for failure to provide
written notice before termination of employees;
Allen v. Tableseide Restaurant Group LLC, No. 8:20-cv-843 (M.D.
Fla. Apr. 13, 2020): asserts claims under Fair Labor Standards Act
for alleged failure to pay wages for the two weeks preceding
closure of the restaurant.
Olsen v. Hair Cuttery, No. 1:20-cv-03760 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2020):
asserts claim under Fair Labor Standards Act for allegedly closing
hair salons in the middle of a pay period without payment.
Siers v. Velodyne Lidar, No. 5:20-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3,
2020): asserts claim under WARN Act for allegedly terminating over
140 employees with insufficient notice and using the pandemic as a
pretext for layoffs;
Braswell v. United States, No. 20-cv-00359 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 27,
2020); asserts federal statutory violations based on alleged
failure to adequately compensate plaintiffs for working with or
near infected people and items;
Alaska State Employees v State of Alaska, No. 20-5652 (Super. Ct.
Ak. Mar. 24, 2020): asserts claim for injunctive relief for public
employees to reduce health risks.
Burr v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-CA-002640 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Mar. 19,
2020): asserts claims by entertainers hired by cruise ships who
claim entitlement to full compensation for canceled events.
Verhines v. Uber Technology, Inc., No. 20-583684 (Cal. Super. Ct.
Mar. 12, 2020): asserts claim for paid sick leave based on worker
classification.
Rogers v. Lyft, Inc., No. CGC-20-583685 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 12,
2020): claims that Lyft failed to provide adequate paid sick leave,
making drivers feel compelled to drive even if sick.
Event Cancellation and Service Disruption
Consumer claims based on the cancellation or disruption of events
and services are likely to dominate court dockets in coming
months.
Travel Cancellation
Johner v. CSA Travel Protection & Ins. Svcs., No. 20-cv-11088 (E.D.
Mo. Dec. 3, 2020) (travel insurance);
Farmer v. Airbnb, Inc., No. 20-cv-07842 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2020)
(AirBnB refund practices for hosts);
Diaz v. Air China Ltd., No. 20-cv-07555 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2020);
Williams v. Air China Ltd., No. 20-cv-01883 (D.S.C. May 15, 2020);
Cooper v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc., No. 200-cv-08569 (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 3, 2020) (travel insurance); Schrader v. Generali U.S.
Branch, No. 20-cv-04548 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2020); Young v.
Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-01804 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2020);
Swafford v. Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-07079 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
31, 2020); Oglevee v. Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-01277 (W.D.
Pa. Aug. 28, 2020); Robbins v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-06635 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2020); Flanigan v. Generali U.S.
Branch, No. 20-cv-01807 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2020); Paterson v.
Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-00266 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2020);
Keith v. Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-10713 (D.S.C. Aug. 6,
2020); Sanchez v. Generali U.S. Branch, No. 20-cv-10673 (D. Kan.
Aug. 5, 2020); Sheridan v. Assicurazioni Generali Group, S.p.A.,
No. 20-cv-00244 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2020); Morris v. Assicurazioni
Generali Group, S.p.A., No. 20-cv-04430 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2020);
Robbins v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc., No. 20-cv-04904 (C.D.
Cal. June 2, 2020); Nixon v. Generali US Branch, No. 20-cv-10779
(N.D. Ill. May 2, 2020) (travel insurance);
Mahoney v. Expedia, Inc., No. 20-cv-01296 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 28,
2020);
McMenamin v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01262 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26,
2020) (travel insurance);
Saag v. AGA Service Company, No. 20-cv-06704 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20,
2020); Bauer v. AGA Service Company, No. 20-cv-03138 (W.D. Mo. May
7, 2020) (travel insurance);
Haas v. Travelex Insurance Services Inc., No. 20-cv-06171 (C.D.
Cal. July 10, 2020) (travel insurance);
Piercy v. Air Canada, No. 20-cv-04988 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020);
Vozzolo v. Air Canada, Inc., No. 20-cv-03503 (S.D.N.Y. May 5,
2020); Levu v. Air Canada, Inc., No. 20-cv-00703 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
23, 2020);
Bess v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-01837 (D. Colo. June 22,
2020); Johnson v. Frontier Airlines, No. 20-cv-01751 (D. Colo. June
15, 2020); Rivera-De Leon v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., No.
20-cv-01518 (D. Colo. May 28, 2020); Sweet v. Frontier Airlines,
Inc., No. 20-cv-00662 (D. Conn. May 13, 2020); Young v. Frontier
Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-1152 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2020); Obertman
v. Frontier Airlines Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00820 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21,
2020);
In re COVID-19 Airfare Refund Litigation, MDL No. 2957 (June 16,
2020);
Gimello v. American Airlines Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-02834 (E.D. Pa.
June 15, 2020); Ward v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-00371
(N.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2020);
Polk v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 20-cv-02461 (N.D. Ga. June 9,
2020); Daniels v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01664 (N.D.
Ga. Apr. 17, 2020);
Singh Lupien v. Westjet Airlines Ltd., No. 108481648 (Fla. Circ.
Ct. June 5, 2020);
Gustafson v. Travel Guard Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-02272 (D. Kan. May
29, 2020) (travel insurance);
Belanger v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana S.A. Operadora, No.
20-cv-03087 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2020);
Subramanyam v. Royal Dutch Airlines, No. 20-cv-11296 (E.D. Mich.
May 22, 2020);
Beermann v. Tauck, Inc., No. 20-cv-00713 (D. Conn. May 21, 2020)
(travel insurance);
Jauregui v. China Eastern Airlines Corp. Ltd., No. 20-cv-04552
(C.D. Cal. May 20, 2020);
Chandler v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH, No. 20-cv-00810 (D. Or. May 20,
2020);
Bugarin v. All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., No. 20-cv-03341 (N.D. Cal.
May 15, 2020);
Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, No. 20-cv-00885 (C.D. Cal. May 12,
2020); Castanares v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG, No. 20-cv-04261 (C.D.
Cal. May 11, 2020);
Zawacki v. Swoop, Inc., No. 20-cv-01100 (M.D. Fla. May 12, 2020);
Dumitrescu v. Compania Panamena De Aviacion, No. 20-cv-02125
(E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2020);
Reaves v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, No. 20-cv-02121 (E.D.N.Y. May
9, 2020); Daversa-Evdyriadis v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA, No.
20-cv-00767 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020);
Diaz v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-60933 (S.D. Fla. May 8,
2020); Boucher v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-60829 (S.D. Fla.
Apr. 22, 2020); Manchur v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-10771
(D. Mass. Apr. 21, 2020);
Suarez v. Emirates, No. 20-cv-03623 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2020);
Chaves v. TAP Air Portugal, No. 20-cv-02086 (E.D.N.Y. May 5,
2020);
Ide v. British Airways, PLC, No. 20-cv-03542 (S.D.N.Y. May 6,
2020);
Fensterer v. Capital One, N.A., No. 20-cv-05558 (D.N.J. May 5,
2020);
Herrera v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., No. 20-cv-03019 (N.D. Cal.
May 1, 2020);
Martinez-Sanchez v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania De Aviacion, No.
20-cv-1966 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020);
Bratcher v. Allegiant Travel Co., No. 2:20-cv-00767 (D. Nev. Apr.
28, 2020);
Milosevic v. Turk Hava Yollari A.O., Inc., No. 20-cv-03328
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020);
Sholopa v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., No. 20-cv-03294 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
27, 2020);
Snyder v. Grupo Aeromexico S.A.B. de C.V., No. 2:20-cv-03649 (C.D.
Cal. Apr. 20, 2020);
Alvarez v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., No. 1-20-cv-00175 (D. Haw. Apr.
20, 2020);
Herr v. Allegiant Air, LLC, No. 20-cv-01002 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15,
2020);
Bombin v. Southwest Airlines Co., No. 20-cv-01883 (E.D. Pa. Apr.
13, 2020);
Levey v. Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion, No.
1:20-cv-02215 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2020);
Utley v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00756 (N.D.
Ohio Apr. 7, 2020); Rudolph v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc., No.
20-cv-02142 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 6, 2020).
Cases filed to date against non-airline travel companies seeking
the refund of payments for cancelled itineraries based on breach of
contract, consumer protection, and other theories include:
Thoman v. StudentUniverse.com Inc., No. 20-cv-11326 (D. Mass. July
14, 2020) (travel booking);
Cousin v. Balearia Caribbean Ltd., Corp., No. CACE-20-010943 (Fla.
Circ. Ct. July 7, 2020) (cruise);
Fitzgerald v. Grand Circle, LLC, No. 20-cv-02586 (E.D. Pa. June 1,
2020) (international trips);
Corrigan v. EF Education Tours, Inc., No. 20-cv-11010 (D. Mass. May
27, 2020) (educational tours);
Saperstein v. Thomas P. Gohagan & Co., No. 20-cv-03143 (N.D. Cal.
May 7, 2020) (cruise and international travel);
Tirozzi v. Lakeland Tours, LLC, No. 20-cv-30065 (D. Mass. Apr. 30,
2020) (pre-paid trip);
Sides v. Global Travel Alliance, Inc., No. 20-cv-00053 (D. Mont.
Apr. 24, 2020) (educational tours);
Cahill v. Turnkey Vacation Rentals, Inc., No. 20-cv-00441 (W.D.
Tex. Apr. 24, 2020) (vacation rentals);
Mitchell v. NurseCon at Sea LLC, No. 1:20-cv-21503 (S.D. Fla. Apr.
8, 2020) (cruise);
Douglas v. EF Inst. for Cultural Exch., Inc., No. 37-2020-00013374
(Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 11, 2020); Grabovsky v. EF Inst. for Cultural
Exch., No. 20-cv-00508 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2020) (educational
tours).
Event Cancellation
Cases filed to date against event and ticketing companies seeking
the refund of payments for sporting, music, theater, and other
cultural events based on breach of contract, consumer protection,
and other theories include:
Bryant v. Premium Seats USA, LLC, No. 20-cv-62187 (S.D. Fla. Oct.
27, 2020);
Shiflett v. Viagogo Entertainment, Inc., No. 20-cv-01880 (M.D. Fla.
Aug. 12, 2020);
Staniec v. City of Philadelphia, No. 200800985 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.
Aug. 12, 2020) (road race registration fees);
Wood v. StubHub, Inc., No. 20-cv-04125 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2020);
Menzel v. StubHub, Inc., No. CGC-20-584382 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 8,
2020); Reynolds v. StubHub, Inc., No. 20-cv-03508 (S.D.N.Y. May 5,
2020); Kopfmann v. StubHub, Inc., No. 20-cv-03025 (N.D. Cal. May 1,
2020); Alcaraz v. StubHub, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02595 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
14, 2020); McMillan v StubHub, No. 20-cv-00319 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 2,
2020);
Motion for Multidistrict Litigation denied on August 6, 2020: MDL
No. 2951
Fils v. Internet Referral Services, LLC, No. 20-cv-02134 (S.D. Tex.
June 17, 2020);
Hatchmed Corp. v. Healthcare Information & Management Systems
Society, Inc., No. 20-cv-03377 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2020);
Wellins v. Lockn' LLC, No. 20-cv-03641 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020);
Hernandez v. Ultra Enterprises Inc., No. 20-cv-22185 (S.D. Fla. May
26, 2020);
Ellenwood v. World Triathalon Corp., No. 20-cv-01182 (M.D. Fla. May
22, 2020);
Brooks v. Ultra Enterprises Inc., (Fla. Circ. Ct. May 18, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed: No. 20-cv-22495 (S.D. Fla. June 17,
2020);
Gentry v. Kostecki, No. 20-cv-01284 (D. Colo. May 7, 2020);
Wallach v. Houston Astros, LLC, No. 2020-10637 (Tex. Dist. Ct. May
4, 2020);
Bromley v. SXSW, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-439 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2020);
Trader v. SeatGeek, Inc., No. 20-cv-03248 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24,
2020);
Tezak v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc., No. 20-cv-02482 (N.D. Ill. Apr.
23, 2020);
Nellis v. Vivid Seats LTD, No. 20-cv-02486 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23,
2020);
Ajzenman v. Office of the Comm'r of Baseball, No. 2:20-cv-03643
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020);
Hansen v. Ticketmaster Entm't, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02685 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 17, 2020);
Nesis v. Do Lab, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03452 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2020);
Rutledge v. Do LaB Inc., (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 24, 2020).
Memberships, Services, and Subscriptions
Cases filed to date against fitness clubs, ski resorts, amusement
parks, and other organizations seeking the refund of season passes
and membership fees based on breach of contract, consumer
protection, and other theories include:
Blanks v. Fitness Int'l, LLC, No. 20-cv-07421 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15,
2020) (fitness club);
Brown v. U Gym, LLC, No. 20-cv-02119 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020)
(fitness club);
Arvans v. Depositors Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06570 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4,
2020) (auto insurance);
Roby v. Liberty Mut. Pers. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06832 (N.D. Ill.
Nov. 18, 2020) (auto insurance);
Thomas v. Geico Caus. Co., No. 20-cv-06453 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30,
2020) (auto insurance);
Handorf v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-080072 (S.D. Iowa
Oct. 16, 2020); Mueller v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-07241 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020); Tourgee v. United Specialty
Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00902 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2020); Mair v. United
Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00531 (C.D. Utah July 27, 2020);
Bradley v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-520 (E.D. Ark. May
18, 2020); Hoak v. United Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01152 (D.
