/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210413.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 13, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 68
Headlines
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
3M COMPANY: Blazio Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Lueder Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Sarconi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Sauer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Schaffer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
ADIDAS AMERICA: Employees Lose Bid to Remand Wage-and-Hour Suit
ADVANTA SEEDS: Farmers Lose Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Seeds
ALISAL UNION: Elementary Students Seek Class Certification
ALKERMES PUBLIC: Midwest Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
ALLSTATE INVESTMENT: Underpays Administrative Assistant, Clark Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends & Beginnings Files Class-Action Suit
AMDOCS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline
AMDOCS LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Grace Suit Wins Final Approval
ARGENTINA: Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights
ARIA PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
ARIZONA: Shin Appeals Ruling in Parsons Prisoner Suit to 9th Cir.
ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Frazier Suit Against DOC
ASHEVILLE, NC: Funds From Class Action to be Donated to Nonprofits
ATHENEX INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breast Cancer Treatment
ATHENEX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Omega Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market
BELLUS HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Lawsuit Pending in Australia
BP CORP: Judge Recommends Class Status for Pension Plan Suit
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Class Settlement Uphold Release of Detainees
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Settlement Reached in Landmark COVID-19 Suit
BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CANOO INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CANOO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Martinez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
CARDINAL HEALTH: Cal. Court Dismisses MEI's 1st Amended Complaint
CAVIAR INC: Case Mgmt. & Pre-trial Order in Tiffin Suit Modified
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Granted Final Approval
CELSION CORP: Spar Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop Underway
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Chef Joins COVID-19 Claims Class Action
CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fogg Suit Alleges
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Court Approves Pepe Class Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Averts Class Action Over AirPod Charger Ads
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing
CYTODYN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway
DMG MORI: Arnold's Bid for Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted
DOLLAR TREE: Facing Zantac-Related Class Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Smoked Almonds Related Class Suit Underway
DOUG CONNOR: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice in Reguena
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar's Bid to Enjoin Arbitration Deal Granted
EBANG INT'L: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Frank R. Cruz Announces Class Action Lawsuit
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
EDWARD D. JONES: Huang's Bid to Enforce Schultz Settlement Denied
EXPEDIA GROUP: Settles False Advertising Class Action With Hotels
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing
FEDEX CORP: No Appeal Filed in Dismissal of New York Class Suit
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Dismissed Securities Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Chapman's Second Amended Suit Narrowed
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Chrome's Incognito Mode
GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Faces Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over Negligence
HALODINE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
HEALTHCARE INFORMATION: Settles Class Action Suit for $2.8 Million
HERTZ CORPORATION: Court Certifies Three Classes in Denicolo Suit
HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC: Votes to Join Class Action Against Airbnb
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Collins Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
IMPERIAL PARKING: Wash. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Alemu Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline
JOHN TILLEY: Casey Rhoades Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
JUUL LABS: School District Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
KATCH INC: Isidro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KDEM EATS: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
KELLOGG CO: Settlement Proposed in Cereals Consumer Class Action
KEVIN KAUFFMAN: Class Certification Sought in Molina Suit
LA CARRETA: June Deadline is Nearing to Join Class Action Lawsuit
LA PURA: Suit Claims Over 'Free Trial' Skin Cream Scam Advance
LEDGER SAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Breach
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline
LEO PHARMA: Faces Phyllis Levitt Suit Over Defective Picato Gel
LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for 'Building Shoddy Homes'
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Fourth Investors Class Action Lawsuit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Opelousas Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Enters Judgment in Lewis Suit v. LSP at Angola
LOUISIANA: Public Defense System Lawsuit Not a Class Action
LOYAL SOURCE: Class Settlement in Ortega FCRA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Facing Anderson Putative Class Suit
MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Class Action
MERRILL LYNCH: Gamma Traders Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
MICHIGAN: Pearson Gets Leave to File Amended Complaint Against MDOC
MONEYGRAM INT'L: The Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 7 Deadline
NAT'L SPINE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Junk Fax Class Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissal of MaxxForce Engine Class Action Affirmed
NEW SCHOOL: Vasquez Sues Over School Employees' Unpaid Wages
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Edwards-Mortley
NEW YORK: Industry Suffers Setback in 421a Class Action Lawsuit
NEW YORK: Jake Pankey Seeks Class Action Certification
ONTARIO: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Lawsuit
OREGON: Agrees to Settle Coronavirus Relief Class Action Lawsuit
ORORA NORTH: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Hirsch Sues Over Corporate Voting Rights
PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 3rd Cir
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Diamond Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Kennedy FLSA Suit
PLAINS ALL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Newman FLSA Suit
PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of May 7 Deadline
PLUG POWER: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
PORCELANA CORONA: Beteselassie Sues Over Defective Toilet Tanks
POST FOODS: Judge Okays $15MM Consumer Class Action Settlement
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Housey Suit Over Deceptive Toothpaste Ads
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: To Explain Failure to Produce Docs in Mantha
RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending
REALREAL INC: N.D. California Dismisses Sanders' Rule 10b-5 Claims
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of May 3 Deadline
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
RIVER CITY BANK: Faces Rodriguez Suit in California State Court
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to S.D. Fla.
ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Challenging Funding
SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Cal. App. Tosses Appeal in Miliate Class Suit
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Question in Pearson Suit Certified to SJC
SERVICE KING: Hearing on Class Status Bid Rescheduled to April 22
SIERRA INCOME: Fee Motion in Anderson Putative Class Suit Tossed
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: '33 Federal Action Settlement Granted Final OK
SOS LIMITED: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Judge OKs Class Action Lawsuit Against Police
T-MOBILE USA: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court
TGM PIZZA: Leiting Files Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses
TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Baez Class Suit
TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Suit Stayed Pending Order on Bid to Dismiss
TRIPLE V HOME: Faces Lymbertos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Background Checks
UNITED AIRLINES: USERRA Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed
UNITED CEREBRAL: Trapani Suit Alleges Improper Payment of Wages
UNITED STATES: Commonwealth Seeks to Stop Bond Class Action
UNITED STATES: Conservation Appraisers Strike Back at IRS With Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Final OKs Over Navy Federal's $16M
UNITED STATES: Marshals Service Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
UNITI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boley to 3rd Cir.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Allows 401k Class Action Suit to Proceed
UTGR INC: Final Approval of Settlement in Ramer Suit Granted
VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for May 26
VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Reese Putative Class Action
VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Putative Class Suit Dismissed
VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
WEBULL FINANCIAL: Williams Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
WEHOCOIFFEUR LLC: Faces Waters Employment Suit in California
WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Tapped to Lead Lawsuit Over Risky Loans
XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
YAZAKI CORP: June 10 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Continue to Rise
[*] Federal Judge Dismisses RESPA Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
[*] Global Corporate Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.8BB
[*] Healthcare Data Privacy, Data Breach Class Action to Rise
*********
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit related to its collection of Annual
Membership Fee.
In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the
Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.
In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other. The Company
is appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and
filed its appellate brief in November 2019.
Appellate proceedings are delayed due to COVID-related court
shutdowns.
An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company and the
plaintiff, and in June 2020, issued a decision that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable against the plaintiff. The Company filed
its challenge to the arbitrator's decision in August 2020.
The trial court upheld the arbitrator's decision, and the appellate
court denied the Company's writ petition for review.
The Company answered the complaint in November 2020, denying the
allegations and asserting various defenses. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any,
that could result from an unfavorable outcome.
Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from the Company's insurance
provider, have been recorded as general and administrative expenses
in the consolidated statements of operations. Additional attorney's
fees in excess of those covered will be expensed as incurred.
1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.
3D SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of the
securities of 3D Systems Corp. (NYSE: DDD), between May 6, 2020 and
March 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for 3D Systems investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the 3D Systems class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper internal controls over financial
reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
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 8,
2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2049.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN 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.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
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]
3M COMPANY: Blazio Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN ANTHONY BLAZIO, 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-00762-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Blazio 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Brown Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LEROY BROWN 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-00759-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Brown 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Cox Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER DALE COX 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-00756-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Cox 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN GREEN 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-00760-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Green 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Harmon Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY EDWARD HARMON 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-00758-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Harmon 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Lueder Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER JOHN LUEDER III 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-00757-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Lueder 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Miller Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD MARK MILLER 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-00761-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Miller 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Sarconi Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH VINCENT SARCONI III 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-00755-RMG (D.S.C., March 16, 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 Sarconi 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Sauer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
AARON MICHAEL SAUER 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-00749-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Sauer 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Schaffer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WALTER SCHAFFER 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-00748-RMG (D.S.C., March 16,
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 Schaffer 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.
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
ACCENTURE PLC: Data Security Breach Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Accenture PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by consumers of
Marriott International, Inc. related to the data security incident
involving unauthorized access to the reservations database of
Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc.
On July 24, 2019, Accenture was named in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by consumers of Marriott International, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The complaint alleges negligence by us, and seeks monetary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief, relating to a
data security incident involving unauthorized access to the
reservations database of Starwood Worldwide Resorts, Inc., which
was acquired by Marriott on September 23, 2016.
Since 2009, the company had provided certain IT infrastructure
outsourcing services to Starwood.
On October 27, 2020, the court issued an order largely denying
Accenture's motion to dismiss the claims against it.
Accenture said, "We continue to believe the lawsuit is without
merit and we will vigorously defend it. At present, we do not
believe any losses from this matter will have a material effect on
our results of operations or financial condition."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Accenture PLC provides management and technology consulting
services and solutions. The Company delivers a range of specialized
capabilities and solutions to clients across all industries on a
worldwide basis. Accenture operates a network of businesses
provides consulting, technology, outsourcing, and alliances. The
company is based in Dublin, Ireland.
ADIDAS AMERICA: Employees Lose Bid to Remand Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BloombergLaw reports that a proposed class of Adidas America Inc.
employees who allege the company violated numerous wage and hour
provisions of the California Labor Code aren't entitled to have the
case remanded to state court because the company showed the amount
in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold required for
removal to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, a
federal district court in California ruled. The complaint alleges
Adidas failed to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods,
failed to accurately compensate the members of the proposed
California class for missed meal and rest periods. [GN]
ADVANTA SEEDS: Farmers Lose Suit Over Sale of Contaminated Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Daly at abc.net.au reports that a long-running legal battle
between a group of sorghum farmers and a major seed company has
ended with the Queensland Supreme Court dismissing the case.
About 120 sorghum growers in New South Wales and Queensland joined
the class action, arguing bags of MR43 Elite sorghum seed supplied
by Advanta Seeds, formerly known as Pacific Seeds, were
contaminated with the seeds of a weed called shattercane.
The contaminated seed was advertised as 99 per cent pure and the
plaintiffs claimed damages for negligence or misleading conduct on
the part of the company.
Advanta Seeds strenuously denied the allegations of negligence or
breaches of duty and managing director Barry Croker said the
company was pleased with today's ruling.
"From here we intend to continue to invest in research, technology
and new products and support those hardworking farming businesses
who are the backbone of Australia's agricultural sector," he said.
Mr Croker said Advanta would not make further comment on the case.
The plaintiffs have 28 days to appeal the court's decision.
Case Dismissed in Court
The contaminated crops were planted in 2010 and the weed
infestation that ensued cost some farming enterprises millions,
according to Dan Creevey from Creevey and Russell Lawyers.
The plaintiffs argued the certified seed bags were contaminated
with shattercane and retailed with negligence and inadequate
warning.
The allegations of negligence centred around breaches of the duty
of care farmers believed Advanta Seeds owed them.
But Justice David Jackson concluded there was no duty of care.
"The plaintiffs do not establish that, for the tort of negligence,
the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to take
reasonable care to avoid the risk of economic loss of increased
expenses of farming operations and decreased revenue from sorghum
sales if MR43 seed was contaminated," he wrote.
In its defence Advanta Seeds argued that the "terms of sale"
printed on the bags operated as a disclaimer of an assumption of
responsibility.
"Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd will not be liable to you or any other
person for any injury, loss or damage caused or contributed to by
Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd (or its servants or agents), directly or
indirectly arising out of or related to the use of the product in
this bag, whether as a result of their negligence or otherwise,"
the terms read.
Breach of Duty
The farmers also accused the seed company of failing to adequately
test or "grow out" the MR43 Elite prior to sale, which may have
revealed contamination.
A grow-out refers to planting and growing a sample of seed from a
production batch to assess if it is contaminated.
Advanta Seeds stopped doing grow-outs of samples of sorghum seed
produced for commercial sale from 2006, according to court
documents.
Justice Jackson found Advanta Seeds did breach a standard of care
for failing to conduct a grow out prior to the sale of the
contaminated batch of sorghum seeds.
The plaintiffs also accused the seed company of breaching its duty
by failure to warn customers of contamination until mid-March
2011.
Employees of the company became aware of the problem in
mid-December 2010.
Justice Jackson made no finding on whether Advanta breached duty or
was misleading or deceptive by keeping silent.
Inaccurate Claims
Justice Jackson said the individual plaintiffs' damages claims were
not accurate enough for him to award aggregated damages to the
class action group.
The defendant argued there were a number of variables not
represented in the plaintiffs' evidence of losses.
They included the variability of sorghum yields, sale prices and
overhead costs, the area planted with contaminated seed, and
farming practices and rotations.
"An overall reading of the evidence as to the losses suffered by
the plaintiffs and sample group members is itself enough to
demonstrate the high degree of variability in the losses suffered
by group members, which cannot be simply averaged on either an area
or per bag purchased or planted basis to give a reasonably accurate
assessment of the individual losses," Justice Jackson said in his
judgement statement.
Justice Jackson is yet to issue orders in regard to the legal costs
of the defendant and has called for submissions before making the
decision.
The plaintiffs' lawyer was unable to be reached for comment. [GN]
ALISAL UNION: Elementary Students Seek Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO V.; GERALDINE JULIE
B.; I.G.V., a minor by and through Guardian At Litem, MARIO V.;
OSCAR G.; CHRISTINA G.; O.D.G., a minor by and through Guardian At
Litem, CHRISTINA G.; Y.P., a minor by and through Guardian At
Litem, CHRISTINA G.; HUGO P.; ALICIA P.; A.P.H., a minor by and
through Guardian At Litem, ALICIA P., and other Similarly Situated,
v. ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, OSCAR F. LOYA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
HENRY AMENTA, DIANA GARCIA, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00041-BLF (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on September 23, 2021 to enter an order certifying the
following class:
"All students who attended Dr. Oscar F. Loya Elementary School
in the Alisal Union School District from 2011 to 2017, and had
blood drawn from them by Defendant Henry Armenta without
parental consent."
This is a class action brought by students, minor children and
their parents for constitutional, federal and State Law
violations.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and
others similarly situated. From 2011 until his resignation in 2017,
Defendant Henry Armeta made a practice of pricking his students'
fingers, often without changing the lancet he used, and conducting
nonconsensual blood sugar tests. Defendant Armenta performed this
test on dozens of students over the course of six years.
Defendant Armenta performed the nonconsensual test in his
classroom, either during the school day or shortly after the school
day ended. All the students involved experienced the same
violation: without consent Armenta pricked their fingers; drew
their blood; performed a blood sugar test; and exposed them to
blood borne pathogens. All of Armenta's acts were done without
parental consent, in direct violation of state, federal and
constitutional law. Given the duration of the violation, a class
action is the most efficient way to inform, compensate, and provide
medical monitoring for the students involved.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s15Ou8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles A. Bonner, Esq.
A. Cabral Bonner, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER
475 Gate Five Rd, Suite 211
Sausalito, CA 94965
Telephone: (415) 331-3070
Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
E-mail: cbonner799@aol.com
cabral@bonnerlaw.com
ALKERMES PUBLIC: Midwest Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund filed
an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Simin
Karimian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Alkermes Public Limited Company, RICHARD F.
POPS, and JAMES M. FRATES, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-7410, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Alkermes from
February 17, 2017 through November 1, 2018, both dates inclusive.
Plaintiff sought recovery of compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Lead Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and
Order and Judgment dated February 26, 2021, granting Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The appellate case is captioned as Karimian v. Alkermes Public
Limited Company, Case No. 21-801, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 26, 2021.[BN]
Movant-Appellant Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund is
represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
190 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 357-0370
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
Defendants-Appellees Alkermes Public Limited Company, Richard F.
Pops, James M. Frates, Elliot Ehrich, and Blair Jackson are
represented by:
Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1339
E-mail: dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com
ALLSTATE INVESTMENT: Underpays Administrative Assistant, Clark Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21SMCV00632 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and
double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to
pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages earned
on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, failure to provide basic information at the time of
hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to reimburse
business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid
sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an administrative
assistant from on or about June 19, 2019 until on or about May 15,
2020.
Allstate Investment Group, Inc. is an investment management firm
based in Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Bookends & Beginnings Files Class-Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Northwestern reports that when Nina Barrett (Medill '87)
expanded Bookends & Beginnings earlier this year, she hoped the
bookstore's new window on Sherman Avenue would increase its
visibility. By late March, the window was serving a higher purpose:
displaying copies of a bright orange booklet, titled "How to Resist
Amazon and Why."
Barrett -- and Bookends -- are well acquainted with the zine's
message.
The independent Evanston bookstore is the initial plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit filed on March 25, which alleges Amazon and
the nation's five leading trade book publishers have restrained
competition, fixed prices and created a monopoly in the print trade
bookselling industry.
"We're not supposed to have bullies on the playing field that
prevent entrepreneurs and small businesses like mine from
existing," Barrett said. "So when (the law firms) invited me to
become essentially the face of the case, I was totally ready to do
that."
Two firms with antitrust experience, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP and Chicago's Sperling & Slater, P.C. -- which recruited
Bookends -- filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Amazon's co-defendants in the case, Hachette, HarperCollins,
Macmillan, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, combine for
an estimated 80 percent of the trade book publishing market. Trade
books are those written for a general audience and not for academia
or reference, and often comprise most of bookstores' selections.
Amazon, which did not respond to The Daily's request for comment,
accounts for over half of the country's print book sales, and more
than 90 percent of online print book sales. Barrett, who founded
her store in 2014, is hoping the suit will help change Amazon's
business practices and award financial damages to independent
bookstores -- recompense for the way they've been choked out of the
bookselling market.
The complaint argues that preferential "most favored nation"
clauses between Amazon and the publishers combine with Amazon's
dominance to hurt booksellers and consumers. These clauses
generally mandate that a business be treated no worse than any
competitor. In 2020, a U.S. House Judiciary Committee investigation
accused Amazon of forcing the clauses upon book publishers by
threatening financial penalties.
Because of the clauses, bookstores are unable to buy books from
publishers at cheaper rates than Amazon or release books before the
internet giant does, essentially leaving no room to compete, the
complaint alleges.
The bookstore lodges its allegations as proof the defendants have
violated the Sherman Act, which outlines U.S. monopoly and
competition law.
Because the complaint was filed as a class-action lawsuit, other
retail booksellers will be able to join the case if it continues,
be represented by the Evanston bookstore's arguments and benefit
from a possible positive ruling.
"People are talking about it as if it's a David versus Goliath. But
I am not the only David here," Barrett said. "Every single
independent bookstore in the country is fighting the same struggle
that I'm fighting, and is being invited to join the suit."
Bookends, small businesses, and the pandemic
Independent bookstores have struggled during the pandemic, and
Barrett said in the beginning, the outlook was especially
frightening.
The lockdown, she said, proved to be a major obstacle. She launched
a GoFundMe for the store -- which raised almost $50,000 -- and
Bookends attempted to reach more customers online. The store also
received a Paycheck Protection Program loan.
Then, Barnes & Noble left downtown Evanston, which sent more
customers to Bookends and encouraged Barrett to expand her
storefront.
Many other bookstores haven't made it. Allison Hill, the chief
executive officer of the American Booksellers Association, told The
Daily 72 of the organization's 1,800 member bookstores closed in
2020. She said while the pandemic hit hard, Amazon had already been
causing trouble - she described the company as a "preexisting
condition."
"Amazon has been 'boxing out' local bookstores and other small
businesses all across the country, resulting in the losses of local
jobs; local sales tax revenue; and a sense of neighborhood
personality, community, and tradition," Hill said in an email.
That sense of community is vital to Barrett, who sees her business
as a "third place" for people -- somewhere outside the workplace
and home where they can find uplifting interaction. She said the
experience at Bookends is antithetical to Amazon's quick,
personless platform.
She said she has seen the effects of Amazon's dominance for years,
and not known how to stop it.
"Do I feel in any way bad about poking them? No. Do I feel silly,
because I'm so little, and they're so big? No," Barrett said. "It
has to start with somebody speaking up."
The wider fight
The fight against bookselling monopoly power didn't start in
Evanston, even though Bookends has become its newest face.
Hagens Berman, one of the law firms representing Bookends, sued
Amazon and the publishers earlier in 2021 for ebook price-fixing.
The plaintiffs in that case were consumers rather than stores.
Managing Partner Steve Berman told The Daily the firm has received
"considerable, positive interest" from other bookstores around the
country about the newest suit.
In tandem with the U.S. Department of Justice, the firm also sued
Apple and the publishing companies in the early 2010s for ebook
price-fixing. The antitrust case eventually yielded around half a
billion dollars in payouts to ebook readers.
The government and academic worlds are grappling with what
antitrust cases look like in the age of big tech. President Joe
Biden intends to work with Lina Khan, whose 2017 paper "Amazon's
Antitrust Paradox" launched a stiff critique of the company's
business practices.
Khan's key point was that American antitrust policy is too focused
on prices for consumers, and not enough on the relationships
between businesses. The Bookends suit is in what may become a
popular vein of antitrust litigation, accusing Amazon and the
publishers of stifling competition.
"My beef is with having this ginormous, faceless website, which is
buying books on different terms from mine for different reasons --
not because they care about books," Barrett said. "Just because,
well, it helps them become an even more ginormous business." [GN]
AMDOCS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Amdocs Limited ("Amdocs" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DOX),
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-03078, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Amdocs ordinary shares between December 13, 2016
and March 30, 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 Amdocs ordinary shares
during the Class Period, you have until June 8, 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.
Amdocs, through its global subsidiaries, provides software and
services to communications, cable and satellite, entertainment, and
media industry service providers worldwide. Historically, the
Company's largest percentage of revenues come from its North
American business, mostly the U.S., particularly from large
customers including, among others, AT&T Inc. ("AT&T").
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) Amdocs overstated its profits,
cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs
concealed its large borrowing; (iii) while Amdocs' reported results
showed that its North American business was stable, that business
was actually deteriorating annually, in part because the Company
was losing AT&T as a customer; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On March 31, 2021, pre-market, Jehoshaphat Research published a
short-seller report addressing Amdocs, which alleged, inter alia,
that Amdocs overstated its profits, evidenced by steady parent
profits despite declining subsidiary profits; that there was a
concerning pattern of reputable auditors resigning, only to be
replaced by "scandal-plagued or tiny shops"; that Amdocs
"window-dressed" its balance sheets to keep its large borrowing a
secret, namely by paying down its debt just prior to the end of
each quarter, therefore showing a debt-free balance sheet on that
day, before re-borrowing the money shortly thereafter; and that all
of the foregoing was corroborated by former employees and direct
competitors of the Company, who noted that Amdocs was losing AT&T
as a customer, as well as a former American Amdocs executive, who
stated that the Company's "US business was declining at a rate of
[around] 7% annually . . . but then we would see the company
[publish results that] say North America is stable."
On this news, Amdocs' ordinary share price fell $9.19 per share, or
11.58%, to close at $70.15 per share on March 31, 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]
AMDOCS LIMITED: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-amdocs-limited-class-action-lawsuit.html)
announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent
purchasers of Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ:DOX) common stock during the
period between January 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). This action was filed in the Eastern District of Missouri
and is captioned Glover v. Amdocs Limited, No. 21-cv-00418.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Amdocs common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Amdocs 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 Amdocs class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Amdocs class action lawsuit.
An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of
the Amdocs class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the
Amdocs class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than
60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the Amdocs 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-amdocslimited-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Amdocs class action lawsuit charges Amdocs and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Amdocs provides global software and services to the
communications, cable and satellite, entertainment, and media
industry service providers.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Amdocs
overstated the strength of its business metrics and financial
prospects, including concealing that Amdocs had been losing
customers and that its U.S. business in particular had been
declining, that Amdocs had been borrowing undisclosed sums in the
past in order to meet its capital needs but concealing that
borrowing from investors, that Amdocs was concealing the
restrictions on the cash it held, that Amdocs had been overstating
its operating profits by up to 50%, and that as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company, its prospects and revenue growth rate
during the Class Period.
On March 31, 2021, stock research firm Jehoshaphat Research issued
a report entitled "WHERE DID AMDOCS' PROFITS AND AUDITORS GO?,"
revealing the results of that firm's "months-long investigation
into what" it believes to be "a massive financial deception taking
place at Amdocs." Jehoshaphat Research said that it had "gathered
extensive evidence from the national corporate registry filings of
dozens of subsidiaries from around the globe" which it had compared
to Amdocs' public filings and found, among other things, "wildly
overstated profit margins, a balance sheet that is far from the
cash-rich fortress it appears to be, and a revolving door of
company auditors resigning from their posts in multiple countries."
The complaint alleges that according to Jehoshaphat Research, the
"enormous discrepancies between DOX's true business health and the
mirage that is its reported finances simply do not reconcile." On
this news, the market price of Amdocs common stock declined more
than $9.00 per share on March 31, 2021, more than 10%, on extremely
heavy 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]
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Grace Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-CV-00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H.
Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the parties' class action settlement.
On Sept. 10, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement.
On Feb. 8, 2021, it held a hearing to consider final approval of
the Settlement. Having considered all the briefing, the arguments
of counsel, the relevant law, and the record in the case, Judge Koh
granted the parties' motion for final approval of the Settlement.
The Judge finds 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 the Court's Order and complies with
Rule 23(c)(2)(B).
On Sept. 19, 2018, the Court issued a class certification order
certifying a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) defined as "all 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." On Sept. 10, 2020, it issued an Order preliminarily
approving the Settlement and finding that the proposed Settlement
Class was consistent with the previously-certified class, and
therefore met the requirements of Rule 23. It finds that the
Settlement Class meets the Rule 23 requirements and certifies the
Settlement Class.
The Judge further finds that the terms of the Settlement are fair,
reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member. The
Class Members who did not timely submit opt out forms will be bound
by the Settlement.
She further finds that the distribution plan is fair, adequate, and
reasonable. Here, the amount of payments to each participating
Settlement Class Member will be calculated based on each Settlement
Class Member's proportional share of the Net Settlement Fund, i.e.,
the Net Settlement Fund balance divided by the total number of
eligible devices. The vast majority of Settlement Class Members
will receive payment automatically without the need to file a claim
form.
The Judge finds that the claims administrator's fees are fair and
reasonable.
The Settlement is ordered finally approved. All terms and
provisions of the Settlement should be and are ordered to be
consummated.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y5268mf8 from Leagle.com.
ARGENTINA: Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights
---------------------------------------------------------
news.bitcoin.com reports that the idea of the Argentinean central
bank asking local banks for information on customers who deal with
cryptocurrencies is generating controversy in the local industry. A
new chapter in this story has been written, as a local lawyer has
filed a class-action complaint before a national court to overturn
such a ruling.
Argentinean Central Bank Measure 'Violates' Privacy Rights, Says
Lawyer
According to Victor Castillejo, an Argentinean lawyer, the "habeas
data" complaint filed argues that the Central Bank of the Argentine
Republic (BCRA) decision to ask such data is illegal.
In fact, he claims that the ruling violates the "privacy, human
rights, constitutionally protected" of every individual who wants
to trade with cryptos, such as bitcoin (BTC). Castillejo provides
the following comment about the alleged BCRA's legal wrongdoing:
"The BCRA does not have the power to compile a list of these
characteristics, and if it does, that power does not allow it to
avoid the obligations regarding the protection of personal data
provided by Law 25,326 and Regulatory Decree 1558/2001."
The lawyer filed the class action habeas data before the National
Court in Administrative Litigation No. 10 in Argentina, which seeks
to "oblige the BCRA to eliminate the information collected and/or,
failing that, to disassociate (not allow individuals to be
identified) the data that it has requested."
BCRA Is Requesting Personal Data Such as National Identification
Numbers From Crypto Traders
As Bitcoin.com News reported early this week, the BCRA asked
domestic banks to forward them information about its customers who
deal with bitcoin and perform any other kind of crypto
transactions.
The measure aims to evaluate whether the crypto market "should be
required for an even bigger regulation or not."
That said, the Argentinean central bank backs up its decision by
saying that they have "functions of supervising" domestic payment
systems.
Inside the email sent to all domestic banks, the BCRA asks for the
national identification numbers, home address, and account types of
the individuals involved in crypto-related transactions.[GN]
ARIA PLUMBING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rivera Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS RIVERA; and MIGUEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARIA PLUMBING, LLC; and
WOJCIECH WAKSMANSKI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01756 (N.D. Ill.,
Mar. 31, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiffs and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
laborer.
ARIA PLUMBING, LLC provides plumbing services in DuPage County,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Glenn R. Gaffney, Esq.
GAFFNEY & GAFFNEY P.C.
1771 Bloomingdale Road
Glendale Heights, IL 60139
Telephone: (630) 462-1200
Facsimile: (630) 462-7698
E-mail: glenn@gaffneylawpc.com
ARIZONA: Shin Appeals Ruling in Parsons Prisoner Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants DAVID SHINN, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Victor Antonio Parsons, et al. v. Charles
Ryan, et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00601-ROS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
According to the complaint, Prisoner Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff
Class are housed in Arizona Department of Corrections state
prisons, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief against Charles
Ryan and Michael Pratt, in their official capacities. Prisoner
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class are entirely dependent on
Defendants for their basic health care. However, the system under
which Defendants Ryan and Pratt provide medical, mental health, and
dental care (collectively, "health care") to prisoners is grossly
inadequate and subjects all prisoners to a substantial risk of
serious harm, including unnecessary pain and suffering, preventable
injury, amputation, disfigurement, and death, the suit says.
The complaint alleges that despite warnings from their own
employees, prisoners and their family members, and advocates about
the risk of serious injury and death to prisoners, Defendants are
deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of pain and
suffering to prisoners, including deaths, which occur due to
Defendants' alleged failure to provide minimally adequate health
care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Arizona prisoners also
suffer serious harm and are subject to a substantial risk of
serious harm as a result of Defendants holding prisoners in
isolation in supermax Special Management Units in cruel and unusual
conditions of confinement. Defendants continue to be deliberately
indifferent to the substantial risk of pain and suffering,
including deaths, which occur due to their systemic failure to
provide minimally adequate conditions to prisoners in isolation, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, the suit contends.
The Defendants now are seeking a review of the Court's Order and
Judgment dated February 24, 2021, denying Defendants' motion for
relief. The Court had ordered that judgment was entered against
Defendants Richard Pratt and David Shinn reflecting contempt fines
for June 2019 totaling $1,100,000.
The appellate case is captioned as Shawn Jensen, et al. v. David
Shinn, et al., Case No. 21-15589, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 2, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Richard Pratt and David Shinn, Director Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 9, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 3, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on June 2, 2021;
-- Appellants Richard Pratt and David Shinn, Director opening
brief is due on July 12, 2021;
-- Appellees Arizona Center For Disability Law, Maryanne
Chisholm, Robert Carrasco Gamez Jr., Joseph Hefner, Shawn Jensen,
Desiree Licci, Joshua Polson, Sonia Rodriguez, Jeremy Smith,
Stephen Swartz, Jackie Thomas, Christina Verduzco and Charlotte
Wells answering brief is due on August 12, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants DAVID SHINN, Director; and RICHARD PRATT,
Interim Division Director, Division of Health Services, Arizona
Department of Corrections, in their official capacities, are
represented by:
Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
Rachel Love, Esq.
Daniel Patrick Struck, Esq.
STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO PLC
3100 W. Ray Road, Suite 300
Chandler, AZ 85226
Telephone: (480) 420-1600
E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com
rlove@swlfirm.com
dstruck@swlfirm.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees SHAWN JENSEN, STEPHEN SWARTZ, SONIA RODRIGUEZ,
CHRISTINA VERDUZCO, JACKIE THOMAS, JEREMY SMITH, MARYANNE CHISHOLM,
DESIREE LICCI, JOSEPH HEFNER, JOSHUA POLSON, and CHARLOTTE WELLS,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Daniel Clayton Barr, Esq.
Amelia M. Gerlicher, Esq.
John H. Gray, Esq.
PERKINS COIE
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
Telephone: (602) 351-8085
E-mail: dbarr@perkinscoie.com
agerlicher@perkinscoie.com
jhgray@perkinscoie.com
- and -
Kathleen Erin Brody, Esq.
MITCHELL STEIN CAREY CHAPMAN, PC
One Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1450
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 388-8958
E-mail: kathy@mscclaw.com
- and -
David Cyrus Fathi, Esq.
ACLU-AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
915 15th St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 393-4930
E-mail: dfathi@npp-aclu.org
- and -
Amy Fettig, Esq.
NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT-ACLU
915 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 548-6608
E-mail: afettig@npp-aclu.org
- and -
Alison Hardy, Esq.
Rita Katherine Lomio, Esq.
Sara Norman, Esq.
Donald Specter, Esq.
PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
Telephone: (510) 280-2621
E-mail: ahardy@prisonlaw.com
rlomio@prisonlaw.com
snorman@prisonlaw.com
dspecter@prisonlaw.com
- and -
Corene Thaedra Kendrick, Esq.
ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (202) 393-4930
E-mail: ckendrick@prisonlaw.com
ARKANSAS: Court Narrows Claims in Amended Frazier Suit Against DOC
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS FRAZIER, et al., Plaintiffs v. SOLOMON
GRAVES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00434-KGB (E.D. Ark.),
Judge Kristine G. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, enters an order:
a. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for expedited
discovery;
b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for the Court to take
judicial notice of 48 additional incarcerated people
testing positive for COVID-19 at third facility operated by
the Defendants;
c. denying as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
original complaint;
d. denying as moot the State Defendants' motion to continue
the trial setting; and
e. granting in part and denying in part the State Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
Before the Court is Defendants Solomon Graves, Secretary of the
Arkansas Department of Corrections ("DOC"); Dexter Payne, Division
of Correction Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections ("ADC");
Benny Magness, Chairman of Arkansas Board of Corrections ("ABC");
Bobby Glover, Vice Chairman of ABC; John Felts, Member of ABC;
William "Dubs" Byers, Member of ABC ("State defendants")'s motion
to dismiss the amended complaint of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
filed a response to the motion on Sept. 10, 2020. The State
Defendants, all of whom are sued in their official capacity only,
replied to the response on Oct. 9, 2020, and filed a supplemental
reply to the response on Oct. 20, 2020.
On April 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
and petition for writ of habeas corpus. They alleged that
conditions in ADC facilities create a serious risk of
COVID-19-related infection, disease, and death. They claimed that
the spread of COVID-19 in ADC facilities jeopardizes the public
health of surrounding communities, especially African American
communities.
The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants have intentionally
failed to adopt and implement adequate policies and procedures to
prevent and mitigate the spread of COVID-19. They asserted three
causes of action: (1) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 on behalf of all the Plaintiffs;
(2) violation of the Eighth Amendment brought by a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 on behalf of the
proposed high risk subclass; and (3) violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101, et seq., on
behalf of the proposed disability subclass.
The Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint and petition
for writ of habeas corpus on July 13, 2020. The amended complaint
added a number of plaintiffs and two new Defendants, Arkansas
Secretary of Health, Dr. Jose Romero, and Wellpath, LLC, the
contracted medical provider for the DOC.
In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of
themselves and a class consisting of people who are currently
incarcerated, or will be in the future, in an ADC detention
facility during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs also propose two subclasses, to include an (a) high
risk subclass, defined as: People in the custody of a DOC facility
aged 50 or over and/or who have serious underlying medical
conditions that put them at particular risk of serious harm or
death from COVID-19, including but not limited to people with
respiratory conditions such as chronic lung disease or asthma;
people with heart disease or other heart conditions; people who are
immunocompromised as a result of cancer, HIV/AIDS, or for any other
reason; people with chronic liver or kidney disease, or renal
failure (including hepatitis and dialysis patients); people with
diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, blood disorders (including sickle
cell disease), or an inherited metabolic disorder; people who have
had or are at risk of stroke; and people with any condition
specifically identified by CDC, currently or in the future, as
increasing their risk of contracting, having severe illness, and/or
dying from COVID-19.
The Plaintiffs also propose a disability subclass, defined as:
People in custody who suffer from a disability that substantially
limits one or more of their major life activities and who are at
increased risk of contracting, becoming severely ill from, and/or
dying from COVID-19 due to their disability or any medical
treatment necessary to treat their disability, with a broad
construction of disability pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Section 35.101,
which favors expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by
the terms of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) that does
not require extensive analysis.
The State Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint, contending that they are immune from the
Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief; the Plaintiffs' claims
against Dr. Romero are barred by sovereign immunity because he has
"no connection to the policies and practices the Plaintiffs
challenge"; the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim "falls short of
stating a cognizable claim of deliberate indifference against the
DOC officials named in the lawsuit"; the Plaintiffs ADA claim
"fails to seek any reasonable accommodation that the State
Defendants do not already provide and seeks accommodations that the
Plaintiffs never requested from any of the State Defendants before
bringing suit"; and the Plaintiffs' claim seeking "temporary
release to home confinement is a condition-of-confinement claim
that is not cognizable in habeas."
A. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
First, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiffs, Judge Baker finds that the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint seeks declaratory relief from ongoing illegal policies
and practices and, as such, they seek prospective relief
permissible under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). She denies
on this basis the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief.
Second, at this stage of the litigation, the Judge concludes that,
based on the Plaintiffs' allegations which she accepts as true and
under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent which the Court is bound
to follow, the Plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to
establish a causal connection between Dr. Romero and the
enforcement of DOC's policies to bring him into the Ex parte Young
exception and make him a proper defendant. The Judge grants the
State Defendants' motion to dismiss Dr. Romero based on sovereign
immunity.
Third, accepting the allegations in the amended complaint as true
and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs,
the Judge concludes that the Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth
Amendment claim for deliberate indifference against State
Defendants. Among other things, she finds that (i) the Plaintiffs
have stated an Eighth Amendment claim against State Defendants,
(ii) the Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient allegations in the
amended complaint to satisfy the objective prong of the deliberate
indifference test for their Eighth Amendment claims, and (iii) the
Plaintiffs have stated an Eighth Amendment claim against State
Defendants based on deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.
Fourth, Judge Baker finds that the subclass Plaintiffs are not
challenging the validity of their convictions or the length of
their detentions, such as through alleged loss of good time
credits. Instead, they assert what are essentially
conditions-of-confinement claims and seek for this federal court to
order immediate release or transfer to home confinement, in a case
involving an unchallenged state-court conviction and sentence. For
these reasons, the Judge dismisses the Plaintiffs' 28 U.S.C.
Section 2241 claim.
Lastly, the Judge concludes that, at this stage, based on the
allegations in the amended complaint, the named Plaintiffs and the
putative class members in the disability subclass have stated a
claim under Title II of the ADA. The Plaintiffs in the putative
disability subclass state that they have alleged plausibly that
State Defendants have refused to provide the reasonable
accommodations that they have requested and, as a result, they are
at a greater risk of contracting or succumbing to COVID-19.
B. Other Pending Motions
Judge Baker denies as moot the State Defendants' motion to continue
the trial setting because the Court never entered a final
scheduling order setting a firm trial date and under Administrative
Order 12 all non-jury trials for the period between March 23, 2021,
and May 21, 2021 have been continued. The Judge denies as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery, which the Plaintiffs
filed while the Court had under advisement their request for
preliminary injunctive relief. She will issue a final scheduling
order setting a new trial date and other pre-trial deadlines. The
Judge has the parties' other pending motions under advisement and
will rule on those motions in a separate order.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baker denies as moot the
Plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery; grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for the Court to take judicial notice of 48 additional
incarcerated people testing positive for COVID-19 at third facility
operated by the Defendants; denies as moot the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the original complaint; denies as moot the State
Defendants' motion to continue the trial setting; and grants in
part and denies in part the State Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/37uvyzva from Leagle.com.
ASHEVILLE, NC: Funds From Class Action to be Donated to Nonprofits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Asheville will make significant donations to two local
nonprofits as part of a legal settlement to disperse funds acquired
prior to a 2018 class action lawsuit involving the City's capital
fee collected as part of the combined utility statement.
The lawsuit claimed that property developers had paid these fees to
the City without legal authority to charge for them. All potential
claimants were property developers. The City has consistently
denied that it lacked the legal authority to collect these fees or
that any individuals or entities were harmed through the collection
of these fees. The settlement was undertaken to mitigate legal risk
and avoid unnecessary expense.
The money for these donations comes directly from the settlement
amount following the payment of all verified claims filed by
developers for reimbursement. As part of the settlement agreement,
the City must give the remaining money to charity. The recipient
organizations required approval by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
and the judge in the action.
The total settlement was $1.85 million. Of this, $949,185.12 was
left unclaimed and will be dispersed between two organizations --
the Asheville City Schools Foundation and CoThinkk.
During their April 13 meeting, Asheville City Council will vote to
approve the $949,185.12 to these two organizations. This was not a
grant process, but rather an internal recommendation made by City
Council and then submitted to the class action plaintiffs and the
court. A traditional public process could not occur due to the
City's inability to unilaterally select the entities. The Council
chose these organizations because of the work they are doing to
advance racial equity in our community.
How the money will be used
Asheville City Schools Foundation -- The donation will be used to
fund two scholarship funds. The first will establish a scholarship
to be awarded in perpetuity to Black high school students within
Asheville City Schools, with special consideration given for Black
students pursuing a career in education. The second will establish
a scholarship fund for Black, Indigenous, or People of Color who
are educators and staff of Asheville City Schools and who are
pursuing their next level of education and/or certification.
Founded in 1988 by parents, community members, and school
personnel, the Asheville City Schools Foundation works to increase
local support for public education, particularly by engaging the
community to increase equity in education.
CoThinkk -- CoThinkk is focused on bringing together community
leaders who care about the economic and social well-being of
communities of color in Asheville and Western North Carolina. This
donation will be used in three areas:
-- To provide access to resources, capacity-building, and equitable
grant making for local/regional organizations/change agents led by
BIPOC/African-American/Latinx to address racial equity and
structural change;
-- As general operating support for CoThinkk to build and support
innovative internal capacity within our four strategic levers:
healing, access to resources, capacity-building, and systems
change; and
-- To create a structure/fund anchored in equity to address racial
equity and structural/systems change. CoThinkk will grow and
leverage dollars from regional/national funders and social impact
investors designated for long-term regranting to regional
organizations/groups led by BIPOC organizations/change agents.
Both groups will provide written reports to the Asheville City
Council about how the donated funds have been used. Reports shall
be provided twice annually with the first one being given six
months from the date of donation, and continuing every six months
thereafter until funds have been exhausted (or two years following
the date of donation, whichever comes first).[GN]
ATHENEX INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Breast Cancer Treatment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
post-journal.com reports that Athenex is on track to refile its New
Drug Application to the federal Food and Drug Administration for
breast cancer treatment — but may have a legal challenge on its
hands at the same time.
First, the good news.
Athenex Inc. officials recently announced that company officials
participated in a constructive meeting with FDA officials to
discuss the clinical section of the company's New Drug Application
for oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of metastatic
breast cancer. Athenex officials said they are on track to submit
the application in accordance with the FDA's guidance, and will
provide a further update when the FDA's official response to the
filing becomes available.
The company is building a 409,000 square foot facility in Dunkirk
that should be open by the end of the year, with a portion
dedicated to manufacturing large batches of prescriptions to
healthcare facilities for office use.
While the company has been working to get its breast cancer
treatment approved by the FDA, the company and its executives are
also facing a class action lawsuit that alleges Athenex officials
failed to disclose to investors that the data included in Athenex's
application to the FDA presented a safety risk to patients and that
the company used an inadequate phase 3 study that may not have met
FDA guidelines.
The lawsuit points to several news releases and public statements
by company officials from the fall of 2019 through February 26,
2021, in which company officials touted the development of oral
paclitaxel and its likely approval by the FDA.
Before the financial markets opened on March 1, 2021, Athenex
announced that the FDA issued a complete response letter for the
company's New Drug Application for oral paclitaxel plus encequidar
for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In the letter, the
FDA cited safety risks to patients and uncertainty over the results
of the primary endpoint of the objective response rate which might
have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the blinded
independent central review. The FDA further recommended that
"Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial
in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer
representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also noted
that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity
would be required for this cancer treatment to be approved.
The letter sent Athenex's stock prices tumbling by 55% in one day,
or hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market capitalization,
according to the lawsuit. Several law firms are now trying to line
up investors to file a class action lawsuit for any investors who
purchased Athenex stock from Aug. 7, 2019, through Feb. 26, 2021,
and who lost money.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York, located at 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, NY
14202. The case is captioned Gupta v. Athenex, Inc., et al., No.
1:21-cv-00337 (W.D.N.Y.), and has not yet been assigned to a
specific judge.
"Throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business," the
lawsuit states.
The lawsuit alleges the data included in the oral paclitaxel plus
encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients and that the
uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective
response rate at week 19 conducted by blinded independent central
review reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced
unmeasured bias and influence on the blinded independent review.
Lawyers also allege 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.