Colo. Apr. 23, 2020) (insured ski passes);
Pacheco v. You Fit Health Clubs, LLC, No. 20-cv-02984 (N.D. Tex.
Sept. 28, 2020) (fitness club);
Heindl v. Disney Destinations, LLC, No. 20-cv-01384 (M.D. Fla. Aug.
3, 2020) (amusement parks);
Staley v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02223 (D. Colo. July 28, 2020);
Parker v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00377 (C.D. Utah June 16, 2020);
Jackson v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00496 (W.D. Mo. June 16, 2020);
Osborn v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06345 (D.N.J. May 26, 2020);
Rossi v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00411 (W.D. Mo. May 24, 2020)
(insured ski passes);
Rothman v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 20-cv-09760 (C.D. Cal. Oct.
23, 2020) (fitness club);
Christiansen v. Alterra Mountain Co., No. 20-cv-02021 (D. Colo.
July 10, 2020); Goldsmith v. Alterra Mountain Co., No. 20-cv-05722
(C.D. Cal. June 26, 2020); Du v. Alterra Mountain Co., No.
20-cv-01699 (D. Colo. June 11, 2020); Simpson v. Alterra Mountain
Co., No. 20-cv-01691 (D. Colo. June 10, 2020); Kress v. Alterra
Mountain Co., No. 20-cv-01583 (D. Colo. June 2, 2020); Werner v.
Alterra Mountain Co., No. 20-cv-01254 (D. Colo. May 5, 2020);
Farmer v. Alterra Mountain Co., No. 1:20-cv-01175 (D. Colo. Apr.
27, 2020); Eckert v. Alterra Mountain Co., No. 1:20-cv-01158 (D.
Colo. Apr. 24, 2020); Kramer v. Alterra Mountain Co., No.
20-cv-01057 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2014) (ski resort);
Leon v. Disney Destinations, LLC, No. 20-cv-01227 (M.D. Fla. July
10, 2020) (amusement parks);
McKenna v. Vail Corp., No. 20-cv-01881 (D. Colo. June 25, 2020);
Bellafatto v. Vail Corp., No. 20-cv-01585 (D. Colo. June 2, 2020);
Malachowky v. Vail Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-01529 (D. Colo. May 28,
2020); DiPirro v. Vail Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-01468 (D. Colo. May
22, 2020); Gasman v. Vail Corp., No. 20-cv-01475 (D. Colo. May 22,
2020); Rarick v. Vail Corp., No. 20-cv-01364 (D. Colo. May 13,
2020); McAuliffe v. Vail Corp., No. 1:20-cv-01176 (D. Colo. Apr.
27, 2020); Clarke v. Vail Corp., No. 1:20-cv-01163 (D. Colo. Apr.
24, 2020); Faydenko v. Vail Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-01134 (D.
Colo. Apr. 22, 2020); Han v. Vail Resorts, Inc., No. 20-cv-01121
(D. Colo. Apr. 21, 2020); Hunt v. Vail Corp., No. 4:20-cv-02463
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) (ski resort);
Hodges v. Am. Specialty Health Inc., No. 20-cv-01158 (S.D. Cal.
June 24, 2020) (fitness club);
Gurwell v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., No. 20-cv-00312
(E.D. Va. June 22, 2020); Kouball v. Seaworld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., No. 20-cv-00870 (S.D. Cal. May 8, 2020)
(amusement parks);
Bautista v. Merlin Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings, Inc., No.
20-cv-01128 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2020); Case v. Merlin
Entertainments Group U.S. Holdings, Inc., No. 20-cv-01049 (S.D.
Cal. June 8, 2020) (amusement parks);
In re National Ski Pass Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 2955 (June
16, 2020);
Quintanilla v. WW International, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct. June 10,
2020); Vodden v. WW International, Inc., No. 20-cv-03856 (S.D.N.Y.
May 18, 2020) (nutritional program);
Notice of removal filed in Quintanilla: No. 20-cv-06261 (C.D. Cal.
July 30, 2020);
Forbes v. Six Flags Great Adventure, LLC, No. 20-cv-06873 (D.N.J.
June 4, 2020); McConnell v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No.
20-cv-03665 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) (amusement park);
Shepherd v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 706075/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May
29, 2020) (Amazon Prime membership);
Davis v. Youfit Health Clubs, LLC, No. 107917643 (Fla. Circ. Ct.
May 26, 2020) (fitness club);
Hong v. Clubcorp USA, Inc., No. 20-cv-01310 (N.D. Tex. May 19,
2020) (private club membership); Cuenco v. Clubcorp USA, Inc., No.
20-cv-00744 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020) (private club);
Muller v. Durham School Services, L.P., No. 20-cv-05813 (D.N.J. May
12, 2020) (bussing services);
Williams v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc., No. 20-cv-03096 (N.D. Cal.
May 5, 2020); Labib v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, No. 3:20-cv-02134 (N.D.
Cal. Mar. 27, 2020) (fitness club);
Holloway v. Planet Fitness Franchising LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01868 (N.D.
Ga. Apr. 30, 2020) (fitness club);
Reingold v. Elements Therapeutic Massage, LLC, No. 20-cv-00785
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020) (massage studios);
Danforth v. Town Sports International, LLC, No. 7:20-cv-03195
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2020) (fitness club);
Hunt v. Fitness Evolution Inc., No. 4:20-cv-02461 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
10, 2020) (fitness club);
Rezai-Hariri v. Magic Mountain LLC, No. 20-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
10, 2020) (ski resort);
Delvecchio v. Boston Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-10666 (D. Mass. Apr.
5, 2020) (fitness club);
Jampol v. Blink Holdings, No. 20-cv-02760 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020)
(fitness club);
Carisi v. Events and Adventures California, No. 3:20-cv-02260 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) (dating service);
Barnett v. Fitness International, LLC, No. 0:20-cv-60658 (S.D. Fla.
Mar. 30, 2020) (fitness club);
Namorato v. New York Sports Clubs, No. 20-cv-02580 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
26, 2020) (fitness club).
Government and Civil Rights
Governments and public officials may face a higher risk of class
action litigation based on their response to COVID-19 and handling
of prison inmates and detainees.
Prisoner and Detainee Release
Cases filed to date against corrections facilities seeking habeas
corpus and other constitutional relief for prisoners and
immigration detainees based on the risk of exposure to COVID-19
include:
Ryan v.. Tarvald Anthony Smith, No. 20-cv-00843 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14,
2020) (pre-trial detainees);
Smith v. Barr, No. 20-cv-00630 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 25, 2020)
(presoners);
Boatman v. DeSantis (Fla. 2020) (detainees in civil commitment);
Jones v. Hill, No. 20-cv-02791 (N.D. Ga. July 1, 2020)
(prisoners);
Fenty v. Penzone, No. 20-cv-01192 (D. Ariz. June 16, 2020)
(prisoners);
Williams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 20-cv-00890 (D.D.C. June
2, 2020) (prisoners);
Busby v. Bonner, No. 20-cv-02359 (W.D. Tenn. May 20, 2020)
(prisoners);
Torres v. Milusnic, No. 20-cv-04450 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2020)
(prisoners);
Wilson v. Ponce, No. 20-cv-04451 (C.D. Cal. May 16, 2020)
(prisoners);
Denbow v. Maine Department of Corrections, No. 20-cv-00175 (D. Me.
May 15, 2020) (prisoners);
J.H. v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-00293 (M.D. La. May 14, 2020) (juvenile
prisoners);
Waddell v. Taylor, No. 20-cv-00340 (S.D. Miss. May 14, 2020)
(prisoners);
Lucero-Gonzales v. Kline, No. 20-cv-00901 (D. Az. May 8, 2020)
(prisoners);
Russel v. Wayne County, Michigan, No. 20-cv-11094 (E.D. Mich. May
4, 2020) (prisoners);
Wragg v. Ortiz, No. 20-cv-05496 (D.N.J. May 4, 2020) (prisoners);
McPherson v. Lamont, No. 20-cv-534 (D. Conn. April 20, 2020)
(prisoners); Wilkes v. Lamont, No. 20-cv-00594 (D. Conn. Apr. 30,
2020) (patients committed to psychiatric facility);
Ahlman v. Barnes, No. 20-cv-00835 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020)
(prisoners);
After losing at the Ninth Circuit, the defendants have petitioned
the Supreme Court challenging the lower courts' failure to stay an
injunction issued by the district court because the injunction
requires conduct exceeding CDC guidelines;
Swain v. Junior, No. 20-cv-21457 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 4, 2020)
(prisoners) (the court granted the request for preliminary
injunction, which the defendant appealed to the Eleventh Circuit on
Apr. 30, 2020, No. 20-11622);
Williams v. Witte, No. 20-cv-00304 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2020)
(detainees);
Abrams v. Chapman, No. 20-cv-11053 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2020)
(prisoners);
Fernandez-Rodriguez v. Licon-Vitale, No. 1:20-cv-03315 (S.D.N.Y.
Apr. 28, 2020) (prisoners);
Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, No. 3:20-cv-00569 (D. Conn. Apr. 27,
2020) (prisoners);
Cullors v. County of Los Angeles, No. 20-cv-03760 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
24, 2020) (prisoners);
Voltz-Loomis v. McMaster, No. 20-cv-01533 (D.S.C. Apr. 21, 2020)
(prisoners);
Frazier v. Kelley, No. 4:20-cv-00434 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 21, 2020)
(prisoners);
Seth v. McDonough, No. 8:20-cv-01028 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2020)
(prisoners);
Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 20-cv-02731 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020)
(detainees);
Remick v. City of Philadelphia, No. 20-cv-01959 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 20,
2020) (prisoners);
Baez v. McDonald, No. 20-cv-10753 (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2020)
(prisoners);
Novoa v. The GEO Group, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-02514 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16,
2020) (prisoners and detainees);
Grinis v. Spaulding, No. 1:20-cv-10738 (D. Mass. Apr. 15, 2020)
(prisoners and detainees);
Hernandez Roman v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-00768 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020)
(detainees);
Gayle v. Meade, No. 20-cv-21553 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2020)
(detainees);
Wilson v. Williams, No. 20-cv-00794 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2020)
(prisoners);
Callicotte v. Gonzales, No. 20-cv-01369 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2020)
(prisoners);
Sanchez v. Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown; No. 20-cv-00832
(N.D. Texas Apr. 9, 2020) (prisoners);
Augusto v. Moniz, No. 20-cv-10685 (D. Mass. Apr. 7, 2020)
(detainees);
Maney v. Brown, No. 20-cv-00570 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2020) (prisoners);
Barnes v. Jeffreys, No. 20-cv-02137 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2020)
(prisoners);
Mays v. Dart, No. 1:20-cv-2134 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2020)
(prisoners);
Hope v. Doll, No. 20-cv-00562 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2020) (detainees);
The court granted the request for preliminary injunction on April
7, 2020. The government appealed this decision on April 10, 2020;
Money v. Jeffreys, No. 20-cv-02094 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2020)
(prisoners);
Banks v. Booth, No. 20-cv-00849 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2020) (prisoners
and detainees);
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild v.
Executive Office of Immigration Review, No. 1:20-cv-00852 (D.D.C.
Mar. 30, 2020) (detainees);
Valentine v. Collier, No. 4:20-cv-01115 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020)
(prisoners and detainees);
Savino v. Hodgson, No. 1:20-cv-10617 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2020)
(prisoners and detainees);
Nellson v. Barnhart, No. 1:20-cv-00756 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2020)
(prisoners and detainees);
Dawson v. Asher, No. 20-civ-0409JLR (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2020)
(prisoners and detainees).
State and Federal Executive Orders and Government Actions
Cases filed to date against federal and state governments asserting
civil rights and constitutional claims based on executive orders
and other actions in response to COVID-19 include:
Seaport House v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-10932 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 25, 2020);
Heidel v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-10462 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2020); Il Bacco
Restaurant Corp. v. Cuomo, No. 156910/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 28,
2020): assert constitutional claims challenging state executive
order limiting bsiness operations during the pandemic;
E.G. v. City of New York, No. 20-cv-09879 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2020):
asserts constitutional claims for alleged failure to provide a
basic education to children living in New York City shelters;
Tuck's Restaurant and Bar v. Newsom, No. 20-cv-02256 (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 11, 2020): challenging state executive orders causing closure
of businesses;
828 Management, LLC v. Broward County, No. CACE-20-017321 (Fla.
Circ. Ct. Oct. 19, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging
county orders restricting hours of bars and restaurants during the
pandemic;
Plaza Motors of Brooklyn, Inc. v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-04851 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 8, 2020); Omnistone Corp. v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-02153 (E.D.N.Y.
May 12, 2020): challenging state executive orders causing closure
of businesses;
Prestige Transportation Inc. v. U.S. Small Business Administration,
No. 20-cv-08963 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2020): asserts constitutional
and federal statutory claims for alleged discrimination in
implementing eligibility requirements for EIDL Emergency Grants
under the CARES ACT;
My Dream Boutique v. County of Los Angeles, No. 20-cv-08896 (C.D.
Cal. Sept. 28, 2020); Rivas Sports, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles,
No. 20-cv-08312 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020): asserts constitutional
claims challenging county order causing closure of interior mall
stores;
Moore v. Circosta, No. 20-cv-00182 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2020):
asserts constitutional claims based on allegedly improper changes
to voting procedures in response to the pandemic;
Organization for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, No. 20-cv-04184 (W.D.
Mo. Sept. 17, 2020): asserts constitutional and civil rights claims
based on allegedly inadequate remote voting procedures;
Bill & Ted's Riviera, Inc. v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-01001 (N.D.N.Y. Aug.
28, 2020); DiMartile v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-00859 (N.D.N.Y. July 31,
2020): assert constitutional claims challenging state executive
order limiting "non-essential" gatherings to fifty people during
the pandemic;
Berg v. County of Los Angeles, No. 20-cv-07870 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27,
2020): asserts civil rights claims based on alleged failure to
follow proper safety protocols when arresting and detaining
protestors;
New York v. Trump, No. 20-cv-02340 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2020);
Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, No. 20-cv-04096 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2020);
Johnakin v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 20-cv-04055 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19,
2020); Washington v. Trump, No. 20-cv-03127 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 18,
2020); Jones v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 20-cv-06516 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
17, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging federal
actions limiting the funding and functionality of the Post Office
during the pandemic, particularly as applied to absentee voting;
P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-02245 (D.D.C. Aug. 14, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging federal government's policies
resulting in summary expulsion of unaccompanied migrant minors
during the pandemic;
Warfield v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-04121 (D.S.D. Aug. 14, 2020); Scholl
v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-05309 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2020); Galvan v.
Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-04511 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2020): assert
constitutional claims as well as claims under the CARES Act and
Administrative Procedure Act challenging federal government's
alleged failure to provide relief payments to incarcerated
individuals;
Castillo v. Whitmer, No. 20-cv-00751 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 11, 2020):
asserts constitutional claims challenging state policy subjecting
Latino individuals to mandatory COVID-19 testing;
Hotze v. Abbott, No. 20-cv-00345 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging state executive orders related to
the pandemic and state contact tracing program;
Denver Bible Church v. Azar II, No. 20-cv-02362 (D. Colo. Aug. 9,
2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging state executive
orders causing shut down of religious services;
Beahn v. Gayles, No. 20-cv-02240 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2020); Beahn v.
Gayles, No. 20-cv-02239 (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2020);: asserts
constitutional claims challenging state executive order that limits
the physical opening of religious and private schools;
4 Aces Enterprises LLC v. Bel Edwards, No. 20-cv-02150 (E.D. La.
July 30, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging state
executive order relating to restrictions on bars and restaurants;
Santore v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-00850 (N.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging state executive order limiting
gathering sizes as applied to fireworks displays;
J.T. v. de Blasio, No. 20-cv-05878 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020):
asserts claims under federal and state statutes for alleged failure
to provide adequate educational programs for children with learning
disabilities during the pandemic;
Pins Mechanical Co., LLC v. City of Columbus, No. 20CV004877 (Ohio
Ct. Com. Pl. July 28, 2020): asserts constitutional claims
challenging local ordinance limiting hours of bars and restaurants
during the pandemic;
Notice of removal filed on July 31, 2020: No. 20-cv-03845 (S.D.
Ohio July 31, 2020);
Poder in Action v. City of Phoenix, No. 20-cv-01429 (D. Ariz. July
20, 2020): asserts constitutional and Federal Fair Housing Act
claims based on city allegedly prohibiting immigrants from
participating in emergency housing program;
Royal v. Detroit Public Schools Community District, No. 20-cv-11947
(E.D. Mich. July 20, 2020): asserts constitutional and civil rights
claims seeking to stop public school system from reopening live
classrooms in the fall of 2020;
Dismissed as moot on August 28, 2020;
Gallagher v. New York State Bd. of Elections, No. 20-cv-05504
(S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging
the state's allegedly inadequate absentee voting procedures;
Gilliam v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, No. 20-cv-03504 (E.D. Pa.
July 16, 2020): asserts claims under Families First Coronavirus
Response Act based on agency's alleged failure to provide emergency
SNAP benefits;
Baptiste v. Massachusetts, No. 20-cv-11335 (D. Mass. July 15,
2020): asserting constitutional claims challenging state law that
created a moratorium on evictions and foreclosures during the
pandemic;
Srabyan v. New York, No. 20-cv-03137 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2020):
asserting constitutional claims challenging state plan for
reopening public schools in the fall of 2020;
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. U.S. Food &
Drug Administration, No. 20-cv-01320 (D. Md. July 13, 2020):
asserting constitutional claims challenging FDA requirements of
in-person dispensing and signature requirements for abortion
medication during the pandemic;
Taylor v. City of Detroit, No. 20-cv-11860 (E.D. Mich. July 9,
2020): asserting civil rights claims based on water service shutoff
and water bill affordability during the pandemic;
National Association of Theatre Owners v. Murphy, No. 20-cv-08298
(D.N.J. July 6, 2020): asserts constitutional claims based on
continued closure of movie theaters by state executive order;
Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-03489 (N.D. Ill.
July 2, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging state
executive order limiting public gatherings to less than fifty
people;
Estevez v. Hillsborough County, No. 20-CA-5233 (Fla. Circ. Ct. June
26, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging county order
requiring wearing of protective face coverings;
The NOLC, Inc. v. United States, No. 20-cv-00294 (N.D. Okla. June
19, 2020): asserts constitutional claims based on alleged
discrimination against businesses owned by women and minorities in
implementing the CARES Act;
Association of Jewish Camp Operators v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-00687
(N.D.N.Y. June 18, 2020): asserts constitutional claims challenging
state executive order causing closure of Jewish overnight camps
during the pandemic;
Cafaro-Peachcreek Joint Venture Partnership v. Wolf, No.
20-cv-00155 (W.D. Pa. June 17, 2020): asserts civil rights claims
challenging the state's order causing business closures during the
pandemic;
Nowlin v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-01229 (C.D. Ill. June 15, 2020):
asserts constitutional claims challenging the state's stay-at-home
order;
Hotze v. Abbott, No. 20-cv-02104 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging the state's stay-at-home order
and reopening plan;
Ent Int'l Realty Corp. v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-04277 (S.D.N.Y. June 4,
2020): seeking an injunction preventing the collection of property
taxes based on state executive order limiting landlords' ability to
collect rent;
Cole v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-01423 (D.D.C. May 29, 2020): alleging
violation of the CARES Act based on the offset of student loan debt
on federal tax refunds for student loan borrowers;
Gomez v. Trump, No. 20-cv-01419 (D.D.C. May 28, 2020): challenging
presidential proclamation causing restrictions on visa processing
for immigrants during the pandemic;
Elmsford Apartment Associates, LLC v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-04062
(S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020): challenging state executive order
prohibiting landlords from initiating eviction proceedings and
requiring application of security deposits to unpaid rent with
tenant consent;
Talleywhacker, Inc. v. Cooper, No. 20-cv-00218 (E.D.N.C. May 26,
2020): asserting constitutional claims challenging the state
executive order causing business closures during the pandemic;
Islam v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-02328 (E.D.N.Y. May 25, 2020): asserts
civil rights claims based on alleged failure to timely provide
unemployment benefits to former ride-share drivers;
Democracy North Carolina v. North Carolina State Board of
Elections, No. 20-cv-00457 (M.D.N.C. May 22, 2020): asserting civil
rights claims based on alleged failure to create a safe and
accessible voting system;
Devine v. Sununu, No. 218-2020-cv-00602 (N.H. Super. Cut. May 22,
2020): asserting constitutional claims based on the state's
allegedly inadequate implementation of remote learning procedures;
Hall v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, No. 20-cv-03454 (N.D. Cal. May
21, 2020): challenging the USDA's interpretation of the Families
First Act;
Clark v. Bel Edwards, No. 20-cv-00308 (M.D. La. May 19, 2020):
challenging state government's alleged failure to create adequate
and safe voting procedures during the pandemic;
League of Women Voters of Minnesota Education Fund v. Simon, No.
20-cv-01205 (D. Minn. May 19, 2020): asserts constitutional claims
based on state's alleged failure to implement safe voting
procedures during the pandemic;
F Four, LLC v. Page, No. 20-cv-00656 (E.D. Mo. May 18, 2020):
challenging county order causing business closures during the
pandemic;
The Local Spot, Inc. v. Lee, No. 20-cv-00421 (M.D. Tenn. May 18,
2020): challenging travel restrictions and state orders causing
business closures during the pandemic;
Blackburn v. Dare County, No. 20-cv-00027 (E.D.N.C. May 15, 2020):
challenging county orders prohibiting entry of non-resident
landowners;
TD's Western Wear and Tack, LLC v. Tennessee, No. 20-cv-00206 (E.D.
Tenn. May 13, 2020): challenging state executive orders directing
business closures during the pandemic;
Fugazi v. Padilla, No. 20-at-00467 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2020):
challenging the county's treatment of mail-in-ballots and voting
procedures during the pandemic;
Ramsek v. Beshear, No. 20-cv-00036 (E.D. Ky. May 10, 2020):
challenging state executive orders limiting mass gatherings during
the pandemic;
McCarthy v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-02124 (E.D.N.Y. May 9, 2020):
asserting constitutional claims challenging state order causing
closure of businesses and challenging implementation of the PPP
program by the Small Business Administration;
Michie v. Newsom, No. 20-cv-4213 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2020):
challenging the state executive order and state actions curtailing
rent payments during the pandemic;
Does v. Trump, No. 20-cv-00704 (E.D. Wis. May 8, 2020); Doe v.
Trump, No. 20-cv-858 (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2020); Doe v. Trump, No.
20-cv-00430 (W.D. Wis. May 6, 2020); Doe v. Trump, No.
1:20-cv-02531 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2020): alleging discriminatory
purpose and intent in implementing the CARES Act;
Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-02782 (N.D.
Ill. May 7, 2020): challenging state executive order limiting mass
gatherings and its impact on worship services;
Alsop v. Desantis, No. 20-cv-01052 (M.D. Fla. May 7, 2020):
challenging state executive orders prohibiting vacation rentals
during the pandemic;
Spell v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-00282 (M.D. La. May 7, 2020):
challenging state executive orders limiting mass gatherings during
the pandemic;
Power Coalition for Equity & Justice v. Edwards, No. 20-cv-00283
(M.D. La. May 7, 2020): challenging the state's restrictions on
absentee voting during the pandemic;
Gottlieb v. Lamont, No. 20-cv-00623 (D. Conn. May 6, 2020):
challenging government's decision to require in-person ballots for
primaries and general elections;
Fair Maps Nevada v. Cegavske, No. 20-cv-00271 (D. Nev. May 6,
2020): seeking relief from ballot initiative deadlines based on
difficulty of collecting signatures during the pandemic;
Key v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-03533 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2020); Yang v. New
York State Board of Elections, No. 20-cv-03325 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28,
2020): seeking damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief
for the cancellation of the New York Democratic Presidential
Primary;
R.V. v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-01148 (D. Md. May 5, 2020): alleging
discriminatory intent in implementing the CARES Act by excluding
U.S. children who have undocumented immigrants as parents;
Benner v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-00775 (M.D. Pa. May 11, 2020); Paradise
Concepts, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 20-cv-02161 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2020):
challenging the Pennsylvania government's policy of denying waivers
for companies that are required to be shut down by COVID-19
executive orders;
Simon v. City of Knoxville, No. 20-cv-00197 (E.D. Tenn. May 5,
2020): challenging city orders requiring the closure of businesses
during the pandemic;
Nielsen v. Desantis, No. 20-cv-00236 (N.D. Fla. May 4, 2020):
asserting constitutional claims based on state's alleged failure to
enact adequate voting procedures during the pandemic;
Carranza v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement, No.
20-cv-424 (D.N.M. May 4, 2020): seeks relief for alleged violations
of constitutional and statutory rights of detainees facing pending
immigration proceedings;
Frank v. City of St. Louis, No. 20-cv-00597 (E.D. Mo. May 1, 2020):
seeks relief for unsheltered individuals threatened with punishment
under stay at home orders;
Barber v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-01137 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 2020): seeks
compliance with student loan wage garnishment suspension directive
of the CARES act;
Robinson v. Murphy, No. 20-cv-05420 (D.N.J. Apr. 30, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging state executive order limiting
public gatherings during the pandemic;
Tully v. Okeson, No. 20-cv-01271 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2020): asserts
constitutional claims challenging Indiana's allegedly inadequate
absentee voting procedures;
The District Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction on August 21, 2020, and the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Seventh Circuit on August 24.
Martinez v. Cuomo, No. 20-cv-03338 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020):
challenging accessibility of government briefings for the hearing
impaired under the ADA;
AALFA Family Clinic v. Walz, No. 20-cv-01037 (D. Minn. Apr. 28,
2020): challenging state stay-at home order as a violation of
fundamental rights and challenging state's allowance of using PPE
for abortions but not other elective surgeries;
Gill v. Pa. Dep't of Health, No. 2:20-cv-02038 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 28,
2020): alleged failure to complete ADA inspections of long term
care facilities during the pandemic;
Uzoegwu v. Mnuchin, No. 20-cv-03264 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020):
alleged discrimination on the basis of familial status in
implementing stimulus payments under the CARES Act;
Lighthouse Fellowship Church v. Northam, 20-cv-00204 (E.D. Va. Apr.