"As a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve
Athenex's NDA in its current form; and consequently, Athenex's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times," the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit asks for a jury trial to determine whether or not
Athenex violated the federal Exchange Act, omitted or
misrepresented material facts, whether the statements by Athenex
officials omitted facts in their statements, if company officials
knew or recklessly disregarded that their statements may be false
or misleading, whether the company's stock prices were artificially
inflated and how much damage was sustained by investors and an
appropriate measurement of the damages.
"Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages in that, in reliance
on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially inflated
prices for the company's shares. Plaintiff and the class would not
have purchased the company's shares at the price paid, or at all,
if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially
and falsely inflated by defendants' misleading statements," the
lawsuit states. [GN]
ATHENEX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on March 15 disclosed 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.
IRTC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13660&wire=1
BTBT Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1
ATNX Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:IRTC)
IRTC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 4, 2020 -
January 28, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 2, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/irhythm-technologies-inc-loss-form?prid=13660&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, iRhythm
Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) iRhythm's business
would suffer as a result of the CMS' rulemaking; (2) reimbursement
rates would in fact plummet; (3) a lack of national pricing in the
CMS rule and fee schedule would cause uncertainty and weakness in
the Company's business; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times
Bit Digital, Inc. (NASDAQ:BTBT)
BTBT Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 21,
2020 - January 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 22, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/bit-digital-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Bit
Digital, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Bit Digital overstated the
extent of its a bitcoin mining operation; and (2) 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.
Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATNX)
ATNX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased August 7, 2019 -
February 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/athenex-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13660&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Athenex,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data
included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a
safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in
neutropenia-related sequalae; (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) that the Company'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; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Omega Sues Over Monopoly of Crop Inputs Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LITTLE OMEGA v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC.,
CORTEVA INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA
CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC.,
FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC.,
GROWMARK INC., SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., AND TENKOZ INC., Case
No. 3:21-cv-00297 (S.D. Ill., March 16, 2021) is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and on behalf of the classes consisting of persons
or entities in the United States, including its territories, that,
at least as early as January 1, 2014 and continuing through the
present (the Class Period), purchased from a Defendant a Crop
Input.
The Plaintiff brings this action for treble damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States against the Defendants.
The market for "Crop Inputs" -- seeds and crop protection chemicals
such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides --used by American
farmers is one of the largest markets in the world with annual
sales in excess of $65 billion.
This market is dominated by:
(1) four major manufacturers, Defendants Bayer CropScience
Incorporated ("Bayer"), Corteva Incorporated ("Corteva"),
Syngenta Corporation ("Syngenta"), and BASF Corporation
("BASF"), (collectively, the "Manufacturer Defendants")
(2) three large wholesalers, Defendants Cargill Incorporated
("Cargill"), Winfield Solutions, LLC ("Winfield"), Univar
Solutions, Incorporated ("Univar") (collectively the
"Wholesaler Defendants"), that control the distribution
of Crop Inputs to farmers; and
(3) retailers, including Defendants CHS Incorporated ("CHS"),
Nutrien Ag Solutions Incorporated ("Nutrien"), GROWMARK,
Incorporated ("Growmark"), Simplot AB Retail Sub,
Incorporated ("Simplot"), Tenkoz Incorporated ("Tenkoz"),
and Federated Co-operatives Limited ("Federated")
(collectively the "Retailer Defendants").
Historically and continuing to the present, the existing
distribution and sale process for Crop Inputs maintains
supra-competitive prices in part by denying farmers accurate
product information, including pricing information, which would
allow them to make better-informed purchasing decisions. As a
result, the average price American farmers pay for Crop Inputs is
increasing at a rate that dramatically outpaces yields, the suit
says.
For example, over the last 20 years, the price of one type of Crop
Input, seed corn, rose 300%, while corn yields increased only 33%
to 35%. In 1989, U.S. farms spent $15.6 billion overall on
chemicals, fertilizer, and seeds. This number rose to $59 billion
in 2019, outpacing inflation by 60%. Crop Inputs have consequently
composed a larger share of farm budgets. In 1989, Crop Inputs
composed 12.6% of farm expenditures; by 2019, Crop Inputs composed
16.4% of farmer spending. These increases are proving increasingly
devastating to farmers, who are now the least profitable level of
the American food supply chain and are drowning in hundreds of
billions of dollars of operating debt that is forcing them into
bankruptcy at a record pace.
Recognizing these inefficiencies, several electronic Crop Inputs
sales platforms launched in at least the past decade. These
electronic platforms aimed to provide a cheaper, more transparent
way for farmers to buy Crop Inputs, circumventing the existing
opaque, convoluted distribution system.
These new platforms threatened the Defendants' dominant market
position and control over Crop Inputs pricing. As a result, rather
than compete fairly with these new electronic platforms, the
Defendants allegedly conspired to block the platforms' access to
Crop Inputs by engaging in a group boycott, added the suit.
Given the structure of the Crop Inputs industry with the necessary
relationships between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, an
effective boycott of electronic platforms would not have been
feasible absent actual coordination and cooperation among
Defendants. Absent an agreement among themselves, the Defendants'
actions were against their independent economic self-interests.
As a result of Defendants' misconduct, farmers remain trapped in an
inefficient, opaque Crop Inputs market and have paid more for Crop
Inputs than they would have but for the Defendants' wrongful
conduct, the Plaintiff contends.
Bayer AG is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and
agriculture company.
Bayer CropScience Incorporated is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bayer AG headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri that develops,
manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United States.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, and
is a crop science company that sells Crop Inputs in the United
States.
Corteva develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the United
States.
BASF Corporation is the principal U.S.-based operating entity and
largest subsidiary of BASF SE, a multinational pharmaceutical,
seed, and chemical company. BASF develops, manufactures, and sells
Crop Inputs in the United States. Syngenta Corporation is the main
U.S.-based operating subsidiary of Syngenta AG. It is headquartered
in Wilmington, Delaware.
Syngenta develops, manufactures, and sells Crop Inputs in the
United States.
Cargill owns and operates a wholesaler AgResource Division, which
distributes Crop Inputs to Cargill’s retail network and to
retailers. Cargill's AgResource Division maintains contracts with
each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta entitling it to purchase
and distribute branded Crop Inputs and entitling it to special
rebates.
Winfield Solutions is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. It maintains
contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta
authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and
entitling it to special rebates. Winfield is also a major Crop
Inputs retailer that operates as a cooperative owned by its
members, which are 650 Crop Inputs retail businesses operating
2,800 retail locations throughout the United States and parts of
Canada.
Univar Solutions , Incorporated is a Crop Inputs wholesaler. Univar
maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF, and Syngenta
authorizing it to purchase and distribute branded Crop Inputs and
entitling it to special rebates.
Defendant CHS is one of the largest Crop Inputs wholesalers in the
United States. Like many large wholesalers, it also operates retail
networks bearing the CHS brand around the country that sell Crop
Inputs from brick and mortar stores.
Nutrien Ag Solutions sells Crop Inputs to farmers throughout the
country and maintains contracts with each of Bayer, Corteva, BASF,
and Syngenta authorizing it to purchase and distribute Crop Inputs
and entitling it to special rebates. Nutrien is a large Crop Inputs
retailer headquartered in Illinois.
Tenkoz is one of the largest Crop Inputs retailers in the United
States. Tenkoz purchases and sells 25% of all crop protection
chemicals sold in the United States annually through 550 retail
locations and 70 wholesale locations around the country.
Simplot AB is a large Crop Inputs wholesaler and retailer that
operates 135 retail locations across 27 states. Federated
Co-operatives Ltd. is a large Crop Inputs retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don Barrett, Esq.
John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
David McMullan, Jr., Esq.
Sterling Starns, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square North
Lexington, MS 39095-0927
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
sstarns@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Victoria Sims, Esq.
Blaine Finley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
vicky@cuneolaw.com
bfinley@cuneolaw.com
BELLUS HEALTH: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
May 17, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased BELLUS Health Inc.
securities between September 5, 2019 and July 5, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their BELLUS investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
BELLUS is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company whose lead
product is BLU-5937, which is being developed for the treatment of
chronic cough and other afferent hypersensitization-related
disorders.
On July 6, 2020, before the market opened, BELLUS announced topline
results from its Phase 2 RELIEF trial of BLU-5937 in patients with
refractory chronic cough. According to the Company, the trial "did
not achieve statistical significance for the primary endpoint of
reduction in placebo-adjusted cough frequency at any dose tested."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $9.05, or 75%, over
two consecutive trading sessions to close at $2.97 on July 8, 2020,
thereby injuring 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, the complaint alleges that Defendants
knew, but failed to disclose, 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.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired BELLUS 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 if you meet certain
legal requirements. 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 these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com
URL : http://www.howardsmithlaw.com
Contact Information:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mesh Class Action Lawsuit Pending in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that when Queensland
woman Marina Schekoske was wheeled into an operating room to have
mesh implant surgery for a prolapsed uterus, she had no way of
knowing her life was about to be changed irrevocably.
All the mother-of-two says she can remember from when she woke up
after the operation was the searing pain.
"I thought this was maybe what post-operative pain felt like… but
I never expected it would be as bad as it was," she said.
"The pain was phenomenal."
In the weeks and months that followed her 2017 surgery, the pain
did not go away, Ms Schekoske said.
"Imagine a hot, steaming poker being shoved through your body every
time you sat. I couldn't stand for long, I couldn't walk the length
of my house, I was in bed or on the couch," she said.
Four years on, Ms Schekoske is joining other Australian women who
claim their lives have also been destroyed by their mesh implants
in a new class action lawsuit.
The class action, against medical manufacturer and distributor
Boston Scientific, was lodged in the NSW Supreme Court earlier in
March by Sydney law firm AJB Stevens.
It follows a high-profile mesh class action against Johnson &
Johnson and its subsidiary Ethicon on behalf of 10,000 Australian
women.
AJB Stevens director and lawyer Steven Mousas told nine.com.au his
firm's class action would represent "a large group" of Australian
women who say they suffered debilitating injuries caused by mesh
implants distributed by Boston Scientific.
AJB Stevens alleges Boston Scientific breached both its duty of
care to patients and Australian Consumer Laws by distributing the
medical devices without properly evaluating the risks and
effectiveness of their products.
The lawsuit also alleges Boston Scientific failed to warn hospitals
and surgeons of the risks and complications which could be caused
by the mesh devices.
"We say the medical implants did not offer sufficient warning,
advice or information and ultimately, the medical implants were not
fit for purpose," Mr Mousas said.
"The medical implants were not of merchantable quality and did not
have an acceptable quality when being distributed."
A similar lawsuit in Canada against Boston Scientific resulted in
the company reaching a settlement of $21.7 million in September
last year.
Boston Scientific is yet to respond to nine.com.au's request for
comment.
However, when asked by nine.com.au last year about the pending
lawsuit, a spokesperson said: "It is our practice not to comment on
pending litigation.
Patient safety is always our highest priority, and we stand by the
safety and quality of our products. Boston Scientific remains
committed to helping women, and all patients, live better and
longer lives."
The number of mesh-related lawsuits lodged by women continues to
grow in Australia.
It follows a damning 2018 Senate inquiry which found surgery with
mesh should only be used as a "last resort".
AJB Stevens also has another ongoing mesh class action in the
Federal Court on behalf of the thousands of Australian women
implanted with Tissue Fixation System (TFS) devices, which were
designed by Australian doctor Peter Petros.
Ms Schekoske is one of three lead plaintiffs in the Boston
Scientific class action.
She was 32 when she had her surgery. She said she was not warned by
doctors of any risks or potential complications.
Ms Schekoske has since undergone another major surgery to have the
mesh removed but said many of the debilitating effects from the
mesh still lingered.
"There's still some things I can't do, I still can't push a heavy
trolley, I can't lift up a heavy washing basket… and now I'm very
incontinent every day," she said.
However, she says one of the things that hurt the most was not
being able to pick up her children.
"I can't pick my daughter up for a cuddle.
"She is a very cuddly kid and sitting on the floor and cuddling her
isn't enough.
"I have also missed out on years of a relationship with my husband.
I had setbacks at work.
"It's strained every friendship and relationship out there . . .
people don't understand what you're going through or have been
through.
"Every little thing can cause so much trauma psychologically."
Ms Schekoske said as well as offering the chance of getting
financial compensation for her injuries, the class action was about
achieving "justice".
"I think the biggest thing is wanting to see justice done for
people like me who have been so badly physically, mentally and
psychologically hurt," she said.
"I would like to see it in the media so much that people really
question when a doctor still uses mesh, they question the doctor
and say I don't want that product, there are other options out
there for me. Maybe it will save someone else from going through
this." [GN]
BP CORP: Judge Recommends Class Status for Pension Plan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit
accusing BP Corp. NA of failing to properly explain how its
acquisition of Standard Oil of Ohio would negatively affect pension
benefits got a boost when a federal magistrate judge in Houston
recommended that the case be certified as a class action covering
hundreds of retirees.
BP challenges the proposed class definition -- which includes
hundreds of participants in the BP America Retirement Accumulation
Plan who ended up with lower pension benefits because of a 1989
plan change -- by arguing that "individualized mini trials"
involving complex pension calculations would be required to
determine each plan participant's status as a class member . . ."
[GN]
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Class Settlement Uphold Release of Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Dooling at wbur.org reports that a settlement deal was
reached Tuesday in a class action lawsuit against the Bristol
County Sheriff's Office that sought to release all immigration
detainees at the county's house of correction during the
coronavirus pandemic.
The lawsuit, filed by Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR) in March 2020,
claimed the correctional facility's holding of detainees was
inhumane. Among the suit's arguments were that the detention
facility was seriously overcrowded, making it impossible for
detainees to socially distance. It also noted that detainees lacked
adequate access to personal protective equipment.
Since the lawsuit was filed, dozens of people represented in the
suit were granted bail, remaining under the supervision of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement while their immigration
proceedings play out.
"The case dramatically reduced the number of people held in
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention at BCHOC --
from 148 to seven -- allowing dozens of civil immigration detainees
to return to their families and safely quarantine at home," Iván
Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of LCR, said in a statement
Tuesday.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind brought during
the pandemic on behalf of every immigrant detainee in Bristol
County custody, not just those individuals with serious medical
conditions.
If approved by the court, the settlement will uphold the release of
those individuals out on bail, secure the release of six additional
individuals, and allow the remaining seven detained individuals the
option of transferring to another New England ICE facility,
according to a press release.
In June 2020, a group of immigrants detained in a unit of the
Plymouth County Correctional Facility also sought release because
of risks associated with COVID-19. The ACLU of Massachusetts and
others represented the class members over the course of nearly a
year, during which time the immigrant detainee population in the
unit was reduced by 90%. Earlier this month, the voluntary
dismissal of the suit was approved in federal court. Those class
members remaining in detention have been offered the vaccine for
the coronavirus, according to the ACLU. [GN]
BRISTOL COUNTY, MA: Settlement Reached in Landmark COVID-19 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that the parties in Savino v Souza, the
landmark class action lawsuit challenging unsafe conditions at the
Bristol County House of Correction (BCHOC) in light of the COVID-19
pandemic, asked the federal judge hearing the case to approve a
settlement agreement. If approved, the settlement would resolve one
of the most successful class actions filed on behalf of detained
individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The case dramatically
reduced the number of people held in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detention at BCHOC – from 148 to seven –
allowing dozens of civil immigration detainees to return to their
families and safely quarantine at home.
The class action lawsuit was filed in March 2020 and is believed to
be the first lawsuit brought during the pandemic on behalf of all
individuals in ICE detention at a facility, as opposed to only
individuals with certain medical risk factors. The case brought ICE
and BCHOC officials' life-threatening mismanagement of the pandemic
to the attention of US District Court Judge William G. Young, an
effort that proved to be enormously successful at protecting class
members' health and well-being and that served as a blueprint for
similar class actions across the country. During the course of the
litigation:
-- The Court granted class certification, allowing the action to
proceed on behalf of all individuals held in civil immigration
detention at BCHOC. These individuals were not held on criminal
charges but rather solely because of their immigration status.
-- The Court determined that BCHOC was likely to be found
deliberately indifferent to class members' health and safety needs
due to "cavernous holes in the government's mitigation strategy"
during the pandemic, including a failure to reduce overcrowding, a
lack of testing, and inadequate contact tracing.
-- The Court released 43 individuals on bail, allowing them to
safely quarantine at home during the pendency of the lawsuit,
instead of in the unsafe and overcrowded conditions at BCHOC.
During the litigation, others paid bond set by Immigration Judges,
obtained relief in their immigration cases, or were voluntarily
released.
-- The Court granted a preliminary injunction, barring ICE from
admitting new individuals to detention without Court approval,
which maximized and sustained population reduction. The Court also
ordered that testing be made available to class members and BCHOC
staff.
The settlement announced if approved by the Court, will:
-- Secure the continued release of those on bail. The fact that
these class members have successfully remained under ICE
supervision, free of detention, demonstrates the accuracy of Judge
Young's statement, in ruling on the Preliminary Injunction, that
"it would appear we are spending millions of our national treasure
to lock up thousands of people who might better be
released…without impairing the safety of our citizens or the
operations of our government."
-- Secure the release of six additional individuals.
-- Provide the remaining seven detained individuals the option of
transferring to another New England ICE facility.
In documents filed, the parties have jointly asked the Court to
preliminarily approve the settlement and to set a Final Fairness
Hearing within 28 days to grant final approval.
The Plaintiff class is represented by Lawyers for Civil Rights, the
law firm of WilmerHale, which has generously provided its legal
services to the class on a pro bono basis, the Worker and Immigrant
Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, and Rights Behind Bars.
The advocacy efforts of community organizations and individual
attorneys have also played an invaluable role in securing this
positive outcome.[GN]
BRISTOW GROUP: August 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
To all persons or entities who, between February 8, 2018 and
February 12, 2019, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired
Bristow Group Inc. ("Bristow") Common Stock, and were damaged
thereby (the "Settlement Class"):
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $6,250,000 in cash (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims, both
known and unknown, in the Action.
A hearing will be held on August 6, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Keith P. Ellison at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, United States Courthouse, Courtroom
3176, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, TX 77002, to determine (i) whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated
January 27, 2021 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be
approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), can be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of
the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at
In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE),
c/o Angeion Group, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA
19103, by emailing info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by
calling toll free at 844-749-0019.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later
than July 6, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than July 16, 2021, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than July 16, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Bristow,
Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions
about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or
the Claims Administrator.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Bristow Group Inc. Sec. Litig., Case No. 4:19-cv-00509 (KPE)
c/o Angeion Group 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA
19103
844-749-0019
www.BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com
info@BristowSecuritiesSettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
Barry Barnett
Michael C. Kelso
1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (713) 651-9366
bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com
mkelso@susmangodfrey.com
and
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
Ira M. Press
Thomas W. Elrod
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Tel: (212) 371-6600
ipress@kmllp.com
telrod@kmllp.com
BY ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN]
CANOO INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of June 1 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
Canoo Inc., ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) from August
18, 2020 through March 29, 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 Canoo securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Canoo Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) an engineering services segment, (ii) the sales
of subscriptions to vehicles to consumers, and (iii) the sale of
vehicles to other businesses. The complaint alleges that, on March
29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically changing its
business model by deemphasizing its engineering services business
and by no longer focusing on its subscription-based business.
On March 29, 2021, after the markets closed, Canoo issued a press
release ("Q4 Release") reporting its fourth quarter and full year
2020 results. The Q4 Release removed the language touting its
"unique business model" simply stating: "Canoo has developed
breakthrough electric vehicles that are reinventing the automotive
landscape with bold innovations in design and pioneering
technologies."
On the same day the Company held a conference call to discuss its
financial results (the "Q4 Call"). During the call Defendant Aquila
announced that Defendant Balciunas was being replaced as CFO. The
Company's CEO, Defendant Kranz was not on the call. During the Q4
Call Defendant Aquila revealed that "it was decided by our Board to
de-emphasize the originally stated contract engineering services
line."
In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or 21.2%)
from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30
per share on March 30, 2021, on heavy volume.
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. 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 Canoo securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/canooinc-goev-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-386/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (c) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact Information
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
CANOO INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Canoo, Inc. (formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition
Corp. IV) ("Canoo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW; HCAC;
HCACW) 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-03080, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Canoo common stock
and/or warrants from August 18, 2020, through and including March
29, 2021, (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages pursuant
to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Class").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Canoo common stock and/or
warrants during the Class Period, you have until June 1, 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.
Canoo is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices in 19951 Mariner Avenue, Torrance, California.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware on August 6, 2018 and
conducted its initial public offering in March 2019. The Company
was formed for the purpose of effecting a business combination with
specific focus on businesses in the industrial, technology and
infrastructure sectors. Such companies are referred to as "blank
check" companies or special purpose acquisition companies
("SPACs"). In December 2020, the Company entered into a business
combination with Canoo Holdings Limited (the "Business
Combination").
The combined company purports to be a mobility technology company
that develops electric vehicles ("EV"). The Company's common stock
and warrants are listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
"GOEV" and "GOEVW," respectively. Prior to December 22, 2020, the
Company's common stock and warrants traded under the symbols "HCAC"
and "HCACW," respectively.
The complaint 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: (i) the Company's engineering
services was not a viable business, would not provide meaningful
revenue in 2021, and would not reduce operational risk; (ii) that
the Company would no longer be focused on its subscription-based
business model; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo issued a press
release ("Q4 Release") reporting its fourth quarter and full year
2020 results. The Q4 Release removed the language touting its
"unique business model" simply stating: "Canoo has developed
breakthrough electric vehicles that are reinventing the automotive
landscape with bold innovations in design and pioneering
technologies." That same day, on an earnings call to discuss the
Company's fourth quarter and full year 2020 results, Canoo
executives confirmed that the Company was radically changing its
business model, and it was revealed that the Canoo's CFO was being
replaced.
In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or $21.2%)
from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30
per share on March 30, 2021, on heavy volume.
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]
CANOO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV) investors
that acquired shares between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021.
Investors have until June 1, 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.
Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a Form S-1 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on September 18, 2020.
Subsequently, the Registration Statement was amended on October 23,
2020 and November 27, 2020. On December 4, 2020 Canoo also filed
its Prospectus on a Form 424b3 with the SEC. Stockholders voted at
a special meeting to approve the Merger on December 21, 2020. After
the market closed on March 29, 2021, Canoo held a conference call
in relation to its fourth quarter 2020 financial results which were
released the same day. During the call, defendant Tony Aquila, a
director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger, revealed that
Canoo would no longer be focusing on its engineering services line.
Canoo also announced on the same day that effective April 2, 2021,
Paul Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo
following the close of the Merger, had resigned. On March 30, 2021,
Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or 21.19%, on this news to close at
$9.30 per share.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Canoo
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had decreased its
focus on its plans to sell vehicles to consumers in the form of a
subscription model; (2) Canoo's engineering services business would
be deemphasized; (3) Canoo did not have partnerships with original
equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously
announced partnership with Hyundai, contrary to prior statements, ;
and (4) positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis, as a result of the foregoing.
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.
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]
CANOO INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 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 Central District of California has been
filed against Canoo Inc. (the "Company" (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW)
("Canoo") f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ:
HCAC; HCACW; HCACU) ("Hennessy Capital") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and
March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Canoo 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 Canoo Inc. you may, no
later than June 1, 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 Canoo
Inc.
Canoo was formed by a business combination between Hennessy Capital
Acquisition Corp. IV (a special purpose acquisition (SPAC) company)
and Canoo Holdings Limited in December 2020. The Company is a
mobile technology company that develops electric vehicles.
The filed complaint alleges that prior to and after the
combination, the Company promoted a business model based on a
three-phased approach to generating revenue and growth:
-- an engineering services segment,
-- the sales of subscriptions to vehicles to consumers, and
-- the sale of vehicles to other businesses.
On March 29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically
changing its business model by deemphasizing its engineering
services business and by no longer focusing on its
subscription-based business.
In response to this news, Canoo fell $2.50 per share ($21.2%) from
a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30 per
share on March 30, 2021.
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]
CAPSTONE RESTAURANT: Martinez Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAGALI MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP,
LLC, a Colorado corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No.
20-cv-1017-WJM-MEH (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado:
(i) granted the Defendant Capstone's Motion to Transfer
Venue, or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings and
Compel Arbitration; and
(ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class
Pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.
The Defendant, a Colorado corporation, operates approximately 300
franchised restaurants across 16 states. The Plaintiff was
employed as an assistant manager at a restaurant owned by the
Defendant in Calhoun, Georgia between May 2018 and March 2019.
Prior to beginning her employment, the Plaintiff completed certain
pre-employment documents through SnagAJob.com, a third-party
website which the Defendant used to facilitate onboarding and
management of personnel documentation. The pre-employment
documents included an arbitration agreement, which contained a
forum-selection clause stating that disputes between the parties
would be arbitrated "in the county and state in which the Employee
is or was employed by the Company," which here was Calhoun,
Georgia. Calhoun is located in the Northern District of Georgia.
On April 10, 2020, the Plaintiff initiated the action on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant
improperly classified her as an exempt employee and therefore
unlawfully denied her overtime compensation. She brings the action
pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq.
The Defendant filed its Motion to Transfer on June 9, 2020, arguing
that the forum-selection clause in the arbitration agreement
designates the Northern District of Georgia as the proper venue for
the action. The Plaintiff filed a response on Oct. 16, 2020, and
the Defendant filed a reply on Oct. 30, 2020.
On Oct. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Certify Class.
The Defendant filed a response on Nov. 11, 2020, and the Plaintiff
filed a reply on Nov. 18, 2020.
A. Enforceable Arbitration Agreement
The Defendant argues that the Court should transfer the action to
the Northern District of Georgia based on the forum-selection
clause contained in the arbitration agreement. Once transferred,
it seeks to compel arbitration.
In response, the Plaintiff categorically "denies the existence of
the arbitration agreement" and contends that she did not assent to
its terms. She argues that Defendant cannot prove that she read,
understood, and assented to the agreement. She concludes that
because the Defendant failed to authenticate the agreement, the
forum-selection clause does not apply to this dispute.
Judge Martinez holds that the Plaintiff's failure to recall
executing the arbitration agreement does not raise a genuine
dispute of material fact as to the existence of the agreement. The
Plaintiff does not dispute that she completed the online
pre-employment documentation, nor that completing this
documentation was required prior to beginning her employment. She
offers no alternative explanation for the notation stating that she
signed the arbitration agreement, and she cites no binding
authority where an arbitration agreement was held unenforceable
under similar circumstances. To the extent that she suggests that
any electronically signed agreement may be held invalid by a
general denial of signing, such argument is unpersuasive.
The Defendant has met its initial burden of demonstrating the
existence of an enforceable arbitration agreement, which the
Plaintiff has failed to overcome. Accordingly, the Judge proceeds
to the question of whether to honor the forum-selection clause.
B. Forum-Selection Analysis
The Defendant argues that the Court should transfer the action to
the Northern District of Georgia in accordance with the
forum-selection clause of the arbitration agreement so that it may
compel arbitration.
The Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that the
public-interest factors of the Section 1404(a) balancing test weigh
in her favor. She argues that "a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to her claims occurred" in the District of
Colorado. Specifically, she posits that the "drafting, formation,
and management of the policies and procedures" which she challenges
in the action occurred in the District. Further, she argues that
the Defendant's principal place of business is in Colorado and that
she initiated the action here.
Judge Martinez holds that a "plaintiff's choice of forum merits no
weight" where a forum-selection clause exists. Additionally, the
Plaintiff's arguments regarding the parties' private interests are
unavailing here, as they are deemed waived by the forum-selection
clause. Therefore, a party challenging a forum-selection clause
waives arguments regarding the convenience of the parties. As the
Plaintiff fails to specifically address public-interest factors,
she has not shown that her case is one of the rare or exceptional
instances where the forum-selection clause should not be enforced.
Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to Transfer is granted.
Because the Judge will transfer the action to the Northern District
of Georgia, the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as
moot.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinez (i) granted the
Defendants' Motion to Transfer; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's
Motion to Certify Class. He transferred the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the Clerk
will transmit the file to the Clerk of that court. Unless and
until ordered otherwise by the Northern District of Georgia,
unexpired deadlines in the case (if any) continue to control.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/487zf8tk from Leagle.com.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Cal. Court Dismisses MEI's 1st Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MEI SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff v. CARDINAL
HEALTH 110, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-CV-2424-CC (N.D. Ga.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia:
-- grants Defendant Cardinal Health 110, LLC's Motion to
Dismiss MEI Services, Inc.'s First Amended Complaint; and
-- denies Cardinal Health's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions.
Plaintiff MEI Services, Inc. is a pharmacy company that provides a
broad array of services including pharmacy consulting, wholesale
distribution, and pharmacy benefit management. Defendant Cardinal
Health is a multi-national health services company. As a pharmacy
company, MEI has engaged in considerable business with Defendant
Cardinal Health, including the purchase of significant amounts of
prescription drugs.
On December 27, 2016, MEI sold the assets of one of its stores to
CVS Pharmacy pursuant to an Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement
("APA"). Pursuant to the APA, $340,000 of the sale proceeds were to
be kept by CVS as a holdback to ensure that MEI complied with
certain indemnification provisions in the APA. To the extent the
indemnification provision was not triggered, the APA originally
called for CVS to return 50% of the Holdback to MEI after 18 months
and the remaining 50% after 36 months.
Prior to the closing, MEI had negotiations with both Cardinal
Health and Live Oak Bank Co. Both Cardinal Health and Live Oak were
secured creditors of MEI and, as such, both would have to release
liens in connection with the closing. Accordingly, it was agreed
that MEI would assign the Holdback funds to Cardinal Health and
Live Oak. On February 7, 2017, Cardinal Health sent correspondence
to CVS confirming this agreement.
Pursuant to correspondence dated August 6, 2018, which slightly
modified what was set forth in the prior correspondence, the
Holdback funds were to be split equally ($170,000 each, made in two
installments) between Live Oak and Cardinal Health. MEI and
Cardinal Health specifically agreed on the usage and treatment of
the Holdback funds. Under the agreement, Cardinal Health agreed to
use any Holdback funds received from CVS exclusively to pay any
outstanding notes or trade accounts between MEI and Cardinal
Health. It was also agreed that to the extent MEI was not indebted
to Cardinal Health on any notes or trade accounts, Cardinal Health
would return the Holdback funds to MEI.
In accordance with the agreement, on Aug. 9, 2019, CVS sent the
first installment of the Holdback to Cardinal Health in the amount
of $85,000. After discussing the matter, MEI requested that
Cardinal Health apply the $85,000 as a credit to a trade account
operated by an MEI affiliate. Cardinal Health agreed and the credit
was applied without incident.
In a separate transaction, in May 2018, MEI-affiliate Buckhead
Pharmaceutical Association, which signed its initial Cardinal
Health agreement contemporaneous with MEI's initial agreement
contemporaneous with MEI's initial agreement, sold its assets.
Following that sale, MEI-affiliate Buckhead incurred a debt on its
account with Cardinal Health in the amount of $69,511.65. MEI's
principal, Michael Bogachek, Buckhead, and MEI all refused to pay
the debt.
In February 2020, MEI requested that CVS release the second--and
final--$85,000 payment. Pursuant to the request, CVS paid the
remaining $85,000 to Cardinal Health. At the time of the payment,
MEI and Cardinal Health were engaged in considerable business and
MEI was indebted to Cardinal Health on a certain trade account in
an amount in excess of $85,000. Accordingly, it was understood by
both parties that Cardinal Health would simply apply the $85,000.00
as a credit to MEI's account. This was consistent both with the
initial agreement and also with the course of dealing established
with the payment of the initial Holdback funds.
Around this time, Mr. Bogachek began to have a number of other
business disputes with Cardinal Health unrelated to the Holdback.
In March 2020, MEI learned that Cardinal Health had reversed
course, retracted the credit, and was now refusing to pay the
$85,000 to MEI or apply it as a credit to MEI at all. Cardinal
Health instead issued instructions applying the Holdback amount to
the trade account of MEI-affiliate Buckhead.
On March 23, 2020, counsel for MEI demanded the return of the
$85,000. MEI disputed Cardinal Health's right to apply the Holdback
to the Buckhead account. MEI and Mr. Bogachek threatened class
litigation on behalf of MEI and its affiliates, having nothing to
do with the Holdback.
MEI and Cardinal Health began to have certain settlement
negotiations through counsel. On April 16, 2020, the parties
reached a settlement agreement. The complete agreement between the
parties is reflected in an email chain. As part of the agreement,
Cardinal Health would credit the $85,000 to MEI's debt and MEI
would provide "Cardinal Health with a full release of all claims,
including the usury class action claims previously alleged by Mr.
Bogachek." Additionally, Cardinal Health agreed to provide a draft
of the settlement agreement on April 20, 2020, and Cardinal Health
did so.
Prior to the email chain, the respective counsels for MEI and
Cardinal Health had verbal discussions. At no point in the verbal
discussions, or any of the written communications, did Cardinal
Health request that MEI include any entity other than MEI in any
settlement agreement. Much to MEI's dismay, on April 20, 2020,
counsel for Cardinal Health circulated a proposed settlement draft
that included a number of parties whose inclusion was never
discussed (or agreed upon)--either in telephone conversations or in
the email discussions.
As a result, MEI insisted that Cardinal Health honor the settlement
that was reached. Despite best efforts by MEI, Cardinal Health
refused to honor the settlement. Moreover, Cardinal Health
continues to hold the $85,000. MEI consequently commenced the
instant lawsuit.
On May 7, 2020, MEI commenced the action in the State Court of
Gwinnett County alleging claims for conversion, breach of contract
(related to the application of credit), breach of contract (related
to the settlement agreement), punitive damages, and attorney's
fees. On June 5, 2020, Cardinal Health removed the case to this
Court. On June 12, 2020, Cardinal Health moved the Court to dismiss
the Complaint. MEI exercised its right to amend its pleading and
filed the First Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
pleading in the action. Like the original Complaint, the First
Amended Complaint includes claims for conversion, breach of
contract (related to the application of credit), breach of contract
(related to the settlement agreement), punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 13-6-11.
Cardinal Health presently moves the Court to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
Motion to Dismiss
Cardinal Health contends that the Court should dismiss MEI's First
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for three reasons.
First, Cardinal Health maintains that it cannot be liable for
conversion since it holds title to the funds that are the subject
of the claim and because there is a commercial contract that allows
Cardinal Health to apply the funds to the defaulted account of an
MEI affiliate that governs the parties' debtor-creditor
relationship and the funds at issue. Second, ith argues that its
internal directives did not establish a contract between Cardinal
Health and MEI. Finally, Cardinal Health contends that the parties
never consummated the settlement agreement and that, even if they
did, MEI has not adequately alleged how Cardinal Health breached
the agreement.
Senior District Judge Clarence Cooper holds that MEI's conversion
claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In
the instant case, it is apparent that MEI bases its conversion
claim on Cardinal Health's alleged breach of an alleged agreement
and not a violation of an independent duty. As such, the conversion
claim fails as a matter of law.
The breach of contract claim that MEI alleges in Count Two fails to
state a claim because Cardinal Health's internal communications did
not give rise to a contract that MEI can enforce, Judge Cooper
finds.
In the First Amended Complaint, MEI alleges that an email between
two Cardinal Health employees constitutes a "binding agreement
wherein Cardinal agreed to apply the $85,000 as a credit on MEI's
account." However, Judge Cooper finds, MEI does not allege that it
provided any consideration to support the alleged contract upon
which MEI bases the second count of the First Amended Complaint.
MEI also does not address this issue at all in response to Cardinal
Health's Motion to Dismiss.
MEI next claims that Cardinal Health breached a settlement
agreement reached by the parties. Whether this claim should be
dismissed presents a closer question, Judge Cooper holds. However,
after careful consideration, the Court agrees with Cardinal Health
that it is due to be dismissed, too.
The Court finds that MEI and Cardinal Health agreed on the
essential terms. While the parties still had to reduce the parties'
email agreement to a final, comprehensive settlement agreement,
"the parties need only agree to the essential terms of the
contract, and the absence of agreement on nonessential terms does
not render the agreement unenforceable."
MEI alleges that Cardinal Health "breached the agreement by failing
to follow through as agreed." Judge Cooper opines that this
conclusory allegation, however, is contradicted by factual
allegations in the First Amended Complaint and the attachments to
the First Amended Complaint. Cardinal Health's first obligation,
based on the parties' email agreement, was to provide a settlement
draft. There is no dispute that Cardinal Health met that
obligation.
The Court understands that MEI took and continues to take issue
with the proposed settlement draft, but Cardinal Health's
obligation was only to provide a settlement draft. Cardinal Health
was not obligated to take any further action until after the
parties executed the final settlement agreement, which never
happened, Judge Cooper holds.
Motion for Sanctions
In the case at bar, the Court finds that Rule 11 sanctions are not
warranted. MEI's claims in the First Amended Complaint were weak,
especially the claim for conversion and the breach of contract
claim based on the internal communications of Cardinal Health's
employees. However, the claims were not so objectively frivolous so
as to justify an award of sanctions. Therefore, the Court denies
the Motion for Sanctions.
The Court likewise will not award MEI's request for sanctions, as
Cardinal Health's Motion for Sanctions had to be served and filed
prior to the time that the Court issued a ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss. Further, the Motion for Sanctions was not substantively
frivolous, given the weaknesses of the claims in the First Amended
Complaint.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant Cardinal
Health's Motion to Dismiss and denies its Motion for Sanctions. It
directs the Clerk of Court to mark the case closed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 5,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3x9bwukf from
Leagle.com.
CAVIAR INC: Case Mgmt. & Pre-trial Order in Tiffin Suit Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFIN CHERRY HILL LLC, and TIFFIN MOUNT AIRY, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CAVIAR, INC., d/b/a TRY CAVIAR, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-00403-SK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Sallie A. Kim of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Parties' stipulation to alter case management and pre-trial order
as modified.
The Parties submit the Stipulation and Proposed Order to Modify the
Case Management and Pre-Trial Order previously entered by the Court
on Jan. 12, 2021.
On Jan. 21, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the putative class
action against Caviar for breach of contract, conversion, and
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq.
In April 2020, the Parties began discussing early resolution and
scheduled a mediation with JAMS to take place on Sept. 20, 2020,
which was then rescheduled twice due to events outside of their
control.
On April 30, 2020, Caviar moved to dismiss all of the Plaintiffs'
claims, which the Plaintiffs opposed and the Court granted with
respect to the conversion claim but denied with respect to the
breach of contract and UCL claims on May 15, 2020.
On May 29, 2020, the Plaintiffs served Defendant with their first
set of discovery requests.
On June 12, 2020, the Defendant served its first set of discovery
requests on the Plaintiffs.
On July 13, 2020, the Defendant served its objections and responses
to the Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests, and the
Plaintiffs also served their objections and responses to the
Defendants' first set of discovery requests.
The Parties subsequently engaged in several meet and confers
regarding the Plaintiffs' discovery requests and certain of
Caviar's objections, and Caviar's counsel requested that the
Parties pause full-scale discovery in favor of narrow discovery for
purposes of mediation so that Caviar could conserve resources that
could otherwise be used for settlement.
On Sept. 8, 2020, in light of the circumstances, the Court issued
an order extending the mediation and case management deadlines.
On Oct. 29, 2020, the Parties jointly moved to stay all pre-trial
deadlines pending mediation. The next day, the Court stayed all
deadlines, including discovery deadlines, pending the Parties'
upcoming mediation.
On Dec. 22, 2020, the Parties engaged in mediation, but the
mediation was ultimately unsuccessful. Following that unsuccessful
mediation, on Jan. 12, 2021, the Court entered an Order setting the
following deadlines for the action: (i) Close of Fact Discovery:
4/8/2021, (ii) Initial Expert Disclosures: 4/22/2021, (iii)
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: 4/22/2021, (iv)
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: 5/19/2021, (v) Close of Expert
Discovery: 5/26/2021, (vi) Defendant's Opposition to Class
Certification: 6/8/2021, (vii) Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of
Class Certification: 7/16/2021, (viii) Hearing on Class
Certification Motion: no later than 8/9/2021, (ix) Dispositive
Motion Hearing: 11/22/2021 (9:30 a.m.), (x) Pretrial Conference:
1/21/2022, and (xi) Trial: 3/1/2022.
On Jan. 25, 2021, the Parties submitted certain discovery disputes
to the Court by joint letter. Two days after, the Court issued an
Order resolving these discovery dispute.
Pursuant to the Court's Feb. 2, 2021 Order on Motion for Leave to
File Reconsideration, on Feb. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration of the portion of the Discovery Order limiting the
relevant discovery period to "from 2017 onward," and requested that
the discovery period commence from Jan. 1, 2014 onward.
On Feb. 17, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the request
without prejudice and provided the Plaintiffs leave to renew their
motion upon providing support for the earlier discovery period.
On Feb. 26, 2021, Caviar served a second set of discovery requests.
The Plaintiffs served their second set of discovery requests on
March 5, 2021.
On March 14, 2021, new document discovery disputes arose between
the Parties, but the Parties are working cooperatively to resolve
them without Court intervention. The day after, Caviar served its
notices of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) on the Plaintiffs; and the Plaintiffs served their notice
of deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)
on Caviar.
On March 24, 2021, the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for
reconsideration of the discovery period.
As the overview reflects, the Parties have been working diligently
to complete document discovery in compliance with the Discovery
Order, but based on the volume of discovery, the renewed motion to
extend the discovery period, and several discovery issues that have
arisen, the Parties anticipate that discovery will take longer than
anticipated to complete.
Therefore, subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties agreed
that all pre-trial deadlines and the trial date are extended by six
months as follows: (i) Trial Date: Sept. 1, 2022, (ii) Pretrial
Conference: July 7, 2022, (iii) Summary Judgment Hearing: May 22,
2022 , (iv) Reply in Support of Cross-motion: May 2, 2022, (v)
Reply and Opposition to Cross-motion: April 26, 2022, (vi)
Opposition and Cross-Motion: April 12, 2022, (vii) Opening Summary
Judgment Motion: March 28, 2022, (viii) Class Certification
Hearing: Feb. 9, 2022, (ix) Reply in support of Class
Certification: Jan. 17, 2022, (x) Opposition to Class Certification
Motion: Dec. 8, 2021, (xi) Expert Discovery Deadline: Dec. 3, 2021,
(xii) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Nov. 19, 2021, (xiii) Class
Certification Motion: Oct. 29, 2021, (xiv) Initial Expert
Disclosures: Oct. 29, 2021, and (xv) Close of Non-expert Discovery:
Oct. 22, 2021.
The Stipulated Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the
Parties or by the Court for good cause shown.
Judge Kim granted the Parties' stipulation as modified. She
continued all dates and deadlines as follows: (i) Trial Date: Sept.
6, 2022, (ii) Pretrial Conference: Aug. 5, 2022, (iii) Summary
Judgment Hearing: May 23, 2022 , (iv) Reply in Support of
Cross-motion: May 2, 2022, (v) Reply and Opposition to
Cross-motion: April 26, 2022, (vi) Opposition and Cross-Motion:
April 12, 2022, (vii) Opening Summary Judgment Motion: March 28,
2022, (viii) Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 14, 2022, (ix) Reply
in support of Class Certification: Jan. 17, 2022, (x) Opposition to
Class Certification Motion: Dec. 8, 2021, (xi) Expert Discovery
Deadline: Dec. 3, 2021, (xii) Rebuttal Expert Disclosures: Nov. 19,
2021, (xiii) Class Certification Motion: Oct. 29, 2021, (xiv)
Initial Expert Disclosures: Oct. 29, 2021, and (xv) Close of
Non-expert Discovery: Oct. 22, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3764vu8h from Leagle.com.
Ruby H. Kazi -- rkazi@beneschlaw.com -- Whitney (Carlson) Johnson
-- wjohnson@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN &
ARONOFF LLP, in San Francisco, California, and J. Erik Connolly --
econnolly@beneschlaw.com -- Kate Watson Moss --
kwatsonmoss@beneschlaw.com -- Madhavi Seth -- mseth@beneschlaw.com
-- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP, in Chicago,
Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant.
CELSION CORP: O'Connor Settlement Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement in
O'Connor v. Braun et al., Docket No. MER-C-000068-19, has been
granted final approval.
On September 20, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a derivative and putative class action lawsuit against the Company
and certain officers and directors.
The Company was a defendant in this derivative and putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, filed by a shareholder against the Company (as both a
class action defendant and nominal defendant), and certain of its
officers and directors, with the caption O'Connor v. Braun et al.,
Docket No. MER-C-000068-19.
The Shareholder Action alleged breaches of the defendants'
fiduciary duties based on allegations that the defendants omitted
or made improper statements when seeking shareholder approval of
the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan.
The Shareholder Action sought, among other things, any damages
sustained by the Company as a result of the defendants' alleged
wrongdoing, a declaratory judgment against all defendants
invalidating the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan and declaring any awards
made under the Plan invalid, rescinded, and subject to
disgorgement, an order disgorging the equity awards granted to the
Individual Defendants under the 2018 Stock Incentive Plan, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On April 24, 2020, the Company, the Individual Defendants, and the
plaintiff entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release, which
memorializes the terms of the Parties' settlement of the
Shareholder Action.
The Settlement calls for repricing of certain stock options and
payment of plaintiff legal fees of $187,500.
On July 24, 2020, the Court issued an order approving the Parties'
proposed form of notice to shareholders regarding the Settlement.
A hearing was held on September 8, 2020 whereby the Court issued a
final approval approving the Settlement.
Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company paid $187,500 on October 1,
2020. Without admitting the validity of any of the claims asserted
in the Shareholder Action, or any liability with respect thereto,
and expressly denying all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability, or damage against the Company and the Individual
Defendants arising out of any of the conduct, statements, acts or
omissions alleged, or that could have been alleged, in the
Shareholder Action, the Company and the Individual Defendants
concluded that it was desirable that the claims be settled on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Company and the Individual Defendants entered into the
Settlement Agreement for settlement purposes only and solely to
avoid the cost and disruption of further litigation.
Celsion Corporation, a development-stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
CELSION CORP: Spar Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Spar v.
Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228.
On October 29, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned
Spar v. Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Individual Defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding one of the Company's
product candidates, ThermoDox(R), and brings claims for damages
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against all Defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Spar Individual Defendants.
The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.
Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Garcia Employment Suit Goes to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES,
INC. and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV05429, was
removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03039 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit
rest breaks, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages
due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices.
Center For Employment Opportunities, Inc. is a provider of
employment services with its principal place of business in New
York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Ariana Sanudo, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
E-mail: adam.siegel@jacksonlewis.com
ariana.sanudo@jacksonlewis.com
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Class Settlement in Rael Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MONICA RAEL and ALYSSA HEDRICK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-370-GPC-LL (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California:
(i) grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Incentive Award; and
(ii) denies without prejudice their Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement.
On Feb. 11, 2016, Plaintiff Rael brought suit on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated against Defendant The Children's
Place, Inc. ("TCP"). She amended the complaint three times and
added a second Named Plaintiff, Hendrick.
On Nov. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint alleging three causes of actions for violations of: (1)
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200 et seq.; (2) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; and (3) California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750 et seq. The
Plaintiffs' three causes of action stem from the allegation that
the Defendant advertises children's clothing with discounted prices
from false original prices to deceive customers as to the real
value of their goods, thus unlawfully driving sales.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class including
"all individuals in the United States who, from Feb. 11, 2012
through the date the Court enters the preliminary approval order,
purchased any product bearing a discount at one of The Children's
Place retail or outlet stores."
The Plaintiffs further divide the Class into three Tiers. "Tier 1
Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying
purchases total less than $50, or any individuals who do not submit
proof of their purchases. "Tier 2 Authorized Claimants" include
individuals whose qualifying purchases total $50.01 to $150. "Tier
3 Authorized Claimants" include individuals whose qualifying
purchases total more than $150. Tier 2 and Tier 3 Claimants are
required to submit proof of their purchases. Tier 1 Claimants get
one voucher, Tier 2 Claimants get two vouchers, and Tier 3
Claimants get three vouchers.
To compensate the Class for settling the action, the Settlement
Agreement provides for a "Voucher Fund" which will contain 800,000
vouchers to be awarded to the qualifying Class Members. Vouchers
may be used at a TCP store, outlet, or online, and come in one of
two forms: "(i) $6 off a purchase (no minimum purchase) or (ii) 25%
off a purchase (of the first $100)." They are "transferable,"
valid for 6 months, and "may be used on items that are on sale or
otherwise discounted." Vouchers cannot be "combined with any other
coupon or promotional offer," redeemed for cash, or replaced if
lost, stolen, or damaged. The $6 vouchers are "stackable" while
the 25% vouchers are not.
To obtain a voucher, the Class Members must comply with the Claims
Procedure detailed in the Settlement Agreement. The Procedure
permits them to file a claim with the Claims Administrator, object
to the Settlement Agreement, or request to be excluded from the
Class. The Class Members must perform these actions on or before
the response deadline, which would initially be set at 120 calendar
days after the entry of the Order. They may also request to appear
at the Fairness Hearing. In addition to collecting biographical
information, the Claim Form asks Claimants to select their Tier,
note their purchases and any available proof, choose which voucher
to obtain, and provide an e-mail address for electronic delivery.
As noted, the number of vouchers each Claimant receives will be
equal to the Tier number. If there are timely claims to more than
800,000 vouchers in the first round of distribution, the Fund will
only distribute dollar-based vouchers, and the value of those
vouchers will be calculated on a pro rata basis. In subsequent
rounds of distribution, Claimants receive vouchers according to the
selections made in their Claim Forms. Again, if there are fewer
vouchers left in the Voucher Fund than are timely claimed in any
subsequent round of distribution, the Fund will then disburse only
dollar-value vouchers at a pro-rated value.
Vouchers disbursed through subsequent rounds from the Fund are to
have different "expiry" period. More specifically, the periods of
expiry for each "round" of Voucher distribution will be successive
(i.e., if the Vouchers to be distributed in the first "round" are
valid between Jan. 1, 2021 and June 30, 2021, those that are part
of the second "round" would be valid from July 1, 2021 until Dec.
31, 2021).
The Settlement Agreement permits the Named Plaintiffs and the Class
Counsel to recover fees independent of the Voucher Fund. Each
Named Plaintiff may recover an "Individual Settlement Award" of
$2,500 or less, subject to the Court's approval. The Class Counsel
may seek up to $1,080,000 in costs and fees (total), subject to the
Court's approval. If the Court awards less than that maximum
amount in fees and costs to the Class Counsel, the difference
between the actual award and $1,080,000 will go to the Voucher Fund
or, if certain criteria are met, become a cy pres distribution to
the National Consumer Law Center.
In the Jan. 28, 2020 Order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement, the Court approved a tri-part notice structure. The
Plaintiffs reported the results from their notice via the
declaration of the Settlement Administrator, KCC Class Action
Services, LLC's employee, Mr. Jay Geraci, which he completed on
June 26, 2020.
As of June 26, 2020, KCC had received 101,350 timely-filed claim
forms. It was a total of 49,929 Tier 1 claims, 32,985 Tier 2
claims, and 18,436 Tier 3 claims. These claims represent 171,207
Vouchers in total. (Id.) KCC received 10 timely requests for
exclusion. KCC also received three objections. Execution costs of
the notice and claims process, as of June 26, 2020, had totaled
$653,724.45.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs and Incentive Award, and Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement. In an Order issued on Oct. 23, 2020
("First Final Settlement Order"), the Court deferred ruling on the
two Motions, and directed the parties to file Supplemental Briefs
and corresponding Replies.
Judge Curiel finds that the modified Settlement Agreement does not
reveal collusion. While the First Final Settlement Order initially
expressed concerns for the scope of release being overly broad,
these concerns have been addressed by the parties' agreed-upon
modification, which the Judge approves.
The Judge also finds that the Notice Plan used in the case
satisfied the requirements of Rule 23. As part of the modified
Settlement Agreement, TCP has agreed to re-notice the class and
notify class members that the release has been altered so as to
carve out the Washington class action litigation from the terms of
the Settlement Agreement. Given that the modifications inure to
the benefit of class members in the State of Washington, there is a
question whether notice regarding the release is required.
However, out of an abundance of caution, the Judge will direct the
Defendant to arrange for supplemental notice. As such, he
concludes that the Notice Plan implemented provided the best
possible notice under the circumstances of the original settlement
and the modifications to the release.
Turning to the attorneys' fees, Judge Curie denies without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees and instead
bifurcates the issue so that the Court will determine the
appropriate fee award in the future once the modified Settlement
Agreement is executed and the class recovery amount has been
determined. The parties have agreed to this method and the Judge
will proceed accordingly. The underlying Motion is not something
the Court may grant, regardless of the Court approving a modified
settlement, because the Court may award attorney's fees only after
the class settlement's value is determined. In the case, it hinges
on "the true amount" that the settlement class recovers from the $6
vouchers and the 25% off coupons. Once the recovery amount is
determined, the Plaintiffs may file a new attorney's fees motion.
Having approved the modified Settlement Agreement, Judge Curiel
also clarifies its instruction to the parties on follow-up actions
to take. First, the Defendant will file the modified Settlement
Agreement by April 2, 2021. Second, by April 7, 2021, it will
provide a copy of its proposed class notice to the Plaintiffs'
counsel. If the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agree on the class
notice's contents, they will jointly file the proposed notice for
the Court's approval by April 14, 2021. Should any disagreements
occur over the contents of the class notice, the Defendant may file
a motion for class notice by April 16, 2021, in which the
Plaintiffs may file an opposition by April 19, 2021, and the
Defendant may file a reply by April 21, 2021. And should such
motion be filed, a telephonic hearing will be scheduled for April
23, 2021, at 1:30 p.m.
Finally, the Judge reaffirms that a telephonic status conference is
set for Nov. 5, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. The parties will file a joint
status report a week before.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Curiel approves the modified class
action settlement agreement and denies without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees, with the attorney's fees to
be determined later.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vvzbehym from Leagle.com.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Chef Joins COVID-19 Claims Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Wells, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports that an
award-winning Raleigh, North Carolina chef is the latest Triangle
restaurateur to take legal action against an insurance company over
claims tied to business losses resulting from the pandemic.
Ashley Christensen's restaurants have filed a class action lawsuit
against Cincinnati Insurance Company over business interruption
coverage. Her restaurants Death & Taxes, Poole's Diner, Beasley's
Chicken + Honey, Chuck's Burgers (which closed permanently last
year), Poole'side Pies, and Fox Liquor Bar are listed as plaintiffs
along with Christensen's catering service, Aux Kitchen, and the
Bridge Club event venue.
Christensen closed her restaurants last March following a mandatory
statewide order that prohibited bars and dining establishments from
serving guests indoors. She immediately cut her staff of 300
employees to about 50 people and has since been doing takeout
orders, according to the suit.
Even though restaurants were allowed to resume indoor dining last
summer, Christensen is yet to do so at her establishments, citing
safety and health concerns. AC Restaurants says it plans to resume
indoor dining at four locations in mid-April: Poole's, Poole'side
Pies, Beasley's and Death & Taxes.
Like many restaurants during the pandemic, Christensen saw her
insurance claims denied, even as her establishments faced "the
prospect of permanent closure," and their "margins were often
razor-thin," according to the lawsuit.
The case was filed in federal court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina. Christensen is being represented by attorney Gagan
Gupta with Paynter Law in Raleigh.
In a prepared statement, Christensen said the business interruption
coverage is critical for her establishments.
"But despite that the pandemic has wreaked havoc on the restaurant
industry, Cincinnati Insurance has categorically refused to honor
its business interruption policies sold across North Carolina," the
statement said. "This is true even though Cincinnati's policies,
including mine, do not have virus exclusions. I brought this class
action lawsuit to try and force Cincinnati to pay this coverage,
which will be critical to ensuring restaurants across our state
survive this devastating pandemic."
In a statement to TBJ, Cincinnati Insurance Company said it does
not comment on pending litigation, but that it "remains committed
to doing our part to support the families and businesses in our
agents' communities, helping them to proactively manage risks and
promptly paying covered claims."
The lawsuit does list an exact amount for how much Christensen is
seeking to claim under her policies -- it says the amount exceeds
$75,000. Regarding the class action status for North Carolina, it
says the aggregate amount exceeds $5 million.
This isn't the first time Gupta has taken on Cincinnati Insurance
Company. Last fall, he earned a court victory for local
restauranteurs Matt Kelly and Giorgios Bakatsias when a North
Carolina judge ruled the insurance company must honor and pay out
similar policies -- the company said it would appeal the ruling.
"In October 2020, Paynter Law secured a groundbreaking and powerful
win for our clients in court," Gupta said. "With this class action
suit, and with Ms. Christensen's support, we are seeking to build
upon that victory and help policyholders across our state."
Christensen, a veteran of the food industry, has made a name for
herself in the Triangle since taking over Poole's Diner in Raleigh
in 2007. She won a James Beard Award in 2014 for Best Chef in the
Southeast and again in 2019 for the Outstanding Chef category.
Last year, Christensen helped start the Independent Restaurant
Coalition, a grassroots effort by chefs and independent restaurant
owners across the country to help members of the restaurant
industry during the pandemic. [GN]
CLEAN HARBORS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fogg Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
OREESE FOGG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-07626 (D.N.J., Mar. 31, 2021) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Fogg was employed by the Defendant as equipment
operator.
Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. provides hazardous and
non-hazardous material management and disposal services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Messina, Esq.
Berkowitz Lichtstein Kuritsky
GIASULLO & GROSS, LLC
75 Livingston Ave
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Telephone: (973) 325-7800
Facsimile: (973) 325-7930
-and-
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
Kyle Bates, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, California 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
COCRYSTAL PHARMA: Court Approves Pepe Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the terms of
the settlement of the class action suit initiated by Anthony Pepe.
On September 20, 2018, Anthony Pepe, individually and on behalf of
a class, filed with the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey a complaint against the Company, certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
and the other defendants named therein for violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The class consisted of the persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 23, 2013
through September 7, 2018. Pepe also alleged violation of other
sections of the Exchange Act by the defendants named in the
complaint other than the Company.
Pepe seeks damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.
On January 16, 2019, Ms. Susan Church, a stockholder of the
Company, filed with the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington a derivative suit against certain
current and former executive officers and directors of the Company
alleging breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of
corporate assets, and violations of the rules governing proxy
solicitation.
Church sought, among other things, money damages, disgorgement of
profits from alleged wrongful conduct, including cash bonuses,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.
On December 16, 2020, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey approved the terms of the settlement of the
above class action, the derivative action, and two related
derivative actions. The Company paid $450,000 for its share of the
total class action settlement.
As for the settlement of the derivative lawsuits, on February 14,
2021, the Board of Directors of the Company approved certain
corporate governance changes that the Company agreed to make
pursuant to the terms of the settlement, including an amendment to
its Bylaws.
Cocrystal Pharma, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company,
engages in discovering and developing various novel antiviral
therapeutics that target the replication machinery of hepatitis
viruses, influenza viruses, and noroviruses. Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.
was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Tucker, Georgia.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Averts Class Action Over AirPod Charger Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California federal judge freed Costco on
March 12 from a proposed class action claiming AirPods purchased
from the store were falsely advertised as having wireless charging
capabilities, ruling that online reviews used by the customer as
evidence actually hurt his case. [GN]
CUDAHY PLACE: Harwell-Payne Seeks to Certify Hourly Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charletta Harwell-Payne On
behalf of Herself and all others similarly situated, v. Cudahy
Place Senior Living, LLC; Matthews Senior Living, LLC Encore
Management & Development, LLC Encore Senior Living, LLC, Case No.
21-CV-328 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order order granting conditional class certification and court
facilitated notice to the following persons:
"All hourly employees who worked at any Wisconsin facility
administered by 41 Management LLC during the time period between
August 31, 2017 and the present"
Cudahy Place is a senior living provider in Cudahy, Wisconsin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7404j
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271-4500
Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
CV SCIENCES: Colette Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action
suit initiated by Michelene Colette remains stayed.
On December 3, 2019, Michelene Colette and Leticia Shaw filed a
putative class action complaint in the Central District of
California, alleging the labeling on the Company's products
violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.
On February 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Colette Complaint.
Instead of opposing the company's motion, plaintiffs elected to
file an amended complaint on February 25, 2020.
On March 11, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The court issued a ruling on May 22, 2020 that
stayed this proceeding in its entirety and dismissed part of the
amended complaint.
CV Sciences said, "The portion of the proceeding that is stayed
will remain stayed until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
promulgates rules that govern cannabidiol products (the "FDA
Rules"). When such FDA Rules are promulgated, the plaintiffs will
be allowed to ask the court to reopen the proceeding. Management
intends to vigorously defend the allegations."
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
CV SCIENCES: Discovery in Smith Purported Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the purported class action suit initiated by David Smith.
On August 24, 2018, David Smith filed a purported class action
complaint in Nevada District Court alleging certain misstatements
in the Company's public filings that led to stock price
fluctuations and financial harm. Several additional individuals
filed similar claims, and the Smith Complaint and each of the other
suits all arise out of a report published by Citron Research on
Twitter on August 20, 2018, suggesting that the Company misled
investors by failing to disclose that the Company's efforts to
secure patent protection for CVSI-007 had been "finally rejected"
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
On November 15, 2018, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed Richard Ina, Trustee for the Ina Family Trust, as Lead
Plaintiff for the consolidated actions.
On January 4, 2019, Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Richard Ina, Trustee
for the Ina Family Trust, filed a"consolidated amended complaint".
On March 5, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the action.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2019, and
the parties have commenced discovery in the action with a discovery
cutoff date of May 24, 2021.
CV Sciences, Inc. operates as a life science company. It operates
through two segments, Consumer Products and Specialty
Pharmaceuticals. The company was formerly known as CannaVest Corp.
and changed its name to CV Sciences, Inc. in January 2016. CV
Sciences, Inc. was founded in 2010 and is based in Las Vegas,
Nevada.
CYTODYN INC: Portnoy Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of CytoDyn, Inc. (OTCQB: CYDY) investors
that acquired shares between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021.
Investors have until April 19, 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.
It is alleged in this complaint that made materially misleading
and/or false statements touting Leronlimab as a potential treatment
for COVID-19 in order to inflate the CytoDyn stock price while
executives were aggressively selling their shares. It is also
alleged in this complaint that CytoDyn engaged in an illegal scheme
whereby Iliad Research and Trading L.P. and other entities related
to Iliad's principal John Fife operated as an unregistered
securities dealer for CytoDyn. CytoDyn's share price fell $1.14 per
share, or 28%, on this news, to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021.
Shares of CytoDyn dropped an additional 19% on March 9, 2021 to
close at $2.35, thereby further injuring investors.
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 19,
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]
DBV TECHNOLOGIES: Ito-Stone Securities Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
DBV Technologies S.A. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Travis Ito-Stone v. DBV
Technologies, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00525.
On January 15, 2019, Travis Ito-Stone individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint for
violation of federal securities laws against the company, its
former Chief Executive Officer, its current Chief Executive
Officer, its former Deputy Chief Executive Officer and its former
Chief Business Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
Subsequently, Ruth Pruitt and Asdrubal Delgado were appointed as
lead plaintiffs and an amended complaint was filed on January 24,
2020 and a second amended complaint was filed on June 5, 2020.
The complaint, as amended, purports to bring a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired our
securities between February 14, 2018 and March 16, 2020 and seeks
to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements related to the
company's business, operational and compliance policies. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class, an
award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief
as the court deems appropriate.
DBV Technologies said, "We believe that the allegations contained
in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend the case
vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length of time that
this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may
arise therefrom."
DBV Technologies S.A., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
engages in the research and development of epicutaneous
immunotherapy products. The Company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Montrouge, France.
DMG MORI: Arnold's Bid for Summary Judgment in FCRA Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN ARNOLD, et al., Plaintiffs v. DMG MORI USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02373-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James
Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
denies the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.
Named Plaintiffs Brandon Bebault and Steven Arnold sued their
former employer, Defendant DMG, for obtaining background reports on
prospective employees with disclosure and authorization forms that
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1681, et seq. The Court certified a class consisting of "all
persons residing in the United States for whom DMG procured or
caused to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes on
or after April 19, 2016," with Arnold as the class representative.
The Plaintiffs applied for jobs with DMG, which makes cutting
machine tools, on or after April 19, 2016. As part of the
application process, DMG gave them background check disclosures
that described their rights under the FCRA and, in the same
document, related rights under California, Maine, Minnesota, New
York, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington state laws.
The Plaintiffs' sole claim in the case is that DMG's forms violated
the FCRA. To show this, they focus mainly on DMG's practice of
combining FCRA and state law disclosures. The parties agree that,
under the FCRA, an employer must provide (i) a "clear and
conspicuous" disclosure that a consumer report is being procured
(ii) "in a document that consists solely of that disclosure" (the
standalone document requirement), which (iii) the employee must
authorize in writing. The Plaintiffs seek statutory damages under
the FCRA, which requires them to show that DMG's violations were
"willful."
At multiple turns in the litigation, DMG has tried to get the case
dismissed on the theory that the Plaintiffs did not suffer a
concrete injury in fact for Article III standing purposes. The
Court denied these efforts because our circuit definitively
rejected the same contention in Syed v. M-I, LLC, 853 F.3d 492 (9th
Cir. 2017), a case that is directly on point and leaves no room for
reasonable disagreement. Syed expressly concluded that a plaintiff
establishes a concrete injury and Article III standing by alleging
an improper disclosure under Section 1681b(b)(2)(A).
While that would seem enough to have put the standing issue to
rest, DMG raises the point again on summary judgment on the basis
of an unpublished memorandum in Ruiz v. Shamrock Foods Co., 804 F.
App'x 657 (9th Cir. 2020), which was decided after the Court
certified the class in the instant case. In a split decision with
one judge dissenting, the panel affirmed the district court's grant
of summary judgment to the employer because the Plaintiffs did not
"produce admissible evidence establishing a concrete injury,"
namely that "they were confused by the inclusion of the references
to state law" in the disclosure form, and that they would not have
signed the authorization if it were sufficiently clear.
That specific determination is the sole ground for DMG bringing up
the standing point again, and Judge Donato finds it unavailing for
several reasons. To start, DMG's cross-motion on this issue is in
effect an improper request for reconsideration by another name.
DMG did not comply with the requirements for seeking
reconsideration. It did not seek permission to file for
reconsideration in advance, and did not identify a material change
in the record or governing law that might warrant reconsideration.
DMG implies that Ruiz is such a change in law, but an unpublished
memorandum is not a binding precedent for reconsideration
purposes.
DMG's reliance on Ruiz is also questionable substantively. Looming
over DMG's position is Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores,
LLC, 913 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2019). Gilberg built on Syed and the
plain language of Section 1681b(b)(2)(A) to conclude that when "a
disclosure form does not consist solely of the FCRA disclosure, it
does not satisfy the standalone document requirement." Gilberg
reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the
employer on precisely this basis. The disclosure form there
blended FCRA and state law disclosures. Gilberg concluded that
this would necessarily "confuse a reasonable reader because it
combines federal and state disclosures."
So too in the case, Judge Donato holds. He says the disclosure
form DMG gave to potential employees is identical in all material
respects to the one that fell short of the standalone requirement
in Gilberg. Ruiz did not mention Gilberg, or account for its
holding, and DMG offers nothing on that score, either. On this
basis alone, DMG's renewed attack on standing falls apart.
Judge Donato further finds that DMG's reading of Ruiz is also out
of step with other Ninth Circuit decisions on injury and standing
under the FCRA. DMG says that Ruiz requires extrinsic evidence of
"actual concrete damages for each class member" resulting from
non-compliant disclosures in order to demonstrate a concrete
injury. But that is not consonant with governing law in the
circuit, as the dissent in Ruiz demonstrated. Several published
circuit decisions have concluded that Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)
protects substantive informational and privacy rights.
Consequently, providing a disclosure form with extraneous
information violates substantive informational and privacy rights
under the FCRA. These decisions did not require a separate showing
of "actual damages," as DMG would have it, and the plain text of
the FCRA certainly does not demand that.
In any event, Judge Donato holds that Ruiz is distinguishable on
the facts. The thrust of DMG's argument is that the Plaintiffs,
like the ones in Ruiz, did not tender evidence of confusion from
the faulty disclosures, or a reluctance to sign them had they been
clear. That is not a complete picture of the record in the case.
In support of class certification, both named Plaintiffs declared
that they were "confused" about what they were signing, and that
they might not have signed had they understood the forms. This is
the kind of evidence that DMG says is required by Ruiz, and it is
contained in the record before the Court.
As for liability, the undisputed facts amply establish that DMG
violated the FCRA. DMG provided the Plaintiffs with a standardized
disclosure and authorization form, which the Plaintiffs signed. In
addition to the disclosures required by the FCRA, the form
contained statements about the laws of several states. As noted,
the Ninth Circuit has held on "indistinguishable" facts that forms
such as those used by DMG that contain "extraneous information
relating to various state disclosure requirements in that
disclosure" violate Section 1681(b)(2)(A)(i).
DMG does not dispute that its initial form violated the FCRA. It
tries to cabin the consequences of that by pointing to a revised
form it used after the Gilberg decision, which it says omits the
references to state law and otherwise complied with Section
1681(b)(2)(A). On this basis, DMG suggests that liability should
be limited to the original form.
Judge Donato finds that the revised form violates the FCRA in other
respects. That is because it contains extraneous language stating
that the signatory has "the right, upon written request made within
a reasonable time, to request whether a consumer report has been
run about you and to request a copy of your report." The circuit
has concluded that substantially similar language, even if
presented "in good faith," is inconsistent with the standalone
document requirement in Section 1681(b)(2)(A)(i).
The remaining question for summary judgment is whether DMG's
violations may be deemed willful. A company violates the FCRA
"willfully" when it knows that its actions violate the FCRA, or
when it displays a "reckless disregard" for its requirements. A
violation of the FCRA is reckless as a matter of law if it ignored
an unambiguous requirement of the statute. Consequently, because
the FCRA unambiguously requires that a disclosure be provided in a
standalone document, a "prospective employer's violation of the
FCRA is 'willful' when the employer includes terms in addition to
the disclosure."
These principles make the issue of willfulness straightforward,
Judge Donato holds. DMG's original form contained extraneous
references to California, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma,
Oregon, and Washington law on top of the FCRA disclosure and
authorization. This included information about the applicant's
rights to inspect consumer reports requested by DMG, to request
information about DMG's secure recordkeeping practices, and to
request a summary of the applicant's rights, see id., among other
information unrelated to disclosing that "a consumer report may be
obtained for employment purposes." While omitting references to
state law, the revised form contained unrelated information about
applicants' rights to inspect documents. Consequently, DMG
willfully violated the FCRA by including additional terms in its
disclosures.
DMG again tries to reduce its exposure by saying that until Gilberg
was published in 2019, no authority indicating that its original
form failed to comply with the FCRA. Syed rejected a substantially
similar argument in 2017. DMG had the benefit of Syed by the time
it issued its revised disclosure form in 2019, and so cannot claim
that it was in the dark about its obligations under the FCRA.
Judge Donato concludes that summary judgment is granted in favor of
the Plaintiffs on liability and willfulness. The Plaintiffs did
not seek summary judgment on the amount of damages. Because the
amount of damages is the only issue remaining open, a referral to a
magistrate judge for a settlement conference is a good next step.
Potential statutory damages under the FCRA range from $100 to
$1,000 per Plaintiff. The parties should have a fairly precise
count of the class members. With this information, the lower and
upper boundaries of damages are readily ascertainable, leaving
considerable room in between for a compromise that would relieve
the need for further disputed proceedings, or possibly a trial.
The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Hixson for a settlement
conference. All remaining pretrial and trial dates are vacated,
and the case is administratively closed pending further order.
The Plaintiffs' request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1927
for re-litigating the standing issue is denied. While DMG's
reliance on Ruiz was misplaced, Judge Donato cannot say that it was
so frivolous or unreasonable as to warrant sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ekht9zp3 from Leagle.com.
DOLLAR TREE: Facing Zantac-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that an Amended Master
Personal Injury Complaint was filed against the company and other
retailers, manufacturers, and distributors alleging unjust
enrichment, physical harm, loss of consortium, and death related to
Zantac.
In late 2019 and early 2020, personal injury and consumer class
actions were filed alleging that the company sold Zantac containing
N- Nitrosodimethylamine, which is classified by the Food and Drug
Administration as a probable carcinogen.
Although all the suits were dismissed in December 2020, on February
8, 2021, an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint was filed
against the company and other retailers, manufacturers, and
distributors alleging unjust enrichment, physical harm, loss of
consortium, and death.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Smoked Almonds Related Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 16, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consumer class action suit related to smoked almonds.
In August 2020, a consumer class action was filed against the
company in New York alleging Smoked Almonds sold by the company are
mislabeled because the almonds do not go through a smoking process
but rather acquire their smoky taste through the use of smoked
flavoring.
The legal claims include New York consumer protection laws,
negligent misrepresentations, breach of warranties, fraud and
unjust enrichment.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOUG CONNOR: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice in Reguena
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reguena v. Doug Connor,
Inc., et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01670 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sep. 11,
2020), the Hon. Judge Embry J Kidd entered an endorsed order
denying motion to certify class without prejudice for failure to
comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) 27.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Doug Connor is a complete sitework company. The company We also
offer demolition work and crushed concrete aggregates.[CC]
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar's Bid to Enjoin Arbitration Deal Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted in part
and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin or Limit
Application of Defendants' New Arbitration Agreement, Approve
Curative Notice, and Limit Defendants' Communications with Putative
Class Members and Request for Expedited Ruling in the lawsuit
captioned Kelli Salazar, et al., Plaintiffs v. Driver Provider
Phoenix LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-19-05760-PHX-SMB (D.
Ariz.).
The Plaintiffs, chauffeur drivers, who worked for The Driver
Provider in Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming, filed the lawsuit against
the Defendants on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees for the Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
employee drivers with minimum wage and overtime wages and the
failure to maintain payroll records for the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants are privately owned chauffeur companies in Arizona,
Utah, and Wyoming and their owners and officers. The Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint brings three causes of action: (1) failure
to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2)
violation of Arizona's Wage Act, A.R.S. Sections 23-350, et seq.,
and (3) violation of the Arizona Minimum Wage Act, A.R.S. Sections
23-362, et seq.
The Plaintiffs recently learned that the Defendants emailed
employees and required them to sign arbitration agreements as a
condition of continued employment. On December 17, 2020, Jennifer
Norton, Defendants' "Financial Controller," emailed "'active
Chauffeurs" through DocuSign stating that The Driver Provider was
"update[ing] its personnel files electronically." The email told
employees to "review the attached documents and sign via Docusign
at your earliest convenience and no later than Monday, December
21st, 2020. The email directed employees to reach out to Barry
Gross if they had questions." Attached to the email was a 15-page
pdf packet.
At the end of the packet was an arbitration agreement titled,
"Employment Dispute Resolution Agreement." The Defendants never
advised employees of the existence of the lawsuit or gave them an
opportunity to opt-out of the Agreement. The Agreement itself
states, "Your execution of this Agreement is a condition of your
employment or continued employment with the Company and the
benefits and compensation that you receive as an employee
constitutes consideration for your acceptance of this Agreement."
The "Covered Claims" section of the Agreement states that it covers
"all disputes relating to or arising out of the Driver's employment
with the Company or the termination of that employment." The "Class
and Collective Action Waiver" portion of the Agreement expressly
prohibits arbitrations on a class basis. At the end of the
Agreement, it states in all caps, "This Agreement constitutes a
waiver of the parties' right to a jury trial and the right to bring
or participate in any class or collective action as to Covered
Claims."
The Plaintiffs filed the Motion to move the Court for an order "(1)
enjoining application of the Defendants' new 'Employment Dispute
Resolution Agreement' to the claims of any current or putative
Class Members in the case; (2) approving and authorizing curative
notice to putative Class Members; and (3) limiting the Defendants'
ex parte communications with putative Class Members."
The Plaintiffs' Motion first asks the Court to find that the
Agreement does not apply to the claims of the case. The Defendants
counter by arguing that a finding on the enforceability of the
Agreement is premature and that the Plaintiffs lack standing.
Specifically, they claim that they have not yet decided whether
they will seek to enforce the Agreement as it relates to the claims
in this case. They claim that even if it were ripe, the
communications made to employees were not misleading or coercive.
The Defendants first argue that the Court should deny the
Plaintiffs' motion because they lack standing because they cannot
demonstrate an injury-in-fact before the Defendants attempt to
enforce the Agreement. The Defendants "have not yet decided whether
they will seek to enforce" the Agreement as it relates to this
case. The Plaintiffs argue that they have already realized an
injury: "Drivers will believe they are prohibited from
participating in this case when, in fact, they are not." They, in
other words, argue that the Agreement will have a chilling effect
on potential collective action members' participation in the case.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have already
suffered in injury in the form of deterring potential collective
action members from opting into the action. After signing the
Agreement, potential collective action members are likely to assume
that their participation in this case is prohibited. Thus, the
Plaintiffs have standing and need not wait until the Defendants
decide whether to enforce the Agreement to bring this Motion,
District Judge Susan M. Brnovich opines.
The Plaintiffs cite a litany of cases where district courts have
found arbitration agreements improper or unenforceable when sent to
potential class members before certification, citing Jimenez, 2015
WL 4914727, at *6; OConner, 444 F. Supp. 3d at 603. The Defendants
counter that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that The Driver
Provider obtained consent to the Agreements as a result of
coercive, misleading, or other improper communications with
potential collective action members. They urge the Court to
consider the factors used in Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 449
F.Supp.3d 216, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), and find that their
communication with employees was not misleading under the totality
of the circumstances.
The factors in Chen-Oster are: (1) the relative vulnerability of
the putative class members; (2) evidence of actual coercion or
conditions conducive to coercion; (3) whether the defendant
targeted putative class members in a purposeful effort to narrow
the class; (4) whether the arbitration provision was unilaterally
imposed on the putative class; and (5) evidence of misleading
conduct, language, or omissions, including the extent to which the
agreement does or does not mention the existence of the putative
class action and related information.
While the Court recognizes that the Chen-Oster case is not
controlling, it nonetheless finds the factors cited in the case
instructive. Examining the Chen-Oster factors, the Court finds that
The Driver Provider's communication regarding the Agreement and
portions of the Agreement itself are coercive and misleading as it
relates to the case.
First, the putative class members are particularly vulnerable.
Second, there are conditions conducive to coercion present.
Examining the third factor, it is unclear whether the Defendants
targeted the putative class members. Fourth, the Defendants
unilaterally imposed the Agreement on drivers. Fifth, the
communication and Agreement were misleading and contained a
complete omission of the existence of this action.
Additionally, language of the Agreement itself is misleading if the
Agreement were applied to the claims in the case, Judge Brnovich
holds.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the
Defendants' communication and Agreement with employees was coercive
and misleading if the Defendants attempted to use the Agreement to
bar employees from participating in the collective action. Its
holding is narrow. The Court rules only that the Agreement is not
enforceable against the putative Plaintiffs for this action only.
It does not rule that the Defendants are precluded from enforcing
the agreement for other claims or future cases.
The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should issue a curative notice
to potential collective action members is appropriate considering
the Agreement and its potential to mislead class members. The Court
agrees that a corrective notice is appropriate. Other courts have
issued a corrective notice under similar circumstances.
Judge Brnovich points out that a corrective notice is appropriate
to cure any chilling affect the Agreement may have on potential
collective action members, who may falsely believe that the
Agreement bars them from participating in this action. The Court is
in receipt of the Plaintiffs' proposed curative notice. The
Defendants are ordered to submit a proposed curative notice or a
notice of no objection to the Plaintiffs' proposed curative notice
to the Court within seven days of the date of this order.
The Plaintiffs also urge the Court to limit communications between
the Defendants and potential collective action members. The
Plaintiffs ask the Court to "prohibit Defendants from making
unilateral, ex parte communications" with class members and
putative class members regarding this case and issues directly
related to it.
The Court declines to limit communications between the Defendants
and potential class members at this time. However, it will not
hesitate to do so if the Defendants engage in conduct or
communications with putative class members that threaten the
fairness of this litigation.
For the reasons discussed in the Order, the Court grants in part
and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Enjoin or Limit
Application of Defendants' New Arbitration Agreement, Approve
Curative Notice, and Limit Defendants' Communications with Putative
Class Members and Request for Expedited Ruling.
The Motion is granted in that the Court orders that the Defendants'
arbitration agreement cannot be enforced against putative
collection action members for the purposes of this litigation. The
Motion is also granted as to the Plaintiffs' request for a curative
notice as described above. The motion is denied as to the
Plaintiffs' request that the Court limit the Defendants'
communications with putative collection action members.
The Defendants are directed to submit their proposed corrective
notice or notice of no objection to the Plaintiffs' corrective
notice to the Court within seven days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 5, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2m8rbzpa from Leagle.com.
EBANG INT'L: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Zaker v. Ebang
International Holdings Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03060) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Ebang International Holdings, Inc. ("Ebang" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EBON) securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Ebang 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/ebang-international-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 or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is
directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque
deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to
the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the
proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that instead the
funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of
the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted
that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales
inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish[ing] into thin air."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or
approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement
stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to
close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price
continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%,
to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 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 proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had
been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter
and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's
operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company
had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of
defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; 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 the Ebang securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Frank R. Cruz Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Zaker v. Ebang
International Holdings Inc., et al., (Case No. 1:21-cv-03060) on
behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Ebang International Holdings, Inc. ("Ebang" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EBON) securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3g0nyDE to participate.
On April 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that Ebang is
directing proceeds from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque
deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." According to
the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020, claiming the
proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that instead the
funds were directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of
the Ebang's Chief Executive Officer, Dong Hu. The report also noted
that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales
inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish[ing] into thin air."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82, or
approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per share on April 6, 2021, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a statement
stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed] many
errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate interpretations of
events," the "Board, together with its Audit Committee, intends to
further review and examine the allegations and misinformation
therein and will take whatever necessary and appropriate actions
may be required to protect the interest of its shareholders."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12, or 2.17%, to
close at $5.41 per share on April 7, 2021. The stock price
continued to decline over the next trading session by $0.38, or 7%,
to close at $5.03 per share on April 8, 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 proceeds from Ebang's public offerings had
been directed to an low yield, long term bonds to an underwriter
and to related parties rather than used to develop the Company's
operations; (2) that Ebang's sales were declining and the Company
had inflated reported sales, including through the sale of
defective units; (3) that Ebang's attempts to go public in Hong
Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor funds and
inflated sales figures; (4) that Ebang's purported cryptocurrency
exchange was merely the purchase of an out-of-the-box crypto
exchange; 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 Ebang securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased Ebang securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Ebang International Holdings (NASDAQ: EBON)
investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A
securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors
may have valuable claims.
Class Period: June 26, 2020 – Apr. 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 7, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/EBON
Contact An Attorney Now: EBON@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Ebang International Holdings (NASDAQ: EBON) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
The complaint focuses on the accuracy of Ebang's statements
concerning its use of capital raised from investors and its claim
to be a leading manufacturer of bitcoin mining machines.
According to the complaint, over the past year, Ebang raised
approximately $374 million from investors in public offerings and
represented it would use these proceeds to "further expand our
operations" in cryptocurrency mining, exchange platforms, and
general corporate purposes.
Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, on
Apr. 6, 2021, when analyst Hindenburg Research published a scathing
report entitled "Ebang: Yet Another Crypto 'China Hustle'
Absconding With U.S. Investor Cash."
According to Hindenburg, the company directed much of the cash out
of the company through a series of opaque deals with entities
linked to Ebang's Chairman/CEO and its underwriter. Specifically,
Hindenburg concludes the company directed (1) $103 million into
bond purchases linked to its underwriter which has a track record
of fraud allegations levied against it, and (2) $21 million to a
relative of its Chairman/CEO coincident with raising that amount
from investors.
Hindenburg also concludes Ebang is not a leading bitcoin mining
machine producer, only sold a pittance compared to other large
Chinese producers, and is slated for a 97% decline in such sales
for FY 2020.
In response, the price of Ebang shares declined sharply.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ebang lied to
investors about its true operations and use of capital," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are an Ebang investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ebang
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 EBON@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]
EBIX INC: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX).
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who
purchased EBIX stock or other securities between November 9, 2020
and February 19, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor
protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Ebix to submit
their information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or
call 617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Ebix and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business
purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift
card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there
was a material weakness in Ebix's internal controls over the gift
or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) Ebix's independent
auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with
Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a
commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel.
Interested Ebix investors have until April 23, 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.
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/Ebix [GN]
EDWARD D. JONES: Huang's Bid to Enforce Schultz Settlement Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALESKA SCHULTZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. EDWARD D. JONES
& CO., L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-1346-JAR (E.D.
Mo.), Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, denied Objector Shiyang
Huang's pro se Motion to Enforce Settlement, Compel Accounting,
Order Payment of Lost Interest of the Class, and Equitable
Reduction of Class Counsel Fee.
Mr. Huang argues that the Class Counsel breached its fiduciary duty
to the Class by failing to distribute the settlement funds for over
one year and to reimburse lost interest to the "$10 de minimis"
class members. Huang also asks the Court to reduce the Class
Counsel's fee by the amount of interest earned on the class fund,
i.e., $13,677, to increase the de minimis distribution of class
fund for its failure to distribute one year ago.
On April 22, 2019, the Court approved the settlement between the
Class and the Defendants. Of a class of 74,121 individuals, three
filed objections, which the Court overruled. Following final
approval, Huang alone appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, thereby, delaying the Effective Date of Settlement under
the terms of the Court-approved Settlement Agreement.
On Jan. 30, 2020, the Eighth Circuit denied Huang's appeal. Huang
then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari,
which was denied on Oct. 5, 2020. As a result, distributions to
the Class were on hold until the Effective Date of the Settlement
25 days later, on Oct. 31, 2020.
The Plaintiffs state that since that date, the Class Counsel, the
Defendants, the Settlement Administrator, and the Defendants'
recordkeepers have had to update class member information;
calculate the Distributable Settlement Amount to account for
administrative costs and interest earned on the Settlement Fund;
allocate to each Class Member a share of the Distributable
Settlement Amount; and revise and re-allocate those amounts to
progressively increase all Class Members to at least a $10
distribution. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
interest earned on the Settlement Fund is added to the total amount
distributable to all the Class Members before calculating the
minimum $10 distributions. Thus, Huang is not entitled to any
additional interest on the $10 minimum distribution.
On March 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a declaration from Derek
Smith, Director at KCC Class Action Services, LLC, confirming that
the Settlement Administrator has now completed distributions to the
Class Members.
Judge Ross holds that nothing in the record before the Court
suggests that the conduct of the Class Counsel was not in the best
interest of the Class. While it was certainly his right to appeal,
Huang cannot complain of delay in distributing settlement funds
when that delay was the result of his appeal. Therefore, Judge
Ross denied Huang's Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7uttnth from Leagle.com.
EXPEDIA GROUP: Settles False Advertising Class Action With Hotels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at CourtHouse News reports that travel booking
giant Expedia and its affiliates will take steps to ensure
non-partnering hotels are no longer falsely advertised as "sold
out" on its platforms under the terms of a class action settlement
approved.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria approved the deal nearly five
years after two California hotels sued the online booking company
in August 2016. Buckeye Tree Lodge and Sequoia Village Inn claim
Expedia used deceptive online ads to target consumers who searched
for hotels that could not be booked through Expedia. Consumers were
allegedly directed to webpages that listed fake phone numbers for
non-partnering hotels and falsely labeled them as unavailable for
sold out.
The plaintiffs claim Expedia intended to siphon business away from
non-partnering hotels to lodges and inns that pay the company fees
for its online booking services. Expedia said the practice resulted
from "inadvertent technical errors" that have since been
corrected.
In 2019, Chhabria certified a class of hotels to seek injunctive
relief but no monetary damages. The class includes all hotels that
appear on Expedia's websites even though they are not capable of
being booked on those sites.
Last year, Chhabira denied Expedia's motion for summary judgment
and found the company would have to face a bench trial on claims
that it violated false advertising prohibitions under the Lanham
Act.
Chhabria found that while some advertising messages such as "We are
sold out" were "literally false," other messages were "not
literally false" but potentially misleading. For example, one
Expedia ad for nonparticipating hotels read: "Your dates are
popular! Rooms are unavailable for your trip dates on Expedia. Try
new dates to check availability." The message suggested that
Expedia could book rooms for that hotel if different reservation
dates were chosen, even though it could not, Chhabria concluded.
In February, both sides proposed a settlement in which Expedia will
commit to a series of measures to ensure nonparticipating hotels
are no longer listed on its platforms.
To accomplish that goal, Expedia will contractually require
third-party booking companies that it works with to notify Expedia
when a hotel terminates its relationship with that third party. It
will also use technological controls to prevent nonparticipating
hotels from appearing in its search engine results when it learns
those hotels no longer work with its third-party booking partners.
Additionally, the company also vowed to "act promptly" to remove
nonparticipating hotels from its websites if it learns a hotel is
being falsely advertised as unavailable. The terms of an injunction
imposed by the settlement will expire after three years.
"The settlement provides significant benefits to the Class and to
the general public, as travelers will no longer be misled as to the
availability of class member hotels that are not bookable on
Expedia's websites," attorneys for the plaintiff class wrote in a
Feb. 24 motion for settlement approval.
Chhabria granted a request for $2.1 million in attorneys' fees and
costs for the plaintiff class lawyers. He also granted incentive
awards of $12,500 to each named plaintiff.
Lawyers for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The plaintiff class is represented by James Patterson and Jennifer
French of the Patterson Law Group in San Diego.
Attorney Cortlin Lannin of Covington & Burling in San Francisco
represents Expedia.
First founded by Microsoft in 1996, Expedia spun off as a separate
company in 1999 during the height of the dot-com boom. Today,
Expedia owns multiple online booking platforms, including Vrbo,
Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Orbitz, Travelocity, Trivago and
CarRentals.com. Expedia earned $12 billion in revenue in 2019 but
saw its revenue dwindle to $5.2 billion in 2020 due to the Covid-19
pandemic. The company is valued at $25 billion. [GN]
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing and
the motion to withdraw the Turners as lead plaintiffs and to
substitute Brokop as lead plaintiff in the purported class action
suit headed by the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia
Turner, is pending
On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and
certain of its officers by a purported Company stockholder.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
disclosure related to the FPI Agribusiness Inc. (FPI) Loan Program
was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially
identical claims as the Kachmar Action.
Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar
Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.
On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action
voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action.
On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders
of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia
Turner, as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11,
2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff
Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner
Action.
On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on
July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with
Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019,
which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the
court's determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, seeking to have
the Turners and purported stockholder Don Brokop appointed as class
representative.