24, 2020): challenging state executive orders related to the
pandemic and their impact on worship services;
Infinity Consulting Group, LLC v. United States, No. 20-cv-00981
(D. Md. Apr. 17, 2020): alleged discriminatory purpose and intent
in implementing the CARES Act;
Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, No. 20-cv-00278 (W.D.
Ky. Apr. 17, 2020): challenging state executive order limiting
worship services;
Jani-King International, Inc. v. U.S. Small Business
Administration, No. 20-cv-00989 (D.D.C. Apr. 15, 2020): alleging
improper implementation of the Paycheck Protection Program;
Beemer v. Whitmer, No. 1:20-cv-00323 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2020):
challenging the state stay-at-home order as a violation of
fundamental rights;
Roberts v. Neace, No. 20-cv-00054 (E.D. Ky. Apr 14, 2020):
challenging the state stay-at-home order as a violation of
fundamental rights;
DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC v. U.S. Small Business
Administration, No. 20-cv-10899 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2020): alleging
improper discrimination in the implementation of the Paycheck
Protection Program;
Black Voters Matter Fund v. Raffensperger, No. 20-cv-01489 (N.D.
Ga. Apr. 8, 2020): asserting constitutional claims challenging
allegedly inadequate remote voting procedures during the pandemic;
On August 28, 2020, the district court entered an order for the
Defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit on September 9, 2020.
CommCan, Inc. v. Baker (Mass. Super. Ct. No. 2084CV00808, Apr. 8,
2020): challenging classification of recreational marijuana stores
as non-essential;
Piilani v. Colorado, No. 20-cv-00960 (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2020):
challenging the state stay-at-home order as a violation of
fundamental rights;
Lawrence v. Colorado, No. 20-cv-00862 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2020):
challenging state pandemic orders and their impact on church
services;
Stafford v. Baker, No. 5_20-cv-00123 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2020):
challenging an executive order limiting the number of gun permits
issued during the pandemic;
Schulmerich Bells, LLC v. Wolf, No. 2:20-cv-01637 (E.D. Pa. Mar.
26, 2020): challenging closure orders for failure to compensate for
diminution of value in property interests.
Foreign Government and NGO Actions
Cases filed to date against foreign governments and international
non-governmental organizations based on their response to the
COVID-19 pandemic include:
Patella v. People's Republic of China, No. 20-cv-00433 (M.D.N.C.
May 15, 2020); Edwards v. People's Republic of China, No.
20-cv-01393 (E.D. La. May 8, 2020): asserts claims of negligence
and fraud for failure to contain the virus);
Benitez-White v. People's Republic of China, No. 20-cv-01562 (S.D.
Tex. May 3, 2020): asserts claims for wrongful death, personal
injury, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment based on
allegations the COVID-19 virus originated from the Wuhan Biosafety
Level 4 lab;
Kling v. World Health Org., No. 7:20-cv-03124 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20,
2020): asserts claims of negligence for the WHO's alleged failure
in containing the COVID-19 virus and in failing to timely declare
the crisis a public health emergency;
Smith v. People's Republic of China, No. 20-cv-01958 (E.D. Pa. Apr.
20, 2020): asserts claims of negligence and reckless indifference
for failure to contain the virus;
Aharon v. Chinese Communist Party, No. 9:20-cv-80604 (S.D. Fla.
Apr. 7, 2020): alleging that China has been stockpiling personal
protective equipment during the COVID-19 crisis;
Bella Vista LLC et al. v. People's Republic of China et al., No.
2:20-cv-00574 (D. Nev. Mar. 23 2020); Alters et al. v. People's
Republic of China et al., No. 1:20-cv-21108-UU (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12,
2020): assert claims by small businesses for negligence, strict
liability, and public nuisance against Chinese government entities
and ministries for failing to take appropriate actions to stem the
spread of the coronavirus.
Healthcare Providers and Nursing Facilities
Hospitals, healthcare providers and nursing and residential care
facilities may face class action litigation based in contract or
tort relating to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unless
states have laws or orders limiting civil liability, these entities
are potentially at risk of class action litigation.
The following states have enacted legislation or executive orders
to shield healthcare providers from civil liability arising from
the pandemic: Connecticut; Illinois; Massachusetts; Michigan; New
Jersey; New York. The Pennsylvania legislature rejected similar
legislation.
Hart v. Clendenin, Director of California Department of State
Hospitals, No. 20-cv-01559 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020): asserts
constitutional and ADA claims for failure to reasonably protect
committed patients from risk of COVID-19;
Estate of Joseph Sniadach v. Walsh, No. 20-cv-30115 (D. Mass. July
17, 2020): asserts constitutional claims based on alleged failure
to protect residents of a veterans' home from exposure to
COVID-19.
Fraser v. Team Health Holdings, Inc., No. 20-cv-04600 (July 10,
2020): asserts RICO and consumer protection claims for alleged
fraudulent billing practices leading to inflated health care
costs;
Schoengood v. Hofgur LLC, No. 20-cv-02022 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020):
asserts claims under ADA and Rehabilitation Act for alleged failure
to provide adequate care to long term care residents;
Estate of Joseph Maglioli v. Andover Subacute Rehabilitation Center
I, No. 20-cv-06605 (N.J. Super. Ct. Apr. 28, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed on May 29, 2020 - Docket No. 20-cv-06605
(D.N.J. May 29, 2020);
Insurance
Insurers face heightened class action litigation risk as insured
businesses encounter disruptions and look to their policies for
relief and healthcare providers and health insurance subscribers
seek coverage for COVID-19 treatments. Cases filed to date
asserting breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims
against insurers for failure to cover losses from forced business
closures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and state executive
orders include:
Davis Fitness Studio One LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-10812
(D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2020); Legacy Gymnastics, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co.,
No. 20-cv-04214 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 2, 2020);
Cammie's Spectacular Salon v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-12324
(D.N.J. Sept. 3, 2020);
Park Place Hospitality, LLC v. Continental Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-06403 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2020); Selane Products, Inc. v.
Continental Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-07834 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27,
2020); Holtzman Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-02152 (D. Colo. July 21, 2020); Legacy Sports Barbershop LLC
v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-04149 (N.D. Ill. July 14,
2020); Motiv Group, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-08206 (D.N.J. July 2, 2020); Seattle Gymnastics Academy, Inc.
v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-cv-00884 (W.D. Wa. June 8,
2020); Hillcrest Optical, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-00275 (S.D. Ala. May 15, 2020); BBMS, LLC v. Continental
Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-00353 (W.D. Mo. May 1, 2020); Café Plaza
De Mesilla Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-00354
(D.N.M. Apr. 20, 2020);
Blushark Digital, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-cv-01593
(D. Conn. Oct. 22, 2020); KCJ Studios, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.,
Ltd., No. 20-cv-01207 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2020); Oaklandish, LLC
v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., No. 20-cv-04856 (N.D. Cal. July 20,
2020); Protégé Restaurant Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.,
Ltd., No. 20-cv-03674 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020); Glow Medispa LLC v.
Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-cv-00712 (W.D. Wash. May 12, 2020);
One40 Beauty Lounge LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 20-cv-00643
(D. Conn. May 8, 2020); Lee v. Sentinel Ins. Co., No. 3_20-cv-05422
(W.D. Wash. May 4, 2020); Lina Kim, DDS, P.S. v. Sentinel Ins. Co.,
Ltd., No. 20-cv-00657 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2020); Prato v. Sentinel
Ins. Co., Ltd., No. 3:20-cv-05402 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2020); Hair
Perfect, Int'l, Inc. v. Sentinel Ins. Co. Ltd., No. 20-cv-03729
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020);
Burning Bros. Brewing LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No 20-cv-00920
(S.D. Ohio Nov. 12, 2020); Midwest Orthodontic Assoc., Ltd., No.
20-cv-01167 (S.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2020); 2105-09 S. State, LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06278 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2020);
Estes v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00138 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 30,
2020); Rye Ridge Corp. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-07132
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2020); Berg Dental Offices PC v. Cincinnati Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-01261 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2020); Gottlieb v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01266 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2020);
Associates in Periodontics, PLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-11385 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2020); Assoc. in Periodontics, PLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00171 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2020); Jacob
Rieger & Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00681 (W.D. Mo.
Aug. 24, 2020); Posh KC, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00675 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 21, 2020); Reeds Jewelers of Niagara
Falls, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00649 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
21, 2020); 2 Tomato Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01245
(W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2020); Covatto v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-01238 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2020); Valley Lo Club Association,
Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-04790 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14,
2020); T & E Chicago LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-04001
(N.D. Ill. July 8, 2020); Swearingen Smiles LLC v. Cincinnati Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-00517 (S.D. Ohio July 2, 2020); Saucy Brew Works LLC
v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. CV 20 933932 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. June
25, 2020); Dr. Clark Thomas, PC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00895 (N.D. Ala. June 24, 2020); Uncork & Create LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00401 (D.W.V. June 12, 2020); Moe's
Original BBQ Hoover, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00832
(N.D. Ala. June 11, 2020); Neuro-Communication Services, Inc. v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01275 (N.D. Ohio June 10, 2020);
Stone Soup, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02614 (E.D. Pa.
June 4, 2020); Hirschfield-Louik v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00816 (W.D. Pa. June 3, 2020); Gilreath Family & Cosmetic
Dentistry, Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02248 (N.D. Ga.
May 26, 2020); Bulldog Yoga Holdings LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
No. 20-cv-02358 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2020); Saucy Brew Works LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. CV 20 932532 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. May 12,
2020); Homestate Seafood LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00649 (N.D. Ala. May 8, 2020); Derek Scott Williams PLLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02806 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2020); Taste
of Belgium LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00357 (S.D. Ohio
May 5, 2020); 3 Square LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02690
(N.D. Ill. May 4, 2020); St. Julian Wine Co., Inc. v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00374 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2020); Studio 417,
Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 6_20-cv-03127 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 27,
2020); Milkboy Center City LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
2:20-cv-02036 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2020); Grand Street Dining, LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00330 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 23, 2020);
Milkboy Center City LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-02036
(E.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2020); Grand Street Dining, LLC v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00330 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 23, 2020); Promotional
Headwear Int'l v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 2_20-cv-02211 (D. Kan.
Apr. 24, 2020); Troy Stacy Enters. Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No.
1:20-cv-00312 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 19, 2020); PTG Live Events, LLC v.
Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01170 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 15, 2020);
A Ray Hospitality, LLC v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-00904 (M.D. Tenn.
Oct. 20, 2020); Wiseguys Pizzeria & Pub LLC v. Society Ins., No.
20-cv-06159 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 31, 2020); Roy's Furniture Building LLC
v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-04918 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2020); RSV
Enterprises, Inc. v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-00256 (S.D. Iowa Aug.
12, 2020); T & J's 5th Down, Inc. v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-00308
(Ind. Super. Ct. July 24, 2020); 726 West Grand LLC v. Society
Ins., No. 20-cv-03432 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2020); Cardelli
Enterprise, LLC v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-03263 (N.D. Ill. June 2,
2020); Barn Investment LLC v. Society Ins., No. 20-cv-03142 (N.D.
Ill. May 28, 2020); Ambrosia Restaurant v. Society Ins., No.
20-cv-00771 (E.D. Wis. May 21, 2020); Gem City Fresh-Mex, Inc. v.
Society Ins., No. 20-cv-00765 (S.D. Ill. May 1, 2020); Roscoe Same
LLC v. Society Ins., No. 1:20-cv-02641 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2020);
JDS 1455, Inc. d/b/a/ West on North v. Society Ins., No.
1:20-cv-02546 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2020); Biscuit Café Inc. v.
Society Ins., No. 20-cv-02514 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2020); Rising
Dough Inc. v. Society Ins., No. 2-20-cv-00623 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 17,
2020); Billy Goat Tavern I v. Society Ins., No. 1:20-cv-02068 (N.D.
Ill. Mar. 31, 2020); Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC v. Society Ins.,
No. 20-cv-02005 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2020);
Procaccianti Cos., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00512
(D.R.I. Dec. 8, 2020); KBH Sports Club LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.,
No. 20-cv-05555 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2020); Lindenwood Female College
v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01503 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 16, 2020);
Brunswick Panini's LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01895
(N.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2020); Benedictine College v. Zurich Am. Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-02361 (D. Kan. July 23, 2020); Causeway Automotive,
LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-08393 (D.N.J. July 7, 2020);
Downs Ford, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-08595 (D.N.J.
July 10, 2020); America's Kids, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-03520 (N.D. Ill. June 16, 2020); The Children's Place, Inc.
v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-07980 (D.N.J. June 30, 2020); Big
Red Management Corp. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02113 (E.D.
Pa. May 1, 2020);
Podiatry Foot & Ankle Institute P.A. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-20057 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2020); Flowers by Adelaide,
Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-02344 (S.D. Cal.
Dec. 1, 2020); ABC Diamonds Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-07097 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2020); Weiss v. Hartford
Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-14420 (D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2020);
Rejoice! Coffee Co., LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 29, 2020); Kuhen v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-01669 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020); Zunino v. Hartford Fin.
Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-01260 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2020); Wright
v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-23253 (S.D. Fla. Aug.
5, 2020); Baked Daily Corp. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-11385 (D. Mass. July 23, 2020); SA Hospitality Group, LLC v.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01033 (D. Conn. July 22, 2020);
Good Times Barbershop v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-01403 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2020); William W. Simpson
Enterprises v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-00075 (D.
Utah July 9, 2020); Franklin EWC, Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs.
Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-04434 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2020); Leal, Inc. v.
Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-00917 (D. Conn. July 2,
2020); GO-4 NUGE Production Rentals LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs.
Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-22749 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2020); Sweet Tooth
Inc. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-22750 (S.D. Fla.
July 2, 2020); Blushark Digital, LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-08210 (D.N.J. July 2, 2020); Siegel & Siegel, P.C.
v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-04993 (S.D.N.Y. June 29,
2020); Kennedy Hodges & Associates Ltd., LLP v. Hartford Fin.
Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-00853 (D. Conn. June 19, 2020); Moody
v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-02856 (E.D. Pa. June
16, 2020); Taube v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-00565 (S.D. Ill. June 15, 2020); Pure Fitness, LLC v.
Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-00775 (N.D. Ala. June 3,
2020); Metropolitan Dental Arts P.C. v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-02443 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020); Back2Health
Chiropractic Center, LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-06717 (D.N.J. June 1, 2020); Gonzalez v. Hartford Fin. Servs.
Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-22151 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2020); Independence
Barbershop, LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-00555
(W.D. Tex. May 22, 2020); Karmel Davis & Assocs., Attorneys-At-Law,
LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-02181 (N.D. Ga.
May 21, 2020); Robert Levy, D.M.D., LLC v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.,
No. 20-cv-00643 (E.D. Mo. May 14, 2020); Milton v. Hartford Cas.
Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00640 (D. Conn. May 8, 2020); Eye Care Center
of N.J., PA v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-05743
(D.N.J. May 8, 2020); Johnson v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc.,
No. 20-cv-02000 (N.D. Ga. May 8, 2020); Rinnigade Art Works v.
Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-10867 (D. Mass. May 7,
2020); Red Apple Dental PC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
20-cv-03549 (S.D.N.Y. May 06, 2020); Hair Studio 1208, LLC v.
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 20-cv0-02171 (E.D. Pa. May 5,
2020); Food for Thought Caterers Corp. v. Hartford Fin. Servs.
Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-03418 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020); Pigment, Inc.
v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00794 (S.D. Cal.
Apr. 28, 2020); GCDC LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No.
1:20-cv-01094 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2020); Lansdale 329 Prop, LLC v.
Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-02034 (E.D. Pa. Apr.
27, 2020); SA Hospitality Group, LLC v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-03258 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020); Chorak v. Hartford
Casualty Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00627 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2020);
Depasquale v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05370 (S.D. Ohio
Oct. 13, 2020); Argenas v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00770 (W.D. Pa. May 28, 2020); Border Chicken AZ LLC v.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00785 (D. Az. Apr. 22, 2020);
Boobuli's LLC v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-07074
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020); Turek Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-11655 (E.D. Mich. June 23, 2020);
Alissa's Flowers, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-04093 (W.D. Mo. May 28, 2020); Elegant Massage, LLC v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00265 (E.D. Va. May 27, 2020);
Royal Palm Optical, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-80749 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2020);
Taiclet v. CNA Financial Corp., No. 20-cv-01552 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 8,
2020);
LF Personal Training, Inc. v. Nova Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-05930
(N.D. Ill. Oct. 5, 2020);
Schatzi Corp. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, No.
20-cv-04613 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2020);
Mila Miami, LLC v. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, No.
20-cv-25338 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 31, 2020); Palm and Pine Ventures, LLC
v. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, No. 20-cv-00613 (E.D.N.C.
Nov. 18, 2020); Tripwire Operations Group, LLC v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's, No. 20-cv-01672 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2020);
King's Palace, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No.
20-cv-02629 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 20, 2020); 15 Oz Fresh & Healthy Food
LLC v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-23407 (S.D. Fla.
Aug. 17, 2020); Juan's Hair Salon v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-01527 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020); MDH
Global, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No.
20-cv-08214 (D.N.J. July 2, 2020); Palm & Pine Ventures, LLC v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-08212 (D.N.J.
July 2, 2020); RJH Management Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-03143 (C.D. Ill. June 11, 2020);
Independence Beer Garden v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
No. 20-cv-02365 (E.D. Penn. May 20, 2020); 632 Metacom Inc. v.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-03905 (S.D.N.Y.
May 19, 2020); Fire Island Retreat v. Lloyd's of London, No.
20-cv-02312 (E.D. Pa. May 15, 2020); Sun Cuisine, LLC v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 1:20-cv-21827 (S.D. Fla. May 1,
2020); Town Kitchen, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
No. 106527294 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Apr. 21, 2020); Gio Pizzeria & Bar
Hospitality, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No.
20-cv-03107 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2020); SA Palm Beach LLC v. Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-80677 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22,
2020); Prime Time Sports Grill, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London, No. 20-cv-00771 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2020);
Green Beginnings, LLC v. West Bend Mutial Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01661
(E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2020); Little Ones Preschool, Inc. v. West Bend
Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01428 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 11, 2020);
KMOD Fit LLC v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-12007 (D. Mass.
Nov. 6, 2020); Tsakos Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Group, No. 20-cv-08889
(D.N.J. July 14, 2020); T&L Catering, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Grp.,
Inc., No. 20-cv-07934 (D.N.J. June 26, 2020); Fink v. Hanover Ins.
Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-03907 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2020); Stanford
Dental, PLLC v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., No. 20-cv-11384 (E.D.
Mich. May 29, 2020);
Smeez, Inc. v. Badger Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01132 (S.D. Ill.
Oct. 27, 2020); Project Lion LLC v. Badger Mutual Ins. Co., No.
2:20-cv-00768 (D. Nev. Apr. 28, 2020);
G.O.A.T. Climb and Cryo, LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-05644 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 2020); Marras 46 LLC v. Twin City
Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-08886 (D.N.J. July 14, 2020); Zagafen
Bala, LLC
v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03033 (E.D. Pa. June 23,
2020); Cosmetic Laser, Inc. v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00638 (D. Conn. May 8, 2020);
Teemnow LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 20-cv-03153 (D.D.C. Oct 30,
2020); Balogh Enterprises, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No.
20-cv-00259 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2020); Sidelines Beer House LLC v.
Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 20-cv-01246 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2020);
Zavogiannis v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 20-cv-00039 (E.D. Tenn. Aug.
12, 2020); Johnson v. Erie Ins. Exchange (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 31,
2020); Three Little Pigs Bar-B-Q Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No.
20-cv-02544 (W.D. Tenn. July 24, 2020); Cobb v. Erie Ins. Prop. &
Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-09159 (D.N.J. July 20, 2020); Hello
Hospitality IV, LLC v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-08215 (D.N.J. July 2, 2020); Pleasant Food, Inc. v. Erie Ins.
Exchange, No. 20-cv-00014 (M.D. Tenn. July 1, 2020); Lapp v. Erie
Ins. Exchange, No. CI-20-03612 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. July 1, 2020);
Tappo of Buffalo, LLC v. Erie Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00754 (W.D.N.Y.
June 18, 2020); High Tech Hair, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No.
20-cv-02895 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020); Sulimay's Hair Design Inc. v.
Erie Ins. Ex., No. 20-cv-02731 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2020); Close
Enterprises Inc. v. Erie Ins. Grp., No. 20-cv-00147 (W.D. Pa. June
9, 2020); La Campagna Inc. v. Erie Ins. Grp., No. 20-cv-02689 (E.D.
Pa. June 8, 2020); Valerio's, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Ex., No.
20-cv-01213 (N.D. Ohio June 3, 2020); Capriccio Parkway, LLC v.
Erie Ins. Ex., No. 200600011 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. May 29, 2020); Daly
v. Erie Ins. Prop & Casualty Co., No. 20-cv-01406 (D.D.C. May 27,
2020); Menns Inc. v. Erie Ins. Ex., No. 20-cv-2875 (N.D. Ill. May
14, 2020); Geneva Foreign & Sports, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.,
No. 1:20-cv-00093 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2020); PGB Restaurant, Inc. v.
Erie Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00371 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 19, 2020); Joseph
Tambellini, Inc. v. Erie Ins. Exchange (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Apr. 17,
2020);
Kite & Key Gastro Pub, Inc. v. Utica First Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-04264 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2020); 1800 Farragut Inc. v. Utica
First Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03449 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2020); Colby
Restaurant Group., Inc. v. Utica Nat'l Ins. Group, No. 20-cv-05927
(D.N.J. May 15, 2020); Slate Hill Daycare Center Inc. v. Utica
Nat'l Ins. Group, No. 20-cv-03565 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020);
R&J Entertainment LLC v. HCC Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06035
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2020);
Nari Suda LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01476 (D. Or.
Aug. 27, 2020); Baker v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05467
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020); Nue Seattle v. Oregon Mut. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-01449 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2020);
Last Resort- Mobile LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-03519 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 25, 2020); SphinxIIIHouston, LLC v.
Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02834 (S.D. Tex. Aug.
13, 2020); Disole LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-22747 (S.D. Fla. July 2, 2020); The K's Inc. v. Westchester
Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01724 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 22, 2010);
Deer Mountain Inn LLC v. Union Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00984 (N.D.N.Y.
Aug. 24, 2020);
ADL Fitness, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05908 (N.D. Cal.
Aug. 21, 2020); Fountain Enterprises, LLC v. Markel Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-03689 (N.D. Ill. June 24, 2020);
Skillets, LLC v. Colony Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00678 (E.D. Va. Aug.
27, 2020);
Boscov's Department Store, Inc. v. Am. Guarantee and Liability Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-03672 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2020);
JAJ Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01620 (S.D.
Cal. Aug. 20, 2020); Melcorp, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-04839 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2020);
NBS Fitness LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-04059
(E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2020); Auburn Racquet Club, Inc. v. Philadelphia
Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02666 (E.D. Pa. June 8, 2020); Jabz
Chandler II LLC v. Philadelphia Ins. Cos., No. 20-cv-02341 (E.D.
Pa. May 19, 2020); Crossroads Investments, LLC v. Philadelphia
Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02329 (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2020);
Marshall v. Safety Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-11543 (D. Mass. Aug. 17,
2020);
University of Saint Thomas v. Am. Home Assurance Co., No.
20-cv-02809 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2020);
Jagow v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01205 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 10,
2020); Lillis v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02368 (D. Kan. July
29, 2020); Richard Kirsch, DDS v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-11930 (E.D. Mich. July 16, 2020); Karla Aylen, DDS PLLC v.
Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00717 (W.D. Wash. May 13, 2020);
Marler v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00616 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 22,
2020); Mikkelson v. Aspen Am. Ins. Co., No. 3:20-cv-05378 (W.D.
Wash. Apr. 20, 2020); Christie Jo Berkseth-Rojas v. Aspen Am. Ins.
Co., No. 3:20-cv-00948 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2020);
Scott Craven DDS PC v. Cameron Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20CY-CV06381
(Mo. Circ. Ct. Aug. 5, 2020);
Notice of removal filed in the Western District of Missouri: No.
20-cv-00715 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 8, 2020);
Graspa Consulting, Inc. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-23245
(S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2020);
La Cocina de Oaxaca LLC v. Tri-State Ins. Co. of Minnesota, No.
20-cv-01176 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2020);
Dill v. Continental Western Group, LLC, No. 20-cv-01015 (E.D. Mo.
July 31, 2020);
Select Hospitality, LLC v. Strathmore Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-11414 (D.
Mass. July 27, 2020);
Ceres Enterprises, LLC v. Travelers Ins. Co., No. CV 20 935219
(Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. July 27, 2020); Typewritorium Co. v. Travelers
Companies, Inc., No. 20-cv-04816 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2020);
Riverwalk Seafood Grill Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am.,
No. 20-cv-03768 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2020); Poughkeepsie Waterfront
Development, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-04890
(S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2020); WM Bang LLC v. Travelers Casualty Ins.
Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-04540 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2020); Bath v.
Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-00774 (W.D. Wash. May
22, 2020); Servedio v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No.
20-cv-03907 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020); Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers
Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-03213 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2020);
Real Hospitality, LLC v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No.
20-cv-00087 (S.D. Miss. May 8, 2020); J.G. Optical, Inc. v.
Travelers Cos., Inc., No. 20-cv-05744 (D.N.J. May 8, 2020); Fox v.
Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-0059 (W.D. Wash. Apr.
21, 2020); Nguyen v. Travelers Casualty Ins. Co. of Am., No.
20-cv-00597 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2020);
Beulahland, Ltd. v. Truck Ins. Exchange, No. 20-cv-06626 (C.D. Cal.
July 24, 2020);
Sullivan County Fabrication, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America,
No. 20-cv-05750 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020); Quakerbridge Early
Learning LLC v. Selective Ins. Company of New England, No.
20-cv-07798 (D.N.J. June 25, 2020); In The Park Savoy Caterers LLC
v. Selective Ins. Grp., No. 20-cv-06869 (D.N.J. June 4, 2020);
Jul-Bur Associates Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, No.