On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint to add Brokop as additional plaintiff in
place of Obelisk Capital Management.
Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to
adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the
discovery stay on January 29, 2020.
On December 8, 2020, the court granted the Turners' motion to amend
to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff and denied the company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings. As a result, the automatic
discovery stay was lifted and the court entered a schedule for
proceedings going forward.
The company, Mr. Paul A.Pittman, and Mr. Luca Fabbri filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
February 8, 2021.
On February 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw the
Turners as lead plaintiffs and to substitute Brokop as lead
plaintiff. Discovery remains ongoing.
Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the
Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other
remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no
assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an
estimate of related expenses at this time."
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
FEDEX CORP: No Appeal Filed in Dismissal of New York Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2021, that the plaintiff in the
consolidated class action suit filed before the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, did not appeal the dismissal
by the deadline.
On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and
former officers were named as defendants in two putative class
action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
relating to alleged misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public
filings with the SEC and other public statements during the period
from September 19, 2017 to December 18, 2018.
On February 4, 2021, the consolidated lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice.
The plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal by the deadline.
FedEx Corporation provides a portfolio of transportation,
e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The
Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the
world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., a leading North American provider of
small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc., a
leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload freight services. The
company is based in Memphis, Tennessee.
FORESCOUT TECHNOLOGIES: District Court Dismissed Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 25, 2021, the Northern District of California dismissed
all claims in a consolidated securities class action against Ropes
& Gray client Forescout Technologies, Inc., and two former
executives. Forescout provides device visibility and control
solutions that protect organizations' computer networks from
cyberattacks. Forescout was acquired last year by Ropes & Gray
client Advent International.
Plaintiffs had alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec 78j(b), and SEC
Rule 10b-5. Relying mostly on fifteen confidential witnesses,
plaintiffs claimed that over the course of 2019 and early 2020,
Forescout and the individual defendants made false and misleading
statements about Forescout's revenue projections, sales force,
pipeline, and its then-upcoming merger with Advent.
On behalf of Forescout, Ropes & Gray moved to dismiss, arguing that
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 barred certain
forward-looking statements and that the plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead falsity, scienter, and loss causation. Ropes &
Gray argued that the defendants' optimistic predictions about
unexpected headwinds' impact on the business and about a merger
signed right before the onset of a global pandemic did not amount
to securities fraud.
Less than a week after oral argument, Judge Susan Illston issued an
order granting Forescout's and the executives' motions to dismiss.
Judge Illston agreed with Forescout that the plaintiffs did not
establish falsity as to any of the statements, and found that the
allegations from the fifteen confidential witnesses were vague and
unreliable. Judge Illston also held that the plaintiffs failed to
plead the requisite strong inference of scienter.
Forescout actively defends the Enterprise of Things by continuously
identifying, segmenting and enforcing compliance of every connected
thing.
The Ropes & Gray team included litigation & enforcement partners C.
Thomas Brown (who argued the motion to dismiss), Anne Johnson
Palmer, and Peter Welsh. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Claims in Chapman's Second Amended Suit Narrowed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARK D. CHAPMAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-CV-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint and denied the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiffs' class allegations.
The case is a large putative class action: 21 Named Plaintiffs seek
to sue GM over its use of the Bosch CP4 fuel pump in GMC and
Chevrolet diesel trucks from model year 2011-2016. They allege
fraud on GM's part that has subsequently caused them to suffer
injury. There are 114 counts in the 574-page SAC covering federal
law as well as state fraudulent concealment, breach of contract,
consumer protection, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims under
the laws of 49 states.
The Plaintiffs all bought diesel fuel GMC and Chevrolet trucks from
GM for the model years 2011-2016, with 6.6L Duramax engines and a
Bosch CP4 model high-pressure fuel injection pump. They allege
injury at the point of sale: They paid a premium of $5,000 to
$8,000 for these trucks because they run on diesel and were
advertised to have a longer life, greater fuel efficiency, and
other features above and beyond other vehicles.
The Plaintiffs allege GM was aware of these issues with the CP4
fuel pump even before it began to sell trucks with the pump
incorporated. Despite that, it marketed the vehicles as having
increased durability and fuel efficiency, in part due to their use
of diesel. The Plaintiffs also allege that GM did not take steps
to remedy the problem, and instead actively concealed the defect
for as long as possible. GM stopped using the CP4 pump after the
2016 model year of the class vehicles, switching to another model
of pump that had been in use since 2004.
The Plaintiffs allege the following broad categories of claims
under federal law and the laws of 49 states and the District of
Columbia: (i) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Section
2301, (ii) fraudulent concealment, (iii) breach of contract, (iv)
implied warranty of merchantability (IWM) (state-specific
statutes), (v) consumer protection (state-specific statutes), (vi)
unjust enrichment (UE) (state-specific statutes).
There are 114 counts: One for the MMWA, one for fraudulent
concealment on behalf of all of the sub-classes, one for breach of
contract on behalf of all of the sub-classes, and the rest by state
(naming the applicable consumer protection, IWM, and UE statutes
for each state). Every state has at least one consumer protection
claim and California, Georgia, New York, and South Carolina have
two each for a total of 54 counts; 42 states have IWM claims and
California has two for a total of 43 counts; 14 states have UE
claims.
GM seeks to dismiss the SAC in full, and challenges the Plaintiffs'
claims under theories relating to: standing, deficiencies in the
IWM claims, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of contract,
deficiencies in fraudulent concealment claims, consumer protection,
unjust enrichment, and class allegations.
Within each of these broad categories, GM makes numerous arguments
as to why claims should be dismissed. Some challenges can be
resolved the same way for all claims, while others have
state-specific considerations and outcomes. Additionally, some
claims could theoretically be dismissed under more than one theory.
To promote clarity, Judge Berg independently addressed all
state-specific theories that GM has put forward, even if the
resulting analysis shows that certain claims could be dismissed for
more than one reason.
GM also alleges that the Plaintiffs cannot show their claims meet
the requirements of a class action, citing deficiencies relating to
commonality, predominance, and superiority. It is essentially
asking the Court to rule on the propriety of the proposed class at
this stage. The Plaintiffs reply that class claims should not be
ruled on until the class certification or summary judgment stage,
when there is a fuller record.
Judge Berg held oral argument on Jan. 29, 2021, primarily to
resolve the Motion to Dismiss. At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Judge asked both sides for supplemental briefing on several
specific issues. GM filed a supplemental brief and the Plaintiffs
subsequently moved to file their supplemental brief under seal,
indicating that they felt compelled to ask for a seal by an earlier
protective order in the case. GM next filed a Motion to Strike the
supplemental brief, arguing that the Plaintiffs improperly included
information outside the scope of the Court's request. The
Plaintiffs' Response to the motion to strike also begins with a
motion to seal.
Also outstanding on the docket are the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Withdraw as counsel for Gary Goodwin, the Defendant's Motion to
Compel also as related to Gary Goodwin, and the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Brandon Tirozzi for Failure to Prosecute.
Judge Berg has thoroughly considered all these outstanding matters
and addressed the other pending motions in his Order as well. He
granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. Of the
total of 114 claims, 20 will be dismissed with prejudice, one is
dismissed without prejudice, and 93 survive. For convenience, the
Judge attached a Table of Claims containing a breakdown of the
claims that survive and those that are dismissed. The Table of
Claims is incorporated in his Order by reference and specified
according to the Count numbers in the SAC which claims remain and
which are being dismissed.
Among other things, Judge Berg found that (i) in view of these
allegations, at this stage, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged a possibility of future harm to give them standing for
injunctive relief; (ii) the Plaintiffs allegations regarding engine
stalls and catastrophic failure are serious enough to plausibly
allege unmerchantability; (iii) the Plaintiffs concede that their
breach of contract claims are insufficiently pled in light of the
Court's opinion in Raymo, 2020 WL 4366061, at *20. See n. 8, ECF
No. 53, PageID.5968; Tr. 1/29/21, 12:18-21, PageID.7068; (iv) the
specific allegations the Plaintiffs make contain enough facts at
this stage to show fraudulent omission; (v) overpayment at the
point-of-sale is recognized as an injury; (vi) consumer protection
claims are dismissed if they involve claims where GM did not have
knowledge of the defect prior to the time of sale; and (vii)
construing the facts in the Plaintiffs' favor, it is not a foregone
conclusion that they will be unable to meet class certification
requirements after discovery.
Judge Berg granted the Motion to Strike, and instructed the Clerk
to strike the following from the docket:
a. ECF No. 68: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal (PageID.7238-42), the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief
(redacted) (Ex. 1, PageID.7248-7259), Exs. 2-7 (redacted);
b. ECF No. 69: Same as ECF No. 68, sealed and unredacted;
c. ECF No. 70: The Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief (redacted)
(PageID.7366-77), case chart with supplemental authorities (Ex. 1,
PageID.7382-87), Exs. 2-7 (redacted).
d. ECF No. 71: Same materials as ECF No. 70, sealed and
unredacted.
e. ECF No. 72: GM's Motion to Strike;
f. ECF No. 73: GM's Response to the Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Brief;
g. ECF No. 74: The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Under
Seal (PageID.7692-94) and Response to Motion to Strike (Ex. 1,
PageID.7698-7707);
h. ECF No. 75: Same materials as ECF No. 74, sealed and
unredacted;
i. ECF No. 76: Response to Motion to Strike (redacted); and
j. ECF No. 77: Same as ECF No. 76, sealed and unredacted.
The Judge denied the Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 74, 75) as
moot because the materials will no longer be part of the docket.
The Plaintiffs are ordered to file a copy of their supplemental
briefing with the stricken materials removed on the docket, and
clearly label it to indicate what is included.
The Judge also denied as moot the motions related to Plaintiff
Goodwin. The parties have stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of
Plaintiff Goodwin.
Judge Berg granted the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Tirozzi and
dismissed him from the action with prejudice. Plaintiff Tirozzi
has not responded to the Court's Order to obtain counsel, or
otherwise communicated with the Court in any way, making it
difficult to determine what reasons are motivating his lack of
response. GM will certainly be prejudiced if, after the entry of
the order, it is forced to re-litigate these claims as to Plaintiff
Tirozzi alone. The Order granting leave to withdraw did not
specifically warn him that he could be dismissed for failure to
find a new attorney. But because this is a class action, he cannot
remain in the case as a named plaintiff without an attorney. The
Judge granted the motion to dismiss Plaintiff Tirozzi, with the
understanding that his claims may live on inasmuch as he would be a
member of the Plaintiffs' putative class.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ju95ymuw from Leagle.com.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTA MARIE HAZELY and KATHRYN MCCARTHY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO., Case No.
1:21-cv-00321 (E.D.Va, March 16, 2021) is a class action suit
against Gerber for deceptive business practices, including
misrepresentations and omissions, regarding the presence of
dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals and other contaminants
contained within its Gerber Tainted Baby Foods that Plaintiffs
purchased.
The Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the
proposed Class including (i) requiring full disclosure of all such
substances and ingredients in the Defendant's marketing,
advertising, and labeling; (ii) requiring testing of all
ingredients and final products for such substances; and (iii)
restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class.
According to the complaint, parents and other caregivers, including
the Plaintiffs, reasonably believe that the baby food they purchase
for their babies will be healthy, nutritious, and non-toxic, and
that is what Gerber wanted them to think. Alarmingly, parents and
Plaintiffs were wrong. A recent report by the U.S. House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Reform (“House Subcommittee”)
reveals that certain brands of commercial baby food -- including
Defendant Gerber's Tainted Baby Foods -- are tainted with
significant and dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals, including
arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. 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, the suit adds.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment, and violations
of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief as authorized in
equity or by law.
The Plaintiffs had purchased Tainted Baby Foods that were
manufactured and produced by Defendant Gerber that have been found
to contain dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals.
The Defendant packages, labels, markets, advertises, formulates,
manufactures, distributes, and sells its Tainted Baby Foods
throughout the United States, including New York and Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
CALCATERRA POLLACK LLP
1140 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 899-1765
Facsimile: (332) 206-2073
E-mail: jpollack@calcaterrapollack.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: LFeldman@4-justice.com
eService@4-Justice.com
- and -
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
GEORGE GESTEN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: DGeorge@4-Justice.com
eService@4-Justice.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Chrome's Incognito Mode
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Daniel, writing for Verdict, reports that Google has found
itself at the centre of a class action lawsuit after users allege
that their personal information was collected while browsing in
Chrome's private "Incognito" mode.
According to Google, in Incognito mode Chrome won't save your
browsing history, cookies and site data, or information entered in
forms. However, it states that activity and IP address may still be
visible to websites visited, whoever runs the network that is being
used, search engines and your internet service provider.
While the privacy-conscious may be aware that Incognito mode does
not offer total anonymity, those involved in the class action,
which was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District
of California, claim that they were misled by Google as websites
continued to collect data using Google tools such as Google
Analytics and Google Ad Manager when data collection was turned off
in Chrome. They allege that the tech giant violated federal wiretap
laws and the invasion of privacy act.
The plaintiffs claim that Google tracks and collects consumer
browsing history and other web activity data "no matter what
safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy".
The complaint added that "Google must be held accountable for the
harm it has caused to its users in order to ensure it cannot
continue to engage in the covert and unauthorised data collection
from virtually every American with a computer or phone".
US district judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California said: "The court
concludes that Google did not notify users that Google engages in
the alleged data collection while the user is in private browsing
mode."
Bloomberg reported that Google's parent company Alphabet was
unsuccessful in its initial attempt to quash the lawsuit after the
federal judge rejected the attempt. [GN]
GOSHEN HOSPITAL: Faces Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------------
wsbt.com reports that a second class-action lawsuit is now filed
against Goshen Hospital, alleging it failed to properly sterilize
surgical instruments between April and September 30th of 2019.
The newest suit lists more than 300 plaintiffs, adding to the
lawsuit filed shortly after the announcement by the hospital back
in 2019.
It cites the potential for exposing nearly 1,200 patients to
Hepatitis B and C as well as HIV.
The lawsuit demands a jury trial.
A statement by Goshen Health says it will continue to provide
ongoing care for patients, but can't comment any further because of
the pending litigation. [GN]
HALODINE LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Nisbett Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREEM NISBETT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. HALODINE LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02274-AT
(S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.lumitylife.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people
in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction to cause the
Defendant to change its corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant is an online retailer of antiseptic solution. Through
the Website, customers can purchase items such as nasal swabs, oral
spray, liquid packets, and oral rinse. Items are available for
purchase individually or they can be bundled together to save. The
Defendant does not operate any brick-and-mortar stores. Products
can only be purchased online through the Website, or via other
online retailers such as Amazon.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
HEALTHCARE INFORMATION: Settles Class Action Suit for $2.8 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Landi, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that the
organizer of the canceled HIMSS20 conference will pay $2.8 million
to settle a lawsuit brought by HatchMed and other show exhibitors
who complained that they received no refund when the show was
called off.
In the class-action suit, companies alleged Chicago-based
Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS)
committed a "cash grab" by canceling the industry trade show and
pocketing the show fees.
HIMSS canceled last year's global health conference in March 2020
just days before it was slated to start due to concerns about
COVID-19.
HIMSS organizers took a lot of heat on social media and from
attendees for planning to go ahead with the conference under the
shadow of pandemic fears. Others were frustrated that HIMSS
canceled the conference so late.
At the time, HIMSS originally announced no refunds, which drew a
lot of ire from exhibitors and registrants. Attendees and
exhibitors complained about a lack of communication from HIMSS
organizers and a lack of available refund options.
HIMSS then adjusted its policy and announced in April that it would
provide partial credits for the HIMSS21 and HIMSS22 events.
In June 2020, HatchMed Corp., a small business that sells medical
devices, beds, and stretchers, and several other companies that
paid fees to attend the 2020 show filed a class-action lawsuit.
HatchMed and other exhibitors allege that HIMSS used COVID-19 as a
"transparent opportunity for a cash grab" and unilaterally kept
exhibitors' money "without basis," according to the suit, which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
HIMSS denies any liability and wrongdoing in the litigation.
In a statement, Karen Groppe, senior director of strategic
communications at HIMSS, confirmed the settlement agreement.
"Documents reflecting the negotiated resolution have been filed
with the court for preliminary approval and HIMSS looks forward to
finalizing the matter. Because this is still an active legal case,
HIMSS has no additional comment at this time," she said in the
statement.
In the suit, HatchMed said it paid more than $11,000 in November
2019 to reserve floor space to exhibit its products during the 2020
conference, according to the company's suit. Other businesses
looking to participate in the five-day show executed similar
contracts, it claimed.
The HIMSS conference typically attracts 1,300 exhibitors each year,
according to the suit.
HIMSS20 was scheduled to start March 9 and organizers announced
March 5 that the show would be canceled after the World Health
Organization (WHO) and others declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.
"However, unlike other industry-wide tradeshows, HIMSS decided to
utilize its cancellation as an unauthorized cash grab, as it
unilaterally determined to keep the money that its exhibitors
paid," HatchMed's suit claimed.
That decision breached the contracts HIMSS entered with HatchMed
and at least 100 other exhibitors, according to the suit.
During a remote hearing, U.S. District Judge Martha Pacold said the
parties had presented an "extensive" and "thorough" argument for
granting the deal preliminary approval, Law360 reported. HatchMed's
counsel, Peyton Healey of Hedrick Kring PLLC, told Law360 on March
12 that he and his client were "very excited" to get it approved.
"We think that we've obtained a good result for the class that
really does get them a significant benefit that will be useful at
the end of the day," Healey said, Law360 reported.
According to the settlement motion, lawsuit class members have two
options: they can apply a 50% credit of their HIMSS20 exhibitor
fees to HIMSS21 and another 10% for HIMSS22, or take a 20% cash
refund of HIMSS20 fees along with a 30% credit of those fees
applied toward HIMSS21 and 10% applied toward HIMSS22
The cash refund will come from a $2.8 million cash fund provided by
HIMSS, the settlement states.
HatchMed is represented by Peyton Healey of Hedrick Kring PLLC and
Nicholas Peters and Nicole Little of Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery.
HIMSS is represented by Mark Mester, Kirsten Caroline Lee, and
Robert C. Collins III of Latham & Watkins.
The HIMSS21 was pushed back to Aug. 9-13 in Las Vegas and will
feature both an in-person event and an online component.
Registration for the 2021 event is now open.
Close to 10,000 peak hotel rooms have been reserved in Las Vegas
for the August dates, according to HIMSS. The HIMSS21 exhibitor
list shows 417 companies have committed to being on the show floor.
[GN]
HERTZ CORPORATION: Court Certifies Three Classes in Denicolo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD G. DENICOLO, ET
AL., v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION ET AL., Case No. 4:19-cv-00210-YGR
(N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an
order granting class certification to:
-- Illinois Resident Class
"All Illinois residents who received, for the first time, a
letter from Viking: (1) that asserted a claim of damage to a
vehicle rented from Hertz, Dollar or 4 Thrifty; (2) more than
30 days after the date of the purported damage; and (3) the
vehicle was not rented by or in the name of a business.
-- California Rental Class
"All individuals who rented a vehicle in California and who
received, for the first time, a letter from Viking: (1) that
asserted a claim of damage to a vehicle rented from Hertz,
Dollar or Thrifty; (2) more than 30 days after the date of
the purported damage; and (3) the vehicle was not rented by
or in the name of a business;" and
-- California Resident Class
"All California residents who received a letter from Viking
asserting a claim for purported damage to a vehicle rented
from Hertz, Dollar or Thrifty; and (3) the vehicle was not
rented by or in the name of a business."
The Court further Orders that: (a) plaintiff Ronald G. DeNicolo,
Jr. is appointed class representative of the Illinois Resident and
California Rental Classes; (b) plaintiff Michael G. Fox is
appointed class representative of the California Resident Class;
and (c) attorneys are Krislov & Associates, Ltd. and Andrus
Anderson LLP are appointed class counsel.
In light of the analysis here and in connection with summary
judgment, the Court has modified the proposed class definitions, as
set forth below. However, the Court finds that the classes should
be further limited based upon the applicable statutes of
limitations. The parties are Ordered to meet and confer and submit
a joint statement as to appropriate temporal limitations on the
class definitions. If the parties are unable to agree, they may
state their respective positions in a joint statement not to exceed
six pages (three per side). The joint statement shall be filed no
later than April 12, 2021.
The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.,
is an American car rental company based in Estero, Florida, that
operates 10,200 corporate and franchisee locations
internationally.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLFvvp at no extra charge.[CC]
HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SC: Votes to Join Class Action Against Airbnb
-----------------------------------------------------------------
islandpacket.com reports that Airbnb and VRBO renters on Hilton
Head Island need to pay their share.
That's what town leaders, who voted Tuesday night to join a class
action lawsuit against the short term rental companies, say makes
renting on the island unfair.
The suit will argue that the platforms should assess accommodations
taxes like hotels do. Those taxes paid by visitors help boost
tourism development.
The vote came after the council discussed the potential litigation
in executive session. The suit is being managed by Jesse Kirchner,
a Charleston-based lawyer, and comes on the heels of a 2018
settlement in a similar case brought against Expedia, Travelocity
and Priceline by eight South Carolina cities and counties.
Taking Airbnb and VRBO to court over accommodations taxes is a
powerful move for coastal municipalities because the suit will
argue that short-term rental owners need to add accommodations
taxes when calculating the price for renters like hotels and other
rentals do.
As more rentals pop up on the websites, town officials say the
community is missing out on taxes that visitors should be paying
when they stay there.
On Hilton Head, accommodations taxes add 1% to room costs. The
state of South Carolina assesses a 5% state sales tax on rentals
and a 2% state accommodations tax on hotels, rentals and
campgrounds.
"At the end of the day everybody needs to pay their fair share,"
Ward 1 representative on Hilton Head Town Council told The Island
Packet. "That A-TAX money is something we definitely depend on."
If the lawsuit succeeds, the increased taxes would be brought back
to the state and town. Hilton Head divides accommodations taxes to
the Hilton Head Island-Bluffton Chamber of Commerce and makes the
rest available in grants to organizations that serve and boost
tourism on the island.
Town Council attorney Curtis Coltrane confirmed the town's
involvement in the litigation. [GN]
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Collins Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHASTA COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HILTON MANAGEMENT LLC and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-589873, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02523 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to provide rest
breaks, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and failure to pay wages when due.
Hilton Management LLC is a hospitality company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
E-mail: Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com
- and –
Isabella L. Shin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
Riverpark Tower
333 West San Carlos Street, Suite 1625
San Jose, CA 95110-2714
Telephone: (408) 579-0404
Facsimile: (408) 454-0290
E-mail: Isabella.Shin@jacksonlewis.com
IMPERIAL PARKING: Wash. App. Affirms Summary Judgment in Alemu Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SOLOMON ALEMU, an individual; GETACHEW
TADESSE, an individual; TESFAYE AYELE, an individual, Respondents
v. IMPERIAL PARKING (U.S.), LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, dba Impark, Appellant, Case No. 80376-0-I (Wash. App.),
the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, affirms the trial
court's orders granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment.
Chapter 7.45 SeaTac Municipal Code ("SMC") promotes a living wage
for employees working in SeaTac, Washington. Specifically, SMC
7.45.050 requires defined hospitality and transportation employers,
who employ a certain number of employees, to pay those employees
$15 per hour. Imperial Parking (Impark) managed the SeaTac
DoubleTree Hotel's parking lot by providing, among other services,
valet for the Hotel's guests. This case involves a narrow issue of
statutory interpretation as to whether Impark is a hotel
subcontractor subject to SMC 7.45.010(D)'s $15 per hour minimum
wage requirement.
Impark employees brought a putative class action against Impark for
failure to pay $15 per hour. Impark appeals the trial court's
orders granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and denying Impark's motion for summary judgment on the issue of
the ordinance's application to Impark.
The parties agree that the dispositive issue in the appeal is
whether the trial court erred by concluding that SMC 7.45.010(D)
applied to Impark and granting partial summary judgment in favor of
the employees.
Impark contends that, in order to be subject to the ordinance as a
hospitality employer's subcontractor, it must employ 30 or more
employees. The Appellate Court disagrees. The Appellate Court
concludes that a hotel employer's subcontractor does not need to
employ 30 employees. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it
granted partial summary judgment in favor of the employees and
denied Impark's motion for summary judgment.
Impark asserts that because it performs transportation employer
functions, it cannot be considered a hospitality employer. The
Appellate Court disagrees. Impark is a transportation employer
under the plain meaning of SMC 7.45.010(M)(2)(a)-(b), Judge Lori K.
Smith, writing for the Panel, opines.
Impark managed a parking lot of more than one hundred parking
spaces, falling under the definition of transportation employer.
However, it did not meet the employee threshold because it employed
less than 25 workers. Thus, Impark is not subject to the ordinance
as a transportation employer. However, this does not exempt Impark
from the other provisions of the ordinance, Judge Smith holds.
The ordinance does not provide such an exemption, i.e., it does not
state that a transportation employer, who employs less than 25
workers, is exempt from the ordinance, Judge Smith opines. Rather,
it merely regulates a transportation employer that employs 25
workers or a hospitality employer or its subcontractor. For these
reasons, Impark's contention is without merit.
The Appellate Court affirms the trial court's orders in favor of
the employees. Therefore, the Appellate Court remands to the trial
court for the matter to proceed.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4dm2yny4 from Leagle.com.
Harry J.F. Korrell III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, at 920 5th Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington
98104-1610, Devin M. Smith -- devinsmith@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, at 929 108th Ave. NE, Ste. 1500, in Bellevue,
Washington 98004-4786, Jeffrey Bennett Youmans --
jeffreyyoumans@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 920 5th
Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610, Kathryn S.
Rosen -- katierosen@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, at 920
5th Ave., Ste. 3300, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1610, Counsel for
Petitioner(s).
Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- Badgley
Mullins Turner, PLLC, at 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200, in
Shoreline, Washington 98155-8208, Mark Alexander Trivett --
mtrivett@badgleymullins.com -- Badgley Mullins Turner, PLLC, at
19929 Ballinger Way NE, Ste. 200, in Shoreline, Washington
98155-8208, Daniel R. Whitmore, Law Offices of Daniel R. Whitmore,
PS, at 6840 Fort Dent Way, Ste. 210, in Tukwila, Washington
98188-2555, Counsel for Respondent(s).
JAKKS PACIFIC: Brown Putative Class Suit in Delaware Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a purported class action lawsuit entitled, Brown v. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. et al.
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2020 in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
(Brown v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al.) alleging that the Proxy
Statement issued in connection with the shareholder meeting held in
June 2020 contained misstatements regarding the manner in which
broker votes would be counted and that such votes were improperly
included in approving the Company's reverse stock split at the
meeting.
The purported class action seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
alleging breach of fiduciary duties by the Company's directors.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
JAKKS said, "Since the action was recently commenced, however, we
cannot assure you of its outcome and cannot estimate the range of
any potential damage award. The Company is taking steps to hold a
Special Meeting of the Shareholders on April 30, 2021 to obtain
shareholder ratification of the filing of the Certificate of
Amendment to its Certificate of Incorporation effecting the reverse
split, in accordance with ratification procedures under Delaware
law, and if ratified, to then seek settlement and dismissal of the
lawsuit."
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. develops, produces, and markets consumer and
related products worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: U.S. and Canada, International, and Halloween. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.
JIANPU TECHNOLOGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of April 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Faruqi
& Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Jianpu Technology Inc.
("Jianpu" or the "Company") (NYSE: JT) and reminds investors of the
April 19, 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 Jianpu stock
or options between May 29, 2018 and February 16, 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/JT.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose: (1) that
certain of the Company's transactions carried out by the Credit
Card Recommendation Business Unit involved undisclosed
relationships or lacked business substance; (2) that, as a result,
Jianpu's revenue and costs and expenses for fiscal 2018 and 2019
were overstated; (3) that there were material weaknesses in
Jianpu's internal control over financial reporting; (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's fiscal 2018 Form 20-F was
reasonably likely to be restated; and (5) 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 February 16, 2021, Jianpu announced the results of its review
into "transactions carried out by the Credit Card Recommendation
Business Unit" with third-party business entities. The Company
concluded that previously reported revenue and associated expenses
had been inflated due to "certain transactions [that] involved
third-party agents (including both upstream agents and downstream
suppliers) with undisclosed relationships and some transactions
[that] lacked business substance."
In the same press release, Jianpu stated that it would restate its
financial statements for fiscal 2018 and that "investors must
exercise caution" with respect to the previously reported fiscal
2019 financial information. Jianpu stated that it "anticipates the
total amount of overstated revenue for the fiscal years 2018 and
2019 to be approximately, RMB 90 million and RMB 164 million,
respectively, representing approximately 4.5% and 10.1% of the
total revenue previously reported."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.60, or 13%, to
close at $3.94 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Jianpu'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]
JOHN TILLEY: Casey Rhoades Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY RHOADES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JOHN TILLEY, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00019-GFVT-EBA (E.D. Ky.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
of:
"All state inmates who were incarcerated only for violations of
post-incarceration supervision under KRS 532.400(1)(b), and who
were not cleared for release within 12 hours of Kentucky
Department of Corrections' (KDOC's) receipt of the Court of
Appeals' orders denying KDOC relief from the Franklin Circuit
Court's orders."
In February 2017, Donnell Mitchem served out a one-year prison
sentence. However, upon his release, he learned for the first time
that he would be subjected to one year of post-incarceration
supervision (PIS) by the Kentucky Department of Corrections, as if
he had been granted parole or probation. Because Mitchem failed to
make contact with his PIS supervisor, he was incarcerated again and
given another year to serve. Mitchem's sentence did not include the
additional year of supervision. Instead, it was foisted upon him by
KDOC based on KRS 532.400(1)(b) (the PIS statute), which provides:
“any person who [h]as a maximum or close security classification
as defined by administrative regulations promulgated by [KDOC].
The court further ordered Mitchem's release, which KDOC did not
oppose. Because Rhoades has established that his proposed class
meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b), he respectfully
requests that the Court certify the proposed class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mz4M7H
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Belzley, Esq.
Camille A. Bathurst, Esq.
Aaron Bentley, Esq.
BELZLEY, BATHURST & BENTLEY
Prospect, Kentucky 40059
Telephone: (502) 292-2452
E-mail: gbelzley@aol.com
camillebathurst@aol.com
abentley3B@gmail.com
JUUL LABS: School District Suit Moved From D.N.J. to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Monmouth
County, New Jersey, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; ALTRIA ENTERPRISES
LLC; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and
RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-06178, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02506-WHO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the New Jersey Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by
promoting e-cigarettes to young people and creating a youth
e-cigarette epidemic and public health crisis.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Weinkowitz, Esq.
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq.
1 Industrial Way W, Building B
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Telephone: (732) 223-2200
E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com
- and –
Lance A. Harke, Esq.
HARKE PA
9699 NE Second Avenue
Miami Shores, FL 33138
Telephone: (305) 536-8220
E-mail: LHarke@Harkepa.com
KATCH INC: Isidro Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Isidro, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Katch Inc. (d/b/a Katch Astoria) and William McSorley,
Case No. 1:21-cv-08126 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants employed the policy and
practice of disguising Plaintiff Isidro's actual duties in payroll
records by designating him as a waiter, food runner and delivery
worker instead of a non-tipped employee. This allowed Defendants to
avoid paying Plaintiff Isidro at the minimum wage rate and enabled
them to pay him above tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage.
Moreover, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread-of-hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the
complaint.
Mr. Isidro was ostensibly employed by the Defendants at Katch
Astoria from approximately December 12, 2018 until February 16,
2020.
Katch Inc. operates Katch Astoria, a sports bar, owned by William
McSorley.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
KDEM EATS: De Jesus Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel de Jesus, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. Kdem Eats Inc. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Karena
Foods Inc. d/b/a Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Eda Food Inc. d/b/a
Mughlai Indian Cuisine, Mahender Tulsiani and Gary Tulsiani, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02886 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2021) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and other similarly-aggrieved employees arising out
of the Defendants' violation of numerous New York Labor Law
provisions and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf of
all employees, including cooks, food preparers, dishwashers,
cashiers, hosts/hostesses, porters, bartenders, barbacks, servers,
runners, busser and delivery persons employed by the Defendants on
or after the date that is six years before the filing of the
complaint in this case (FLSA Collective Plaintiffs).
The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the minimum
wage, failed to pay overtime premium, failed to pay wages for all
hours worked due to a policy of time-shaving, failed to pay spread
of hours premium, failed to provide proper wage statements per
requirements of the New York Labor Law and failed to provide proper
wage and hour notices per requirements of the New York Labor Law.
Mr. De Jesus was employed by the Defendants from December 28, 2019,
until the employment was terminated on January 6, 2021. He worked
as a delivery person for the Defendants.
Kdem Eats Inc., Karena Foods Inc., and Eda Food Inc. all operate
Mughlai Indian Cuisine, a restaurant located at various places in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
- and -
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
KELLOGG CO: Settlement Proposed in Cereals Consumer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that as previously covered on this blog, a plaintiffs'
class action lawsuit filed in 2016, and certified for three classes
of consumers in 2018, alleges that statements such as "heart
healthy" and "lightly sweetened" on various Kellogg cereals are
false and misleading because the cereals contain 18 to 40 percent
added sugar. While the outcomes have been mixed in other lawsuits
involving nutrition-related claims on breakfast cereals, as
discussed here, the Kellogg class action appeared to be moving
toward a settlement if the litigants could agree on terms that
would be acceptable to the court.
On March 10, 2021, the plaintiffs asked the court to approve a
revised settlement that they say addresses numerous concerns,
including high administrative fees, an overly broad class of
consumers, and provisions that would allow Kellogg to reclaim
millions if consumers do not act immediately. If approved, the
revised settlement would establish a $13 million fund for payment
of around $16.09 each to an estimated 16 million households who
purchased the covered products between 2012 and May 1, 2020, as
well as administrative fees. Any unclaimed funds would go to a
supplemental distribution to consumers or to the American Heart
Association and the UCLA Resnick Center for Food Law and Policy,
which were also named as cy pres recipients in a preliminarily
approved $15 million settlement, discussed here, of similar claims
involving Post breakfast cereals. The revised settlement would also
require that Kellogg refrain for at least one year from using
claims such as "heart healthy," which appears on various Raisin
Bran and Smart Start cereals, and "lightly sweetened," which
appears on Frosted Mini-Wheat varieties of cereals.
Nutrition claims that could imply the product is healthy seem risky
for foods with added sugars based on mixed results in recent
litigation and uncertainty about when and how FDA will act on a
citizens petition (discussed here) requesting a regulation to
establish disqualifying levels of added sugar that would prohibit
the use of a "healthy" claim. [GN]
KEVIN KAUFFMAN: Class Certification Sought in Molina Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL MOLINA, et al, v.
KEVIN KAUFFMAN, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00038-MWB-KM (M.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order issuing a class
certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1) and appointing
class counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1).
The Plaintiff contends that the action should be certified as a
class action by all persons who are or were incarcerated at SCI
Huntingdon on or after December 30, 2018, and Marianne Sawicki
should be appointed class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39XYwkw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marianne Sawicki, Esq.
2530 South Blair Avenue
Huntingdon, PA 16652
Telephone: (814) 506-2636
E-mail: Law.Sawicki@gmail.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly J. Hoke, Esq.
Tara J. Wikhian, Esq.
ASSISTANT COUNSELS
PENNSYLVANIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS
Office of Chief Counsel
1920 Technology Parkway
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
LA CARRETA: June Deadline is Nearing to Join Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A June deadline is nearing to join the class action lawsuit against
Summerville restaurant 'La Carreta.' According to the suit, nearly
300 people contracted norovirus -- food poisoning -- after eating
at the restaurant between November and December of 2018.
A preliminary settlement has been drafted, which would require La
Carreta to pay up to $1 million in damages to those who suffered
from food poisoning after eating at the restaurant during the
designated time period.
Under the proposed settlement, "each class member who submits a
claim and provides documentary evidence of medical treatment
related to the consumption of food at the La Carreta restaurant
located at 1580 Old Trolley Rd, A, Summerville, SC 29485 during
November and December of 2018 will receive the greater of (a) three
times the amount of related medical bills submitted, or (b)
$5,000.00."
Further, "each class member who submits a claim, but does not
provide documentary evidence of medical treatment, must provide (1)
proof of purchase and a signed Affidavit (example provided on the
claim website at https://summervillefoodpoisoning.com/) affirming
the class member's contraction of gastrointestinal illness, or (2)
a complaint submitted to DHEC with the claimant's contact
information and a signed Affidavit regarding gastrointestinal
issues. Each class member who meets the requirements set forth in
the this paragraph will receive the lesser of: (a) their pro rata
share of the amount remaining after all other claims and costs have
been paid, or (b) $1,000.00. In other words, eligible class members
without evidence of medical treatment will receive up to
$1,000.00."
Those interested in joining the lawsuit should submit a claim to
the following address on or before June 1, 2021.
Suzanne Klok, Esq.
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 2512
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
claimsadministrator@kloklaw.com
(843) 375-1261 [GN]
LA PURA: Suit Claims Over 'Free Trial' Skin Cream Scam Advance
--------------------------------------------------------------
In early January 2020, LeAnne Tan received a text message promising
a free gift of La Pura anti-wrinkle cream in exchange for
completing an online survey.
The text purported to be an ad from Amazon and only stipulated a
small $4.94 shipping fee. Spurred by this assurance, she took the
survey and clicked the link to receive her free gift.
Tan was taken to the La Pura website's order page, where she saw
that two more products had been added to her shopping cart. There
was no option to remove them, but she still clicked the "complete
my order" box, believing she would only be charged $4.94 in
shipping for her "free gift."
Tan immediately received an email from La Pura saying her credit
card would be billed from three separate merchant accounts:
"beautifullyremarkableh," "beautyhealthremarkable" and
"skincarehealthybeautygroup."
But rather than the expected $4.94, Tan was separately charged
$88.46 and $84.37, for a total of $172.83 for three products -- La
Pura Wrinkle Freezing Moisturizer, La Pura Instant Lifting Eye
Serum, and La Pura Instant Tightening Serum.
Alarmed by the charges for products she didn't want, Tan contacted
La Pura's customer service number. Tan was unavailable for an
interview about her experience, but a transcript of the
conversation indicates Tan grew increasingly vexed.
After some back and forth with the customer service agent, she
secures a 70% refund and a promise that she won't be charged again
-- a less than satisfying outcome. "You know, honestly this is so
wrong, you guys should be reported," Tan told the agent.
Instead, she filed a federal class action against some 60 entities
that market and brand La Pura products and operate merchant
accounts that bill customers' credit cards. In her complaint, she
claims the La Pura defendants "maintained hundreds of such merchant
accounts under a host of shell companies, using them in a
churn-and-burn scheme" to evade detection by credit card companies
and banks who keep lists of high risk merchants in order to decline
suspicious transactions.
All of these merchants share the same registered agent whose
address leads to a back alley in downtown Sacramento.
It's an all too common scheme according to consumer protection
experts, where an unwitting consumer is lured in by the promise of
a free product in exchange for the cost of shipping.
Across the internet, affiliate marketers are paid to post fake
celebrity endorsements of various products like La Pura skin cream,
enticing consumers to visit phony product landing pages and sign up
for a free trial, only to be enrolled in an automatic, high-cost
monthly "subscription."
"None of this surprises me. This is a very lucrative business and
they are very sophisticated about who they market to," said Ira
Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of
Consumer Advocates. Most people wouldn't click on an ad for face
cream "endorsed" by Joy Behar, Rheingold said, but it only takes a
few.
In scheme like this one, Tan says in her complaint, the La Pura
scammers set up a hidden landing page to show the banks that Tan
had consented to the free trial -- a false-front website that Tan
had actually never seen.
Tan's attorney Kevin Kneupper said he'd been investigating consumer
scams for years with his law partner. In a phone interview, he said
it's not about the product. For this type of scheme, the only goal
is to get ahold of the consumer's credit card.
"The product changes over time with whatever the fad is," Kneupper
said. "I've seen people do this with CBD. I've seen them doing it
with flashlights. I've seen them doing this with skin creams and
Keto diets and açai berries. Any time there's a fad, there's a new
type of website, and a lot of them are copy/paste jobs. They use
the same templates."
Kneupper said affiliate marketing generally targets older, less
savvy consumers. At an affiliate marketing conference in 2019,
keynote speaker Neil Patel recaps the scheme to the audience:
"[Y]ou tell 'em it's a free trial, but they don't really see in the
fine print that they're gonna get billed every single month. And
then you target the older demographics who have no idea why they're
continually getting rebilled. And then some of you guys have what's
called a quote-unquote hell room that just deals with the calls.
And the refunds."
Tan's lawsuit also lists software company Konnektive Corporation
and CEO Matthew Martorano among the defendants, claiming the
company performed "load balancing" services to automatically spread
purchases across merchant accounts. This avoids suspicion by
keeping the refunds or chargeback numbers artificially low.
"A normal business would only need one merchant account, because
they are following the rules. The La Pura defendants needed to run
their purchases through hundreds of them, forcing the banks and
credit card companies to play whack-a-mole and ensuring the fraud
would continue and that they could keep selling La Pura," Tan says
in her complaint.
Tellingly, the complaint notes, Martorano threw a party at the 2020
Affiliate Summit in Las Vegas where he urged invitees "to network
with Konnektive and a rogue's gallery of 'chargeback mitigation'
companies who also assist scammers."
Fulfillment company Quick Box LLC also plays a role in the scheme,
Tan says in her lawsuit, by receiving, storing and shipping generic
"white label" products for shell brands and handling the returns.
Its executives, who are listed as individual defendants Stephen
Adele, James Martell, and Chad Biggins, appear to have a long
history of running "free trial" scams, according to the complaint.
All of the defendants deny that they participated in a conspiracy
to defraud hapless consumers.
"What they want to be able to do is what we call 'ostrich defense.'
Anything they say they don't know they intentionally didn't know.
It's all about plausible deniability," Rheingold said.
Senior U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff denied their motion to
dismiss the case, finding Tan had shown the existence of a
conspiracy in which all defendants appeared to have played some
part, and that she had sufficiently stated a claim for violation of
California's consumer protection laws.
"In sum, the court concludes that plaintiff has plausibly, and with
sufficient particularity, pled that the La Pura, Quick Box, and
Konnektive defendants engaged in the conduct of an enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity, and that their conduct
caused injury to her business or property," Huff wrote.
In an emailed statement, lead counsel for the Konnektive defendants
Christopher Queally said his clients were not involved in any
wrongful conduct.
"We are naturally disappointed by the court's decision on the
motion to dismiss. That said, the court was required to accept the
plaintiff's allegations as true, rather than weigh or decide any
facts," Queally said. "Konnektive merely provides customer
relationship management (CRM) software to its clients, and neither
Konnektive nor its people were involved with any of the alleged
wrongful conduct. When the true facts are presented, we are very
confident our clients will be vindicated."
Attorney Damon Wright, who represents the Quick Box defendants,
also distanced his clients from La Pura.
"It isn't hard to state a claim when a plaintiff takes tremendous
liberty with the facts," he said in an email. "We are disappointed
by the court's decision on the motion to dismiss, but understand
the decision since the court was required to accept the plaintiff's
factual allegations as true at this stage. The reality is that
Quick Box is only a fulfillment services provider, it does not
advertise to consumers or transact with consumers, and neither
Quick Box nor its people were involved with any wrongful conduct.
Once the court has the benefit of the true facts, we fully expect
dismissal of the claims against our clients."
Both Queally and Wright are partners at Gordon & Rees.
Having weathered the first hurdle, Tan's attorneys will now have to
trace the alleged scam back to its originators, to determine who
exactly is behind La Pura.
"This will require a lot of forensic work," Rheingold said. "I give
credit to the plaintiffs' attorneys for bringing this case because
it is complicated and difficult."
Court documents have provided some clues. Quick Box executive Adele
swore in February that Quick Box signed a contract to ship La Pura
with a company called Rocket Management Group LLC and described a
meeting with its owner, someone allegedly named "Kiet Liu."
"There's just been some surprise at the idea that they can even be
located," Kneupper said, adding that the case is being closely
monitored by the industry. "A lot of scammers are watching this
case," he said.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction against the companies and an
unspecified amount in monetary damages.
Stuart Rossman, director of litigation at the National Consumer Law
Center, said it is very difficult to actually get any money from
these kinds of companies, even if the lawsuit is successful. "It's
going to be like getting blood from a rock," he said.
Years ago, Rossman represented a class of military veterans who
were defrauded out of their pensions by an unscrupulous loan
company. A judge awarded the plaintiffs $3 million in 2011, but
they were never able to collect. "The day after we got the verdict
they filed for bankruptcy protection to wipe it out," Rossman said.
"But the guy just started the same scam out of New York and was
indicted there by the attorney general."
Rossman said government enforcement is often the only way of
stopping consumer fraud.
"Fraud is portable product," he said, noting companies can dissolve
one day and then start up again the next under a different name and
in a different state, skirting any real consequences. "These
companies often operate with just a table, telephone and computer
hookup. This kind of scheme is so intentional and so venal,
government enforcement that results in criminal penalties is the
kind of thing we need to keep this from happening in the future."
Rheingold agreed. "This is the kind of thing where you would expect
criminal action to be taken," he said. "And I don't think there's
any question it's criminal -- they're stealing money from people."