20-cv-01977 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 21. 2020);
Rockhurst University v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00581
(W.D. Mo. July 23, 2020);
Planet Sub Holdings, Inc. v. State Auto Property & Casualty Co.,
No. 20-cv-00577 (W.D. Mo. July 22, 2020); Big Tomato LLC v. State
Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00086 (S.D. Miss. May
8, 2020); Young Blood Coffee Roasters, LLC v. State Auto Property &
Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01076 (D. Minn. May 4, 2020);
Actors Playhouse Productions, Inc. v. SCOR SE, No. 20-cv-22981
(S.D. Fla. July 20, 2020);
Bradley Hotel Corp. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-04249
(N.D. Ill. July 20, 2020);
Eric Debella Inc. v. Ace Fire Underwriters Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-03439 (E.D. Pa. July 14, 2020);
Boxed Foods Company, LLC v. California Capital Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-04571 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2020);
Chattanooga Professional Baseball LLC v. National Casualty Co., No.
20-cv-01312 (D. Ariz. July 2, 2020);
Nora's Style Salon Inc. v. Farmer's Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-22751
(S.D. Fla. July 2, 2020); Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmer's
Group Inc., No. 20-cv-00907 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2020); Kingray Inc.
v. Farmer's Group Inc., No. 20-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal. May 4, 2020);
Circus Circus LV, LP v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01240 (D.
Nev. July 2, 2020);
Guzman Picot v. Mapfre Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-11261 (D. Mass. July 1,
2020);
Flower Sisters LLC v. Great American Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-01294
(C.D. Cal. June 26, 2020);
Creative Restaurants, Inc. v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-02452 (W.D. Tenn. June 25, 2020);
Monarch Ballroom, LLC v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05493 (C.D.
Cal. June 19, 2020); Aria Dental Group, LLC v. Farmers Ins.
Exchange, No. 20-cv-00068 (M.D. Ga. June 15, 2020);
Unmasked Management, LLC v. Century-National Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-01129 (S.D. Cal. June 19, 2020);
Daij, Inc. v. Wesco Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02739 (E.D.N.Y. June 19,
2020);
Bluegrass, LLC v. State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00414
(D.W.V. June 18, 2020); Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc., v. State
Automobile Mutual Ins. Co., No. CV 20 932117 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl.
Apr. 26, 2020);
Kennard Law, P.C. v. CNA Financial Corp., No. 202036565-7 (Tex.
Dist. Ct. June 18, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed: No. 20-cv-02534 (S.D. Tex. July 17,
2020);
Michael Cetta, Inc. v. Admiral Indemnity Co., No. 20-cv-04612
(S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2020); LH Dining LLC v. Admiral Indemnity Co.,
No. 20-cv-01869 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2020);
Plan Check Downtown III, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-06954
(C.D. Cal. June 16, 2020); LJ New Haven LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co.,
No. 20-cv-00751 (D. Conn. June 1, 2020);
Susan Spath Hegedus, Inc. v. Chubb Ltd., No. 20-cv-02832 (E.D. Pa.
June 15, 2020); Beniak Enterprises, Inc. v. Chubb Ltd., No.
20-cv-05536 (D.N.J. May 5, 2020); Truhaven Enters. Inc. v. Chubb
Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-04586 (D.N.J. Apr. 20, 2020); Café Int'l Holding
Co. LLC v. Chubb Ltd., No. 1-20-cv-21641 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20,
2020);
Monday Restaurants LLC v. Intrepid Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00767 (E.D.
Mo. June 12, 2020);
The Gardener v. Ohio Security Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03799 (N.D. Cal.
June 9, 2020); Hirbox H. Rowshan DDS, P.S. v. Ohio Security Ins.
Co., No. 20-cv-00730 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2020);
Byberry Services & Solutions, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. (N.D. Ill.
June 8, 2020);
1 S.A.N.T., Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., No. 20-cv-00862 (W.D.
Pa. June 11, 2020);
Jae Y. Hong, PLLC v. Transportation Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-05556 (W.D.
Wash. June 9, 2020); O'Brien Sales & Marketing, Inc. v.
Transportation Ins. Co., No. 4:20-cv-02951 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,
2020);
Hong v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00891 (W.D. Wash. June 9,
2020); Noskenda Inc. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00854
(W.D. Wash. June 4, 2020); McCulloch v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00809 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2020); JDL Inc. v. Valley Forge
Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-02681 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 2020);
Sweetwater Grill LLC v. Grange Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00853 (W.D. Pa.
June 8, 2020);
Water Sports Kauai, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-03750 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2020);
Caterer's In the Park LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins., No. 20-cv-06867
(D.N.J. June 4, 2020); Starjem Restaurant Corp. v. Liberty Mut.
Ins., No. 20-cv-03672 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2020); Biltrite Furniture,
Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., No. 20-cv-656 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 24, 2020);
Torre Rossa LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins., No. CV-20-931885 (Ohio Ct.
Com. Pl. Apr. 15, 2020);
Till Metro Entertainment v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00255 (N.D. Okla. June 4, 2020);
Chief of Staff LLC v. Hiscox Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03169 (N.D. Ill.
May 29, 2020);
Crunch Logistics Inc. v. Donegal Ins. Grp., No. 20-cv-02525 (E.D.
Pa. May 28, 2020);
Sunsations Tanning Salon, LLC v. Atain Specialty Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-02510 (E.D. Pa. May 28, 2020);
Captain Skrip's Office LLC v. Conifer Holdings, Inc., No.
20-cv-11291 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2020);
RPR Enterprises, Inc. v. Continental Western Group, LLC, No.
20-cv-02256 (D. Kan. May 22, 2020);
Club 31 Sports Bar & Lounge, LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty
Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00397 (W.D. Mo. May 18, 2020);
Gammon & Associates Inc. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No.
20-cv-03882 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2020);
Broadway 104, LLC v. AXA Financial, Inc., No. 20-cv-03813 (S.D.N.Y.
May 15, 2020);
Ital Uomo of N.Y., Inc. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co., No.
20-cv-02209 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2020);
Holloman v. Bankers Ins. Group, Inc., No. 20-002399-CI (Fla. Cir.
Ct. May 15, 2020);
Cascadia Dental Specialists, Inc. v. Am. Fire and Caus. Co., No.
20-cv-00732 (W.D. Wash. May 14, 2020);
Deoleo v. U.S. Liability Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-02301 (E.D. Pa. May
14, 2020);
Sero, Inc. v. Berkley North Pacific Grp., LLC, No. 20-cv-00776 (D.
Ore. May 13, 2020);
Blue Springs Dental Care LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-383
(W.D. Mo. May 13, 2020);
Raven and the Bow LLC v. First Mercury Ins., No. 20-cv-03264 (N.D.
Cal. May 13, 2020);
Kahn v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00781 (M.D. Pa. May
12, 2020);
Paradigm Care & Enrichment Center, LLC v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co.,
20-cv-00720 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2020);
Carlos O. Caballero DDS, MS, PS v. Mass. Bay Ins., No. 20-cv-05437
(W.D. Wash. May 8, 2020);
Drama Camp Productions, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00266 (S.D. Ala. May 8, 2020);
Image Dental, LLC v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., No. 20-cv-02759
(N.D. Ill. May 6, 2020);
The Hair Place v. IMT Insurance Company, No. 20-cv-01102 (D. Minn.
May 06, 2020);
Coates v. Foremost Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00383 (W.D. Mich. May 4,
2020);
GV KB Store LLC v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-21815 (S.D.
Fla. May 1, 2020);
Germack v. Dentists Ins. Co., No. 2:20-cv-00661 (W.D. Wash. Apr.
30, 2020);
Alliance Radiology, P.A. v. CAN Financial Corp., No. 20-cv-02218
(D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2020);
N&S Restaurant, LLC v. Cumberland Mutual Fire Ins. Co., No.
1:20-cv-05289 (D.N.J. Apr. 29, 2020);
Camp 1382 LLC v. Lancer Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-03336 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
29, 2020);
Atma Beauty, Inc. v. HDI Global Specialty SE, Docket no.
1:20-cv-21745 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2020);
Zwillo V, Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-339 (W.D. Mo. Apr.
27, 2020);
Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. CV 20 932122 (Ohio
Ct. Com. Pl. Apr. 27, 2020);
Notice of Removal filed on June 1, 2020 - No. 20-cv-01204 (N.D.
Ohio June 1, 2020);
Egg Works Holding Co., LLC v. Acuity, No. 2_20-cv-00748 (D. Nev.
Apr. 25, 2020);
Egg and I, LLC v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00747 (D. Nev.
Apr. 24, 2020);
Windber Hospital v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of Am., No.
20-cv-00080 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2020);
Pacific Endodontics, P.S. v. The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co., No.
20-cv-00620 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 23, 2020);
Stan's Bar-B-Q LLC v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00613
(W.D. Wash. Apr. 22, 2020);
In re COVID-19 Business Interruption Protection Insurance
Litigation, No. 2942 (U.S.J.P.M.L. Apr. 20, 2020);
Dakota Ventures, LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3-20-cv-00630 (D.
Or. Apr. 17, 2020);
Bridal Expressions LLC v. Owners Ins. Co., No. 1:20-cv-00833 (N.D.
Ohio Apr. 17, 2020);
Privacy and Cybersecurity
Companies are facing privacy and cybersecurity claims by employers
and consumers based on the collection, use, and disclosure of
personal information and the unauthorized access by third parties
in data security incidents. Cases filed to date include:
Acker v. Protech Solutions, Inc., No. 60CV-20-3858 (Ark. Circ. Ct.
July 14, 2020): asserts claims of negligence and invasion of
privacy for alleged failure to protect personally identifiable
information of unemployment applicants.
Notice of removal filed on July 21: No. 20-cv-00852 (E.D. Ark. July
14, 2020);
Karns v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 20-cv-04952 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
24, 2020); Julius v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 20-cv-00542 (S.D.
Ill. June 8, 2020); Neal v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No.
20-cv-04362 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2020); Alexander v. Deloitte
Consulting LLP, No. 20-cv-04129 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2020); Burns v.
Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 20-cv-04077 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020);
Culbertson v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, No. 20-cv-03962 (S.D.N.Y.
May 21, 2020): assert claims of violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, negligence, breach of implied contract, and invasion
of privacy for alleged failure to protect personally identifiable
information of unemployment applicants;
Iyer v. TikTok, Inc., No. 20-cv-05217 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2020):
asserts consumer protection and privacy claims for alleged storage
and disclosure of personal user data;
St. Paulus Lutheran Church v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No.
20-cv-03252 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2020); Kirpekar v. Zoom Video
Comms., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03042 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2020); Buxbaum v.
Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02939 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29,
2020); Simins v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02893 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 27, 2020); Greenbaum v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No.
5:20-cv-02861 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2020); Henry v. Zoom Video
Comms., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02691 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020); Jimenez
v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-02591 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14,
2020); Hurvitz v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 2:20-cv-03400 (C.D.
Cal. Apr. 13, 2020); Kondrat v. Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No.
5:20-cv-02520 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020); Ohlweiler v. Zoom Video
Comms., Inc., No. 20-cv-03281 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2020); Cullen v.
Zoom Video Comms., Inc., No. 20-cv-02155 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2020):
assert claims for consumer privacy, consumer fraud, negligence,
invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment based on the collection,
misuse, and disclosure to third parties (including Facebook) of
user information;
Sweeney v. Life of Air, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-00742 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17,
2020): asserts claims of negligence, consumer privacy, and breach
of contract for collection and disclosure of personal information
through the social networking app Houseparty.
Product Pricing, Marketing, Labeling & Performance
Manufacturers and sellers of products with medical, sanitation, and
hygiene applications are facing class action claims related to the
pricing, marketing, labeling and performance of their products
based on advertising and consumer protection laws. Cases filed to
date include:
Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, No. 20-cv-06085 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.
14, 2020): asserts false advertising and consumer protection claims
based on alleged representations concerning antiviral properties of
teeth whitening system.
Apaliski v. Molekule, Inc., No. 20-cv-01548 (D. Del. Nov. 17,
2020): asserts warranty and consumer protection claims based on
alleged representations concerning effectiveness of air purifier
against coronavirus;
Garbus v. UV Sanitizer USA LLC, No. 20-cv-05358 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4,
2020): asserts false advertising and consumer protection claims
based on alleged representations concerning effectiveness of UV
light sanitizer;
Sheridan v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. CAM-L-003586-20 ( N.J.
Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2020): asserts consumer protection and fraud
claims based on alleged failure to timely process and report
COVID-19 test results
Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, No. 20-cv-00801 (Ind.
Super. Ct. Sept. 22, 2020); Pepe v. 4e Brands North America, LLC,
No. 20-cv-06494 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2020): asserts warranty and
consumer protection claims based on alleged failure to disclose
presence of toxic ingredients in hand sanitizer products;
Lona's Lil Eats, LLC v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 20-cv-06703 (N.D. Cal.
Sept. 24, 2020): asserts false advertising and unfair competition
claims based on allegedly identifying non-participant restaurants
as closed to steer away customers;
Gudgel v. Clorox Co., No. 20-cv-05712 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2020):
asserts consumer protection and negligent misrepresentation claims
based on alleged false and deceptive advertising regarding Clorox
bleach products;
People of the State of New York v. Hillandale Farms Corp., No.
451650/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 11, 2020): asserts consumer
protection claims based on alleged gouging of egg prices during the
pandemic;
Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., No. 20-cv-01486 (S.D. Cal.
July 31, 2020): asserts warranty and consumer protection claims
based on alleged false advertising regarding Wet Ones hand wipes;
Eliades v. Grubhub Inc., No. 20-cv-05134 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2020):
asserts claims under the Sherman Act for alleged antitrust
violations and anticompetitive acts by food delivery companies;
Crena v. Navitelia Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-22744 (S.D. Fla.
July 2, 2020): asserts claims under Telephone Consumer Protection
Act for alleged unsolicited automated messages used to market the
company's protective equipment products;
Golditch v. Alphabet, Inc., No. 20-cv-11142 (D. Mass. June 16,
2020): asserts consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims
regarding alleged false advertising regarding cleaning products;
Lagorio v. GermBloc, Inc., No. 20-cv-11074 (D. Mass. June 5, 2020):
asserts consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims regarding
alleged false advertising regarding hand sanitizer products;
Redmond v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., No. 20-cv-03692 (N.D. Cal.
June 3, 2020): asserts consumer protection claims for alleged price
gouging of essential items during the pandemic;
Lagorio v. Staples, Inc., No. 20-cv-11015 (D. Mass. May 28, 2020):
asserts consumer protection claims for alleged false advertising
regarding hand sanitizer products;
Mier v. CVS Health, No. 30-2020-0114024 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 26,
2020): asserts consumer protection and misrepresentation claims for
alleged false advertising regarding hand sanitizer products;
Notice of Removal filed on October 13, 2020: No. 20-cv-01979 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 13, 2020);
Yeomans v. Walgreen Co., No. 30-2020-01141042 (Cal. Super. Ct. May
26, 2020): asserts consumer protection and misrepresentation claims
for alleged false advertising regarding hand sanitizer products;
CO Craft, LLC v. Grubhub, Inc., No. 20-cv-01327 (D. Colo. May 11,
2020): alleging that Grubhub uses a false advertising campaign to
convince customers that their competitors' restaurants are closed;
Miclaus v. Invention Submission Corp., No. 20-cv-00681 (W.D. Pa.
May 7, 2020): challenging the company's alleged use of deceptive
and fraudulent marketing to promote products during the pandemic;
Mercado v. eBay, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03053 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2020):
asserts consumer protection and quasi-contract claims based on
alleged price gouging of personal protective equipment and personal
hygiene products;
McQueen v. Amazon.com, No. 20-cv-02782 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020);
Armas v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 104631782 (Cir. Ct. Fla. Mar. 10,
2020): assert claim for consumer fraud based on alleged price
gouging of essential consumer products;
Bell v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00461 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
30, 2020); Fraser v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 20-cv-02733 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 20, 2020): asserts consumer protection claims for alleged
price gouging of essential groceries;
Taslakian v. Target Co., 2:20-cv-2667 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020):
asserts claims for false advertising, consumer fraud, and
misrepresentation based on claims about benefits of hand
sanitizers;
Miller v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 4:20-cv-562 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 13,
2020); Jurkiewicz v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 5:20-cv-279 (N.D. Ohio
Feb. 9, 2020); Gonzalez v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No. 1:20-cv-888
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2020); Marinovich v. Gojo Indus., Inc., No.
3:20-cv-747 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020); Aleisa v. Gojo Indus., Inc.,
No. 2:20-cv-1045 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020): assert claims for false
advertising, consumer fraud, and misrepresentation based on claims
about benefits of hand sanitizers;
David v. Vi-Jon, Inc. dba Germ-X, No. 3:20-cv-00424 (S.D. Cal. Mar.
5, 2020): asserts claims for false advertising, consumer fraud, and
misrepresentation based on claims about benefits of hand
sanitizers.
Shareholder and Securities Litigation
Public companies face class action claims by shareholders
concerning statements and omissions concerning the impact of
COVID-19 on their operations and performance. Cases filed to date
include:
Alperstein v. Sona Nanotech Inc., No. 20-cv-11405 (C.D. Cal. Dec.
17, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on alleged
false and misleading statements regarding COVID-19 antigen test
development.
Baig v. K12 Inc., No. 20-cv-01528 (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2020); Lee v.
K12 Inc., No. 20-cv-01419 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 2020): asserts federal
securities law claims based on alleged false and misleading
statements regarding technological capacity to meet increased
remote learning demand;
Altomare v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 20-cv-24407 (S.D.
Fla. Oct. 27, 2020); City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System, No. 20-cv-24111 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2020):
asserts federal securities law claims based on alleged false and
misleading statements regarding implemented policies and procedures
to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on cruise ships.
Hovhannisyan v. Vaxart, Inc., No. 20-cv-06175 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1,
2020); Himmelberg v. Vaxart, Inc., No. 20-cv-05949 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
24, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on alleged
false and misleading statements regarding development of a COVID-19
vaccine;
McAdams v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 20-cv-06861 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26,
2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on alleged false
and misleading statements regarding production of ingredients for
COVID-19 drugs;
Zhang v. Staar Surgical Co., No. 20-cv-01660 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1,
2020); Alwazzan v. Staar Surgical Co., No. 20-cv-01533 (C.D. Cal.
Aug. 19, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on
alleged false and misleading statements regarding sales in China
and financial performance during the pandemic;
Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-03753 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020); Bailey v. Chembio
Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-cv-02961 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2020); Gowen
v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-cv-02758 (E.D.N.Y. June 22,
2020); Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-cv-02706
(E.D.N.Y. June 18, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims
based on allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the
development of an antibody to counteract COVID-19;
Palacios v. United States Oil Fund, LP, No. 20-cv-06442 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 13, 2020); Ephrati v. United States Oil Fund, LP, No.
20-cv-06010 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2020); Lucas v. United States Oil
Fund, L.P., No. 20-cv-04740 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2020): asserts
federal securities law claims based on alleged failure to disclose
risks of investing in oil futures during the pandemic;
Di Scala v. Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil, No. 20-cv-05865
(S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims
based on alleged failure to disclose risks of investing in oil
shares during the pandemic;
Retirement Program for Employees of the Town of Fairfield v.
Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC, No. 20-cv-05817 (S.D.N.Y. July
27, 2020): asserts tort and contract claims based on hedge fund's
alleged inability to protect investors from significant financial
losses caused by the pandemic;
Atachbarian v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-23011 (S.D. Fla. July 21,
2020); Elmensdorp v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-22319 (S.D. Fla.
June 3, 2020); Service Lamp Corp. Profit Sharing Plan v. Carnival
Corp., No. 20-cv-22202 (S.D. Fla. May 27, 2020): asserts federal
securities law claims based on allegedly false and misleading
statements relating to the business's health and safety protocols
and the company's role in exacerbating the transmission of the
virus;
Hartel v. The Geo Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-81063 (S.D. Fla. July 7,
2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding private prison network's
ability to comply with safety procedures during COVID-19;
Hernandez v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-cv-00481 (D. Utah July 2,
2020); Gelt Trading, Ltd. v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc., No. 20-cv-00368
(D. Utah June 15, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims
based on alleged false and misleading statements regarding
development and production of a COVID-19 diagnostic test;
Leonard v. SCWorx Corp., No. 20-cv-04777 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020);
Leeburn v. SCWorx Corp., No. 20-cv-04072 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2020);
Yannes v. SCWorx Corp., No. 1:20-cv-03349 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2020):
asserts federal securities law claims based on allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the production and sale of COVID-19
tests;
Calvo v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-cv-1066 (S.D. Cal.
June 11, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the development
of an antibody to counteract COVID-19;
Arbitrage Fund v. Forescout Technologies, Inc., No. 20-cv-03819
(N.D. Cal. June 10, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims
based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to the
company's financial well-being and their compliance with a merger
agreement during the pandemic;
Lombard v. Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 20-cv-00769 (D. Del.
June 8, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on
allegedly false and misleading statements related to the financial
well-being of the company and the merits of a proposed merger
agreement;
Ma v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 20-cv-03697 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020):
asserts federal securities law claims based on allegedly false and
misleading statements relating to the bank's participation in and
administration of the PPP program;
McCann v. Hill, No. 20-cv-06435 (D.N.J. May 27, 2020): asserts
claims under ERISA against plan administrator of ERISA plan based
on decline in value of plan assets;
Wasa Medical Holdings v. Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., No.
20-cv-00966 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2020): asserts federal securities
law claims based on allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the development of an antibody treatment for COVID-19;
Hunter v. Elanco Animal Health Inc., No. 20-cv-01460 (S.D. Ind. May
20, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on allegedly
false and misleading statements that minimized the effect of the
pandemic on the company's financial performance;
Banuelos v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 20-cv-21685 (S.D. Fla. Apr.
22, 2020); Atachbarian v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 1:20-cv-21386
(S.D. Fla. Mar 31, 2020); Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No.
20-cv-21107 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2020): assert federal securities
law claims based on allegedly false and misleading statements that
minimized the health crisis and its impact on the company's
business;
Cedeno v. iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc., No. 20-cv-03513 (S.D.N.Y.
May 5, 2020); Finch v. iAnthus Capital Holdings Inc., No.
1:20-cv-03135 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020); Riback v. iAnthus Capital
Holdings Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03044 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2020): asserts
federal securities law claims based on a company alleged use of the
COVID-19 crisis to improperly avoid making interest payments on its
loans;
Brams v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-02396 (N.D.
Cal. Apr 8, 2020); Drieu v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No.
3:20-cv-02353 (N.D. Cal. Apr 7, 2020): assert federal securities
law claims based on Zoom's allegedly inadequate security and
privacy measures, which were exposed by Zoom's increased use during
the pandemic;
McDermid v. Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 20-cv-01402 (E.D. Pa.
Mar. 12, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on
allegedly false and misleading statements about the development of
a COVID-19 vaccine;
Douglas v. Norwegian Cruise Lines, No. 20-cv-21107 (S.D. Fla. Mar.
12, 2020): asserts federal securities law claims based on allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding business operations and
projected performance of the company;
Transmission and Exacerbation of COVID-19
Plaintiffs have filed class actions alleging that businesses
negligently promoted the spread of COVID-19 or hid information
about the risks of COVID-19 transmission or complications. Cases
filed to date include:
Ornelas v. Central Valley Meat Co., No. 20-cv-01017 (E.D. Cal. July
22, 2020): asserts tort and statutory claims based on alleged
failure to implement proper safety protocols at defendant's
facilities;
Ford v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-06226 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2020);
O'Neill v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-06218 (C.D. Cal. July 13,
2020); Lindsay v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-00982 (W.D. Wash. June
24, 2020); Chung v. Carnival Corp., No. 20-cv-04954 (C.D. Cal. June
4, 2020); Archer v. Carnival Corporation, et al., No. 20-cv-02381
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020): asserts claims including negligence and
gross negligence based on an outbreak of COVID-10 on the Diamond
Princess cruise ship and other Carnival cruise ships;
Eicher v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., No. 20-cv-04958 (C.D. Cal.
June 4, 2020); Heinzer v. Princess Cruise Lines, Ltd., No.
20-cv-04959 (C.D. Cal. June 4, 2020): asserts negligence and
infliction of emotional distress claims for failure to protect
passengers from transmission of COVID-19;
Schoengood v. Hofgur LLC, No. 20-cv-02022 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2020):
alleging failure of a senior care facility to take adequate
measures to protects its elderly and disabled residents;
Molchun v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., No. 1_20-cv-21792 (S.D.
Fla. Apr. 30, 2020): asserts admiralty and negligence claims for
alleged failure to protect crew members of cruise from exposure to
COVID-19;
Kantrow v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., No. 20-cv-21997 (S.D. Fla. May
13, 2020); Nedeltcheva v. Celebrity Cruises Inc., No. 20-cv-21569
(S.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2020): asserts claims of negligence for alleged
failure to protect crew members of cruise from exposure to
COVID-19;
In re: Juul Labs, Inc. Marketing, Sales Practices & Products
Liability Litigation, 19-md-2913 (Apr. 10, 2020): amends complaint
to assert claims based on allegations that vaping product users are
at greater risk of complications from COVID-19;
Turner v. Costa Crociere SPA, No. 20-cv-21481 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7,
2020): asserts claims including negligence and negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress related to cruise
line's decision to embark on cruise despite allegedly knowing a
passenger was showing symptoms of COVID-19.
Website, Digital, and Physical Accessibility
Companies are likely to face Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
and other claims based on the ability of consumers with
disabilities to access brick-and-mortar establishments governed by
new health and safety standards and to understand their websites,
mobile applications, and electronic platforms, especially as goods
and services that were previously available at brick-and-mortar
sites move to the internet.
Suris v. WUSA-TV, No. 20-cv-06284 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2020): asserts
claims under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure
to design application to be accessible to the hearing impaired;
Kane v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc., No. 20-cv-06136 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 18, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York Human Rights
Laws for alleged failure to design application to be accessible to
the visually impaired;
Graciano v. Am. Well Corp., No. 20-cv-10515 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11,
2020); Graciano v. New Chapter, Inc., No. 20-cv-10517 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 11, 2020); Graciano v. Gurunanda, LLC, No. 20-cv-09049
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2020); Graciano v. Abebooks USA, Inc., No.