Sometimes the fraud appears so egregious that government agencies
do take note. In 2018, the Federal Trade Commission took Apex
Capital and a host of related entities to court for marketing "free
trial" offers for personal care products and dietary supplements
online, then charged customers full price for the products -- a
scheme much like the one Tan claims she fell for. The perpetrators
agreed to surrender millions worth of assets under a settlement.
"The reality is if you really want to shut something like this down
you need government intervention," Rossman said. "Private
enforcement of it is like trying to squeeze Jello into a baggie. I
applaud the consumer attorneys who are bringing this case, but the
pot at the end of the rainbow may be empty."
Aside from avoiding these ads altogether, Rossman said consumers
can protect themselves by immediately contacting their credit card
company or bank to have the unauthorized charges canceled. [GN]
LEDGER SAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Customer Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
theblockcrypto.com reports that Ledger and Shopify, which handles
the online sales of Ledger's wallets, have been hit with a class
action over last year's data breach.
Ledger produces some of the most popular cold wallets on the
market.
The summer of 2020 saw news spread of phishing attacks against
Ledger users, with the firm ultimately disclosing that it suffered
a data breach that June during which customer contact and order
information was compromised. In December, a database containing the
personal information for more than a quarter-million Ledger
customers was posted online.
Ledger and Shopify eventually identified a rogue Shopify employee
as responsible for the leak, but not before some users reported
threats of home invasion and other scareware tactics. At the time,
Ledger CEO Pascal Gauthier took to Twitter to reassure users that
their hardware wallets had not been compromised and that their
funds were safe. Nonetheless, talk of starting a class-action case
began soon after.
The lawsuit, the first to be filed in response to the information
leak, comes from law firm Roche Freedman, which filed the complaint
in a San Francisco court on April 6. The firm is known for its
class actions against crypto firms such as Binance, Tron and
iFinex, the parent company of Tether and Bitfinex. Last week, Roche
Freedman filed a lawsuit on behalf of a customer of Nexo, as
reported by Law360.
Regarding the Ledger breach, law firm partner Kyle Roche told The
Block, "We've been investigating this since the day it became
public. This investigation included speaking with experts in the
data security and cryptocurrency fields."
In a statement, Ledger general counsel Antoine Thibault said:
"Ledger does not comment on ongoing legal issues. Ledger would
however like to take this moment to remind our customers, yet
again, never to divulge their 24 words and validate the identity of
the recipient of your transactions. You are in sole and total
control of access to your funds."
The case will hinge on the question of who is responsible for what.
Ledger's wallets themselves were not compromised, but the complaint
includes the security of Shopify's service as part of Ledger's duty
to clients. As noted in the complaint: "[b]y operating in the
crypto-asset security space, Ledger places itself between user's
funds and would-be hackers. The anonymity of its customer list is a
key and obvious element of the security that Ledger offers."
Central to delegating responsibility will be the question of what
Ledger and Shopify knew and how quickly they communicated that
information to users. As Roche told The Block: "The case is
noteworthy because two very large and sophisticated companies
handling sensitive information will need to explain why it took
them so long to warn their customers about such an awful and highly
damaging incident."
The current complaint does not specify the amount of relief that it
seeks for the class, but it does identify the "[m]atter in
controversy" as worth over $5 million. Currently, the complaint
references only two Ledger users directly, who together lost 4.2
BTC, 11 ETH and 150,000 XLM to phishing attacks. At today's prices,
those holdings add up to $340,000, but were worth significantly
less as of the time of the attacks. [GN]
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on March 15
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) ("Leidos")
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Leidos securities
between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Leidos securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 5,
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/leidos-holdings-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=leidos
Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology
company that provides services and solutions in the defense,
intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets, both
domestically and internationally. The Class Period commences on May
4, 2020, when Leidos announced that it had completed the
acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' Security Detection and
Automation businesses ("SD&A Businesses").
According to the complaint, 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 Leidos was "concealing numerous product defects from
investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports
and borders." Following this news, Leidos's share price fell $2.58,
or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021.
Then, on February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein,
Leidos reported $89 million in 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. Leidos expected cash flow of $850 million, well
below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion. Following this news,
Leidos's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per
share on February 23, 2021.
Finally, 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, which had been filed after
the market closed on February 23, 2021. Spruce Point tweeted: "We
believe it is validating all the major points of our report."
Spruce Point noted that Leidos expanded its risk disclosures
regarding insurance coverage, as "Leidos is shipping defective
products back from various countries [that] may not have the same
protections as in the U.S." Following this news, Leidos's stock
price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February
24, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the purported
benefits of Leidos's acquisition of L3Harris Technologies' SD&A
Businesses were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos's products
suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive
detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result
of the foregoing, Leidos's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants'
positive statements about Leidos's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Leidos investors may, no later than May 5, 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]
LEO PHARMA: Faces Phyllis Levitt Suit Over Defective Picato Gel
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS LEVITT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. LEO PHARMA INC. and LEO PHARMA A/S, Case No.
7:21-cv-02301 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a class action lawsuit
about LEO Pharma's manufacturing and distribution of prescription
Picato gel (ingenol mebutate).
Picato was indicated to treat precancerous actinic keratosis, but
it instead increased the risk of squamous cell skin cancer.
Accordingly, Picato is worthless and the Defendants should be
required to fully refund consumers like Plaintiff.
LEO Pharma has sold Picato in the United States since 2012. Picato
is used to treat actinic keratosis, a scaly, crusty lesion on the
skin, caused by too much sunlight exposure.
In September 2019, following reports of Picato-related skin cancer
incidents, the European Commission requested a safety review of the
drug. In January 2020, the European Medinces Agency ("EMA")
suspended sale of Picato while its Pharmacovigilance Risk
Assessment Committee ("PRAC") conducted the review.
Plaintiff Levitt is a citizen of New York who resides in Mt. Kisco,
New York. In January 2015, Ms. Levitt's doctor diagnosed her with
actinic keratosis and prescribed Picato. Immediately thereafter,
Ms. Levitt filled her prescription for Picato at the Northern
Westchester Prescription Center ("NWPC") located in Mr. Kisco, New
York and used the Picato as directed by her doctor. Ms. Levitt
filled another prescription for Picato at the same pharmacy in June
2015. Ms. Levitt purchased the Picato using her insurance, and she
paid a total of approximately $364.42 out of pocket in copayments.
The Picato that Ms. Levitt purchased was manufactured by LEO Pharma
A/S, distributed by LEO Pharma Inc. and sold by NWPC. When
purchasing the Picato, Ms. Levitt reviewed the accompanying labels
and disclosures, and understood them as representations and
warranties by the manufacturer, distributor, and pharmacy that the
medications were properly designed, effective, free from defects
and safe. Ms. Levitt relied on these representations and warranties
in deciding to purchase Picato from Defendants, and these
representations and warranties were part of the basis of the
bargain, in that she would not have purchased Picato if she had
known that it was not, in fact, properly designed, effective, free
from defects and safe.
LEO Pharma is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant LEO Pharma
A/S. LEO Pharma Inc. conducts substantial business in the United
States, and specifically in the State of New York. LEO Pharma Inc.
distributes and sells Picato in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
aobergfell@bursor.com
scott@bursor.com
LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit for 'Building Shoddy Homes'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
kiro7.com reports that a new class-action lawsuit in the works
accuses home developer LGI Homes of shoddy construction and
violating the Consumer Protection Act.
Casey Law, representing homeowners, hired an inspector who
discovered major problems in parts of the build after a February
storm damaged dozens of homes in Enumclaw. The homes impacted are
in the Suntop Farms neighborhood.
"It's very frustrating. Brand-new house, a half-million dollar
house," said one homeowner who didn't want to be identified. He
said he is weighing his options and considering joining the
lawsuit.
Many of the dozens of houses damaged are under warranty; but two
months later, roofs are still covered in plastic, siding is still
missing, and homeowners say LGI is refusing to step up.
"They were still claiming the 'act of God,'" said homeowner Dave
Baldwin, who is considering joining the lawsuit.
The architecture inspector hired by Casey Law found that if
installed properly, the shingles and siding on the homes would
withstand winds of at least 116 miles per hour. The highest
recorded wind speed the night of the storm was just over 50 miles
per hour.
"If it happened on one or two homes, that's a bad day. But it
happened on 24 homes. That's more than a bad day. That's clearly
cutting corners," said Chris Casey, an attorney who specializes in
construction defect law.
The law firm said inspector William Martin has reviewed about 10
homes in the neighborhood so far, and in every home he found
improper installation. A full report for one of the properties
said, "The siding and roofing were installed in a defective manner
that caused it to fail under conditions substantially below that
prescribed by applicable building code for Enumclaw, Washington."
Casey Law said in some cases, the nails used were too small, so the
siding blew off during the "vanilla storm." In other cases, not
enough nails were used. Sometimes the nails were not in the studs.
The inspector also found cases where the shingles were not properly
sealed.
The inspector said as pieces of the homes ripped off, it also tore
holes in the weather-resistant layer underneath. It means homes
will need the roofing and siding completely removed and then
reinstalled. The repairs are estimated to cost $140,000-$160,000
per home.
The damage also led to snow inside some homes, as well as leaks and
water damage.
"We (have a) brand-new baby just born two weeks ago. My wife, my
mother, my teenage daughter is there. It's very heartbreaking to
know my family is not in a house that's safe -- just very
frustrating," one homeowner said.
Casey Law says so far, 40 people have signed up to be part of the
class-action lawsuit. The suit says LGI Homes has violated the
Consumer Protection Act by promising quality homes, then failing to
deliver.
Attorneys suspect all of the 288 homes in the area may be
improperly built.
"If that's true on every home, then every home is eligible (to join
the suit)," said Wesley Higbee, who works with Casey Law. Higbee
said they would have an inspector come look at the homes without
cost to the homeowners to see if they are eligible.
Attorneys say the home purchase agreement contracts also stripped
the homeowners of the right to take LGI Homes to court. However,
the Consumer Protection Act still presents a way to pursue legal
action.
"These contracts . . . leave these homeowners essentially to deal
with this on their own. We had to think of a way to get around
these contracts," Casey said.
While the legal battle is just beginning, families with money tied
up in their new homes have nowhere else to go.
"I worry about my family's health with the water damage, I pray
there's no mold. I'm very worried," one homeowner said.
Casey Law said it notified LGI Homes of the lawsuit and will be
able to formally file after 21 days.
KIRO7 reached out to LGI Homes both in February and for this story
requesting comment, but received no response. [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Fourth Investors Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth class-action complaint has been filed against Lordstown
Motors Corp., alleging the company misled investors regarding
pre-orders of its all-electric Endurance pickup truck.
The filing joins three previous class-action cases filed in U.S.
District Court here in the wake of a damaging report by
short-seller Hindenburg Research issued March 12.
According to the latest lawsuit, investor Jesse Brury claims he
acquired shares of Lordstown Motors at "artificially inflated
prices" between Aug. 3, 2020, and March 17, 2021. The complaint
contends, as do the previous actions, that Lordstown Motors and
certain executives made "materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business."
Specifically, the lawsuit said that Lordstown Motors failed to
disclose that the company's pre-orders were non-binding and that
many of the would-be customers lacked the means to purchase the
vehicle.
The lawsuit names Lordstown Motors, its CEO Steve Burns, President
Rich Schmidt and Chief Financial Officer Julio Rodriguez as
defendants.
Many of the allegations stem from the Hindenburg report, which
contends that Lordstown Motors and some of its executives
mischaracterized non-binding letters of intent as "pre-orders" for
the Endurance pickup. The report also alleges that the company is
far behind schedule in production of the vehicle.
"The company has consistently pointed to its order book of 100,000
pre-orders as proof of its deep demand for its proposed EV truck,"
the report said. "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."
Burns has since said that the company had always disclosed that the
pre-orders were non-binding.
Earlier this month, Lordstown Motors unveiled the first two beta
models of the Endurance, which will be used for safety validation
and crash testing. The Endurance is billed as the world's first
all-electric commercial pickup.
Lordstown Motors' Burns has said that the company is on track to
begin full production of the vehicle by the end of September. The
CEO has said the company wants to hire as many as 1,500 workers
once production hits full stride.[GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 16
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ:RIDE)
resulting from allegations that Lordstown Motors may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Lordstown Motors securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2056.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 12, 2021, Hindenburg Research
published a report entitled: "The Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake
Orders, Undisclosed Production Hurdles, And A Prototype Inferno".
The report alleges, among other things, that based on
"conversations with former employees, business partners and an
extensive document review" the Company's book of 100,000 pre-orders
"are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and
confer legitimacy." Further, the report alleges that "[f]ormer
employees also shared that the company has completed none of its
needed testing or validation, including cold weather testing,
durability testing, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) testing required by the NHTSA [National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration]."
On this news, Lordstown Motor's stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on March 12, 2021, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Court Reverses Summary Judgment in Opelousas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled OPELOUSAS GENERAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, A
PUBLIC TRUST, D/B/A OPELOUSAS GENERAL HEALTH SYSTEM v. LOUISIANA
HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY, D/B/A BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
LOUISIANA, Case No. CA 21-175 (La. App.), the Court of Appeal of
Louisiana, Third Circuit, reverses the trial court's grant of
partial summary judgment.
The trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment in
favor of the Plaintiff Class and awarded the Plaintiffs damages in
the amount of $416,830,039.60.
The Appellate Court is composed of D. Kent Savoie, Sharon Darville
Wilson, and Charles G. Fitzgerald, Judges.
In the anti-trust class action, the Defendant, Louisiana Health
Service & Indemnity Co., doing business as Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Louisiana ("BCBSLA"), along with the Louisiana
Commissioner of Insurance, Louisiana Department of Insurance, and
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, appeal the trial court's
grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff Class.
The trial court found that BCBSLA's "Blue Card" provision operates
in restraint of trade in violation of La.R.S. 51:122.
Additionally, on appeal, BCBSLA and the Association raised a
peremptory exception for non-joinder.
In the appeal, the Appellate Court must decide:
(1) whether the trial court erred in granting the Plaintiffs'
partial motion for summary judgment finding that the Blue
Card provision operates in restraint of trade in violation
of La.R.S. 51:122; and
(2) whether the Association and all other participants in the
Blue Card Program are parties needed for just adjudication
under La.Code Civ.P. art. 641.
The Plaintiff, Opelousas General filed a class action on August 24,
2016, against BCBSLA, alleging BCBSLA conspired with the
Association and 35 other Blue Cross Plans to engage in
anticompetitive conduct in violation of La.R.S. 51:122. At this
time, several anti-trust class actions were brought against various
Blue Cross Blue Shield entities which were consolidated in a
federal Multi-District Litigation in the U.S District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama. Prior to certification of the class,
attempts were made by BCBSLA to remove this case to federal court,
but it was ultimately remanded back to Louisiana from the United
States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal which cited a lack of
diversity.
BCBSLA participates in the Blue Card Program. Under that Program,
BCBSLA and Blue Plans from other states sign licensing agreements
with the Association for the exclusive use of the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield trademarks when contracting insurance in their
respective states. Each insurer participates in the Blue Card
Program whereby patients from out of state Blue Plans can receive
the same discounted in-network rates from providers that were
negotiated with that state's Blue insurer. Each Blue insurer may
only use the Blue trademarks within their respective states.
The Plaintiff Class represents Louisiana health providers, who
entered into contracts, known as provider agreements, with BCBSLA.
Those agreements defined the term "member" to include insureds from
out of state affiliate Blue Plans, and required the contractual
discounts negotiated by BCBSLA for its insureds also apply to any
patient with an out of state Blue Plan receiving care from the
Louisiana contractual providers. The suit was tailored to include
only provider agreements with BCBSLA and asserts only monetary
claims under Louisiana Law. The Association filed a petition for
intervention, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by
the Court.
On October 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment seeking the return of contractual discounts for patients
insured by out of state Blue insurers. In response, BCBSLA filed a
motion to strike. Both motions were set for hearing on December 16,
2020, before Judge Alonzo Harris. At the hearing, the trial court
denied the motion to strike and took the motion for partial summary
judgment under advisement. On December 29, 2020, the trial court
issued written reasons for judgment finding that BCBSLA's "Blue
Card" provision operates in restraint of trade in violation of
La.R.S. 51:122. In so finding, the trial court granted the motion
for partial summary judgment. Judge Harris retired December 31,
2020. Plaintiffs circulated a proposed judgment on January 7, 2021,
and BCBSLA objected.
The trial court held a hearing on January 25, 2021, and stated that
the successor Judge, Ledricka Thierry, would sign the judgment. The
judgment was signed January 25, 2021, granting the partial motion
for summary judgment and awarding the Plaintiffs $416,830,039.60
together with costs and legal interest.
BCBSLA timely filed the suspensive appeal. The Association, the
Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, and the Louisiana Department
of Insurance also appealed in this matter. The Association filed
peremptory exceptions of non-joinder of a party and BCBSLA joined
in support.
Judge Sharon Darville Wilson, writing for the Panel, first
addresses the exception for non-joinder before delving into the
heart of this appeal. BCBSLA and the Association filed peremptory
exceptions of non joinder alleging that the Association, along with
the licensees of the Association, were parties needed for just
adjudication.
After reviewing the record, Judge Wilson disagrees. She finds that
the record does not contain any evidence that supports finding the
Association and the out of state Blue Plans are parties needed for
just adjudication. The Plaintiffs are only seeking review of the
provider agreements with BCBSLA and money damages under those
agreements. They are not attacking the entire Blue Card Program or
any of the Association's rules. Thus, there is no reason that
complete relief could not be afforded in the absence of these
additional parties, the Judge points out.
Similarly, Judge Wilson explains, while the parties may have an
interest in the subject matter, given the limited scope of the
claim in this case, it cannot be said that they are so situated
that adjudication in their absence may impair or impede their
ability to protect their interest or subject any of the parties to
a substantial risk of incurring multiple and inconsistent
obligations.
In support of the peremptory exception for non-joinder, the
Association cites to several cases where they purport that
compulsory joinder had been ordered on significantly less important
interests of a non-party than their interests in the present case.
However, Judge Wilson opines, after reviewing each of those cases,
they are all easily distinguishable. She opines that the
non-parties in those cases all had direct interests in the subjects
of the cases, such as security rights in the property subject to
litigation, or were subject to the contracts at issue in the case.
That is not so in the case. The Appellate Court finds no evidence
in the record that supports the contention that the parties seeking
to be joined were parties needed for just adjudication.
Accordingly, the peremptory exception of non joinder is denied.
Although the Appellants assert various assignments of error, the
heart of this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting
the motion for partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs,
Judge Wilson notes. On motion for summary judgment, the burden of
proof remains with the movant, La.Code Civ.P. art. 966(D)(1). Thus,
the Plaintiffs must show through the motion, memorandum, and
supporting documents that there is no genuine issue as to material
fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not carried
their burden on summary judgment.
The Plaintiffs assert that they have suffered injury by a lack of
ability to contract with the out of state Blue Plans and by being
forced to grant patients insured by the out of state plans the same
contractual rates negotiated by BCBSLA. They evidence this injury
through billing spread sheets showing what they would have charged
these patients absent the provider agreements. The Plaintiffs do
not however, provide any evidence of injury to competition in
general.
After reviewing the record, the Appellate Court finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to prove damage to competition, an essential
element to any anti-trust claim.
The Plaintiffs were also required to prove a relevant economic
market to meet their burden in this case. The Appellate Court finds
the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs was insufficient to meet
that burden.
Judge Wilson opines that the record in the case is devoid of any
evidence that defines the relevant market under the appropriate
standards. She adds that the Plaintiffs here failed to present any
evidence of market power as part of their motion for partial
summary judgment.
If the Plaintiffs had included relevant evidence proving their
market power and the injury to competition caused by the provider
agreements in the relevant markets, summary judgment could
potentially be granted in their favor, Judge Wilson explains.
However, the Plaintiffs failed to put forth the necessary evidence.
As such, the Appellate Court finds that the Plaintiffs failed to
show they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law and that the
trial court erred in granting the partial motion for summary
judgment.
The Association, the Louisiana Commissioner of Insurance, and the
Louisiana Department of Insurance asserted several other
assignments of error on appeal. Given the Appellate Court's
decision to reverse the trial court's ruling granting the motion
for partial summary judgment, a review of those assignments is
unnecessary.
For these reasons, the Appellate Court finds that the trial court
erred in finding the Plaintiffs met their burden on summary
judgment. Accordingly,it reverses the ruling of the trial court
granting the motion for partial summary judgment and awarding the
Plaintiffs damages in the amount of $416,830,039.60. Additionally,
the Appellate Court denies the peremptory exception of non joinder
filed by the Association.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ud4rkcfe from Leagle.com.
Michael William Magner -- mmagner@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker,
at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170,
(504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health
Service & Indemnity Company.
Richard Allen Sherburne, Jr., Attorney At Law, P.O. Box 98029, in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. -- jcgiglio@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, P.
O. Box 52008, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2008, (337) 232-7424,
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.
Patrick Craig Morrow, Sr. -- PatM@mmrblaw.com -- Morrow, Morrow,
Ryan & Bassett, at 324 W Landry Street, in Opelousas, Louisiana
70570, (337) 948-4483, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas
General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust.
Stephen Barnett Murray -- smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray
Law Firm, at 701 Poydras St., Ste. 4250, in New Orleans, Louisiana
70139, (504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas
General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust.
Michael H. Rubin -- mrubin@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey, Stafford,
at 301 Main Street, 14th Fl., in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801,
(225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department
of Insurance.
James Alcee Brown -- jabrown@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, at 701
Poydras, Ste. 5000, in New Orleans, Louisiana 70139-5099, (504)
581-7979, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.
James Huey Gibson, Gibson Law Partners, P. O. Box 52124, in
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR: Anthem,
Inc., Et Al.
Thomas Allen Filo, Cox, Cox, & Filo, 723 Broad Street, in Lake
Charles, Louisiana 70601, (337) 436-6611, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
APPELLEE: Opelousas General Hospital Authority, A Public Trust.
Ronnie L. Johnson -- rjohnson@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, at 301 Main St., Ste. 1400, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana
Department of Insurance.
Mark Aaron Cunningham -- mcunningham@joneswalker.com -- Jones,
Walker, Waechter, Poite, at 201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Flr., in New
Orleans, Louisiana 70170-5100, (504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR
DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
Pride Justin Doran, Doran & Cawthorne, P.L.L.C, P. O. Box 2119, in
Opelousas, Louisiana 70571, (337) 948-8008, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
Douglas Michael Chapoton, Attorney At Law, P. O. Box 98029, in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
Juston M. O'Brien -- Andy.OBrien@bcbsla.com -- McGlinchey,
Stafford, 301 Main Street, 14th Floor, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70801, (225) 383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana
Department of Insurance.
James David Caldwell, Jr., Dept. of Insurance Legal Serv., P. O.
Box 94214, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9214, (225) 342-5272,
COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of Insurance.
Arthur M. Murray -- amurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- Murray Law Firm,
at 701 Poydras St., Ste. 4250, in New Orleans, Louisiana 70139,
(504) 525-8100, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLEE: Opelousas General
Hospital Authority, A Public Trust.
Michael C. Drew -- mdrew@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, at 201
St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170, (504)
582-8318, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service
& Indemnity Company.
Alan W. Stewart, Gibson Law Partners, at 2448 Johnston Street, in
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR: Anthem,
Inc., Et Al.
Graham H. Ryan -- gryan@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, LLP, at
201 St. Charles Ave., 51st Fl., in New Orleans, Louisiana 70170,
(504) 582-8266, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT: Louisiana Health
Service & Indemnity Company.
Jessica W. Chapman, Attorney At Law, P. O. Box 98029, in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana 70898, (225) 295-2116, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
Raven C. Boxie, Doran & Cawthorne, P.L.L.C., P. O. Box 2119, in
Opelousas, Louisiana 70571, (337) 948-8008, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
APPELLANT: Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
William E. Kellner -- WEKellner@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, P. O.
Box 52008, in Lafayette, Louisiana 70505-2008, (337) 232-7424,
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.
Monica M. Vela-Vick -- monica.vela-vick@phelps.com -- Phelps
Dunbar, at 400 Convention St., Ste. 1100, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70802, (225) 346-0285, COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Blue Cross Blue Shield
of South Carolina.
Hayley Franklin -- hfranklin@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford,
at 301 Main St., Ste. 1400, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70801, (225)
383-9000, COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLANT: Louisiana Department of
Insurance.
Zachary Holmstead -- zachary.holmstead@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, LLP, at 300 North LaSalle, in Chicago, Illinois 60654, (312)
862-2392, COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR APPELLANT: Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association.
Ryan M. Kantor -- ryan.kantor@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, at 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, in Washington, D.C.
20004-2541, (202) 739-5343, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLANT:
Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company.
LOUISIANA: Court Enters Judgment in Lewis Suit v. LSP at Angola
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH LEWIS, JR., ET AL. v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil
No. 3:15-CV-318 (M.D. La.), Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana enters judgment
in favor of the Plaintiffs.
The suit was originally brought by several inmates incarcerated at
the Louisiana State Penitentiary ("LSP"). The LSP at Angola
(sometimes referred to as "Angola") is a maximum-security men's
prison in Angola, Louisiana that housed between 6,200 and 6,400 men
throughout the discovery period. Defendant Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections is a division of the State of
Louisiana charged with overseeing the custody and care of inmates
in state prisons, including LSP.
The Plaintiffs claim that the medical care provided at LSP violates
the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
They also claim that, through various general practices and
policies, LSP systemically violates the rights of disabled inmates
covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the
Rehabilitation Act ("RA").
The Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all prisoners who are
now, or will in the future, be confined at LSP, as well as an ADA
Subclass of inmates with disabilities who are now, or will in the
future, be confined at LSP. They seek injunctive relief to abate
the alleged systemic deficiencies in the Defendants' policies and
practices that subject all inmates to unreasonable risks of serious
harm.
On Feb. 26, 2018, following a class certification hearing and
subsequent briefing by the Parties, the Court certified a class
consisting of "all inmates who are now, or will be in the future,
incarcerated at LSP," and a Subclass of "all qualified individuals
with a disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities
Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), who are now, or will be
in the future, incarcerated at LSP. The Class and Subclass are
represented by Otto Barrera, Clyde Carter, Ian Cazenave, Ricky
Davis, Reginald George, Kentrell Parker, Lionel Tolbert, John
Tonubbee and Edward Washington.
The matter came before the Court for an 11-day non-jury trial on
the merits beginning Oct. 9, 2018. Judge Dick also made a site
visit to LSP on Feb. 5, 2020. She has considered the Parties'
pre-trial and post-trial submissions, the evidence admitted at
trial, and the arguments presented.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of
proving that the Defendants have been deliberately indifferent to
the inmates' serious medical needs in the means and manner of the
delivery of health care, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. She also finds that the Plaintiffs
have met their burden of establishing, in part, that the Defendants
violated the ADA, as modified by the Americans with Disabilities
Act Amendment Act, and Section 504 of the RA.
For these reasons, Judge Dick holds that the Defendants, in their
official capacities, are violating the Eighth Amendment rights of
the Plaintiff Class and the ADA and RA rights of the Plaintiff
Subclass. Based on the overwhelming evidence presented at trial,
judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs following the
remedy phase.
The Judge will order injunctive relief regarding the following
deficiencies:
(1) Failing to provide constitutionally adequate clinical
care in the following particulars: privacy in examinations; lack of
routine medical equipment in exam rooms; lack of adequate medical
records management; lack of clinical hygiene and spacing; episodic
treatment of complaints;
(2) Failing to provide adequate medical care with qualified
providers at sick call;
(3) Failing to provide access to medically necessary
specialty care in a timely manner; failure to schedule and track
specialty appointments; failure to comply with testing and
diagnostic requirements; failure to execute appropriate follow-up
care ordered by specialty care providers; and failure to coordinate
care;
(4) Failing to provide constitutionally adequate emergency
care in the evaluation and assessment of emergencies by qualified
providers and failing to timely treat and/or transport to hospital
for emergent care;
(5) Failing to provide adequate, qualified staff in
infirmary/inpatient care;
(6) Failing to provide medical leadership and organization in
the following particulars: lack of meaningful mortality review; use
of correctional personnel to manage medical decisions; lack of peer
review; lack of medical staff involvement in budgeting; lack of
medical supervision by Dr. Lavespere; and failure to maintain
proper credentialing records;
(7) Failing to comply with the ADA and RA in providing
disabled inmates access to programs and services due to physical
and architectural barriers;
(8) Failing to provide adequately trained, staffed, and safe
orderly assistance where physical modifications have not been made
to provide access; failure to provide proper oversight of health
care orderlies;
(9) Failing to comply with LSP's own ADA Directives in
maintaining a qualified ADA Coordinator and advisory committee to
handle ADA issues;
(10) Failing to make efforts to integrate disabled inmates
within the spirit of the ADA implementing regulations;
(11) Failing to adequately train medical staff regarding ADA
compliance;
(12) Failing to appropriately evaluate and address ADA
accommodation requests and disability-related grievances;
(13) Failing to identify and track disabilities and
accommodation requests in a meaningful way;
(14) Failing to accommodate disabled inmates in applying
discipline; and
(15) Maintaining blanket exclusionary policies for disabled
inmates regarding access to various services, activities, and
programs in violation of the ADA.
By separate notice, Judge Dick will set a Status Conference to
discuss proceeding to the remedy phase of the matter.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5et7extv from Leagle.com.
LOUISIANA: Public Defense System Lawsuit Not a Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Gyan, writing for The Advocate, reports that a 4-year-old
lawsuit that claims Louisiana's struggling public defense system
does not provide adequate representation to poor clients has been
stripped of its class-action status by a Baton Rouge appeals
court.
Then-19th Judicial District Judge Todd Hernandez, without ruling on
the merits of the case, had decided in 2018 that every poor
defendant in the state represented by a public defender was
eligible to participate in the lawsuit, with the exception of
juveniles and defendants in capital cases.
The judge's ruling meant that if the lawsuit succeeded, officials
would be forced to come up with a statewide plan for funding public
defenders, rather than a solution that applied only to the original
13 named plaintiffs in the 2017 lawsuit.
But a five-judge panel of the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal
reversed Hernandez by a 4-1 vote on March 12 and said class
certification is not appropriate in the case. The panel said the
plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of
commonality and typicality for class certification.
Mark Cunningham, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said on March 8
he's hopeful the Louisiana Supreme Court will hear their appeal "of
this critical issue."
"If you are poor in Louisiana and charged with a non-capital crime,
the public defender appointed to your case will almost certainly
lack the resources to meaningfully investigate and contest the
charges against you," he said.
The public defense system is largely supported by court fees from
convictions and traffic tickets rather than the state's general
fund. The system took another hit in the past year as courts in the
state trimmed their dockets amid the coronavirus pandemic, reducing
the amounts of fines and fees available.
Addressing the issue of commonality raised in the 2017 case, the
1st Circuit court panel cited a prior state Supreme Court ruling in
which the high court stated: "A determination of effectiveness of
counsel requires that the trial court `examine each case
individually,' make `a particularized finding,' and `issue an
independent judgment regarding each defendant.'"
In addressing the issue of typicality, the panel explained that
"claims of one class representative will not be typical of all
class members."
"What could be ineffective assistance of counsel for one class
representative could simply be poor lawyering for another," the
panel wrote.
Only five of the original named plaintiffs remain in the case, the
court noted.
The lawsuit names Gov. John Bel Edwards, the Louisiana Public
Defender Board and chief state public defender as defendants and
alleges that tens of thousands of poor people across the state
accused of crimes are at risk in the troubled public defense system
that lacks money and oversight.
Attorneys for the state have argued that class certification would
make far too many people eligible for participation. The state's
lawyers also say any fix to the public defense system needs to come
from the Legislature because the issues stem from budget problems
and, therefore, are not a matter of law.
The plaintiffs' lawyers say Louisiana's public defense structure is
systematically broken and requires an all-around fix. They claim
the state systematically shortchanges poor defendants by saddling
public defenders with high caseloads.
In another case that originated in East Baton Rouge Parish, the
state Supreme Court ruled in December that woefully underfunded
public defenders cannot take it upon themselves to lighten their
own caseloads, even if that would mean better service for poor
clients. The high court said only state lawmakers have the power to
adopt changes that could assure adequate representation. [GN]
LOYAL SOURCE: Class Settlement in Ortega FCRA Suit Gets Prelim. Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISMAEL ORTEGA, KRISINDA WOLFE, DORIS WILLIAMS-JENKINS,
and LILIA SILVA, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOYAL SOURCE
GOVERNMENT SERVICES LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-0879-LAB-NLS
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California issued an order:
(1) granting preliminary approval of settlement;
(2) approving the Class Notice;
(3) appointing the Settlement Administrator; and
(4) scheduling final approval hearing.
On March 22, 2021, a hearing was held on the motion of Plaintiffs
Ismael Ortega, Krisinda Wolfe, Doris Williams-Jenkins and Lilia
Silva for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement
with Defendant Loyal Source, approval of the notice to be sent to
the class about the settlement, and the setting of a date for the
hearing on final approval of the settlement.
Judge Burns finds that the Defendant has discharged its obligations
under Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") to provide notice to the
appropriate federal and state officials.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the Class is both the California Class
and the FCRA Class, as defined. The California Class is defined as
"all individuals who worked for Defendant in California as
non-exempt employees during the California Class Period. The
"California Class Period" is Feb. 14, 2016 to Sept. 29, 2020. The
FCRA Class is defined as "all employees or prospective employees of
Defendant in the United States for whom Defendant procured a
background check during the FCRA Class Period." The "FCRA Class
Period" is Feb. 14, 2018 to Sept. 29, 2020. The Judge finds for
settlement purposes only that the Class and the subclasses satisfy
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23.
Judge Burns granted the parties' Agreement preliminary approval as
it meets the criteria for preliminary settlement approval. He
finds that the Settlement falls within the range of possible
approval as fair, adequate and reasonable, and appears to be the
product of arm's-length and informed negotiations and to treat all
Class Members fairly.
Judge Burns also finds that the Parties' proposed notice plan is
constitutionally sound because individual notices will be mailed to
all Class Members whose identities are known to the parties, and
such notice is the best notice practicable. The Parties' proposed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Hearing Date for
Court Approval ("Class Notice") sufficiently informs the Class
Members of the terms of the Settlement, their rights under the
Settlement, their rights to object to the Settlement, their right
to receive a Settlement Share or elect not to participate in the
Settlement, and the processes for doing so, and the date and
location of the final approval hearing, and therefore is approved.
Any Class Member who does not submit a valid request for exclusion
will be deemed a Participating Class Member and will be entitled to
receive a Settlement Share based upon the allocation formula in the
Agreement.
Any Class Member who wishes to comment on or object to the
Settlement, the attorneys' fees and costs, and/or the proposed
Class Representative Service Payment, or who elects not to
participate in the Settlement, has until 60 days after the mailing
of the Class Notice to submit his or her written comment,
objection, or request for exclusion in Settlement pursuant to the
procedures set forth in the Class Notice. The Class Counsel must
file their application for the attorneys' fees and costs no later
than 14 days prior to the end of the objection period, and the
application will be heard at the Final Approval Hearing.
KCC, LLC is appointed to act as the Settlement Administrator,
pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is approved as the Class Counsel
and the Plaintiffs are approved as the representatives of the
Class.
The Defendant is directed to provide the Settlement Administrator
with the Class Data for each Class Member as specified by the
Agreement no later than 14 days after the date of entry of the
Order. Pursuant to the terms set forth in the Agreement, the Class
Data, its contents and any files containing Class Data will remain
confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone except as set
forth in the Agreement.
The Class Notice is approved. The Settlement Administrator is
directed to mail the approved Class Notice by first-class mail to
the Class Members at their last known address no later than 14 days
after receipt of the Class Data.
A Final Approval Hearing will be held on July 26, 2021, at 11:30
a.m. Any Class Member may appear at the final approval hearing in
person or by his or her own attorney and show cause why the Court
should not approve the Settlement, or object to the motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and costs and the service award. Written
comments or objections to the Settlement or to the attorneys' fees
and costs must be postmarked no later than 60 days after mailing of
the Class Notice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7udv8p5b from Leagle.com.
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Facing Anderson Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Magellan Health, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 19, 2021, that
the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Bryan
Anderson v. Magellan Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
2021-0202-KSJM.
On January 4, 2021, Magellan Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Centene
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and Mayflower Merger Sub, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Centene
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and
into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation of the Merger and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Centene.
On February 8, 2021, the Company filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission its preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A
and on February 19, 2021, the Company filed its definitive proxy
statement on Schedule 14A relating to the special meeting of
stockholders of the Company scheduled to be held on March 31, 2021
(the "Definitive Proxy Statement") to, among other things, vote on
a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement.
One putative class action lawsuit, Bryan Anderson v. Magellan
Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 2021-0202-KSJM (Del. Ch. Mar. 9,
2021) has been filed against Magellan and the members of the
Magellan board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
The Anderson Action alleges breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Magellan’s directors in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and further alleges that the
Definitive Proxy Statement is false and misleading and/or omits
material information concerning the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement.
On March 9, 2021, the plaintiff in the Anderson Action also filed a
motion to expedite proceedings and a motion for a preliminary
injunction.
Magellan Health, Inc. is a healthcare services company engaged in
managing the care of patients with complex healthcare needs,
pharmacy benefits and other specialty areas of healthcare.
Magellan's customers include health plans and other managed care
organizations, employers, labor unions, various military and
governmental agencies and third-party administrators. The company
is based in Phoenix, Arizona.
MARCUS & MILLICHAP: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Mora, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
federal appeals court entered the first major decision in a class
action seeking $900 million in damages when it reversed and
remanded a lower court ruling against real estate broker Marcus &
Millichap and a nursing home operator by mandating that the case
remain in federal court.
At issue was whether economic studies and statistics, along with
property and tax records, but not directly involving the plaintiffs
in the case, are sufficient to establish whether a certain
percentage of class members reside in a state for purposes of the
local controversy and discretionary exemptions under the Class
Action Fairness Act. [GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Gamma Traders Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gamma Traders - I LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the case styled as GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC
and VEGA TRADERS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL LYNCH COMMODITIES, INC.,
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, EDWARD
BASES, JOHN PACILIO, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-6002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
an action arising from Defendants' unlawful and intentional
manipulation of COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX
Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium Futures contracts, and
options on those futures contracts (collectively, "precious metals
futures contracts") traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange
("NYMEX") and the Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX") from
approximately January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2014 (the "Class
Period") in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, (the "CEA")
and the common law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of futures
traders and the trading firms that employ them. The Defendants
manipulated the prices of these precious metals futures contracts
using a classic manipulative device called "spoofing," whereby
Defendants placed orders that they never intended to execute for
precious metals futures contracts to send false and illegitimate
supply and demand signals to the market and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused precious
metals futures contracts prices to be artificial throughout the
Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like Plaintiffs and the Class. The
unlawful conduct and manipulation described herein has been the
subject of both criminal and regulatory investigations. On July 17,
2018, Defendants Bases and Pacilio were indicted on commodities
fraud, spoofing, and conspiracy charges in the Northern District of
Illinois relating to the same conduct described in this Complaint.
The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, now seek a review of the District Court's March 4, 2021
Opinion and Order and March 4, 2021 Judgment, dismissing the
action, and all other orders entered in the case that were adverse,
either in whole or in part, to Plaintiffs.
The appellate case is captioned as IN RE MERRILL, BOFA, AND MORGAN
STANLEY SPOOFING LITIGATION, Case No. 21-853, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 2,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC and VEGA TRADERS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
Margaret MacLean, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
rgirnys@lowey.com
mmaclean@lowey.com
jseredynski@lowey.com
- and -
Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq.
Max R. Schwartz, Esq.
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: dweintraub@scott-scott.com
mschwartz@scott-scott.com
tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
jjacobson@scott-scott.com
MICHIGAN: Pearson Gets Leave to File Amended Complaint Against MDOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, MACHELLE PEARSON, MARIA SHELDON, and RACHELL GARWOOD,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. Defendants, and
REBECCA SMITH, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
19-10707, 19-10771 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, and denied the Defendants' Motions to Strike.
The named Plaintiffs are either current or former inmates at the
Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility ("WHV"). They filed the
civil rights class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The
Plaintiffs challenge what they describe as inhumane, dangerous, and
unconstitutional conditions endured by women incarcerated at WHV.
These conditions, they allege, led to an outbreak of Sarcoptes
scabiei which caused several women to become infected and left many
more exposed. Plaintiffs say that despite their grievances,
Defendants failed to provide access to adequate medical care and
resources to properly examine, test, and treat the women, which
allowed the infestation to spread. The Plaintiffs claimed damages
include unbearable itching, pain, scarring, infections and mental
anguish.
Corizon, Dr. Jeffrey Bomber, Wayne State University ("WSU"), Dr.
James Blessman, Dr. Carmen McIntyre, the Michigan Department of
Corrections ("MDOC") and its employees ("MDOC Employee Defendants")
filed Motions to Dismiss. On Sept. 4, 2020, the Court granted the
motion.
Then, the Court found that Wayne State and the MDOC had Eleventh
Amendment immunity and dismissed the claims against them with
prejudice. However, it dismissed the claims against individual WSU
Defendants and Corizon Defendants without prejudice. It also
dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint against the MDOC Employee
Defendants without prejudice because it failed to put MDOC Employee
Defendants on notice of the nature of the specific claims against
them.
In doing so, the Court permitted the Plaintiffs to "seek leave to
reopen the case to file a second amended complaint that complies
with the Order within 21 days of entry of the Order." It also
instructed the Plaintiffs that if they refile, they must "set forth
counts and allegations that are specific and which put each
Defendant on notice concerning the misconduct alleged against that
the Defendant, and that demonstrates their entitlement to relief
against that Defendant."
On Sept. 25, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. It
named additional defendants and added specific allegations, but the
Plaintiffs neglected to seek leave to reopen the case to file the
complaint. Five days later, after defense counsel pointed out the
Plaintiffs' omission, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for a nunc
pro tunc order for leave to reopen the case to file an amended
complaint. The Court struck that motion and the Plaintiffs filed a
corrected motion for nunc pro tunc order on Oct. 8, 2020. They say
that they failed to seek leave before filing their amended
complaint due to an "unfortunate oversight" in their reading of the
Court's Sept. 4, 2020 Order.
In October 2020, Defendants MDOC, Shawn Brewer, Heidi Washington,
Corizon, Russell Marlan, Kenneth Mckee, Lloyd Rapelje, Lia Gulick,
Marti Kay Sherry, David Johnson, Karri Osterhout, Jeremy Howard,
McIntyre, Blessman, and Bomber ("MDOC Defendants") filed a motion
to strike Plaintiffs' amended complaint. On the following day
Defendants Corizon Health Inc., Craig Hutchinson, Jeffrey Bomber,
Robert Lacy, Keith Papendick and Rickey Coleman ("Corizon
Defendants") filed a similar motion to strike the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint. All the Defendants oppose the Plaintiff's nunc
pro tunc request.
A. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
The Plaintiffs seek leave to reopen their case and file an amended
complaint, arguing: (1) their failure to seek leave was merely a
technical oversight which a nunc pro tunc order is designed to
remedy; (2) Under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
leave to amend should be "freely granted" when justice so requires;
and (3) their amended complaint cured the deficiencies identified
in the Court's September 4 Order by providing additional details
which place each defendant on notice concerning the misconduct
alleged against that the Defendant.
The Defendants argue that because the Plaintiffs failed to seek
leave before the Court's deadline expired, they must demonstrate
both good cause and excusable neglect before the Court can grant
leave to reopen the case. They say the Plaintiffs failed to do
so.
Judge Roberts holds that despite the Plaintiffs' procedural defect,
she accepts their amended complaint. She says the Plaintiffs'
delay had absolutely no effect on judicial proceedings.
Additionally, accepting the Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not
prejudice the Defendants because it will "do no harm to the
Defendants except require them to prove their case." Finally,
although the delay was within the reasonable control of the
Plaintiffs' counsel, there is nothing to suggest that they acted in
bad faith. The most equitable result in the case is for the Court
to allow the Plaintiffs' motion. The Judge does so.
B. Defendants' Motions to Strike
The Defendants asks the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 because it
would not survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and would be futile.
They bill their motions as Rule 12(f) motions to strike but
improperly rely on Rule 15, which addresses amended and
supplemental pleadings.
Judge Roberts evaluates motions to strike under Fed. R. Civ. P
12(f). She has reviewed the amended complaint and finds that the
Plaintiffs sufficiently satisfy Rule 8 by making clear statements
as to how they believe each Defendant committed gross negligence
and/or violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They set
forth a sufficient factual basis with respect to each individual
Defendant. She also finds that the Plaintiffs allege personal
knowledge or the failure to act or take corrective measures to
prevent the spread of mold at WHV, and the existence of a custom of
tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations.
Accordingly, the amended complaint pleads the requisite elements of
a claim under Section 1983 against these Defendants.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Roberts granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Leave and denied the Defendants' Motions to Strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3bw52x9u from Leagle.com.
MONEYGRAM INT'L: The Schall Law Reminds of April 30 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against MoneyGram
International, Inc. ("Moneygram" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:MGI) 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 June 17,
2019 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before April 30, 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. MoneyGram was utilizing XRP, the
cryptocurrency associated with its Ripple partnership, which was
considered as an unregistered and unlawful security by the SEC. If
the SEC took enforcement action against Ripple, the Company was
likely to lose a significant revenue stream based on market
development fees it received due to the partnership. In fact, the
Company's revenue from these development fees was critical to its
financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about MoneyGram,
investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 7 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 Eastern District
of New York on behalf of investors that purchased MultiPlan
Corporation (NYSE: MPLN) securities between July 12, 2020 and
November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders
of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill
III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its
consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which was
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). Investors have until
June 7, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click here to participate in the action.
Churchill III is a blank check company that merged with MultiPlan,
a healthcare cost specialist.
In July 2020, Churchill III announced that it had entered into a
preliminary agreement, subject to shareholder approval, to merge
with MultiPlan. MultiPlan is a New York-based data analytics
end-to-end cost management solutions provider to the U.S.
healthcare industry.
The MultiPlan class action lawsuit alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
Merger and during the Class Period regarding the business,
operation, and prospects of MultiPlan.
On November 11, 2020 - only one month after the close of the Merger
– Muddy Waters published a report on Churchill III titled
"MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money
Grab" (the "Muddy Waters Report"). Among other revelations, the
Muddy Waters Report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of
losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to
cost the Company up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered
free cash flow within two years.
As a result of this news, the price of Churchill III securities
plummeted. By November 12, 2020, the price of Churchill III Class A
common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, nearly 40%
below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their
shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger.
If you purchased MultiPlan securities during the Class Period or
were a Churchill III Class A common stock holder entitled to a vote
on the merger 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
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]
NAT'L SPINE: Squire Patton Attorney Discusses Junk Fax Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Owen, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs, reports that sometimes
what the Court does not address is the most interesting issue in an
opinion. That's the case we are covering today. Scoma v. National
Spine & Pain Centers, LLC, 2:20-cv-430-JLB-MRM, 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 46655, *7 (M.D. Fla. March 12, 2021).
The TCPA prohibits using any facsimile machine to send "an
unsolicited advertisement." 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(C). In a case
involving a frequent TCPA plaintiff, Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a
court in the Middle District of Florida denied a Defendants' Motion
to dismiss. First, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that the
fax at issue did not qualify as an advertisement. Second, the Court
also raised, but did not resolve, important First Amendment issues
about the speech implicated by the fax.
Let's start where Junk Fax cases always start: with the fax. Here,
the fax included a bold header that read, "In-Office Telemedicine
Appointments for Pain Available!" It then described how the
Defendants were "accepting appointments for in-office visits for
urgent matters–as well as telemedicine appointments for
non-urgent matters." And it mentioned how its telemedicine "ensured
patients don't end up in the overburdened Emergency Rooms, where
the risk of contracting coronavirus will surely be higher." The fax
also purported to provide contact information for providers
"interested in scheduling appointments for patients."
Summarizing Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Court explained that
advertising is "the action of drawing the public's attention to
something to promote its sale." Likewise, the Court explained FCC
guidance that even a fax that "purport[s] to request survey
responses" may be "pretext" and is an advertisement if it
"ultimately leads to the promotion of goods or services." Applied
to the fax here, the Court concluded that a "reasonable trier of
fact could plausibly conclude that the fax sent to Scoma is an
advertisement."
Notably, the Court also rejected Defendants' argument that the
TCPA's "emergency purposes" exception applied because the fax at
issue provided emergency information about avoiding coronavirus
exposure. As the Court explained, the TCPA "does not contain an
'emergency purposes' exception in the junk-fax provision." Simple
enough.
That leaves us with the First Amendment analysis in the Court's
opinion. Defendants argued that the junk-fax provision is a
content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny. Scoma (and
the Government, as an intervenor) argued that the junk-fax
provision is subject to intermediate scrutiny as a restriction on
commercial speech. The Court declined to reach the merits because
"all parties" had simply assumed that the "standard of review
[strict or intermediate scrutiny] is dispositive in this case":
Either the junk-fax ban falls under strict scrutiny, or it survives
under intermediate scrutiny. None of the parties envision a
scenario where the junk-fax ban could survive strict scrutiny–in
other words, the ban is ‘narrowly tailored to serve compelling
state interests.' The Court is not prepared to assume–without
discussion–that the level of scrutiny decides the junk-fax ban's
constitutionality.
The Court allowed the Defendants to re-raise the challenge later in
the case and asked the parties to address the following issues next
time around:
* Can the junk-fax ban survive "strict scrutiny"? (Does it serve
a "compelling interest"?)
* What compelling or substantial interest does the TCPA serve?
* Given the FCC's broad definition of advertisement (to include
faxes that do not overtly sell or promote goods), does it reach
non-commercial speech?
These are important questions and we will keep an eye out for how
the Court resolves them. [GN]
NAVISTAR INT'L: Dismissal of MaxxForce Engine Class Action Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Grisolano, writing for Land Line, reports that a federal
appeals court affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss a
lawsuit filed by two trucking companies against Navistar over the
defective MaxxForce engines.
In its ruling handed down on Thursday, March 11, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals said the trucking companies -- Drasc Inc.
and S&C Trucks of Winklepleck, both of Sugarcreek, Ohio -- cannot
proceed with their lawsuit against the Lisle, Ill.-based truck
maker, because they failed to opt out of the multimillion federal
class action settlement that was approved in January.
On Jan. 3, 2020, a federal judge in Illinois granted final approval
of the $135 million settlement against Navistar. Carriers and
truckers who owned a 2011-14 Navistar with a defective MaxxForce
engine may be eligible for compensation.
Class members who were part of that MaxxForce lawsuit were given
three options -- file a claim, exclude themselves, or object to the
settlement.
The two trucking companies, meanwhile, proceeded with their own
lawsuit in state court in Ohio.
The companies claimed they never received notice of the settlement
or the need to opt out. They argued that the fact that they
continued their case against Navistar should be enough to show that
they wanted to opt out.
The district court disagreed, ruling that the companies had indeed
been notified of their options and did not opt out before pursuing
their own suit.
The lower court found that Drasc's lawyers in the Ohio lawsuit had
actual notice of the MaxxForce settlement. The lawyers had sent a
letter to Navistar's counsel in May 2019, the day after the
preliminary hearing on the settlement, showing awareness of the
pending class action. And a settlement demand that Drasc's lawyers
sent to Navistar on July 26, 2019, discussed the difference between
what Drasc wanted in the Ohio case and what it expected to receive
from the class-action settlement.
"Drasc's lawyers must have known about the need to opt out," the
appeals court ruling states. "No modern lawyer is unaware of the
procedures for managing class actions. Nonetheless, Drasc's lawyers
did not do anything to protect its interest in opting out."
Navistar settlement
Per the agreement, MaxxForce class members had three options to
recover losses:
Cash option - A lump sum payment of up to $2,500.
Rebate option - A rebate of up to $10,000 toward the purchase of a
new Navistar truck. The settlement limits this option to no more
than 10 trucks per class member. The 10-truck cap was intended to
prevent the claims of class members with large fleets from
depleting the funds for the other options.
"Prove up" option - The class member submits documentary evidence
of damages for "covered expenses" totaling no more than $15,000.
The deadline to file a claim for damages was June 10, 2020. Claim
determination letters were mailed by Nov. 18 to all claimants who
submitted a timely claim. The deadline to respond to the
determination letters passed on Dec. 18, 2020. [GN]
NEW SCHOOL: Vasquez Sues Over School Employees' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MANUEL VASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW SCHOOL FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
THE HELP GROUP CHILD AND FAMILY CENTER, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV13381 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment
records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to
provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure
to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage
statements, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay
all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide
basic information at the time of hiring and when employment changes
occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a school secretary from
in or about January 2017 until on or about September 15, 2020.
New School for Child Development is an elementary school in
California.
The Help Group Child and Family Center is a family-focused,
child-centered mental health provider in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal Filed in Gulino Suit re Edwards-Mortley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's Judgment
dated February 19, 2021, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET
AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the
New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant, the
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New
York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain
racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a
license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance
Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified
the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to
the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief
in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to
the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule
23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and
class-wide injunctive relief.
The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Judgment, classifying
Stephen Edwards-Mortley as a member of the Plaintiff class in this
action, and holding that he is entitled to monetary and injunctive
relief from Defendant as compensation for the injuries she suffered
as a result of what the Court found to be the Defendant's
discrimination.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board of
Education, Case No. 21-706, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on March 25, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York is represented by:
James Edward Johnson, Esq.
CORPORATION COUNSEL
NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 356-2500
Plaintiff-Appellee Stephen Edwards-Mortley is represented by:
Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 806-1245
E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com
NEW YORK: Industry Suffers Setback in 421a Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Hudson at therealdeal.com reports that tenants in a Bushwick
building scored a victory against their landlord in court this
week, which could be a harbinger of headaches to come for the real
estate industry.
A New York State Supreme Court judge ruled that the tenants' suit,
which accuses landlord Spruce Capital Partners of rent overcharges
at 1209 Dekalb Avenue, would continue. The landlord and three
influential trade groups had petitioned the court to dismiss the
case.
It's one of seven separate cases where tenants are seeking class
action status against landlords who received 421a tax abatements
and then allegedly illegally inflated rents at their properties.
The complaints were filed in the past seven months after
investigations by the watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative.
Though the judge's decision in Spruce Capital's case does not bind
judges in the other cases, tenant advocates see it as a positive
development.
"This decision is a colossal setback, not just for the landlord in
this case, but for the real estate lobby who tried and failed to
get it dismissed," Aaron Carr, the founder of HRI, said in an
email. "The real estate lobby is concerned that if this class
action is successful, our organization will investigate every
single landlord that is cheating on their 421a tax benefits. And
they are correct."
At the heart of the lawsuits is the question of whether it's legal
to offer concessions on the initial rent for a unit in the 421a
program. If the tenants prevail, the outcome of these cases would
have widespread implications for developers using 421a and offering
concessions to renters.
In a joint statement, Real Estate Board of New York, the Community
Housing Improvement Program and the Rent Stabilization Association
-- which had filed a motion to appear in support of several of the
landlords and argued for the tenants' complaints to be dismissed --
said the decision in Spruce Capital's case was based on the
"favorable presumptions afforded by law to the plaintiffs" and does
not answer or address the legal arguments put forward by the
landlords' attorney or the industry.
"As the case advances, we fully expect the Court to find that rent
concessions are important government-endorsed tools to help
recompense tenants in times of inconvenience," the groups said in
the statement.
Nativ Winiarsky, a partner at Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, is
representing a landlord in one of the other six cases. He said it's
concerning that the court did not defer to the "long-standing"
precedent set by the Division of Homes and Community Renewal to
permit limited rent concessions.
"Needless to say, given the large-scale impact of these decisions,
it will no doubt only ultimately be resolved at the appellate
levels and possibly the Court of Appeals," said Winiarsky in an
email.
A representative for Spruce Capital did not immediately respond to
request for comment. [GN]
NEW YORK: Jake Pankey Seeks Class Action Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jake Pankey v. STATE OF
NEW YORK GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS ANTHONY
ANNUCCI; AND DIRECTOR MEDICAL PAROLE JEFF MCKOY, Case No.
2:21-cv-01682-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting class action certification.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QdTWrm
at no extra charge.
New York is a state in the northeastern U.S., known for New York
City and towering Niagara Falls.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
ONTARIO: Settlement Proposed in Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
against the Province of Ontario on behalf of individuals admitted
to the Child and Parent Resource Institute ("CPRI") in London,
Ontario. The action was certified as a class proceeding on
December 22, 2016.
The lawsuit alleged that between 1963 and 2011, the inpatients at
CPRI suffered various harms, including injuries resulting from the
wrongful acts of their peers, and that the Province owed a duty to
supervise and failed to adequately ensure the safety of those
individuals admitted. The Province denies these claims and a Court
has not decided whether the Class or the Province is right.
Instead, both sides have agreed to a settlement.
If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, it will
provide a claims process through which eligible class members may
make a claim for compensation.
A virtual settlement approval hearing will be held by the Court. At
this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class, and
whether to approve the Settlement Agreement.
Notice of the settlement approval hearing will be provided to class
members. The Court will determine the process and timing of the
notice.
More information is available on Class Counsel's website:
https://kmlaw.ca/cases/cpri-class-action/ or by contacting them at
1-844-819-8523, or by email at cpriclassaction@kmlaw.ca. [GN]
OREGON: Agrees to Settle Coronavirus Relief Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mitchell, writing for Blue Mountain Eagle, reports that the
state has agreed to settle a Grant County-based lawsuit halting
coronavirus relief money for Black Oregonians.
Should the court approve, the fund could resume paying out aid to
Black-owned businesses and their families, and as part of the
settlement, the state would pay an undetermined sum to non-Black
applicants who had applied for help from the fund last year,
according to a proposed settlement agreement filed March 12 in U.S.
District Court in Pendleton.
Great Northern Resources, a John Day logging company that lists Tad
Houpt and Grant County Commissioner Sam Palmer as agents, filed a
lawsuit alleging race-based discrimination after being denied
funding from the coronavirus relief fund set up to help Black-owned
businesses.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Great Northern would
receive $45,000, plus up to $186,000 in fees for its attorneys.
The settlement proposal noted that $25,000 of the logging company's
payout would be for COVID-19-related expenses listed on its grant
application, while the additional $20,000 would be its service
award as the lead plaintiff of the class-action lawsuit.
Applications that were submitted on time by business owners who are
not Black will be automatically considered for funding through the
grant program unless they opt out of the class action settlement,
according to the settlement.
Houpt declined to comment on March 12, and Palmer did not
immediately respond to the Eagle as of March 12. Palmer told the
Eagle in December that he was not involved in the lawsuit.
In a March 12 press release, the Oregon Cares Fund said, amid
mounting legal challenges, the fund offered to deposit with the
court the remaining $8.8 million it had not distributed, after
distributing $49.5 million to nearly 15,600 Black people, their
families and their businesses.
If the court approves the settlement, $5.3 million of the funds
deposited with the court will be immediately released, and can be
dispersed to eligible applicants who have been waiting for grants.
The remaining $3.5 million will continue to be held.
Great Northern -- the original plaintiffs in the case -- joined
with Salem electrical contractor Dynamic Service Fire and Security
and sought class-action status for the suit, according to a
complaint filed Dec. 6.
The state, per the settlement, agreed to use a different pot of
money to pay grants to up to 1,252 non-Black applicants that sought
funding through the program before Dec. 8, 2020.
An independent third party will determine how much money those
newly eligible will receive.
According to the agreement, the applicants must meet the fund's
race-neutral criteria and adequately demonstrate financial loss
related to the coronavirus.
According to the settlement agreement, the independent party
issuing the funds would apply the same criteria -- except for
racial self-identification -- the Oregon Cares Fund had in awarding
claims.
Not all claims will qualify for an award, according to the court
document.
By agreeing to the settlement, the court document said, neither
side is admitting guilt. The state is settling to avoid "complex,
costly and time-consuming litigation and the likelihood of success
on the action's merit." [GN]
ORORA NORTH: Coleman Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTEZ COLEMAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORORA NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, Case No.
2021L000375 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., Mar. 31, 2021) alleges
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide the
Plaintiffs and the Class with a written, publicly available policy
identifying its retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying employees' biometric data when the initial purpose for
collecting or obtaining their biometrics is no longer relevant, as
required by the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Defendant allegedly failed to inform its employees of the
complete purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric
data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at all, and failed to
obtain their knowing consent to use their biometric data.
ORORA NORTH AMERICA is part of the wholesale sector industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
Mara Baltabols, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630) 355-7590
Fax: (630) 778-0400
E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES: Hirsch Sues Over Corporate Voting Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HIRSCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PALANTIR TECHNOLOGIES INC.; PETER THIEL;
ALEXANDER KARP; and STEPHEN COHEN, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0275
(Del. Ch., Mar. 31, 2021) alleges violation of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have
twisted the notion of stock and voting rights beyond recognition.
Seeking to make the Founders rulers for life, the Defendants
adopted charter provisions granting the Founders what it describes
as "variable voting rights." These provisions, which the Defendants
acknowledges are "novel" and "differ significantly from those of
other companies that have dual or multiple class capital
structures" -- insulate the Founders' voting control by causing
votes to magically appear and disappear, on an election by election
basis, precisely to the extent necessary to ensure the Founders
receive precisely their desired percentage of the vote, the
Plaintiff adds.
Palantir Technologies Inc. develops software to analyze
information. The Company offers solutions support many kinds of
data including structured, unstructured, relational, temporal, and
geospatial. [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-
Thomas Curry, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Tayler D. Bolton, Esq.
1000 N. West St., Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 485-0483
-and-
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Andrew Blumberg, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
-and-
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
PARTS DISTRIBUTION: Adams Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling to 3rd Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tiffany Adams filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled Tiffany Adams, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Parts Distribution Xpress,
Inc., PDX North, Inc. and PDX South, Inc. and PDX West, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-00697, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the fair Labor Standards Act.
PDX operates as delivery/courier service where Adams worked as a
Driver/Courier. PDX allegedly misclassified her as an independent
contractor thus denied her overtime pay and minimum wages.
Ms. Adams seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated March 22, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Adams v. Parts
Distribution Xpress Inc, et al., Case No. 21-1634, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 1,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant TIFFANY ADAMS, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 318-0268
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
amurthy@forthepeople.com
Defendants-Appellees PARTS DISTRIBUTION XPRESS INC., PDX NORTH
INC., PDX SOUTH INC., and PDX WEST INC. are represented by:
Colin D. Dougherty, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD
10 Sentry Parkway
P.O. Box 3001, Suite 200
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Telephone: (610) 397-6500
E-mail: cdougherty@foxrothschild.com
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Diamond Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Arthur Diamond, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled ARTHUR DIAMOND et al., Petitioners v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Respondents, and JANINE WENZIG et
al., Petitioners v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
668, Respondent, Case No. 20-1383.
Response is due on May 3, 2021.
Petitioners Diamond, et al., seek a writ of certiorari to review
the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in the case titled ARTHUR DIAMOND et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JANINE WENZIG et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 668, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 19-2812, 19-3906. The
Third Circuit entered judgment on August 28, 2020, denying a
petition for rehearing en banc on October 30, 2020.
The questions presented are: 1. Is there a good-faith defense to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability
for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the
defendant acted under color of a law before it was held
unconstitutional? 2. Are employees who had compulsory union fees
seized from them in violation of their First Amendment rights prior
to Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), entitled to
damages or restitution for their injuries?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, who are all current or retired Pennsylvania public
school teachers, allege that the Union Defendants violated the
Plaintiffs' constitutional rights by forcing the Plaintiffs to pay
fees to unions as a condition of their employment (fair-share fees)
under 71 Pa. Stat. Section 575 (Section 575), even though the
Plaintiffs chose not to join the Pennsylvania State Education
Association or its affiliate unions. The Plaintiffs also claim that
Commonwealth Defendants, who are charged in various ways with
enforcing Pennsylvania's laws, must be enjoined from enforcing
Section 575 in an unconstitutional manner.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Arthur Diamond, et al. are
represented by:
Brian Kirk Kelsey, Esq.
LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
208 S. LaSalle St. Ste. 1690
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 637-2280
Facsimile: (312) 263-7702
E-mail: bkelsey@libertyjusticecenter.org
PIONEER NATURAL: Seeks 5th Circuit Review in Kennedy FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Pioneer Natural Resources Company filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ROBERT KENNEDY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Case No. 7:20-CV-86, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly-situated workers overtime
compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single
workweek and its misclassification of them as independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant seeks an interlocutory appeal as to the order
adopting/rejecting report and recommendations, and terminating
motions. Per 5th Circuit rules, the appellant has 14 days, from the
filing of the notice of appeal, to order the transcript.
The appellate case is captioned as Kennedy v. Pioneer Natural
Resources Co., Case No. 21-50256, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Pioneer Natural Resources Company is
represented by:
Leslie Selig Byrd, Esq.
BRACEWELL, L.L.P.
300 Convent Street
San Antonio, TX 78205-3723
Telephone: (210) 299-3460
E-mail: leslie.byrd@bracewell.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Robert Kennedy, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
PLAINS ALL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Newman FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH NEWMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No. 7:19-CV-244, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland
Odessa.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Ronald C. Griffin entered an order denying without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional
certification and notice.
The Court said, "District courts in the Fifth Circuit have long
employed the Lusardi two-step approach when considering motions for
conditional certification under the FLSA. See Lusardi v. Xerox
Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). Both the Plaintiffs' Motions
and Defendants' Responses are premised on the application of the
Lusardi two-step approach to conditional certification. However, on
January 12, 2021 in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, the Fifth
Circuit enunciated its rejection of Lusardi. F.3d, No. 19-60847,
2021 WL 98229 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2021)."
The Defendant seeks an interlocutory appeal as to Court's Order
adopting/rejecting report and recommendations, and terminating
motions. Per 5th Circuit rules, the appellant has 14 days, from the
filing of the notice of appeal, to order the transcript.
The appellate case is captioned as Newman v. Plains All Amer Pipel,
Case No. 21-50253, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on April 1, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is
represented by:
Mark Douglas Temple, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, L.L.P.
811 Main Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 751-1600
E-mail: mtemple@reedsmith.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Kenneth Newman, Individually and, on behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Richard J. Burch,Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Andrew Wells Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: adunlap@mybackwages.com
Intervenor-Appellee Cypress Environmental Management-TIR, L.L.C. is
represented by:
Rachel Cowen, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P.
444 W. Lake Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 372-2000
E-mail: rcowen@mwe.com
- and -
Nicole Figueroa, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P.
2501 N. Harwood Street
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 295-8062
E-mail: nfigueroa@mwe.com
PLUG POWER: Glancy Prongay & Murray Reminds of May 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming May 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Plug Power Inc. ("Plug" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PLUG) securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Plug 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/plug-power-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 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. 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 during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 7, 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]
PLUG POWER: Klein Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on March 15 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Plug Power
Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.
Class Period: November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in PLUG:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?id=13654&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Plug Power Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1 the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual
report due to delays related to the review of classification of
certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets
with certain leases; (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.
Shareholders have until May 7, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the PLUG lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
PORCELANA CORONA: Beteselassie Sues Over Defective Toilet Tanks
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEBIYU BETESELASSIE; and BETHLEHEM GELAW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PORCELANA
CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. formerly known as SANITARIOS LAMOSA
S.A. DE C.V. also known as VORTENS J.J.R., INC., Defendant, Case
2:21-cv-02153-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan., Mar. 31, 2021) is a product
liability action arising out of the Defendant's defective toilet
tanks.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant was aware
its toilet tanks were defective and tended to burst, causing
substantial damage, but did not act to correct these defects by
2012. As of September, 2019, the Plaintiffs had eight Vortens
toilet tanks, model number 3464. That same month, one of these
toilet tanks spontaneously failed, causing significant property
damage. The Plaintiffs replaced the seven other defective toilet
tanks before they could themselves fail, causing even more damage,
says the suit.
These manufacturing defects were allegedly outside industry
standards and created toilet tanks with latent defects. These
toilet tanks are weak, brittle, and fragile, and spontaneously
crack and fail at unacceptably high rates.
The Defendant failed to stop manufacturing these toilet tanks until
it could address and correct its manufacturing defects. Instead,
the Defendant continued to manufacture its toilet tanks in the
Benito Juarez plant through its investigation of the problem and
deficiencies. As a result of the Defendant's decision to continue
manufacturing and distributing what it knew to be defective toilet
tanks, these defects and problems persisted after 2011, added the
suit.
PORCELANA CORONA DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V. toilets, sinks, showers,
faucets, bathtubs, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Kilgore, Esq.
Jonathan M. Soper, Esq.
HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: msk@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
POST FOODS: Judge Okays $15MM Consumer Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Veeneman, Esq., of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that on February 24, 2021, a judge in
the United States Court for the Northern District of California
preliminarily approved a $15 million class-action settlement for
Post Foods, based on the case Debbie Krommenhock et al. v. Post
Foods, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-04958-WHO, which concerns
representations made by Post Foods LLC in the labeling and
advertising of several popular cereal brands, including Honey
Bunches of Oats and Raisin Bran.
Plaintiffs Debbie Krommenhock and Stephen Hadley filed a class
action complaint against Post in August 2016 alleging that Post
violated California consumer protection laws by deceptively
marketing high-sugar cereals with health and wellness claims.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs alleged that Post took advantage of
the rise in consumer interest for healthy eating by claiming that
its cereals were healthy even though they contained high amounts of
sugar. The Plaintiffs alleged that regular consumption of Post's
cereals was likely to contribute to excess added sugar consumption
and increase consumer risk of chronic disease.
In total, the Plaintiffs' Complaint targets representations made by
Post regarding more than 50 of its cereals. The challenged
representations include:
* On the front of Post's Great Grains Cranberry Almond Crunch:
"Less processed nutrition you can see;"
* On the front of Post's Post Selects/Great Grain Raisins, Dates
& Pecans: "naturally sweet Raisins & Dates;" and
* On the front of Post's Honey Bunches of Oats: "Our Post
Promise: No High Fructose Corn Syrup," as well as a depiction of
whole grains and a heart in two adjacent circles.
The settlement covers a class of all consumers of Post's cereals
from August 2012 to present. Under the settlement, Post will pay
$15 million to the class. Post will also stop making certain claims
on cereal, including "no high fructose corn syrup," "less
processed," "wholesome," "smart" and "nutritious" on products where
10% or more of the calories come from sugar.
The hearing for final approval is set for Wednesday, June 23,
2021.
Other cereal companies have faced similar consumer lawsuits. For
example, Kellogg paid $20 million to settle claims concerning its
use of the term "lightly sweetened" on Frosted Mini-Wheats cereals.
General Mills succeeded in defeating a lawsuit in 2019, with a
judge holding that a reasonable consumer would not be misled by
claims about the sugar content when the products had clear
ingredient labeling showing the sugar amount.
Notably, the FDA has not created an official definition for
"healthy" labeling, despite asking for public comment in September
2016. Without official FDA guidance, industry confusion and
consumer class actions on "healthy" labeling are likely to
continue. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Housey Suit Over Deceptive Toothpaste Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BELINDA HOUSEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02286
(S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2021) is a consumer class action against
Procter & Gamble for its false advertising, unfair and deceptive
marketing practices, and materially misleading claims and omissions
they employed and disseminated in connection with the sale of its
line of Crest (TM) toothpastes containing charcoal.
Charcoal is highly porous and has adsorptive qualities that can be
useful in certain contexts. In recent years, health and beauty
products containing activated charcoal have become a consumer
sensation. Opportunistic marketers, celebrities and social media
influencers tout a variety of certain charcoal products for
purported detoxifying properties and other enhanced wellbeing and
health benefits. Consumers have been willing to pay a premium for
these charcoal products based on these purported benefits.
P&G sells oral care products containing charcoal, including: "Crest
(TM) 3D White Whitening Therapy -- Charcoal with Hemp Seed Oil";
"Crest (TM) Gum Detoxify Charcoal Toothpaste"; "Crest (TM) 3D White
Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal."
Allegedly, P& G actively misleads consumers to believe the Charcoal
Toothpastes are enamel-safe whitening toothpastes that gently
clean, and that can promote healthier gums. P&G promotes the
Charcoal Toothpastes with multiple claims printed on the product
packaging and tube labels of the Charcoal Toothpastes, specifically
including that the Charcoal Toothpastes have "enamel safe
whitening" capabilities, that they promote "healthy gums", and they
can "gently clean."
Plaintiff Housey resides in New York City. She purchased the Crest
(TM) 3D White Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal. Prior to her
purchase, Ms. Housey saw and reviewed Defendant's advertising
claims on the toothpaste packaging and labeling itself, and she
made her purchase of the toothpaste in reliance thereon.
Procter & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer
goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, founded in
1837 by William Procter and James Gamble.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway East, 2 nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: (856) 772-7200
Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93 rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: To Explain Failure to Produce Docs in Mantha
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSEPH MANTHA, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Defendant,
Civil No. 19-12235-LTS (D. Mass.), Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered
QuoteWizard to submit a supplemental filing explaining why
production of the documents at issue would constitute undue burden,
in light of the evidence presented.
The case is a putative consumer class action brought against
Defendant QuoteWizard under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Section 227. At issue is an order from Chief Magistrate
Judge Kelley requiring QuoteWizard to produce three categories of
documents relating to text messaging conducted on its behalf by
Drips Holdings, LLC.
On Feb. 24, 2021, Judge Sorokin denied QuoteWizard's Objection to
Judge Kelley's Order. On March 5, 2021, QuoteWizard moved for
reconsideration of that ruling. On March 16, 2021, the Court
issued a written decision regarding QuoteWizard's motion.
In the decision issued on March 16th, Judge Sorokin affirmed again
Judge Kelley's determination the three categories of documents at
issue are (1) relevant and (2) within the possession, custody, or
control of QuoteWizard. He noted, however, that QuoteWizard had --
for the first time since litigation over these documents began in
September of last year -- offered evidence substantiating its
claims of undue burden. Given the gravity of QuoteWizard's
representations as to burden, the Judge determined he would
overlook the procedural posture in which these fresh
representations were raised and consider QuoteWizard's arguments on
the merits. Consequently, the Judge reserved on the question of
burden and ordered further briefing. The parties have obliged.
Much of the briefing has focused on whether the production of
roughly 46,000 Do Not Call requests in Drips' possession would
constitute an undue burden. QuoteWizard argues the documents at
issue are not reasonably accessible and production would "require
thousands of hours of manpower that could threaten Drips' continued
existence. In support, it offers an affidavit filed by Drips in an
action brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
("Rule 45 action") -- Drips Holdings, LLC v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC,
5:21-mc-00017-PAB (N.D. Ohio filed Mar. 15, 2021).
In the Rule 45 action, Drips seeks to quash a subpoena from
QuoteWizard demanding production of the Do Not Call requests. The
affidavit filed by Drips in the Rule 45 action, and presented to
the undersigned by QuoteWizard, contains the sworn representations
of Drips Chief Strategy Officer Tom Martindale.
As relevant in the matter, Martindale avers: (1) Drips keeps its
records, including its communications with consumers, on so-called
"active servers" for sixty days; (2) after 60 days, Drips' records
are transferred to "cold storage servers in a data warehouse"; (3)
Drips keeps significant amounts of data in cold storage and the
data is not indexed or otherwise easily searchable; and (4)
accessing the documents which Judge Kelley ordered produced would
require the development of new software programs, "perhaps hundreds
of thousands of hours" of labor, and "years of processing time."
Martindale avers the associated burden would be so substantial that
it could well "result in Drips having to shut down altogether."
In response, Plaintiff Mantha points out Drips was previously able
to produce 226,434 consumer Do Not Call requests, seemingly similar
in nature to the Do Not Call requests at issue, in another
proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California -- Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LLC, 400 F.Supp.3d
964, 977 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
The Court has examined documents on the public docket underlying
the decision cited by Mantha. From the Court's preliminary review
of the spreadsheet, the text message communications seemingly
produced by Drips span a period stretching from roughly mid-2017
through to early 2018 -- i.e. a period of greater than 60 days.
QuoteWizard replied to Mantha's brief but did not address this
evidence or the case to which Mantha pointed.
Judge Sorokin holds that the law is clear the party resisting
discovery bears the burden of showing that a request for documents
imposes an undue burden. On this record, QuoteWizard has failed to
address evidence before the Court which appears to show that Drips
has previously produced records practically identical in nature to
those presently at issue, and in much greater volume. This
evidence, he says, sits in apparent tension with QuoteWizard's (and
Drips') repeated representations that compelled production would
impose extraordinary burdens on Drips. He recognizes, however,
that Drips' prior production occurred in the past and that there
may be factors regarding that production of which the Court is
unaware. He therefore makes no determination at this time as to
whether QuoteWizard has carried its burden.
Judge Sorokin will allow QuoteWizard to submit a supplemental
filing explaining why production of the documents at issue would
constitute undue burden, in light of the evidence discussed. Drips
is also invited to submit its own filing addressing its prior
production, should it so choose. Any such appearance by Drips will
be deemed to be for the limited purpose of addressing this question
and will not be construed as consent to the Court's jurisdiction
more generally.
Should QuoteWizard or Drips choose to submit a supplementary
filing, all facts or explanations offered in the filing must be
supported by affidavits. Any such filing is due within seven days
from the date of the Order and is limited to seven pages. Any
response by Mantha is due seven days thereafter and is also limited
to seven pages.
QuoteWizard is ordered to provide Drips with a copy of the Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yzv7dunf from Leagle.com.
RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------
RA Medical Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
the putative securities class action suit entitled, Derr v. Ra
Medical Systems, Inc., et al., is pending.
On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action
no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of a
subsequent amended complaint, the lawsuit alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the
Company's registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and between September 27, 2018 and
November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Management intends to
vigorously defend the Company against this lawsuit.
On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriter defendants without prejudice.
On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On July 14, 2020, the court informed the parties that
the motion to dismiss is suitable for decision without oral
argument.
At this time, the Company cannot predict how a court or jury will
rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential
loss in the event of an adverse outcome.
RA Medical said, "Should the Company ultimately be found liable,
the liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition and its results of operations for the period or
periods in which it is incurred. The Company is unable to predict
the ultimate outcome and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of
the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from any
unfavorable outcome."
RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical
devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of
dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves
patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.
REALREAL INC: N.D. California Dismisses Sanders' Rule 10b-5 Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL SANDERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE REALREAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07737-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on Rule 10b-5 claims and denies their motion to
dismiss on Section 11 claims.
The class action arises out of the Defendants' alleged violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Item 303 of
SEC Regulation S-k, and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
RealReal is an online marketplace that sells authenticated,
consigned luxury goods. The website offers used clothing, jewelry,
and accessories from "over 7,000 luxury and premium designers."
The Company occupies a unique niche in the luxury goods
marketplace.
Lead Plaintiff, Michael Sanders, along with Nubia Lorelle and Garth
Wakeford ("Plaintiffs") purchased securities in connection with The
RealReal, Inc.'s June 2019 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The
Plaintiffs allege violations of federal securities laws arising in
two distinct time periods. First, they contend the Defendants made
false and misleading statements in the company's registration
documents prior to the IPO. Second, they allege these false and
misleading statements continued in the months following the IPO,
thereby artificially inflating the stock's market price.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim the Defendants failed to
disclose known trends or uncertainties during both time periods.
The Complaint names multiple Defendants: (1) The RealReal, Inc.;
(2) Individual Defendants Julie Wainwright (CEO), Matt Gustke
(CFO), Steve Lo (Vice President and Corporate Controller), Chip
Baird (Director), Maha Ibrahim (Director), Rob Krolik (Director),
Michael Kumin (Director), Stefan Larsson (Director), Niki Leondakis
(Director), and James Miller (Director); and (3) Underwriter
Defendants Credit Suisse Securities LLC, Bank of America
Securities, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc.,
Cowan and Company, LLC, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company.
Defendant The RealReal, Inc. and Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that the Plaintiffs have not
met the heightened pleading requirements applicable in securities
fraud cases.
Before turning to the substantive claims, Judge Davila addresses
initial motions from the Defendants.
A. Request for Judicial Notice & Incorporation by Reference
The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of six
documents, which are attached as exhibits to the declaration of
Jamie A. Bartlett. Specifically, they request the Court takes
judicial notice of all six exhibits and treat Exhibits 1 to 2 and 4
to 6 as incorporated by reference. The Plaintiff does not
challenge the judicial notice of such documents for their limited
purpose of demonstrating the statements were made to the public.
Judge Davila takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1 to 6, in
accordance with the limited purpose of identifying what statements
were available to the market. In addition, the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6
because the Plaintiff explicitly and repeatedly refers to excerpts
of these exhibits to support their claims. Accordingly, these five
documents are properly considered on this motion to dismiss because
they have been incorporated by reference.
B. Request for Joinder
The Underwriter Defendants seek to join The Company and Individual
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs do not oppose these
joinder motions. Thus, Judge Davila grants these joinder motions.
The Judge now turns to the Plaintiffs' claims.
A. The Plaintiffs' Section 10 and Section 20 Claims
The Plaintiffs bring two claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. First, they allege the Company and its President, CEO,
and Chairperson of the Board of Directors, Julie Wainwright, and
CFO, Matt Gustke, ("Officer Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of
the Act via Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC. Second, they allege
Individual Defendants (Julie Wainwright and Matt Gustke) violated
Section 20(a) as "controlling persons" within the Company. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made 10 false, misleading,
and/or incomplete statements regarding the Company's authentication
process following the IPO.
In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants challenge the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
by first arguing that the Plaintiffs' allegations do not
demonstrate that any challenged statements were false or misleading
and, in any event, represent corporate puffery. They next contend
that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish scienter. Then, even
if the Court finds falsity and scienter, the Defendants argue that
the Plaintiffs' loss causation claims are inadequate.
Judge Davila finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled
personal knowledge and reliability as to FEs 1, 3, 5, and 12
because those witnesses were not employed during the class period
and the AC failed to provide a detailed employment description.
However, the allegations as to FEs 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13
meet the particularity requirement.
The Judge also finds that (i) Statements 1 and 6, that reference
the Company's "rigorous" authentication process, are actionable;
(ii) the Plaintiffs have failed to show that Statement 8 (pertains
to a statement made during the Company's third quarter earnings
call) is misleading; (iii) the Plaintiffs allegations fail to raise
a strong inference of scienter under the core operations theory;
and (iv) the Plaintiffs failed to allege a viable Section 10(b) or
Rule 10b-5 claim, therefore, they have likewise failed to
adequately allege a claim under Section 20(a).
B. Section 11 and 15 Claims
The Plaintiffs allege 11 statements contained in the Company's
Registration Statement violate Section 11 of the Securities Act.
These misstatements and omissions can be classified into three
categories: (i) statements concerning the Company's authentication
process, (ii) statements concerning risk factors, and (iii)
statements concerning the reporting of certain financial metrics.
As an initial matter, Judge Davila must determine whether the
heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b) applies to the
Plaintiffs' Section 11 claims. The Defendants argue this
heightened pleading standard applies to thePlaintiffs' Section 11
claims "because their Securities Act and Exchange Act claims are
premised on the same alleged misconduct." The Plaintiffs, however,
counter that the claims are distinct because the "Section 11 claims
are based on only those statements contained in the Prospectus
whereas the Section 10(b) claims allege additional post-IPO false
statements." Further, the Plaintiffs argue the Section 11 claims
are not centered on knowledge or fraudulent concealment.
Judge Davila denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims to the extent they are based on Statements 1, 3,
4, 5, and 6 (the corresponding Statements asserted by the
Plaintiffs in the Section 10(b) context) because the Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged that these statements are material and
misleading to a reasonable consumer in the Section 11 context. The
Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on
Statements 2 and 7 (pertain to the specific tasks involved in the
Company's authentication process) because the Plaintiffs failed to
meet the particularity requirement for these statements.
The Judge also holds that Statement 8 that addresses the critical
necessity of an accurate authentication process and the threat to
the Company's reputation posed by the sale of counterfeit good, is
a nonactionable omission. He further holds that the Plaintiffs'
argument on Statement 12 (pertains to the potential impact of
promotional pricing of new luxury goods on the Company's business
model) falters when considered in its broader context.
Accordingly, the Judge grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss as
to Statements 8 and 12.
Lastly, Section 15 establishes "control person" liability for
violations of Section 11. To establish a claim under Section 15,
the Plaintiffs must plead a predicate violation of Section 11. The
Judge finds that the Plaintiffs have successfully pled a claim
under Section 11, as discussed. Thus, he finds they have likewise
stated a claim for a violation of Section 15.
C. Item 303 Claim
Item 303 requires the Offering Materials to disclose "any known
trends or uncertainties that have had or that the registrant
reasonably expects will have a material favorable or unfavorable
impact on net sales or revenues or income from continuing
operations." The Plaintiffs argue the Defendants failed to
disclose two trends: The trend of decreasing AOV for Q2 2019 and
that the Company had been selling hundreds of counterfeit items
through its authentication process. The Plaintiffs also allege that
the Defendants failed to disclose the Company's sale of "hundreds
of counterfeit items" that made it through the authentication
process.
Aside from the conclusory allegation, Judge Davila holds that the
Plaintiffs failed to allege any facts indicating that the
Defendants knew of the alleged trend toward depressed pricing.
Therefore, he finds that the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently
alleged a duty to disclose any trend related to the Company's
decreasing AOV. And, because the Defendants did disclose the risk
of selling counterfeit items on the website in its Registration
Documents, the Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts to show an
Item 303 violation pertaining to authentication.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Judge Davila grants in part and denies in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint. He denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss in regard
to the Plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act. However, he grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss in
regard to Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.
Although the Judge has determined that the Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim, it is possible to cure their allegations by alleging more
particular facts to support their scienter theory. Should the
Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do so by
April 30, 2021. Failure to do so, or failure to cure the
deficiencies addressed in the Order, will result in dismissal of
Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/328cnucy from Leagle.com.
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red River Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Aeron Averette v.
Red River Bancshares.
The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August
28, 2020, in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana.
The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple
non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a
single item presented for payment, thereby resulting in the Bank
breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and
being unjustly enriched.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all
account holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the
Bank within the applicable statute of limitations.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's
fees, and general and equitable relief for herself and the
purported class.
The Company and Bank deny the allegations and intend to vigorously
defend the matter.
Red River said, "At this early stage of the lawsuit, we cannot
determine the probability of a materially adverse result or
reasonably estimate the potential exposure, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red
River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999
that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and
services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail
customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking
centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit
production office in Lafayette, Louisiana.
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Federman & Sherwood Reminds of May 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on March 16 disclosed that on March 2, 2021, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Renewable Energy
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGI). The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is May 3, 2018 through
February 25, 2021.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-renewable-energy-group-inc/.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Renewable
Energy Group, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, May
3, 2021 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However,
in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com [GN]
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on March 16
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Renewable Energy Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ:REGI) between May 3, 2018 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 May 3, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Renewable Energy Group 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 Renewable Energy Group class action,
go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2048.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) due to failures in the diesel
additive system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to
certain loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's
customers; (2) as a result, Renewable Energy Group was not the
proper claimant for certain biodiesel tax credit (BTC) payments on
biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020;
(3) a result, Renewable Energy Group's revenue and net income were
overstated for certain periods; (4) there was a material weakness
in the Company's internal control over financial reporting related
to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel gallons when
blending with biodiesel; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Renewable Energy Group class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2048.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]
RIVER CITY BANK: Faces Rodriguez Suit in California State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against River City Bank. The
case is captioned as Kyle Rodriguez v. River City Bank and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 34-2021-00296612-CU-BC-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., March 16, 2021).
The case type is breach of contract/warranty.[BN]
The Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
HAMMOND LAW
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Krumenacker Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORDAN KRUMENACKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC;
ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; and CHARLES
SCHWAB & CO. INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00838, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April
7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21343-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Florida
Securities and Investor Protection Act, and the Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act by prohibiting their customers from
buying multiple publicly traded stock options during an
unprecedented rise in the stocks' valuation.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
- and –
Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ross Suit Moved From S.D. Tex. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RYAN ZACHARY ROSS, ERIKA MERCADO, C. LOUIS BUNYA,
and DREW HUNNICUTT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC; ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC; ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC.; TD AMERITRADE, INC.; TD
AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORPORATION; THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION; and WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00292, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21338-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Sherman
Act and state antitrust laws by restricting their customers to
purchase stocks from their trading platforms.
Robinhood Financial LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 85 Willow
Road, Menlo Park, California.
Robinhood Securities, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Robinhood
Markets, Inc., with its principal place of business at 500 Colonial
Center Parkway, Suite 100, Lake Mary, Florida.
Robinhood Markets, Inc. is an online brokerage firm, with its
principal place of business at 85 Willow Road, Menlo Park,
California.
TD Ameritrade, Inc. is a financial services company, with its
principal place of business in Illinois.
TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc. is a provider of brokerage services
based in Omaha, Nebraska.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a financial services company
based in Omaha, Nebraska.
The Charles Schwab Corporation is a financial services company,
with its principal place of business at 211 Main Street, San
Francisco, California.
Webull Financial LLC is a financial services company, headquartered
at 44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
McDonald "Don" Worley, Esq.
Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
MCDONALD WORLEY, PC
1770 St. James St., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 523-5500
Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
E-mail: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
don@mcdonaldworley.com
matt@mcdonaldworley.com
- and –
William R. Ogden, Esq.
Mark D. Bankston, Esq.
FARRAR & BALL LLP
1117 Herkimer St.
Houston, TX 77008
Telephone: (713) 221-8300
Facsimile: (713) 221-8301
E-mail: bill@fbtrial.com
mark@fbtrial.com
ROOT INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts investors
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against
Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: Root) ("Root") on behalf of those who purchased
or acquired: (a) Root securities between October 28, 2020 and March
8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root
Class A common stock issued in connection with Root's initial
public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the
"IPO").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Root securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 18,
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/root-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=root.
Root provides insurance products and services in the United States.
Root has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a
direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through
mobile applications, as well as through Root's website. Leading up
to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an innovator in
the personal insurance space with a new data- and technology-driven
business model that was ready to disrupt traditional insurance
markets and capture disproportionate market share, in part because
of Root's telematics-driven approach to insurance-i.e., the
collection and transmission of vehicle-use data through devices.
On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8 million
shares of its Class A common stock to the public at $27.00 per
share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million. On October
29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on a Form 424B4 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the IPO,
which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement
(the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement,
the "Offering Documents"). Throughout the Class Period, the
defendants misrepresented Root's cash flow needs and auto-insurance
business prospects.
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents and the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive
cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii)
accordingly, Root 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 Root'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 the defendants' public
statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or
misleading and failed to state information required to be stated
therein.