20-cv-08761 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2020); Graciano v. RJ Brands, LLC,
No. 20-cv-09051 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2020); Graciano v. West Marine
Products, Inc., No. 20-cv-07870 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2020); Graciano
v. Reverb.com LLC, No. 20-cv-07813 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020);
Graciano v. Roomstogo.com, Inc., No. 20-cv-07811 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
22, 2020); Graciano v. Houzz Inc., No. 20-cv-07808 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
22, 2020); Graciano v. Music123, Inc., No. 20-cv-07620 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 17, 2020); Graciano v. Musician's Friend, Inc., No.
20-cv-07541 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); Graciano v. Brownell, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-07540 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020); Graciano v. Belami,
Inc., No. 20-cv-07359 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2020): asserts claims
under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to
design website to be accessible to the visually impaired;
Bishop v. Burke's Outlet Stores, LLC, No. 20-cv-10640 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 16, 2020); Bishop v. Encompass Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-10639 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2020); Bishop v. 6S, Inc., No.
20-cv-10604 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2020); Bishop v. CWI, Inc., No.
20-cv-10603 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2020); Bishop v. Nutrawise Corp.,
No. 20-cv-09138 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2020); Bishop v. Strivectin
Operating Co., Inc., No. 20-cv-09140 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2020);
Bishop v. Zwilling J.A. Henckels, LLC, No. 20-cv-08863 (S.D.N.Y.
Oct. 22, 2020); Bishop v. Automated Pet Care Products, LLC, No.
20-cv-08862 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2020); Bishop v.Teladoc Health,
Inc., No. 20-cv-08763 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2020); Bishop v. Valor
Group LLC, No. 20-cv-08762 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2020): asserts claims
under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to
design website to be accessible to the visually impaired;
Brooks v. Arden Fair Assoc., L.P., No. 20-cv-02463 (E.D. Cal. Dec.
11, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and UNRUH Civil Rights Act for
alleged failure to design website to be accessible to the visually
impaired;
Tucker v. Feeders Supply Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-10393 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
9, 2020); Tucker v. Figo Pet Ins., LLC, No. 20-cv-10394 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 9, 2020); Tucker v. Prudent Pet Ins. Agency, LLC, No.
20-cv-10304 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and
New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to
be accessible to the visually impaired;
Burbon v. Epion Brands, LLC, No. 20-cv-05438 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9,
2020); Burbon v. Creative Consumer Products, Inc., No. 20-cv-05930
(E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020); Burbon v. Donna Karan Co. Store LLC, No.
20-cv-05659 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2020); Burbon v. Epson America, No.
20-cv-05437 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2020); Burbon v. Patriot Health,
Inc., No. 20-cv-05183 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2020): asserts claims
under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to
design website to be accessible to the visually impaired;
Fischler v. Fantasy Sports Shark, LLC, No. 20-cv-06203 (E.D.N.Y.
Dec. 22, 2020); Fischler v. Teltech Sys., Inc., No. 20-cv-10693
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2020); Fischler v. Nutraceutical Wellness, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-08817 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2020); Fischler v. Numen Fashion
LLC, No. 20-cv-03893 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020); Fischler v. Batsheva
Hay LLC, No. 20-cv-06592 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2020); Fischler v.
Happy Dots & Stripes, Inc., No. 20-cv-03472 (E.D.N.Y. July 31,
2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for
alleged failure to design website to be accessible to the visually
impaired;
Nisbett v. Paigelauren Enter. LLC, No. 20-cv-10569 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
15, 2020); Nisbett v. Credible Labs Inc., No. 20-cv-10073 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 1, 2020); Nisbett v. Bentley Brands, Inc., No. 20cv-08039
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2020); Nisbett v. Peel Accessories, LLC, No.
20-cv-07796 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and
New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to
be accessible to the visually impaired;
Calcano v. Bernardo Fashions LLC, No. 20-cv-09825 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
20, 2020); Calcano v. Posh Bow Peep, LLC, No. 20-cv-09824 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 20, 2020); Calcano v. Brilliant Shops LLC, No. 20-cv-09826
(Nov. 20, 2020); Calcano v. Andy & Evan Industries, Inc., No.
20-cv-09727 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020); Calcano v. Chaser LLC, No.
20-cv-09726 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020); Calcano v. Group III Int'l,
Inc., No. 20-cv-09728 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020); Calcano v.
Valrhona, Inc., No. 20-cv-09540 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020); Calcano
v. Minted, LLC, No. 20-cv-09541 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020); Calcano
v. Northeast Factory Furniture, Inc., No. 20-cv-07557 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 15, 2020); Calcano v. American Retail Corp., No. 20-cv-07565
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2020); Calcano v. Apfelbaum Philatelists, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-06875 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2020); Calcano v. Sunburst
Shutters Holdings, LLC, No. 20-cv-06553 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020);
Calcano v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc., No. 20-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.
17, 2020); Calcano v. Zorlu Manufacturing Co., LLC, No. 20-cv-06499
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2020); Calcano v. Everfast, Inc., No.
20-cv-06498 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2020); Calcano v. Aptdeco, Inc., No.
20-cv-06497 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and
New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to
be accessible to the visually impaired;
Thorne v. Balsam Brands, Inc., No. 20-cv-09473 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 11,
2020); Thorne v. Argon Techs., Inc., No. 20-cv-09442 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.
10, 2020); Thorne v. Occasions Group, Inc., 20-cv-09441 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 10, 2020); Thorne v. W. Paw, Inc., No. 20-cv-09440 (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 10, 2020); Thorne v. Honest Company, Inc., No. 20-cv-09308
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2020) : asserts claims under ADA and New York
Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to be
accessible to the visually impaired;
Hedges v. Gardner-Webb University, No. 20-cv-08717 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
19, 2020); Hedges v. Mayes Education, Inc., No. 20-cv-08583
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2020); Hedges v. Fresno Pacific University, No.
20-cv-08582 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2020); Hedges v. City University of
Seattle, No. 20-cv-08500 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2020); Hedges v. Aspen
Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-08498 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2020); Hedges v.
William Howard Taft University, No. 20-cv-08454 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9,
2020); Hedges v. Claflin University, No. 20-cv-08443 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.
9, 2020); Hedges v. Maryville University of Saint Louis, No.
20-cv-06326 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020); Hedges v. Limestone
University, No. 20-cv-06324 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2020); Hedges v.
Campbellsville University, Inc., No. 20-cv-06088 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,
2020); Hedges v. Champlain College Inc., No. 20-cv-06079 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug. 4, 2020); Hedges v. Southwestern College, No. 20-cv-06076
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2020); Hedges v. Johnson & Wales University, No.
20-cv-06046 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2020); Hedges v. University of the
Incarnate Word, No. 20-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020); Hedges v.
Bay Path University, No. 20-cv-05910 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020);
Hedges v. Everglades College, Inc., No. 20-cv-05829 (S.D.N.Y. July
27, 2020); Hedges v. University of Phoenix, Inc., No. 20-cv-05833
(S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York
Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to be
accessible to the visually impaired;
Tenzer-Fuchs v. Disney DTC, LLC, No. 20-cv-05386 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 5,
2020);Tenzer-Fuchs v. BA Sports Nutrition, LLC, No. 20-cv-04849
(E.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Dorel U.S.A., Inc., No.
20-cv-04115 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Huffy Corp.,
No. 20-cv-04114 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v.
Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 20-cv-04113 (E.D.N.Y.
Sept. 2, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. SixThreeZero Bicycle Company, LLC,
No. 20-cv-04112 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Franke
Kitchen Systems, LLC, No. 20-cv-04032 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2020);
Tenzer-Fuchs v. Kitchen Kapers, Inc., No. 20-cv-03917 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 24, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc., No.
20-cv-03823 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Dr. Squatch,
Inc., No. 20-cv-03803 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v.
Live Tinted, Inc., No. 20-cv-03742 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 2020);
Tenzer-Fuchs v. SuperMe, LLC, No. 20-cv-03669 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13,
2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Snow Teeth Whitening, LLC, No. 20-cv-03599
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Sleep Number Corp., No.
20-cv-03552 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Colonel
Littleton, Ltd, Inc., No. 20-cv-03150 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020);
Tenzer-Fuchs v. Gordon Brush Mfg. Co., No. 20-cv-03151 (E.D.N.Y.
July 15, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. JWH Holdings, LLC, No. 20-cv-03149
(E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v. Schmidt's Deodorant Co.
LLC, No. 20-cv-03148 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2020); Tenzer-Fuchs v.
Stitch Fix, Inc., No. 20-cv-03076 (E.D.N.Y. July 9, 2020): asserts
claims under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure
to design website to be accessible to the visually impaired;
Delacruz v. Sheex, Inc., No. 20-cv-08393 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2020);
Delacruz v. Mailmyprescriptions.com Pharmacy Corp., No. 20-cv-08337
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2020); Delacruz v. Zarbee's Inc., No. 20-cv-08336
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2020); Delacruz v. Pinto Ranch, LP, No.
20-cv-08335 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2020); Delacruz v. Head N' Home Inc.,
No. 20-cv-08277 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2020); Delacruz v. Blink Health
LLC, No. 20-cv-08185 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2020): asserts claims under
ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design
website to be accessible to the visually impaired;
Sosa v. APMEX, Inc., No. 20-cv-07037 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2020); Sosa
v. American Rare Coin & Collectibles, LLC, No. 20-cv-07036
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2020); Sosa v. W.B. Mason, Inc., No. 20-cv-04828
(S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York
Human Rights Laws for alleged failure to design website to be
accessible to the visually impaired;
Young v. Ladder Financial Inc., No. 20-cv-06202 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6,
2020); Young v. Ashford University, LLC, No. 20-cv-05830 (S.D.N.Y.
July 27, 2020); Young v. Mycomputercareer.com, Inc., No.
20-cv-05789 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2020); Young v. Bellevue University,
No. 20-cv-05780 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020); Young v. American Public
University System, Inc., No. 20-cv-05722 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020);
Young v. Drury University, No. 20-cv-05718 (S.D.N.Y. July 23,
2020); Young v. Liberty University, Inc., No. 20-cv-05742 (S.D.N.Y.
July 23, 2020); Young v. Strategic Education, Inc., No. 20-cv-05741
(S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020); Young v. Ride Television Network, Inc.,
No. 20-cv-05544 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2020); Young v. Handy
Technologies, Inc., No. 20-cv-05487 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2020); Young
v. Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp., No. 20-cv-05479 (S.D.N.Y. July 16,
2020); Young v. Volvo Car USA LLC, No. 20-cv-05491 (S.D.N.Y. July
16, 2020); Young v. Empire Today, LLC, No. 20-cv-05426 (S.D.N.Y.
July 14, 2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York Human Rights
Laws for alleged failure to design website to be accessible to the
visually impaired;
Frye v. Gardner, No. 20-cv-00751 (D.N.H. July 7, 2020): asserts
claims under ADA for alleged failure to provide accessible absentee
voting ballots;
Tatum-Rios v. Zappos IP LLC, No. 20-cv-04943 (S.D.N.Y. June 27,
2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for
alleged failure to design website to be accessible to the visually
impaired;
Kapp v. Belk, Inc., No. 20-cv-00578 (M.D.N.C. June 24, 2020):
asserts claims under ADA for alleged failure to provide adequate
access to the website of a brick and mortar department store to the
visually impaired;
McKnight-Nero v. Walmart, Inc., No. 20-cv-01541 (D.D.C. June 11,
2020): asserts claims under D.C. Human Rights Act and ADA for
alleged discrimination in implementing store hours reserved for
elderly and highly susceptible shoppers;
Williams v. Diana USA Corp., No. 20-cv-03967 (S.D.N.Y. May 22,
2020): asserts claims under ADA and New York Human Rights Laws for
alleged failure to design website to be accessible to the visually
impaired;
Drenth v. Boockvar, No. 20-cv-00829 (M.D. Pa. May 21, 2020):
asserts claims under ADA for alleged inadequate accessibility for
blind individuals provided under absentee ballot system;
J.P. ex rel. R.P. v. Educational Testing Services, No. 20-cv-04502
(C.D. Cal. May 19, 2020): asserting claims for damages and
injunctive relief based on alleged inadequate access to Advanced
Placement exams for high school students;
Winegard v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 20-cv-02132 (E.D.N.Y. May 11,
2020): asserting claims under the ADA based on alleged difficulty
in access to products on website for the hard of hearing.
Lewis v. Pritzker, No. 20-cv-02836 (N.D. Ill. May 8, 2020):
asserting claims under the ADA based on alleged discriminatory
enforcement of health conditions exemptions to face mask
requirements; [GN]
[*] Railways in London Sued Over Unfair Ticket Prices
-----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a consumer rights expert urged a specialist
competition tribunal in London on March 9 to allow a 98 million
pounds ($136 million) lawsuit against three train operators accused
of allowing passengers to pay double for their journeys to go ahead
as a class action. The train operators are accused of their market
position. The companies that run the Southeastern and South Western
rail networks overcharged millions of travelers. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***