Root investors may, no later than May 18, 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]
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Judge Certifies Lawsuit Challenging Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Taketa at San Diego Union Tribune reports that lawsuit by
three San Diego County charter school networks that said they were
wrongfully denied state funding now represents all 308 of
California's charter schools that provide online, home school and
other nontraditional learning.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Arguelles granted the
plaintiffs in Reyes v. State of California class-action status in a
recent court order. Attorneys for the charter school plaintiffs say
this is the first class-action lawsuit involving charter schools in
California's history.
The 308 charter schools are called non-classroom-based charter
schools because at least 20 percent of the learning occurs off
campus. The schools often provide a range of virtual, at-home and
in-person instruction.
The schools enroll 195,000 students throughout the state and make
up 29 percent of the state's charter schools. About half their
students are low-income, the schools' attorneys said.
California funds district and charter schools based on their
enrollment. Charter schools are public schools run independently of
districts.
Last fall three charter school networks based in San Diego County
-- The Classical Academies, The Learning Choice Academy and Springs
Charter Schools -- along with 13 charter school students sued the
state for refusing to give the schools funding for new students
they enrolled this school year.
As the pandemic forced many traditional schools to close and go
online last year, thousands of families switched or tried to switch
their students out of traditional public schools to these
non-classroom-based charters, which have years of experience
providing distance learning.
Meanwhile many school districts were struggling to adapt to
distance learning and faced losing students.
The state decided to freeze school funding statewide, so districts
and charter schools would keep the same funding they received the
year before, regardless of whether they gained or lost students
during the pandemic. The freeze was meant to protect schools from
financial ruin during the pandemic.
Later the state passed a budget amendment that gave some funding to
district schools and classroom-based charter schools for their new
students, but not to non-classroom-based charter schools.
The three San Diego-area charter networks argued the freeze
illegally denied them fair and full funding for students and it
denied students their right to a publicly-funded education.
"Every child in California deserves to have their public education
funded," said Jerry Simmons, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "It is
unacceptable, particularly during a pandemic, that the state's
leaders would pick winners and losers among children - that some
children's educations matter and some are worth exactly zero."
The charter school networks said they were forced to turn away
thousands of students because they could not afford to serve them,
and some schools said they stretched their budgets thin by
enrolling hundreds of new students they weren't getting paid for.
The three San Diego charter networks together enrolled 2,000 new
students but didn't receive about $20.9 million in state funding
for them, the schools said when they filed the lawsuit last year.
The lawsuit named as defendants Gov. Gavin Newsom, State
Superintendent Tony Thurmond, State Controller Betty Yee and the
State of California.
Newsom's office did not respond to a request for comment. The
California Department of Education has said it does not comment on
litigation.
California non-classroom-based charter schools can choose to opt
out of the class-action suit by April 16, Simmons said. A court
hearing for the case is scheduled for July 2. [GN]
SAN DIEGO HOUSE: Cal. App. Tosses Appeal in Miliate Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
dismissed the lawsuit entitled BLAKE MILIATE, Plaintiff and
Respondent v. SAN DIEGO HOUSE OF MOTORCYCLES, INC., Defendant and
Appellant, Case No. D077104 (Cal. App.).
Defendant San Diego House of Motorcycles, Inc. ("SDHM"), a
motorcycle dealership, moved to compel arbitration of a customer's
individual claims and to stay the court action pending completion
of the arbitration. The trial court granted the motion, sending the
Plaintiff's individual claims to arbitration. The parties
subsequently entered a stipulation to stay the court proceedings
pending the outcome of the arbitration. SDHM appealed, arguing the
court erred in applying California law to the dispute.
Although an order granting a motion to compel arbitration is not
appealable, SDHM contends it has standing to appeal because (1) the
trial court denied its motion to compel arbitration by retaining
jurisdiction over claims for public injunctive relief, which SDHM
maintains Plaintiff Blake Miliate did not actually seek; (2) SDHM
received relief different from the relief it sought; and (3) the
court failed to affirmatively enforce the arbitration agreement's
class action waiver.
SDHM further contends that the trial court erred by retaining
jurisdiction over the request for public injunctive relief by
applying California law, McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th
945 (McGill), when Utah law applies under a choice of law
provision, that the arbitration clause is not unenforceable under
McGill because the provision does not prevent a plaintiff from
seeking public injunctive relief in every forum, and that the
Federal Arbitration Act preempts McGill and requires enforcement of
the arbitration agreement in its entirety.
The Motorcycle Purchase
In February 2018, Miliate purchased a Yamaha motorcycle from SDHM
in California. Miliate agreed to pay $14,168.87 for the motorcycle.
He paid $300 in cash. He financed the remainder through a
WebBank-Yamaha credit card that he obtained through SDHM. The sales
slip referenced the credit card agreement.
Mr. Miliate signed a credit application acknowledging that he
received and read WebBank's Yamaha Credit Card Account Customer
Agreement (the credit card agreement), which contained an
arbitration provision. The arbitration provision was contained in
Section 36 of the credit card agreement. The credit card agreement
also contained a choice of law clause in Section 32, separate from
the arbitration provision, which stated, "This Agreement is
governed by applicable federal law and by Utah law. If any part of
this Agreement is unenforceable, the remaining parts will remain in
effect."
The Lawsuit
In July 2018, Miliate filed a complaint against SDHM on behalf of
himself and other similarly-situated consumers. In it, he alleged
SDHM had violated and was continuing to violate the Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act by failing to provide customers with a
single document containing all the financing terms for the vehicle
purchased made with a conditional sales contract. Miliate alleged
SDHM was required to provide consumers with a single document
containing statutorily mandated disclosures relating to the
purchase and financing of any motor vehicle, and was violating
Rees-Levering, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and
Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. (the Unfair
Competition Law, or the UCL) by failing to provide buyers with a
single document setting forth terms of closed-end financing for
retail installment sales of motorcycles.
The complaint essentially alleges that SDHM induces customers to
finance motorcycles with a WebBank credit card, which is an
open-ended credit arrangement that increases the customer's cost
substantially over time. Miliate also alleges that SDHM makes the
transaction look like a "cash transaction," which is exempt from
Rees-Levering, when the financing arrangement is really a
conditional sales contract in which WebBank takes a security
interest in the motorcycle that does not vest in the customer until
after the customer makes all the payments due to WebBank. As a
result, the purchase agreement is governed by Rees-Levering.
Miliate alleges that SDHM's business practices offend public
policy, and that a successful outcome of the suit will enforce
rights that affect the public interest and will protect the general
public from unlawful and unfair practices.
Among the relief requested, Miliate seeks an injunction prohibiting
SDHM from selling the motor vehicles "without first providing the
consumer with a single document containing all of the agreement of
SDHM and the consumer with respect to the total cost and the terms
of payment for the motor vehicle, including any promissory notes or
other evidence of indebtedness in accordance with Civil Code
Section2981.9." It also seeks an injunction preventing SDHM from
selling motor vehicles "without first providing the consumer with
all disclosures mandated by Civil Code Section2982 in a single
document."
In May 2019, SDHM moved to compel arbitration of the claims arising
out of the purchase of the Yamaha motorcycle pursuant to the
WebBank-Yamaha credit card "on an individual, non-class basis, and
for the imposition of a stay of the litigation as between Miliate
and SDHM pending completion of the arbitration." The corresponding
memorandum of points and authorities sought arbitration "on an
individual, non-class basis." The motion did not ask the court to
compel Miliate's class allegations and claims to arbitration or to
rule on the enforceability of the class action waiver.
Mr. Militate opposed the motion, contending its complaint
challenged only the purchase agreement with SDHM and not the credit
card agreement with WebBank, and SDHM was not a third party
beneficiary to the credit card agreement's arbitration provision.
He also argued California law applied, and the arbitration
agreement violated California law because it waived his rights to
obtain a public injunction in violation of McGill.
Following a hearing in October 2019, the court granted SDHM's
motion to compel arbitration of the individual claims. The court
concluded SDHM was an intended third party beneficiary of the
credit card agreement. It followed California's approach to
analyzing conflicts of law and concluded there was no substantial
relationship to Utah law, so California law applied. It also
explained that the predispute waiver of the right to seek public
injunctive relief under the UCL and the CLRA was invalid and
unenforceable under California law, and it concluded California had
a greater material interest in protecting consumers than any
interests held by Utah.
Later that month, the parties stipulated that individual claims
would be arbitrated, class claims would remain in court, the claims
for public injunctive relief would remain in court, and all claims
not ordered to arbitration would be stayed pending the outcome of
the arbitration. Pursuant to the stipulation, the court stayed the
action pending the arbitration.
SDHM timely appealed. Recognizing that ordinarily an order granting
a motion to compel arbitration is not appealable, the Appellate
Court requested the parties submit letter briefs explaining why the
order is appealable.
Because SDHM maintained the trial court order effectively denied a
portion of its motion to compel, and orders denying motions to
compel are appealable, the Appellate Court permitted the appeal to
proceed, alerting the parties that appealability could be addressed
in the appellate briefing and could be subject to the Court's
further consideration.
Discussion
Judge Richard D. Huffman, writing for the Panel, notes that the
trial court sent Miliate's individual causes of action to
arbitration and delegated to the arbitrator determination of
whether any of the issues should be arbitrated. The trial court did
not issue a stay of the litigation pending completion of the
arbitration. However, the parties subsequently entered a
stipulation to stay court proceedings pending the completion of
arbitration.
Judge Huffman finds that SDHM ultimately received all the relief it
requested. It asked the trial court to compel arbitration of
Miliate's individual, non-class claims, and the court ordered
"plaintiff's individual causes of action" to arbitration. SDHM also
requested a stay of litigation pending completion of arbitration,
which, although not granted by the court, was stipulated to
post-order. The stipulation mooted the issue regarding the specific
relief that was denied.
Moreover, the relief SDHM requests in its appeal, that the
Appellate Court "remand with directions to enter a new order
compelling arbitration of Miliate's individual claims and staying
court proceedings on any public injunction claim he may assert
until after arbitration is completed," is the current procedural
posture of the case. Accordingly, there is no requested relief,
which the Appellate Court can grant that has not already been
provided to SDHM, and the matter must be dismissed.
Judge Huffman also concludes, among other things, ultimately, SDHM
has received all the relief it requested because the individual
claims were sent to arbitration and the remaining claims are stayed
pending the completion of arbitration. Thus, SDHM lacks standing,
and the Appellate Court will dismiss the matter.
Disposition
The matter is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs on
appeal.
HALLER, J., concurs. AARON, J., Concurring in the result.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated April 5, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/sey9ee6f from Leagle.com.
Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, Bryan Kemnitzer -- bryan@kbklegal.com --
Mark A. Chavez -- mark@kbklegal.com -- Adam J. McNeile --
adam@kbklegal.com -- and Kristin Kemnitzer -- kristin@kbklegal.com
-- for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- John B.
Sullivan -- jbs@severson.com -- and Erik Kemp -- ek@severson.com --
for Defendant and Appellant.
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Question in Pearson Suit Certified to SJC
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLIE PEARSON, ROGER BURRELL, BRIAN GIVENS, and THE
LAW OFFICES OF MARK BOOKER, on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THOMAS M. HODGSON, individually
and his official capacity as Sheriff of Bristol County, and SECURUS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-11130-IT (D.
Mass.), Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts vacates a judgment in favor of the
Defendants, and certifies question to Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court.
The Plaintiffs to the action sought declaratory relief stating that
Thomas Hodgson, the Sheriff of Bristol County, Massachusetts,
violated Massachusetts law when he procured an inmate calling
system to raise revenues for the office of the Sheriff. They also
alleged that the vendor of the inmate calling system, Securus,
engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of
Massachusetts' consumer protection laws, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.
In a Memorandum and Order, the Court granted the Defendants'
motions for judgment on the pleadings. In so ruling, it found that
two different provisions of Massachusetts law -- an uncodified
section of a 2009 Session Law and Mass. Gen Laws. Ch. 127, Section
3 -- provided the necessary legislative authority for the inmate
calling system used by Sheriff Hodgson. Importantly, the Court
found that neither statute was necessarily plain on its face and
instead the court read the two provisions together to find that the
Legislature knew that county sheriffs were using inmate calling
systems to generate revenues and approved this practice.
Accordingly, it entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.
However, the Court's finding that one of those two statutes, Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 127, Section 3, was critical for interpreting the
meaning of the 2009 Session Law was not an argument advanced by
either party. Indeed, no party cited to, or relied upon, that
statute in their briefs. And, at oral argument, despite the
Court's inquiry, neither side agreed that the statute was relevant
to the question presented. Nevertheless, the Court's Memorandum
and Order concluded that the statute was critical for understanding
the broader statutory scheme and for contextualizing the 2009
Session Law.
Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend
the Judgment and Certify the Question of Law to the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's
analysis of ch. 127, Section 3 ("statute") was factually and
legally flawed.
Namely, they contend, inter alia, that (1) the statute only applies
to the revenues generated from goods and services sold to inmates
whereas the inmate calling system at question did not charge
inmates, but instead charged those receiving the calls; (2) the
statute is inapplicable to the commission-based contract between
the Sheriff and Securus; (3) the Court interpreted the statute in a
manner inconsistent with the Supreme Judicial Court's
interpretation of the same provision; (4) the court failed to
interpret the statute in the context of other provisions contained
in the enacting statute; (5) the statute did not intrinsically
provide the sheriffs with any authority to sell goods and services
to inmates; (6) the Court's interpretation of the statute was in
conflict with the 2009 Session Law; (7) the Court's interpretation
of the statute was inconsistent with the Massachusetts Department
of Correction's interpretation of the same statute; and (8) the
statute should be read only to apply to the sale of goods and
services by prisoners to other prisoners.
The Defendants do not wrestle with the merits of the Plaintiffs'
arguments, but contend instead that the Court addressed and
rejected these points in its Memorandum and Order and must first
conclude that the June 2020 Memorandum and Order constitutes a
"manifest error of law" before granting reconsideration.
However, Judge Talwani notes taht the Court's authority to set
aside a judgment under Rule 59(e) is not as constrained as the
Defendants contend. Relief under Rule 59(e) constitutes "an
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly."
In the case, the Court reached a decision outside the adversarial
issues presented by the parties. It relied extensively on ch. 127,
Section 3, despite no party having briefed the proper construction
and relevance of that statute. Now that the Plaintiffs have
articulated their contrary argument, Judge Talwani concludes that
these issues should be analyzed and addressed with the benefit of
the adversarial process for justice to be done. Accordingly, she
sets aside the June 22, 2020 Memorandum and Order and Judgment.
The Judge next turns to the Plaintiffs' request that the Court
certifies the determinative question of law presented by the
Defendants' Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings and the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count I to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC"). They argue that the
requirements for certification under the SJC's rules are met and
that other considerations militate strongly in favor of
certification.
Judge Talwani agrees. She says, the Court may certify questions to
the SJC where there are questions of law that: (1) "may be
determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court,"
and (2) are not subject to "controlling precedent" from the
decisions of the SJC. Both elements are met in the case.
As to the first element, the question of law presented -- whether
the Sheriff may collect revenue using inmate calling services -- is
the central question presented by the case. Securus' lead argument
in its Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is the alleged legality of the Sheriff's collection of
revenue from inmate calling services.
As to the second element, the Judge finds that there is no
"controlling precedent" from decisions of the SJC. The First
Circuit has interpreted the "no controlling precedent" element to
"to prevent certification in cases when `the course the state court
would take is reasonably clear.'" Although the Plaintiffs have
argued throughout that this case is controlled by Souza v. Sheriff
of Bristol County, 455 Mass. 573 (2010), the Court and the parties
have struggled with this question throughout the course of the
litigation.
In addition, Judge Talwani finds that the specific question
presented by the case not only meets the requirements for
certification, but also should be certified considering the
overwhelming local interest and the principles of federalism at
play. The dispositive motions focused on an uncodified session law
enacted in connection with the transfer of county sheriffs to the
Commonwealth, a law of such local interest that counsel for neither
party had even noted the existence of the law in connection with
the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
The Defendants argue finally that certification is improper since
the Plaintiffs only sought certification after receiving an adverse
ruling.
Judge Talwani holds they are correct that, as a general matter,
"the practice of requesting certification after an adverse judgment
has been entered should be discouraged." However, she has
concluded that the adverse ruling and judgment must be set aside
independent of the certification question, and therefore this
concern is no longer present.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Talwani will, by separate
order, certify the following question of Massachusetts law to the
SJC: Did the Massachusetts Legislature, through the provisions of
2009 Mass. Legis. Serv. Ch. 61 (S.B. 2119) Sections 12(a), 12(c),
15, or M. G. L. ch. 127, Section 3, taken separately or together,
authorize the Bristol County Sheriff's Office to raise revenues for
the Office of the Sheriff through inmate calling service
contracts?
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/n363rwn4 from Leagle.com.
SERVICE KING: Hearing on Class Status Bid Rescheduled to April 22
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA MONIZ, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SERVICE KING, INC., a California Corporation; SERVICE KING PAINT &
BODY, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through
100, Case No. 5:18-cv-07372-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an
order granting stipulation to continue class certification briefing
schedule as follows:
Event Current Deadline New Proposed Date
Defendant's Opposition Jan. 29, 2021 Feb. 19, 2021
to Class Certification
Plaintiffs' Reply to March 5, 2021 March 26, 2021
Defendant's Opposition
to Class Certification
Hearing on Motion for April 22, 2021 April 22, 2021
Class Certification
Case Management May 17, 2021 May 17, 2021
Statement
Case Management May 27, 2021 May 27, 2021
Conference
Service King is a national automotive collision repair company. It
was founded in 1976 by Eddie Lennox in Dallas, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d3vFNU at no extra charge.[CC]
SIERRA INCOME: Fee Motion in Anderson Putative Class Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the fee motion filed
in Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No.
652006/2019, has been denied.
On August 4, 2020, the court approved a stipulation of dismissal of
a purported class action pending in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, captioned Roger Anderson et al. v.
Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No. 652006/2019.
Named as defendants were Stephen R. Byers, Oliver T. Kane, Valerie
Lancaster-Beal, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, the Company, and Sierra
Management, Inc..
The complaint alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of the Company in connection with the
proposed mergers of Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) with and into
the Company and of Medley Management Inc. (MDLY) with and into
Sierra Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.
Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts were sought. The
defendants vigorously denied any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims which were asserted, or which could
have been asserted, in the Anderson Action.
Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of dismissal, on August
14, 2020, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion seeking an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $1 million (the
"Fee Motion").
Defendants opposed the Fee Motion in a brief filed on September 11,
2020, and the plaintiffs filed a reply brief in further support of
the Fee Motion on October 1, 2020.
The Court heard oral argument on the Fee Motion on January 27,
2021, and stated at the conclusion of the hearing that the motion
would be denied.
The Court filed a written order denying the Fee Motion on February
8, 2021.
Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The
Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate,
construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New
York, New York.
SONIM TECHNOLOGIES: '33 Federal Action Settlement Granted Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court presiding
over the '33 Act Federal Action granted final approval of the
settlement.
On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering IPO
filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned Pearson v.
Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564, on behalf of
himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim registered in the
IPO, or the "Pearson Action".
On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action, or the
'33 Act State Court Actions.
The defendants asked the Superior Court to dismiss the '33 Act
State Court Actions based on the provision in the Company's Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation requiring stockholders to
file and litigate in federal court any claims under the Securities
Act of 1933.
On December 7, 2020, the Superior Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California or the "33 Act Federal Action.
All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure
to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged
misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.
In July 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with the Lead
Plaintiff in '33 Act Federal Action to settle that case on a class
wide basis for $2.0 million. As a result, the Company has paid out
the $2.0 million settlement as of December 31, 2020.
On March 5, 2021, the court presiding over the '33 Act Federal
Action granted final approval of the settlement.
Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software and
application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.
SOS LIMITED: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against SOS Limited
("SOS" or "the Company") (NYSE: SOS) 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 July 22,
2020 and February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 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. SOS misrepresented in its SEC filings the
location and/or existence of one of its principal executive
offices. Both HY International Group New York Inc. and FXK
Technology Corporation were either entities created by the Company
or undisclosed related parties. The Company misrepresented the
nature of mining rigs it claimed to have purchased. 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 SOS, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Judge OKs Class Action Lawsuit Against Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
wshu.org reports that a federal judge has granted class-action
status to Latinos accusing Suffolk County Police of racial
discrimination. This opens the door to additional outside oversight
of the department.
The advocacy group LatinoJustice has had a six-year civil rights
lawsuit against Suffolk Police for what they call biased policing.
Police data shows that Latinos are stopped and searched more often
than white drivers. The department recently banned officers from
searching drivers without probable cause. However, that doesn't go
far enough, according to Atara Miller, a lawyer representing
several of the plaintiffs. She said an independent monitor is
necessary.
"Something that is going to be able to have access to the data and
ensure that this is continued compliance and steps toward
progress," Miller said.
Miller said while much of the scrutiny is on Suffolk, she doesn't
think Nassau County is any better. However, unlike Suffolk, she
said, getting data from the Nassau County police is much more
difficult. [GN]
T-MOBILE USA: Seeks Transfer of Class Action to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that T-Mobile USA
Inc. removed a proposed privacy class action from state court to
federal court, arguing the Southern District of Florida is the
proper venue under the Class Action Fairness Act.
The case should be dealt with there because the proposed classes
contain at least 100 members and the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million, T-Mobile argued in a notice of removal filed March 12
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Because those criteria are met, and because minimal diversity
exists—plaintiff Jason Goldstein is from Florida, whereas
T-Mobile is a citizen of Delaware and Washington—state. [GN]
TGM PIZZA: Leiting Files Suit to Recover Unreimbursed Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Leiting individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. TGM Pizza Inc. and Paul Gritz, Case No. 0:21-cv-00926
(D. Minn., April 5, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime hours owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores, and
unreimbursed expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food
items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing them for
the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, the Defendants used a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provide an unreasonably low rate beneath
any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the
drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the
federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.
Specifically, the Defendant's delivery reimbursement policy
reimburses drivers on a per-mile basis, but the per-mile
reimbursement equates to rates substantially below the IRS business
mileage reimbursement rate or any other approximation of the cost
to own and operate a motor vehicle, says the complaint.
Mr. Leiting was employed by the Defendant from approximately
January 2018 to February 2021 as a delivery driver at one of the
Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores.
TGM Pizza Inc. is a retail-pizza restaurant operating numerous
Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Paul Fritz owns the business.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart L. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG LAW, PLLC
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-4662
Fax: (612) 367-8107
E-mail: slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com
- and -
Meredith Black-Matthews, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 North St. Paul Street, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (214) 346-5909
E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MA: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Baez Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUANA BAEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, CRUZ SANABRIA Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly, ROGELIO RODAS, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, DEMETRIUS OVIEDO, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, JOSE ALBERTO
NUNEZ-GUERRERO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS, BROOKLINE
POLICE COMMISSIONERS, NEIL WISHINSKY, In his Individual and
Official Capacities, NANCY DALY, In her Individual and Official
Capacities, BEN FRANCO, In his Individual and Official Capacities,
NANCY HELLER, In her Individual and Official Capacities, BERNARD
GREENE, In his Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 17-10661-GAO (D. Mass.), Judge George A. O'Toole,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
granted the Town and Individual's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The case is a civil rights suit brought by the Plaintiffs Juana
Baez, Jose Alberto Nunez-Guerrero, Cruz Sanabria, Rogelio Rodas and
Demetrius Oviedo as a purported class action against the Town of
Brookline, the Town's Select Board, and individual Board members
Neil Wishinsky, Nancy Daly, Ben Franco, Nancy Heller and Bernard
Greene in both their official and individual capacities. The
Plaintiffs claim that Brookline had and has a custom, policy, or
practice of unconstitutionally targeting and discriminating against
Black and Hispanic people in policing while failing to investigate
and enforce the criminal law equally against white people. The
claims are asserted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and relevant case
law.
Each of the Plaintiffs claims to have had at least one interaction
with Brookline police officers that included racially
discriminatory conduct on the part of the police. Two were
arrested, two were summoned to a clerk magistrate's hearing.
Others complain of interactions with the police where they were
unfairly targeted although no enforcement action was taken against
them. Several filed Citizen Complaints against Brookline police
officers.
All the Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the claims
asserted against them.
Judge O'Toole holds that the factual summary judgment record does
not support a claim of deliberate indifference by the present
defendants to the demographic effect of the Town's policing
strategies. It tends, rather, to support the opposite conclusion.
The Town's Rule 56.1 statement and exhibits indicate that from at
least 2012, the Brookline police department has published an annual
statistical report that included data concerning, among other
things, the race and sex of persons engaged in encounters with
police officers.
As noted, the Town instituted a Civilian Complaint process to allow
persons who felt unfairly treated by police to have an accessible
means of presenting grievances. The department's annual report
summarized Citizen Complaints made to the department's Office of
Professional Responsibility, identifying the race and sex of the
complainant. The record reflects that the Town sought outside
advice concerning the promotion of non-discriminatory practices,
including from the Massachusetts Attorney General's office. These
uncontradicted facts by themselves refute a claim of deliberate
indifference to the racial or ethnic impact of police interactions
with members of the public. In contrast, the Plaintiffs' proffered
evidence is mostly anecdotal.
On the record presented, Judge O'Toole concludes that a factfinder
would not be warranted in finding that the Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to either the demographic impact of
policing practices or the need to promote nondiscriminatory
policing practices. For the cause of action alleged, that suffices
to support the grant of summary judgment in favor of all the
Defendants.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge O'Toole granted the Town and
Individual's Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment will be entered
in their favor.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/vhezhxeu from Leagle.com.
TRAVEL GUARD: Gustafson Suit Stayed Pending Order on Bid to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL and DEBRA GUSTAFSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRAVEL
GUARD GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-2272-KHV-KGG (D.
Kan.), Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas granted the Defendants' Motion to Stay
Pending Determination of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and
Strike.
The Plaintiffs filed the present class action on May 29, 2020.
Their Amended Complaint was filed on Nov. 13, 2020. The case seeks
restitution, declaratory relief and statutory damages against the
Defendants arising from the uniform practice and policy of
Defendants in refusing to refund and return unearned insurance
premiums and other amounts to their policyholders when planned
travel that Defendants insured under separate coverages is canceled
before departure, and thus, will not occur.
The Plaintiffs allege the District of Kansas has original
jurisdiction over their claims, both individually and on behalf of
the policyholder Class as hereinafter defined pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
They allege that subject matter jurisdiction is proper because (1)
the matter in controversy is reasonably expected to exceed the sum
or value of $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs; (2) there
are more than 100 members of the Class; (3) at least one member of
the Class is diverse from Defendants; and (4) no Defendant is a
government entity.
The Plaintiffs further allege that personal jurisdiction is proper
because the Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the
privilege of conducting business within the state of Kansas and
have each submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state
for the claims for relief that the Plaintiffs are asserting because
the stated claims for relief arise from the acts of the Defendants,
individually or through an agent or instrumentality.
The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 17, 2020. The
motion argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Article III and their claims are moot because there is
no injury as the Plaintiff's premiums have been refunded. The
Defendants argue that the dismissal should be with prejudice. They
also argue that the Plaintiff's have failed to state a claim
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Concurrently with the Motion to Dismiss, the Defendants also filed
a Motion to Strike the class allegations in the Amended Complaint.
That motion generally argues that 1) the Plaintiff's cannot satisfy
the typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority
requirements for class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and 2)
the "individualized issues" in the causes of action dictate that
class-wide resolution is improper.
The Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike are ripe and currently
pending before the District Court. The Defendants bring the
present Motion to Stay pending a decision on their Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike.
It is well-established in the District of Kansas that a discovery
should not be stayed merely because a dispositive motion has been
filed. However, there are recognized exceptions to this policy. A
stay pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is appropriate where
the case is likely to be finally concluded as a result of the
ruling, where the facts sought through the remaining discovery
would not affect the ruling on the pending motion, or where
discovery on all issues in the case would be wasteful and
burdensome. If one of these circumstances is present, a stay may
be appropriate.
The Defendants argue that all three of these circumstances are
present -- (1) their motions are dispositive if granted; (2)
resolution of the motions would not be affected by the discovery
sought by the Plaintiffs; and (3) discovery would be burdensome and
wasteful. As to the first circumstance, the Plaintiffs concede
that the case theoretically could end if the Court grants the
Defendants' motions, but argue that the issues are such that that
the Court may fairly resolve this basis for a stay order in their
favor.
The Court does not and need not state an opinion as to the validity
of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. Rather, it must merely be
satisfied that the case would likely be concluded should the
Defendants prevail on their dispositive motion. Judge Gale says it
is not in dispute. If the District Court concludes that the case
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the lawsuit must be dismissed
with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to show that such
discovery would be wasteful and burdensome, but rather the
Defendants have offered "generalization and conclusory arguments
are insufficient to support the extraordinary relief they seek."
The fact remains, however, that the Defendants' dispositive motion
is fully briefed and pending before the District Court. In
deciding a motion to dismiss, the "court should consider no
evidence beyond the pleadings." Because it is uncontested that the
case could be resolved through the dispositive motion -- for which
no evidence beyond the pleadings will be considered -- Judge Gale
finds that discovery at this stage would be burdensome and
wasteful.
The Plaintiffs also argue that the fact that the Defendants did not
move to stay the case earlier in the process indicates that the
Defendants' motivations for the stay are improper.
Judge Gale finds the argument to be unpersuasive. He says the
Defendants requested the stay approximately five weeks after their
Motion to Dismiss became ripe. He sees nothing suspicious or
nefarious about the timing of the filing of the present motion.
As such, the Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted until the
District Court rules on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or
Motion to Strike. In reaching this determination, Judge Gale makes
no inference or findings as to the potential validity of the
arguments raised in the Defendants' motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/maau5pn3 from Leagle.com.
TRIPLE V HOME: Faces Lymbertos Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAOS LYMBERTOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRIPLE V HOME CARE AND ADULT
SERVICES INC. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV13334 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including
failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest
and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep
accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages
earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic
information at the time of hiring and when employment changes
occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as driver from in or about
August 2018 until on or about March 16, 2020.
Triple V Home Care and Adult Services Inc. is a home care and adult
services provider based in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Discrimination Suit Over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that an individual filed a class-action
complaint in the Southern District of New York against Uber
Technologies Inc. alleging that its use of Checkr Inc. background
checks discriminates against drivers by using their criminal
history reports to determine workability.
According to the complaint, the lawsuit "challenges Uber's unlawful
use of criminal history to discriminate against its drivers in New
York City as well as its brazen noncompliance with human rights and
fair credit laws."
The plaintiff alleged that consumer reporting agency Checkr, which
Uber used "to obtain drivers' criminal history through background
checks," was Uber's "willing partner in this unlawful conduct." The
plaintiff claimed that "Uber's criminal history discrimination has
fueled and continues to fuel significant racial disparities in New
York City and nationwide."
The plaintiff noted that the New York City Human Rights Law
includes the Fair Chance Act, "which, inter alia, requires
employers to evaluate job seekers and current workers with criminal
histories fairly and on a case-by-case basis." The plaintiff stated
that this is important for "reducing barriers to opportunity."
According to the complaint, the plaintiff has been licensed by the
New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission since 2014 as a
for-hire vehicle driver and has driven for Uber since 2014.
However, in August 2020, "Uber used Checkr to obtain (the
plaintiff's) background check, which revealed a 2013 speeding
ticket in Virginia characterized as a misdemeanor." Reportedly, if
the plaintiff "had received the same speeding ticket in New York,
it would not have been characterized as a misdemeanor." The
plaintiff proffered that he was deactivated from Uber's platform
"(o)ne day later, due to the results of this background check, and
without any notice, process, or further communication."
Consequently, the plaintiff claimed he has been deprived of the
ability to drive for Uber and earn an income because Uber used the
results of the plaintiff's background check for employment purposes
purportedly "without engaging at all in the Fair Chance Act
process."
In particular, the Fair Chance Act process "requires individualized
analysis under Article 23-A (of the New York State Corrections Law)
and its multi-part factors, the provision of required documents and
disclosures, and a waiting period in which the employer must keep
the position open for the applicant or current worker to respond to
the employer's concerns about any criminal history that appears on
the background check." However, Uber allegedly did not follow this
process.
The plaintiff contended that it was only after he complained about
this incident that Checkr provided him "with information about why
Uber had barred him from the platform, specifically citing the 2013
Virginia misdemeanor."
The plaintiff averred that Uber's policy "of using criminal history
to summarily deactivate current drivers from its labor platform or
reject new drivers without" complying with the Fair Chance Act
"disparately impacts hundreds of Black and Latinx individuals"
because of the "racial disparities in the criminal justice system,"
according to the complaint.
The two putative classes are the criminal history and
discrimination class and the disparate impact class.
The defendants are accused of violating the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment in his favor, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, class certification and for
the plaintiff and his counsel to represent the classes, an order
preventing the defendants unlawful conduct, an award for damages,
costs and fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Mobilization for Justice Inc. and
Towards Justice.[GN]
UNITED AIRLINES: USERRA Class Action Lawsuit Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Arevalo, Esq., and Molly Arranz, Esq., of SmithAmundsen LLC,
in an article for JDSupra, report that commercial air pilot and Air
Force reservist Eric White filed a class action against United
Airlines under the United Services Employee and Reemployment Right
Act (USERRA) claiming United violated USERRA by not providing paid
military leave to the same extent as other paid leave. The district
court dismissed White's lawsuit, but in February the 7th Circuit
ruled that paid leave falls within the definition of "rights and
benefits" employees are entitled to pursuant to USERRA. The case
has been sent back to district court.
Generally, USERRA provides that any person who is absent from work
as a result of military service is deemed to be on a leave of
absence and is "entitled to such other rights and benefits"
provided to other employees under contract, policies and practices.
In the lawsuit, White argued that the phrase "rights and benefits"
is to be applied broadly and should include "paid leave." Of
significance, White also alleged that United not only deprived him
of paid leave but also prevented him and others in his putative
class, from fully participating in United's profit sharing plan.
United maintained that USERRA does not mandate paid leave.
In its decision, the 7th Circuit found that rights and benefits
"captures all ‘terms, conditions, or privileges' with no express
limitation" and an employer's policy of paying employees during a
leave of absence is a term, condition or privilege of employment.
Insofar as Congress chose not to include an exception to this rule,
it should be applied broadly. The court also rejected United's
arguments that "Congress did not realize that it was opening the
door to this kind of paid leave . . . and that [the Court's]
reading would effect a costly sea-change for public and private
employers." The court focused on the specific language of the
statute and noted that "USERRA mandates only equality of treatment;
and does not specify how generous or how parsimonious an employer's
paid leave policies must be."
A number of district courts are dealing with similar cases and this
7th Circuit decision, a matter of first impression at the federal
appellate level, will be leading the way. Employers should be
reviewing policies as well as collective bargaining agreements and
practices to ensure they have a handle on paid leave rights and
benefits. You can and should evaluate any common policy or practice
that is not on all fours with the legal requisites, as a common
question of fact or law as to the employees could form the
cornerstone of what could become a new wave of class action
litigation. Employers should also be mindful of parallel state
statutes that, in some instances, supplement and complement USERRA
"rights and benefits." [GN]
UNITED CEREBRAL: Trapani Suit Alleges Improper Payment of Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
KALIE TRAPANI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY/SPASTIC CHILDREN'S
FOUNDATION OF LOS ANGELES AND VENTURA COUNTIES and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV13297 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 7, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act including failure to provide rest and meal
periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to
pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon
discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic information at
the time of hiring and when employment changes occur, failure to
reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice
of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a direct support
professional from on or about October 22, 2019 until on or about
July 28, 2020.
United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children's Foundation of Los Angeles
and Ventura Counties is a social services organization in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
UNITED STATES: Commonwealth Seeks to Stop Bond Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mcarthur at Financial Standards reports that orders have
been made in a case brought against the Commonwealth by a
23-year-old student over climate change risk as it relates to
government bonds, as the government attempts to stop the class
action.
Katta O'Donnell is seeking to hold the Australian government to
account over climate change risks, through a class action filed in
the Federal Court last year. The court made orders setting out how
the case will proceed.
The court heard the Commonwealth wants to essentially strike out
the part of the claim referring to the class action proceedings,
requesting interlocutory relief.
Interlocutory relief refers to a court order to compel or prevent a
party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of
the case - in this case, the Commonwealth is seeking relief from
the class action portion of O'Donnell's claim.
There will be a hearing to decide whether interlocutory relief is
granted, scheduled for July 28.
O'Donnell, who is being represented by Equity Generation Lawyers
principal David Barnden, has until July 2 to file and serve any
evidence she wishes to rely on in relation to the application for
interlocutory relief.
Secretary to the Australian Treasury, Steven Kennedy, and
Australian Office of Financial Management chief executive, Rob
Nicholl, have both been named as respondents in this case.
O'Donnell's case and the class action will not be seeking any
dollar amount in damages, rather seeking to effect change in the
government's handling of climate change.
O'Donnell made an investment of approximately $1000 in exchange
traded Australian government bonds through the CommSec app in
2020.
Her investment came after meeting Barnden when he delivered a guest
lecture at La Trobe University in July 2019, where O'Donnell is
studying law.
Barnden is the same lawyer who represented Mark McVeigh in his
landmark case against industry fund Rest, which settled out of
court but saw the fund change its policies around climate change.
[GN]
UNITED STATES: Conservation Appraisers Strike Back at IRS With Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J Reilly at Forbes.com reports that finally the syndicated
conservation easement (SCE) empire strikes back. Battered in Tax
Court by the IRS, hounded by the Department of Justice seeking
criminal charges and injunctions and beleaguered by class action
attorneys SCE appraisers are fighting back with a class action
lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury along
with some individually named IRS agents.
I don't suppose the latter want to be more famous so you will have
to go to the complaint in Benson et al. v IRS et al for their
names. The complaint was filed in the US District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia. The most mysterious defendant is the
IRS employee known as "Campaign Executive Champion" (CEC) of the
"Conservation Tax Force" (CTF). If those named IRS agents are like
the Avengers, then CEC is Nick Fury.
A Conspiracy
Representing the appraisers is S. Fenn Little Jr of the
Conservation Defense Group Inc. Mr. Little was one of the lawyers
representing Nancy Zak in a DOJ injunction lawsuit. His website
describes his practice as concentrated in the areas of criminal
defense, constitutional law and personal injury litigation. He is
an allied attorney of the Alliance Defense Fund. His practice
involves allegations of police misconduct, government restrictions
on the free exercise of religion, and other civil and
constitutional rights violations. He had nothing to say about Nancy
Zak, but gave me the heads up on this case.
The complaint alleges a conspiracy by CTF under the direction of
CEC. The goal was to audit every syndicated easement from 2016 to
the present. The IRS has been conducting the audits at great
expense to the plaintiffs and requesting an extension to continue
the audit over an extended period of time. I have to say that back
in the day, the general thinking was to accommodate the IRS when
they asked for an extension, but my view shifted on that a few
years ago.
After all that work, according to the complaint, the "universal and
preordained result" is a zero valuation for the donation and
penalties for the appraiser. Mr. Little gets a little disingenuous
stating that in court 87% of the cases settle without penalty and
80% of the deductions allowed. That statement is based on an
"empirical study"- a Tax Notes article by Jenny L. Johnson Ware
that I reviewed here. The most recent case in the study concerned
deductions from 2005-2007. One decision was about a 2011 deduction.
The rest were earlier. The study is in effect ancient history well
before the present day SCE frenzy commenced and none of the cases
in the study were syndicated deals.
The Great Value Of Trees
The complaint insists that the IRS push contradicts Congressional
intent, since it would deny the conservation deduction to anyone
other than a handful of wealthy owners. Current congressional
intent seems to be more supportive of the IRS cracking down at
least as it is reflected in the Senate Finance Committee
investigation.
The complaint, in a footnote, has an interesting view as to what a
good thing easements can be. It reference the National Tree Benefit
Calculator, which is a really cool tool that you should check out.
It tells you how much benefit to society (in terms of things like
carbon sequestration, storm water retention, energy saving from the
shade and air quality) a particular tree provides. The pine tree by
the mailbox in my condo project is cranking out $109 per year.
Anyway 1,000 acres of 10" pine trees at 100 per acre will in
Georgia create $4.3 million in public benefit.
According to the note the IRS is challenging a 1,500 acre parcel
that had a deduction of less than 1/3 of the thirty year public
benefit. I would like to have the actual numbers, but based on what
we have the benefit could be north of $150 million. So the IRS may
be challenging a $45 million deduction or so. For what it is worth
I did some online shopping for forest land in Georgia. Even without
dickering you could probably put together 1,500 acres for $3,000
per acre which works out to $4.5 million. And remember the
deduction is for the easement. You still have the forest after you
give the easement away.
Nasty Penalty
At any rate the complaint gets into how nasty the IRS is being to
the appraisers. And the penalty they are assessing is pretty nasty.
Code Section 6695A covers "Substantial and gross valuation
misstatements attributable to incorrect appraisals". The penalty is
triggered when the value is 150 percent of the actual value that is
finally determined. Since the IRS is taking the position that the
value of the easements is zero that is an easy hurdle. The amount
of the penalty is 125% of the gross income that the appraiser
received. Being a penalty and all that would not be deductible.
The only way for the appraiser to recover the penalty is through a
suit in district court, which is an expensive proposition.
The Complaint
What the complaint alleges is that the IRS has taken all the brakes
off in assessing the penalty, by amending the Internal Revenue
Manual. And the assessment of the penalty has a kind of cascade
effect as it raises issue about the value of an appraiser's
testimony. The complaint alleges that the IRS goes easy on
donations by the very wealthy, but that when middle to upper income
individual taxpayers get together and vote to give away an easement
they are cracking down.
According to the complaint the IRS has been seeking information
that it does not really need for purposes of harassment. The
complaint alleges violation of the administrative procedures act,
violation of statutory rights, intimidation of witnesses, violation
of constitutional rights and eighth amendment violations.
Relief
The plaintiffs are seeking damages and an injunction to prevent
further action not consistent with the mandates of Executive Orders
13981 and 13982 of the Administrative Procedures Act, an injunction
against expansion of regulatory powers regarding administrative
review of the donation of qualified real property interests for
conservation purposes. They also seek an injunction against 6695A
penalties until such time as a court determines the penalties to be
valid.
Comment
My legal brain trust did not have a lot to say on this. One of them
asked how this action would not be totally barred by the Tax
Anti-Injunction Act - Code Section 7421. Mr. Fenn is aware of the
problem. It seems that he is staking his hopes on the Supreme Court
ruling favorably in CIC Services, which was argued on December 1,
2020. For whatever it is worth Partnership For Conservation, the
industry trade association, filed an amicus brief in CIC Services.
I have to say that the "Campaign Executive Champion" sounds like a
really great job to have at the IRS. If it were me here is what I
would have as background when you go my voicemail. I would also
look into having a super hero suit made.
Other Coverage
Joshua Rosenberg has Appraisers Claim IRS Harassment In Easement
Crackdown on Law360.
Kristin A. Parillo has IRS Easement Campaign Is Harassment, Say
Appraisers on Tax Notes. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Judge Grants Final OKs Over Navy Federal's $16M
--------------------------------------------------------------
cutimes.com reports that U.S. District Court Judge Liam O'Grady in
Alexandria, Va., granted final approval for a $16 million class
action settlement over a non-sufficient funds fee lawsuit that
affected an estimated 700,000 current and former members.
The lawsuit was brought by Navy Federal Credit Union member Ruby
Lambert in January 2019 after writing a $96 check to pay an
insurance bill. The Vienna, Va.-based Navy Federal rejected the
payment because of insufficient funds in her account and charged
Lambert a $29 NSF fee. When the insurance company resubmitted her
check for payment a second time, Navy Federal charged Lambert a
second $29 NSF fee.
Although Lambert acknowledged that Navy Federal could charge her a
single NSF fee, she argued in court documents that the credit union
breached terms of member account agreements when it charged her a
second NSF fee for the same insurance check payment.
In August 2019, Judge O'Grady granted Navy Federal's request to
dismiss Lambert's lawsuit because the terms of the member account
agreements "unambiguously give Navy Federal the contractual right
to impose fees in the way it did."
Shortly after this ruling, however, Lambert filed an appeal with
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. During the appeals
process, her lawyers and Navy Federal agreed to settle the
lawsuit.
The $16 million settlement cash fund will pay for $5.3 million in
attorney fees and $26,571 in costs, a $5,000 "service award" for
Lambert, and millions in NSF fee reimbursements for an estimated
700,000 current and former Navy Federal members who were assessed a
second or third NSF fee for a single payment transaction that was
rejected because of insufficient funds in their accounts from Jan.
28, 2014 to Oct. 27, 2020. What's more, Navy Federal will
separately pay all settlement administration costs, which was
described in court documents as "a substantial expense."
In another separate class action complaint over Navy Federal's
international transaction fees, a California federal judge ordered
its dismissal last month.
The lawsuit was dismissed after Navy Federal member Siobhan Morrow
of San Diego filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, meaning the lawsuit can be brought back before the
court.
As a result of that dismissal, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W.
Robinson in San Diego also "denied as moot" Navy Federal's motion
to dismiss Morrow's lawsuit, which alleged the credit union
unlawfully charged her a 1% international transaction fee when she
bought a product from an overseas retailer using her checking
account.
While Navy Federal charges members a 1% International Service
Assessment Fee for purchases made overseas, the issue is that
Morrow bought the product while she was at her San Diego home, and
she did not know the merchant was based in Cyprus.
One of the lawsuit's main issues centered on the contract term
"made in foreign countries," which Morrow argued is ambiguous
because Navy Federal does not define what it means for credit union
members to engage in transactions made in foreign countries.
However, Navy Federal argued that its international fee is
authorized for all transactions carried out in foreign countries
and that any transaction takes place wherever the merchant is
located.
As a matter of general practice and common usage, it is the
location of the merchant who consummates the transaction that
triggers the international fee because that location is where the
transaction is legally performed. And because Morrow authorized the
transaction to occur in Cyprus, the international fee was applied,
Navy Federal said in court documents. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Marshals Service Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the U.S. Marshals Service wants to end a class
action seeking to bar U.S. marshals from facilitating immigration
arrests, arguing that as the "oldest law enforcement agency in the
country," it has wide-ranging police powers that authorize
cooperating with immigration officials. [GN]
UNITI GROUP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Central Division, denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, In re UNITI GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 4:19-CV-00756-BSM (E.D. Ark.).
The case is a securities class action. The Plaintiffs purchased or
acquired Uniti's publicly-traded securities during the April 24,
2015, to June 24, 2019 class period. They allege violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10-b.
Windstream Holdings is a telecommunications provider that owns
wireless telecommunications networks. In 2013, Windstream's
advisors consulted with Kenny Gunderman, a financial advisor at
Stephens, Inc., about how to come up with cash needed for an
investment. Gunderman and the advisors devised the following
"spin-off" transaction proposal: Windstream Holdings would create a
real estate investment trust ("REIT," eventually Defendant Uniti),
sell the REIT its telecommunications assets, and then lease them
back--allowing Windstream to still use and operate those assets,
with the benefit of receiving significant cash. Windstream,
however, had an indenture that governed unsecured notes. It
prohibited Windstream Services or its subsidiaries from selling
network assets to an entity and then leasing them back. If the
indenture was breached, note holders could seek to accelerate
payment on the notes, potentially triggering bankruptcy.
Internal emails, documents, and board minutes indicate that
Windstream knew that it had to obtain approvals from certain
regulatory agencies, as well as ensure that the Master Lease it
entered into with Uniti appeared to be a "true lease" and not
disguised financing. Windstream Services Executives created
Windstream Holdings, a holding company, which would be the entity
to technically "lease" the spun-off telecommunications assets from
Uniti. The Master Lease, structured with the indenture's
restrictions in mind, was not negotiated at arms-length. Upon the
Master Lease's April 24, 2015 signing, Windstream became Uniti's
largest customer. Several parties, including defendants Gunderman
and Fletcher, operated on both sides of the transaction.
Windstream's and Uniti's Management adopted a public relations
strategy to conceal the known risk that the spin-off violated the
indenture. Internal documents show that Gunderman and Wallace were
advised to "hide the truth if ever asked why Windstream Holdings --
rather than Windstream Services -- signed the Master Lease."
When Windstream eliminated its dividends in August 2017, a series
of disclosures exposed the spin-off information. On Sept. 25,
2017, Windstream filed an 8-K report disclosing that it had
received a "purported notice of default" from a noteholder,
Aurelius Capital, "alleging that the transfer of certain assets and
the subsequent lease of those assets in connection with the
spin-off" violated the indenture. Id. Litigation with Aurelius
followed. Between Aug. 3, 2017 and Sept. 27, 2019, Uniti's stock
price fell 40%. At an investor conference, Uniti executive
Gunderman said of a Windstream default: "We've looked very, very
closely at the legal claim, and we're very confident that the legal
arguments are on Windstream's side. So we think that that's going
to resolve itself."
In February 2019, however, a federal court ruled in the Aurelius
litigation that the spin-off and Master Lease violated the
indenture, and entered a $300 million judgment. Uniti's stock
price plummeted. Windstream Holdings filed for bankruptcy. Since
then, Uniti executives have publicly stated that Uniti was seeing
no impact on business due to Windstream's bankruptcy. On June 24,
2019, after the market closed, Uniti announced a $300 million notes
offering, and its stock price declined more than 10% the following
day.
The Defendants moved to dismiss.
A. False Statement Liability: Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
Rule 10b-5(b)
The Defendants argue that (i) the Plaintiffs do not allege an
actionable misrepresentation or omission; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
allegations of "affirmatively false statements" fail under the
PLSRA's safe harbor because the statements were forward-looking;
(iii) the Plaintiffs fail to plead scienter; and (iv) the
Plaintiffs fail to plead the loss causation element of a Section
10(b) claim.
Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on the
Plaintiffs' false statement liability claims under
Section10(b)-5(b) because they have sufficiently pleaded
misrepresentation, scienter, and loss causation. He finds that (i)
the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged material
misrepresentations because they have pleaded that the Defendants
failed to disclose the prohibited structure of the spin-off
transaction and Master Lease; (ii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded scienter because at this stage, competing inferences are
drawn in their favor; and (iii) the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded loss causation because they have alleged that defendants
could have foreseen their economic loss, and they actually suffered
economic loss.
B. Scheme Liability Section10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5(a) and (c)
The Defendants argue that the spin-off was "effectuated by
Windstream" and "not Defendants," so the Plaintiffs' scheme
liability claim fails. The Plaintiffs respond that they have
explicitly pleaded the Defendants' conduct beyond
misrepresentations and omissions.
Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' scheme liability claim because the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded the Defendants' conduct beyond
misrepresentations and omissions. He finds that the Defendants do
not contest that "the involved Windstream executives were
simultaneously Uniti executives" when the spin-off was conceived,
through the regulatory approval process, and during negotiations.
The Plaintiffs allege that Uniti and Gunderman worked to obtain the
necessary approvals from state regulators for the spin-off. They
allege that the Defendants negotiated and finalized the Master
Lease and back-filled financial terms in the Master Lease. The
Plaintiffs argue that while the Defendants' actions may have
resulted in public misstatements, their conduct with respect to the
spin-off and Master Lease "amounts to more than making a false
statement."
C. Control-Person Liability Section 20(a) of 1934 Act
Judge Miller denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' control-person liability claims because the Plaintiffs
have sufficiently pleaded their false statement and scheme
liability claims. The Plaintiffs allege control-person liability
under Section 20(a) against Gunderman and Wallace. The purpose of
the control-person statute, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a), is to
"prevent people and entities from using agents acting on their
behalf of accomplish ends that would be forbidden directly by
securities laws." The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs'
control-person liability claims fail because the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege underlying securities laws violations. As
explained, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded their
underlying claims, so the Defendants' motion is denied.
For the foregoing reasons he described, Judge Miller denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/e5m6fpc6 from Leagle.com.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Boley to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Universal Health Services Inc., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARY K. BOLEY,
et al., v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
2-20-cv-02644, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of the fiduciary
duties of loyalty and prudence and failure to monitor fiduciaries
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated participants and beneficiaries of the Universal
Health Services, Inc.'s Retirement Savings Plan, allege that the
Defendants breached the duties they owed to them, to the Plan, and
to the other participants of the Plan by failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost;
and maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability
of identical or materially similar investment options with lower
costs and/or better performance histories. Moreover, Universal and
the Board Defendants failed to monitor and evaluate the performance
of the Committee Defendants which led to their failure to remove
Committee members whose performance was inadequate in that they
continued to maintain imprudent, excessively costly, and poorly
performing investments within the Plan, and caused the Plan to pay
excessive recordkeeping fees, all to the detriment of the Plan and
Plan participants' retirement savings.
On March 8, 2021, the Hon. Judge J. Kearney entered an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All participants and beneficiaries in the Universal
Health Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time
on or after June 5, 2014 to the present, including
a beneficiary of a deceased person who was a
participant in the Plan at any time during the Class
Period;"
2. appointing Mary K. Boley, Kandie Sutter, and Phyllis
Johnson as Class representatives;
3. certifying the Plaintiffs' counsel Capozzi Adler. P.C.
(led by Mark K. Gyandoh, Donald R. Reavey and Gabrielle P.
Kelerchian) and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP (led
by James E. Miller, James C. Shah, Eric L. Young, and
Laurie Rubinow) as class counsel; and
4. directing the Plaintiff's counsel to submit a joint motion
to approve a form and protocol for Notice to the Class to
satisfy the terms and due process obligations under Rule
23 and, if necessary, including describing both parties'
position on any remaining irreconcilable objection to the
negotiated Notice.
The Defendants seek a review of the Order entered by Judge
Kearney.
The appellate case is captioned as Mary Boley, et al. v. Universal
Health Services Inc, et al., Case No. 21-8014, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 22,
2021.[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES INC. and UNIVERSAL
HEALTH SERVICES INC RETIREMENT PLANS INVESTMENT COMMITTEE are
represented by:
Deborah S. Davidson, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 324-1159
E-mail: ddavidson@morganlewis.com
- and -
Stephen K. Dixon, Esq.
Sean K. McMahan, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 North
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 739-3000
E-mail: stephen.dixon@morganlewis.com
sean.mcmahan@morganlewis.com
- and -
Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-5150
E-mail: bortelere@morganlewis.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents MARY K. BOLEY, KANDIE SUTTER, and PHYLLIS
JOHNSON, Individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, on behalf of the Universal Health
Services, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, are represented by:
Lisa W. Basial, Esq.
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 233-4101
E-mail: lisawb@capozziadler.com
markg@capozziadler.com
donr@capozziadler.com
- and -
Alec Berin, Esq.
Michael P. Ols, Esq.
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 891-9880
E-mail: aberin@sfmslaw.com
mols@sfmslaw.com
jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (215) 669-8687
E-mail: Gabriellek@capozziadler.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (860) 526-1100
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Kolin Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH
1401 Dove Street, Suite 540
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (323) 510-4066
E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Allows 401k Class Action Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wallace, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
on March 8, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted class action status to plaintiffs in Boley v.
Universal Health Services. The ERISA lawsuit claims that
fiduciaries of the Universal Health Services Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan mismanaged the 401k plan in violation of ERISA.
Federal Court Okays Class Action Status for 401k Mismanagement
LawsuitThe latest decision does not reach the merits of the plan
participants' claims. It simply permits the participants to proceed
as a class of similarly situated individuals. Without that
procedural green light, however, the lawsuit might have ended
without their claims ever having been heard.
TALES OF BAD MANAGEMENT
As of 2018, the UHS 401k plan included 41,872 participants with
assets totaling over $1.9 billion, making the 401k plan among the
largest defined contribution retirement plans in the country. The
plan's investment options consisted of mutual funds and a
collective investment trust. Participants' investment choices
included several actively managed funds, which charge higher fees
than passively managed funds, and mutual funds, which charge higher
fees than other investment vehicles like collective trusts.
In 2018, at least nineteen of the 401k plan's funds cost the
participants more money than comparable funds found in
similarly-sized plans. Plan participants each paid annual
recordkeeping fees of $44, although the managers should, allegedly,
have been able to obtain these services at much lower costs.
In June 2020, former Universal Health employees Mary Boley, Kandie
Sutter, and Phyllis Johnson, sued Universal Health and its
Investment Committee, claiming that they had breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA by:
* retaining a suite of thirteen expensive and underperforming
actively managed target date funds despite the availability of
lower cost, passively managed index funds;
* failing to monitor the excessive recordkeeping fees and
administrative costs charged to plan participants relative to other
similarly large plans;
* offering an excessively expensive menu of investment options;
and
failing to monitor the Committee's appointees.
* These failures allegedly lost the 401k plan millions of
dollars and, they argue, amounted to violations of ERISA Sections
409 and 502.
Read together, these sections require fiduciaries to act solely in
the interest of the participants and beneficiaries with the care,
skill, prudence, and diligence that would be expected in managing a
plan of similar scope.
It is important to appreciatethat in fiduciary breach lawsuits,
like Boley, the harm at the center of the the action is damage to
the retirement plan, rather than just damage to the individual
plaintiffs.
This is one reason that they are frequently brought as class action
ERISA lawsuits, rather than as individual cases. The other reason,
of course, is practical. Individuals often find it simply too
difficult and expensive to mount a lawsuit, for what might be a
very small return.
The three named plaintiffs moved to certify and represent a class
of over 60,000 active participants. The fiduciaries opposed class
certification, arguing individualized defenses, potentially
differing statutes of limitation periods, and participants'
investments in different funds made the lawsuit unsuitable for
resolution on a class-wide basis.
CLASS ACTION STANDARDS
The question of whether a federal lawsuit can proceed as a class
action is generally decided using the criteria of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and (b). Briefly, the plaintiffs must
show that:
* the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable;
* there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
* the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
* the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.
If the plaintiffs meet that burden, a court may certify a class if
separate lawsuits would create a risk of:
* inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual class members that would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for the party opposing the class; or
* decisions with respect to individual class members that, as a
practical matter, would dispose of or impair the interests of the
other individuals not part of the initial lawsuit.
The Eastern District's opinion chews methodically through the
checklist.
COMMONALITY AND TYPICALITY
The Court concluded that the class was sufficiently numerous and
that the plaintiffs would adequately represent the class. The
commonality requirement was satisfied because all 401k plan
participants chose from the same menu of investment options and
paid the same administrative and recordkeeping fees. The only
serious sticking point seems to have arisen from the fact that the
60,000 potential members of the class had made different investment
choices from their menu of options.
Nonetheless, the Court ultimately concluded that the essence of the
plan participants' claims is that the fiduciaries' conduct harmed
the 401k plan as a whole. Their individual losses, however
different, simply function as evidence of this plan-wide harm.
Boley had previously survived a motion to dismiss based on lack of
standing. If this challenge to class certification is the last
procedural hurdle, the plaintiffs may finally get the chance to
have the substance of their claims decided by a court. [GN]
UTGR INC: Final Approval of Settlement in Ramer Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN RAMER and JULIE
MORALES individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, v. UTGR, INC., d/b/a TWIN RIVER CASINO, alias, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00218-JJM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge John J.
Mcconnell, Jr entered an order granting motion to certify class and
final approval of settlement.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
UTGR Inc. UTGR, Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company's line of
business includes operating public hotels and motels.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
Chloe A. Davis, Esq.
SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2374 Post Road Suite 201
Warwick, RI 02886
Telephone: (401) 739-9690
Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com
cad@sinapilaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael D. Chittick, Esq.
Ali Khorsand, Esq.
ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN P.C.
One Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 274-7200
Facsimile: (401) 351-4607
E-mail: mchittick@apslaw.com
akhorsand@apslaw.com
VELODYNE LIDAR: Case Management Conference Set for May 26
---------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court has scheduled a
Case Management Conference for May 26, 2021 in the class action
suit initiated by a former employee alleging failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and other claims
based on meal periods and rest breaks.
On June 8, 2020, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit in
the Santa Clara County Superior Court of the State of California.
The complaint alleges that, among other things, the company failed
to pay minimum and overtime wages, final wages at termination, and
other claims based on meal periods and rest breaks.
The plaintiff is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated plaintiffs who have not been identified
and is seeking to certify the action as a class action.
The plaintiff has filed a First Amended Complaint that adds a claim
pursuant to California's Private Attorneys General Act.
The First Amended Complaint does not specify the amount the
plaintiff seeks to recover. Velodyne's response to the First
Amended Complaint was filed on November 16, 2020 and the parties
are in the process of beginning discovery concerning class
certification issues.
The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference for May 26,
2021.
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Putative Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-01486.
On March 3, 2021, a purported shareholder of Velodyne filed a
complaint for a putative class action against Velodyne, Anand
Gopalan and Andrew Hamer in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, Case No. 21-cv-01486.
The complaint alleges purported violations of the federal
securities laws and that, among other things, the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material facts about the company's business, operations
and prospects. The complaint alleges that purported class members
have suffered losses.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of compensatory
damages.
Velodyne said, "We believe the claim is without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously."
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Facing Reese Putative Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a
putative class action suit initiated by Robert Reese.
On March 12, 2021, Reese, a purported shareholder of Velodyne,
filed a putative class action lawsuit entitled Reese v. Velodyne
Lidar, Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01736, against Velodyne and two of
its current officers, CEO Anand Gopalan and CFO Andrew Hamer in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements
and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements in
our filings with the SEC.
The company and the Officers intend to deny all liability in this
action and to defend against the lawsuit vigorously.
Velodyne said, "This lawsuit mirrors the allegations asserted in
the previously-filed case entitled Moradpour v. Velodyne Lidar,
Inc., et al., No. 3:21-cv-01482, which was filed in the same
judicial district on March 2, 2021. The two cases are likely to be
consolidated and effectively proceed as a single litigation."
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Graf Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Graf Industrial Corp.,
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by a
purported shareholder.
On August 4, 2020, a purported shareholder of Graf commenced a
putative class action against Graf and its directors in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.
The plaintiff alleges that the Board members, aided and abetted by
Graf Graf Industrial Corp., breached their fiduciary duties by
entering into the Merger Agreement with Velodyne.
The plaintiff alleges that the Merger Agreement undervalues Graf,
was the result of an improper process and that Graf's disclosure
concerning the proposed Merger is inadequate.
As a result of these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, the
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of rescissory
damages.
Velodyne said, "We believe the claim is without merit and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously."
Velodyne Lidar, Inc. operates as an automotive technology company.
The Company develops silicon valley-based lidar technology company
spun off from Velodyne acoustics. Velodyne Lidar serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in San Jose, California.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP alerts 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").
Investor 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
http://www.ktmc.com[GN]
VELODYNE LIDAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Velodyne Lidar, Inc. ("Velodyne" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: VLDR; VLDRW) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-01736, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Velodyne
securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 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 Velodyne securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Velodyne provides solutions to develop safe automated systems
including real-time surround view lidar sensors. The Company became
a public entity on or about September 29, 2020 when it merged with
Graf Industrial Corp., a special purpose acquisition company.
The complaint 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 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 misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
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 Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative
class action suit initiated by Isaiah Potter, has been dismissed.
On July 14, 2020, plaintiff Isaiah Potter, or Potter, filed a
putative class action complaint captioned Potter v. Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its
executive officers, or the Defendants.
The complaint alleged that Defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain supposed
safety risks attendant to the VP-102 drug-device and likely delays
to regulatory approval of VP-102.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Potter and all other persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired our securities between September 16, 2019 and
June 29, 2020.
On December 14, 2020, Potter voluntarily sought to dismiss this
case and the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, which the
court granted on December 21, 2020.
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Potter and without
prejudice as to the unnamed class members.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company
committed to the development and commercialization of novel
treatments that provide meaningful benefit for people living with
skin diseases. The company is based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
VICTORIA: Junior Doctors Launch Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that legal action has begun on behalf of junior
doctors, who say they have been deliberately underpaid after
working overtime in Victoria's public health system.
A class action has been filed in the Federal Court against
Peninsula Health, alleging the underpayment of a junior doctor.
Lawyers are planning to bring other class actions, amid claims of
systemic underpayment by other health services in the public
system.
Lawyer Hayden Stephens said some junior doctors were working up to
25 hours a week beyond their rostered hours, and many of those
hours were unpaid.
"That, in combination with their own genuine concern that this will
impact their care and ability to look after patients, together with
their own mental health . . . are issues in which we are calling
Victorian health services to address," he said.
Mr Stephens said the legal action could ultimately affect more than
10,000 junior doctors in Victoria.
"This is a claim for unpaid entitlements, it's not a claim seeking
additional wages."
"It's nothing more than junior doctors employed in the Victorian
health system being paid for their hours work and their fair
entitlements, entitlements that have been agreed to by their very
own employers."
In a statement, Peninsula Health's Chief Medical Officer, Shyaman
Menon, said the organisation "respects the rights of all staff,
including the receipt of any payments to which they are entitled."
"Our junior doctors are the future of our organisation and we
acknowledge the important contribution they make across all our
hospitals and healthcare sites," Dr Menon said.
Doctors reluctant to complain about overtime
Doctor Karla Villafana-Soto said she had been so exhausted after
working overtime on shifts that she had made mistakes with
medication and doses, that had luckily been caught by other staff.
She claims the underpayment of junior doctors for overtime they've
worked is widespread in the public hospital system in Victoria.
"This is now my eighth year of being a junior doctor and I've
worked at several health services in Victoria, and I can tell you
this is happening everywhere," she said.
"The class action has come up really as a point of last resort
after, for many years, many of us have tried to get this issue
addressed, and it just hasn't been."
Dr Villafana-Soto claims junior medical staff are reluctant to
raise concerns about underpayment for fear of getting their
superiors offside.
"You learn very quickly that upsetting supervisors or hospital
administration will possibly result in you possibly not getting a
job the following year, because most of us are employed for 12
months at a time," she said.
The Victorian President of the Australian Salaried Medical Officers
Federation, Roderick McRae, said it was impossible to estimate the
true cost of properly paying junior medical staff in Victoria's
public health system.
"Everybody understands they're in the game to look after patients,
so they're not going to down tools," he said.
"At the same time, there needs to be a reasonable balance and
appropriate compensation when those events occur."
The legal action is being supported by AMA Victoria, which is
calling for more doctors to come forward and join the class
action.
An AMA Victoria survey conducted last year found junior doctors
were working on average 16 hours of overtime a week, mostly without
pay. [GN]
WEBULL FINANCIAL: Williams Securities Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROYAL WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00799, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 7, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21335-CMA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty by restricting the ability
of its customers to purchase stocks from its trading platform, but
allowing them to sell stocks.
Webull Financial LLC is an online brokerage firm, headquartered at
44 Wall Street, Ste 501, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Siri, Esq.
Mason Barney, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com
mbarney@sirillp.com
ebrehm@sirillp.com
WEHOCOIFFEUR LLC: Faces Waters Employment Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wehocoiffeur, LLC.
The case is captioned as Alexandria J. Waters v. Wehocoiffeur, LLC,
Case No. 34-2021-00296618-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Sacramento Cty.,
March 16, 2021).
The suit arises from employment-related issues.
The Defendants include Does 1-100 and Jeremy Shieh.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Pension Fund Tapped to Lead Lawsuit Over Risky Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a Hawaii pension fund on March 15 was tapped to
lead a proposed class action suit accusing Wells Fargo of making
billions of dollars worth of risky commercial loans, though the
federal judge overseeing the case ordered that the fund must
consider applications by law firms to serve as class counsel. [GN]
XL FLEET: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 15 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company")
(NYSE: XL) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 21-cv-02171, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired XL Fleet securities between October
2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased XL Fleet securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 7, 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.
XL Fleet provides vehicle electrification solutions for commercial
and municipal fleets in North America. The Company offers hybrid
and plug-in hybrid electric drive systems.
XL Fleet formed via merger of XL Hybrids, Inc. and Pivotal
Investment Corporation II ("Pivotal"), which closed on or about
December 22, 2020. Pivotal was a special purpose acquisition
company incorporated for the purpose of entering into a merger,
share exchange, asset acquisition, share purchase,
recapitalization, reorganization or similar business combination
with one or more businesses or entities.
The complaint 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: (i) XL Fleet's salespeople
were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the
Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) at least eighteen of the
thirty-three customers that XL featured were inactive and had not
placed an order since 2019; (iii) XL's technology had been
materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings;
(iv) XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new
products on the announced timelines; and (v) 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, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") 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 Fleet 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 share price fell $2.09 per share, or
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 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close
at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
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]
YAZAKI CORP: June 10 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti,
Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; and Spector Roseman & Kodroff,
P.C. ("Settlement Class Counsel") on March 15 disclosed that the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Southern Division ("Court") has approved the following announcement
of proposed class action settlements with the Yazaki and DENSO
Defendants. The lawsuit claimed that Defendants conspired to raise,
fix, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the
supply of Fuel Senders sold in the United States, in violation of
federal antitrust laws.
The settlements affect those who purchased Fuel Senders in the
United States between January 1, 2001 and December 27, 2016
directly from any of the following entities (or depending on the
specific settlement agreements, their parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates and joint ventures): DENSO Corporation; DENSO
International America, Inc.; Yazaki Corporation; and Yazaki North
America, Inc.
A hearing will be held on June 10, 2021, at 10:30 a.m., before the
Honorable Sean F. Cox, United States District Judge, at the
Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette
Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 817, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlements with Yazaki and
DENSO Defendants totaling $320,000 should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable and adequate; and (2) whether the Court should
approve the proposed plan of distribution of Yazaki and DENSO
settlement proceeds to members of the settlement classes.
A Notice of Proposed Settlements and Claim Form (the "Notice") was
mailed to potential Settlement Class members on or about March 4,
2021. The Notice describes the litigation and options available to
Settlement Class members with respect to the Yazaki and DENSO
settlements in more detail. The Notice also explains what steps a
Class Member must take to (1) remain in the settlement classes and
file a Claim Form to share in the settlement proceeds, (2) object
to the settlements, or (3) request exclusion from the settlement
classes. The Notice and other important documents related to the
settlements can be accessed at
www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/FuelSenders, or by calling
1-800-416-8107, or writing to Fuel Senders Direct Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box 5053, Portland, OR 97208-5053. Those
who believe they may be a member of either of the Yazaki or DENSO
settlement classes, are urged to obtain a copy of the Notice.
URL: www.AutoPartsAntitrustLitigation.com/FuelSenders
SOURCE United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan Southern Division [GN]
[*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Action Continue to Rise
---------------------------------------------------------------
cpapracticeadvisor.com reports that against the backdrop of a
worldwide pandemic and a decline in overall securities class action
filing activity, the number of securities class action filings
involving accounting allegations increased in 2020 for the third
consecutive year, according to a report released by Cornerstone
Research.
The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements -- 2020
Review and Analysis, found that accounting allegations continue to
have a substantial impact on securities class actions. Accounting
allegations were present in more than 30% of all federal securities
class action filings, and accounting cases made up 84% of total
settlement dollars in 2020.
Plaintiffs filed 70 securities class action lawsuits involving
accounting allegations in 2020, up from 67 the previous year and
the second-highest number in the last 10 years.
There were 38 accounting case settlements in 2020, more than the 34
settlements in the previous year but still lower than in the peak
years of 2015 to 2017. The number of accounting case settlements
represented almost 50% of all securities class action settlements
in 2020.
Total accounting case settlement dollars rose to $3.5 billion in
2020, more than triple the total of $932 million in 2019. This
increase was driven by a small number of mega settlements (those
valued at $100 million or higher). The median accounting case
settlement value was $10.8 million, comparable to the median
settlement value of $10.6 million in 2019.
For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the
Disclosure Dollar Loss Index(R) (DDL Index(R), a measure of market
capitalization losses, reached its highest level in the last 10
years. Market capitalization losses for accounting case filings
were 77% higher than the 2011–2019 annual average DDL for
accounting cases.[GN]
[*] Federal Judge Dismisses RESPA Class Action Lawsuit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
RESPA News reports that a federal judge has dismissed a class
action RESPA lawsuit filed by an Ohio woman who claimed her
servicer failed to timely and properly respond to her requests for
information (RFI) and notices of error (NOE).
The servicer argued the claims should be dismissed because the
purported RFIs and NOEs did not relate to "servicing" of the loan
and the plaintiff failed to allege damages. [GN]
[*] Global Corporate Exposure to Rule 10b-5 Suit Amounts to $37.8BB
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Global exposure of publicly traded companies to stock-drop
securities class action (SCA) lawsuits that allege violations of
the federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, amounts to $37.8 billion in 1Q'21 – a decline of
78.7% relative to 4Q'20.
U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of U.S. issuers amounts to $33.6
billion in 1Q'21, a material decline of 65.7% relative to 4Q'20.
ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure of non-U.S. issuers that trade via
American Depository Receipts (ADRs) on U.S. exchanges amounts to
$4.3 billion in 1Q'21, a material decline of 94.6% relative to
4Q'20.
According to the SAR Securities Class Action Rule 10b-5 Exposure
Report – 1Q 2021, the U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of U.S.
issuers declined to 0.08% in 1Q'21 from 0.25% in 4Q'20. The U.S.
SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate declined by 3 basis points to 0.94%
in 1Q'21.
In 1Q'21 the ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate of non-U.S. issuers
fell to 0.01% from 0.27% in 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5
Litigation Rate decreased by 15 basis points to 0.20%.
"Record-breaking U.S. equity markets combined with focused judicial
scrutiny of securities class actions filed in federal courts led to
a material decline in Rule 10b-5 exposure this past quarter," said
Nessim Mezrahi, CEO of SAR.
1Q 2021 Securities Class Action Landscape:
-- 34 U.S. issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5.
Based on allegations presented in the first-filed SCA complaint
against each defendant corporation, U.S. SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure
amounts to $33.6 billion. Quarterly frequency remained steady, and
exposure declined materially by 65.7% relative to 4Q'20.
-- 11 U.S. large cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $22.8
billion, a material decline of 75.6% relative to 4Q'20. The Large
Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate decreased by 19 basis points to
0.06%. The Large Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased to
1.06% from 1.96% in 4Q'20.
-- 4 U.S. mid cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of Rule
10b-5. The Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $2.4 billion,
an increase of $228 million, or 10.6% relative to 4Q'20. The Mid
Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate remained the same at 0.15%. The
Mid Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate decreased by 3 basis points
to 0.62% in 1Q'21.
-- 19 U.S. small cap issuers were sued for alleged violations of
Rule 10b-5. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure amounts to $8.4
billion, a material increase of $6 billion, or 245.7% relative to
4Q'20 and the highest exposure during the preceding four quarters.
The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Exposure Rate increased by 79 basis
points to 1.15%, also the highest during the preceding four
quarters. The Small Cap SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate increased to
0.97% from 0.64% in 4Q'20.
-- 4 Non-U.S. issuers that trade via ADRs in the U.S. public
markets were sued for alleged violations of Rule 10b-5. The ADR SCA
Rule 10b-5 Exposure decreased materially by $75 billion to $4.3
billion, or 94.6% relative to 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5
Exposure Rate amounts to 0.01%, a material decline of 26 basis
points relative to 4Q'20. The ADR SCA Rule 10b-5 Litigation Rate
declined to 0.20%, 15 basis points lower relative to 4Q'20.
Media Contact: Carolina M. Doherty, VP of Business Development,
carolina@sarlit.com [GN]
[*] Healthcare Data Privacy, Data Breach Class Action to Rise
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vildan Altuglu, Maria Salgado, Omur Celmanbet, Rezwan Haque and
Lucia Yanguas of Cornerstone Research report that the COVID-19
pandemic, which has generated a surge in telehealth and introduced
the concept of contact tracing into our daily lives, is likely to
expose businesses and governments to an increased risk of data
privacy and data breach class actions related to health and other
personal data. This article discusses potential economic approaches
and challenges to valuing, in class action settings, alleged
unconsented use or misappropriation of health and other private
data generated during this health crisis.
Class action litigation related to data privacy and data breaches
in the healthcare industry is expected to trend upward in the
COVID-19 era
The spike in the use of telehealth has been one of the dramatic
changes in healthcare delivery since the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic. Telehealth includes, among others, the practice of
doctors caring for patients remotely through the use of tools such
as teleconferencing and videoconferencing.
The ability to receive care without having to travel to healthcare
facilities has increased the appeal of telehealth, including
telemedicine visits, for many patients during the pandemic.
According to an April 2020 study, there is a strong correlation
between the U.S. population's interest in telehealth and the number
of COVID-19 cases.[1] Similarly, an analysis published by the
Commonwealth Fund shows that the share of physician visits
conducted via telehealth was practically nonexistent in the first
two months of 2020 and rose to nearly 14 percent by mid-April, as
shown in Figure 1.[2]
To facilitate the expansion of telehealth during the pandemic, in
March 2020 the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services lifted certain privacy and security
compliance penalties and enforcement actions against providers,
allowing them to use audio or video communication technologies,
such as Facebook Messenger video chat, Google Hangouts video, Zoom,
and Skype, to provide remote healthcare services.[3] Given the
sensitive nature of the data exchanged during telehealth visits and
stored by telehealth providers, the use of such communication
technologies raises concerns about susceptibility of health and
other personal data to unauthorized disclosures, uses, or
misappropriation by unauthorized third parties (e.g., hackers).
These privacy and security concerns also extend to devices patients
use to communicate and exchange data with their telehealth
providers, including smartphones, tablets, and computers as well as
in-home patient monitors or other remote-care devices. Unauthorized
third parties may obtain personal information (including health
data and payment information) or infiltrate the larger networks of
patient data in the event they are able to gain access to these
connected devices.[4]
Contact tracing is another change facilitated by the pandemic that
has led to an increase in exchange of personal data among
individuals, companies, and governments. Contact tracing is a
public health management tool and involves identifying and
monitoring individuals who had contact with infected individuals
and notifying them of their potential exposure. While there is no
compulsory digital COVID-19 contact tracing program in the U.S.,
multiple voluntary mobile apps developed by private companies
exist.[5]
With contact tracing initiatives, the COVID-19 status and
geolocation of individuals are collected, stored, and also
sometimes shared with various entities, raising data privacy and
data breach concerns.[6] For example, geolocation data collected
from smartphones with contact tracing apps may be used in isolation
or in combination with other data to uncover a variety of
information about individuals, including their routine activities
(e.g., medical intake), interests (e.g., gym membership), and
affiliations (e.g., religious affiliation). Beyond concerns about
public disclosure of this personal information, there are also
concerns that hackers can create "fake" contact tracing apps, or
send fake messages pretending to be contact tracers to initiate a
malware attack or a phishing scam to extract credit card and other
personal data.[7]
Accordingly, such changes instituted during the pandemic with
regard to healthcare delivery and public health management are
expected to increase class action litigation related to data
privacy and data breaches in the healthcare industry.
Potential economic approaches and challenges to valuing alleged
unconsented use or misappropriation of health and other personal
data generated during the COVID-19 pandemic
Broadly, there are two types of consumer class actions related to
personal data: (i) data privacy class actions where the data at
issue were allegedly misused by the parties that received the data,
and (ii) data breach class actions where the data at issue were
exposed and improperly accessed by unrelated third parties. An
example of the former is a federal lawsuit filed in 2018 against
CVS Health due to its alleged exposure of the personal health
information of over 6,000 individuals via clear-windowed mailings
revealing their names, addresses, and HIV status.[8] An example of
the latter involves lawsuits against Anthem following a data breach
incident that allegedly exposed personal data on 80 million
individuals, including names, birth dates, medical identification
numbers, and Social Security numbers.[9]
In data privacy class actions, damages pursued are often based on
alleged loss of intrinsic value of privacy and alleged unjust
enrichment of the party that has misused the data. In data breach
class actions, on the other hand, damages pursued are often based
on actual fraud costs, future risk of identity theft, and identity
theft monitoring and prevention costs.[10] The economic approaches
related to these theories of harm for telehealth, contact tracing,
and other personal data are discussed next.
Loss of intrinsic value of privacy
This theory is traditionally built on the premise that keeping
information private has a uniform economic value that is common to
all individuals (e.g., a societal value), and unauthorized access
to this information by a third party would result in the loss of
that value.[11] Such a common, uniform value to privacy implies
that the alleged injury is not specific to the individual or the
infringing party, rendering an identical quantum of damages for
each putative class member, regardless of their individual
circumstances. For example, under this theory, unauthorized use of
geolocation or health data exchanged as part of COVID-19 contact
tracing initiatives would generate the same amount of damages for
each putative class member regardless of the extent of information
provided by a given individual. Similarly, unauthorized use of
geolocation data accessed by means unrelated to the alleged
misconduct would generate identical damages (e.g., damages due to
unauthorized use of geolocation data would be identical whether the
data were accessed via a gaming app or via a contact tracing app).
Further, public disclosure of the at-issue information in other
contexts (e.g., an infected individual posting COVID-19 status in a
public Facebook profile) is unlikely to matter under the loss of
"intrinsic" value of privacy theory.
Survey-based, quantitative approaches such as contingent valuation
surveys and conjoint analysis have been proposed as suitable
methods to estimate invasion of privacy damages in data privacy
class actions.[12] In contingent valuation surveys, respondents are
typically asked directly about their value for the conduct at
issue. In the data privacy context, this could include questions
such as "how much would you pay to protect privacy of your data?".
In conjoint analysis, respondents are typically asked to make
choices from a small set of products and services in a series of
survey questions. In the data privacy context, each product or
service shown to respondents (e.g., a new online video gaming
service) would be described on the basis of the same set of
features including a feature that relates to the use or sharing of
personal data (e.g., type of game, number of players, whether the
service shares players' personal data with advertisers) and a set
of prices. Respondents' product choices that involve different
feature combinations and prices are then used to estimate an
average value for data privacy.
These approaches have been subject to a number of critiques. First,
both contingent valuation and conjoint analysis are "stated
preference methods" in that they rely on what people say or imply
they will do (i.e., based on their choices in a survey setting),
and not on what they actually do.[13] Second, in the privacy
context, survey methods are subject to the so-called privacy
paradox, the well-documented discrepancy between consumers' stated
preferences for privacy and their privacy-related behaviors.[14]
Third, both methods have been shown to generate inflated values for
privacy due to certain biases these surveys are susceptible to
(e.g., conjoint surveys may artificially focus survey respondents
on privacy).[15]
Further, reliably extrapolating the estimated average value of
privacy beyond the survey samples (e.g., to the putative class as a
whole) is challenging due to the extent of heterogeneity in
consumers' privacy expectations and preferences.[16]
Unjust enrichment
An alternative theory of harm put forward in data privacy class
actions is based on the allegation that the infringing third party
generated revenues and profits by using private data without
authorization. Generating reliable estimates of privacy value based
on this theory requires distinguishing and isolating the portion of
the infringer's valuation, revenues, or profits that is directly
attributable to the alleged misuse of private data. This can be a
challenging exercise, as numerous factors may influence a firm's
valuation, revenues, and profits. For example, determining the
value to companies involved in an alleged unauthorized use of
geolocation and other private data shared with contact tracing apps
would require controlling for all factors that influence these
companies' valuation, revenues, and profits.
Actual fraud costs
In data breach class actions, one of the most commonly pursued type
of damages involves actual fraud costs. In the case of breach of
payment card data, for instance, this often involves determining
fraudulent transactions and associated amounts on exposed accounts.
However, because consumers typically share the same types of data
with multiple parties and because concurrent data breach incidents
have become increasingly common, it can be difficult to establish
causality, or a nexus between fraudulent activity and a particular
data breach incident. According to a 2019 industry study, for
example, there were 1,473 data breaches in the U.S. in 2019 alone,
and over 164 million personally identifiable records were exposed
in those breaches.[17] Similarly, a 2016 study showed that roughly
36 million U.S. adults received more than one notification of data
breach between June 2014 and June 2015 alone.[18]
Risk of future identity theft
Harm arising from the risk of future identity theft is also
commonly pursued in data breach class actions. This theory of harm
is based on the premise that the identity theft or other negative
consequences of a data breach may not occur immediately. As such,
it is argued that individuals whose information was breached should
be compensated for the expected "long term" impact of the data
breach. Historical evidence and academic literature, however,
suggest that only a small number of individuals will experience any
type of identity theft as a result of a data breach incident.[19]
Moreover, it is difficult to predict who will be impacted: the
probability that an individual will be subject to future identity
theft can vary across individuals based on prior incidence of
identity theft, number of companies that have access to the data at
issue, and the type of data that was compromised. Further, any
methods proposed to calculate this type of damages would need to be
able to isolate the incremental risk associated with the data
breach for each individual in the future.
Identity theft monitoring and prevention costs
Yet another common type of damages asserted in data breach class
actions is based on what consumers allegedly already paid or would
likely pay for credit and identity theft monitoring and prevention
services. These may include a range of services such as "credit
freezes" with credit reporting agencies, identity theft insurance,
and credit monitoring services.
Since not everyone would sign up for these types of services,
determining which members of a proposed class incurred or would
likely incur such costs is central to quantifying these damages.
Survey methods soliciting self-reported measures from a sample of
putative class members on the costs already incurred and the
probability of signing up for credit monitoring or identity theft
insurance services may be used. The validity of these methods will
in part depend on the reliability of the self-reported measures and
on the representativeness of the survey respondents.
Additionally, real-world data may provide insight about the rate at
which affected individuals are likely to sign up for credit and
identity theft monitoring and prevention services. For example,
many companies in the U.S. offer free credit monitoring services to
individuals whose data were potentially exposed in a data breach
incident. The share of individuals who sign up for these free
services, which is typically low, can be informative of the share
of individuals who would ultimately sign up and pay a fee for such
services.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors, who are responsible for the content, and do not
necessarily represent the views of Cornerstone Research. This
article was first published in Law360.
[1] Young-Rock Hong et al., "Population-Level Interest and
Telehealth Capacity of US Hospitals in Response to COVID-19:
Cross-Sectional Analysis of Google Search and National Hospital
Survey Data," JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 6, no. 2 (2020):
e18961.
[2] Ateev Mehrotra et al., "The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on
Outpatient Visits: A Rebound Emerges," The Commonwealth Fund, May
19, 2020.
[3] "Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth Remote
Communications during the COVID-19 Nationwide Public Health
Emergency," U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, available
at
https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/emergency-preparedness/notification-enforcement-discretion-telehealth/index.html,
last accessed March 27, 2020.
[4]See, e.g., Joseph L. Hall and Deven McGraw, "For Telehealth to
Succeed, Privacy and Security Risks Must Be Identified and
Addressed," Health Affairs 33, no. 2 (2014): 216–221. See also
Lily Hay Newman, "Medical Devices Are the Next Security Nightmare,"
Wired, March 2, 2017.
[5]See "Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Contact Tracing,"
Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, August 4, 2020,
available at
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/contact-tracing.html.
[6]See Paige M. Boshell, "The Power of Place: Geolocation Tracking
and Privacy," American Bar Association Business Law Section, March
25, 2019.
[7] See Stephen Silver, "Fake Contact Tracing Apps Could Install
Malware on Your Smartphone," The National Interest, June 12, 2020.
See also Lily Hay Newman, "Don't Be Fooled by Covid-19
Contact-Tracing Scams," Wired, May 25, 2020.
[8] Class Action Complaint, John Doe One et al. v. CVS Health Corp.
et al., No. 2:18-cv-00238-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 21, 2018).
[9] Class Action Complaint, Brown v. Anthem Inc., No. 5:15-md-02617
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 13, 2015).
[10]See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li
Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from
Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer
Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing
Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel.
[11] See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li
Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from
Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer
Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing
Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel.
[12]See Vildan Altuglu, Lorin M. Hitt, S. Hussain, and M. Li
Bergolis, "Valuation of Privacy: Assessing Potential Harm from
Unauthorized Access and Misuse of Private Information in Consumer
Class Actions," forthcoming in Legal Applications of Marketing
Theory, eds. Professors Jacob Gersen and Joel Steckel.
[13]See, e.g., Jerry Hausman, "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious
to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012):
43–56.
[14]See, e.g., Sarah Spiekermann, Jens Grossklags, and Bettina
Berendt, "E-Privacy in 2nd Generation E-commerce: Privacy
Preferences versus Actual Behavior," in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM
Conference on Electronic Commerce (2001): 38–47; Patricia A.
Norberg, Daniel R. Horne, and David A. Horne, "The Privacy Paradox:
Personal Information Disclosure Intentions versus Behaviors,"
Journal of Consumer Affairs 41, no. 1 (2007): 100–126; Idris
Adjerid, Eyal Peer, and Alessandro Acquisti, "Beyond the Privacy
Paradox: Objective Versus Relative Risk in Privacy Decision
Making," MIS Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2018): 465–488; Alessandro
Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein, "Privacy and
Human Behavior in the Age of Information," Science 347, no. 6221
(2015): 509–514 at 510.
[15]See, e.g., Jerry Hausman, "Contingent Valuation: From Dubious
to Hopeless," Journal of Economic Perspectives 26, no. 4 (2012):
43–56.
[16] Academic research demonstrates that consumers differ in their
privacy preferences and expectations and that consumers' privacy
preferences and expectations can be context-dependent. See, e.g.,
Alessandro Acquisti, Laura Brandimarte, and George Loewenstein,
"Privacy and Human Behavior in the Age of Information," Science
347, no. 6221 (2015): 509–514; Kirsten Martin and Katie Shilton,
"Why Experience Matters to Privacy: How Context‐Based Experience
Moderates Consumer Privacy Expectations for Mobile Applications,"
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
67, no. 8 (2016): 1871–1882; Helen Nissenbaum, "Privacy as
Contextual Integrity," Washington Law Review 79, no. 1 (2004):
119–157.
[17] "2019 End-Of-Year Data Breach Report," Identity Theft Resource
Center, 2020, available at
https://notified.idtheftcenter.org/s/resource.
[18] Lillian Ablon et al., "Consumer Attitudes toward Data Breach
Notifications and Loss of Personal Information," Rand Corporation,
2016. The actual number of data breaches is likely to be higher: a
recent study estimated the number of unreported data breaches may
be equal to 25 percent to 85 percent of the number of reported
breaches. See James T. Graves, Alessandro Acquisti, and Nicolas
Christin, "Should Credit Card Issuers Reissue Cards in Response to
a Data Breach? Uncertainty and Transparency in Metrics for Data
Security Policymaking," ACM Transactions on Internet Technology
(TOIT) 18, no. 4 (2018): 1–19.1847, no. 6221 (2015): 509-514.
[19]See, e.g., "Personal Information: Data Breaches Are Frequent,
but Evidence of Resulting Identity Theft Is Limited; However, the
Full Extent Is Unknown," U.S. Government Accountability Office,
GAO-07-737, June 2007. [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 ***