/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210414.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 69
Headlines
A&J TOWING: Faces Bryan Property Tort Suit in California State Ct.
A. PEARLSTEIN: Suit Seeks to Certify Amended Claims as Class Action
ABM INDUSTRY: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Berrios Suit Claims
ABUNDANCIA BAKERY: Mogollan Bid for Class Certification Granted
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Louisiana Court Dismisses Hamm FLSA Class Suit
ACORN OUTDOOR: Certification of Forestry Worker Collective Sought
ADVANCED FOOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martin Labor Suit Says
AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Seeks Class Action Cert of Amended Complaint
ALASKA: State Supreme Court Flips Judgment in Metcalfe Class Suit
ALTO MUSIC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMDOCS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
AMDOCS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 8 Deadline
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shakespeare Says
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Suit Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corporation Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Putative Class Suit Underway
APPLE INC: Custodero Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
APPLE INC: Faces Stephens Suit Over Alleged Online Illegal Gambling
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Probes Securities Claims
AREVAL CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges
ARMADILLO ENTERPRISES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney Suit Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed
BHP BILLITON: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Pennington Suit
BOSTON DUCK: Latour Seeks Initial FLSA Collective Certification
BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, McNamara Says
CAESARSTONE LTD: Settlement in Israel Class Suit Pending
CANOO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CANOO INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Bid to Dismiss Rodriguez Class Suit Junked
CDA INC: Class of Terminated Employees in McKenzie Suit Certified
CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Walburn Class Suit in Ohio Pending
CENTRUS ENERGY: Dismissal of Matthews Class Suit Under Appeal
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Action in Ohio Underway
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 9 Deadline
CHESTER ASHER: Williams Files ADA Suit in New York
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Galindo Says
COMCAST CORP: Tillage Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
COMMUNITY.COM: Faces Adler TCPA Suit in Central Dist. of California
CR PENSION: Court Tosses Stanton Bid for Class Certification
CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
CREDIT UNION: Faces Hickmond Suit Over OD Fees in D. New Jersey
CRSC LLC: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Hernandez Claims
CUTTERS WIRELINE: Lindsay Renewed Bid for Class Certification Nixed
CYTODYN INC: Faces Lewis Securities Suit Over Shares Price Drop
CYTODYN INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
DADDIES BOARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Class Certification Bid Junked
DEPUY INT'L: Implant Settlement Approval Hearing Set on May 11
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Krakauer Class Action
DISH DBS: Trial in Retirement Trust Suit to Begin Sept. 7
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Proctor Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot
DOUG CONNOR: Reguena Asks Permit to Send Notice to Truck Drivers
EASTERN METAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cooper Suit Claims
EBANG INT'L Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
EL SAN JUAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Alleges
ENSIGN UNITED: Asked to Address Issues Raised in Newell Settlement
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit
FARMERS AUTOMOBILE: Garrido Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Nev.
FARMERS GROUP: Taqueria Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
FIGURE 8: Daniell Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
FLO HEALTH: Gamino Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Thornburgh's Gross Negligence Claims
FORD MOTOR: Faces Coleman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
FORTUNE MEDIA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
FSM ZA: Patzfahl Files Renewed Bid to Send Notice to Drivers Class
GOAT MILK: Sanchez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL: Judge to Consider Sales Tax Refund Options
HOME DEPOT: Pimentel Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
HP INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Marketing of Laptop Computers
IMPACT GROUP: Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
INTEL CORP: Court OK's Bid to Dismiss Complaint with Leave to Amend
ISM VUZEM: Maslic FLSA & TVPRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
JP MORGAN: Dennis Bid to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit Granted
JUBILEE MART: Faces Nelson Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KARUNA THOMPSON: Douglas Seeks Class Action Cert. of Amended Claims
KIDS CARE: Faces Brandt Employment Suit in California State Court
KOTTEMANN LAW: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Banks FDCPA Suit Denied
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Jamallah Brown Seeks Class Certification
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
LEIKIN INGBER: Van Vleck FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
LIC PAYROLL: Misclassifies RSMs and ASMs, Sapozhnikov Suit Claims
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Wins Full Summary Judgment in Kennedy ERISA Suit
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Rico Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER: Palm Global Seeks Lawsuit's Summary Judgment
MAGNA INT'L: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Davis ERISA Class Suit
MAJESTIC CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fortin Suit Alleges
MEALPRO LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York
MEDAILLE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Moreau Bid for Conditional Cert. Junked as Moot
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Hamm Suit
MMD INC: Fails to Pay Earned Wages & Overtime, Busby Suit Alleges
MMM CONSUMER: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Glaab Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Texas
MOVE INC: Faces Gutenberg Infringement Suit in C.D. California
MPW INDUSTRIAL: Breslin Seeks Field Service Technicians' Unpaid OT
N3 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Suit Alleges
NATROL LLC: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Denied in Vitello
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Union Square Supply Suit Over Price Gouging
NEW YORK: Court Tosses Class Petitioner's Bid for Class Cert.
NISSAN NORTH: Rogue Vehicles Have CVT Defect, Landa Suit Alleges
NRG TEXAS: White Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Texas
NUTRAMARKS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Lopez Seeks to Certify Background Check Class Suit
ONYX ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in New York
PACIFICA, CA: Provisional Class Certification Sought in Geary Suit
PANDA PLATES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PAUL A. SCHMITT MUSIC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEACHCAP TAX: Leonard Files Suit in Georgia Superior Court
PLAYBOY ENT: Scott Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Calif.
PORCH GROUP: Hagens Berman Probes for Possible Law Violations
PRESIDIO INC: LaPrairie Employment Class Suit Removed to W.D.N.Y.
PRIMAL ELEMENTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Narrows Claims in Byrd Class Suit
PURITY ORGANIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
REALEATS AMERICA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESPONDUS INC: Faces Bridges Suit Over Alleged BIPA Violations
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lavin Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla.
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Minnick Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moody Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ng Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Suit Alleges Automatic Card Shufflers Monopoly
SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Ciofoletti Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing in New York
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in California Underway
SNAPMEDTECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lepera Suit Alleges
SOS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
SOUTH COAST: Fails to Pay All Wages, Talavera Suit Alleges
SPRING HOME: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
SSA BONDS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. BofA
SSA BONDS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. HSBC
STANDARD INSURANCE: Tinker Sues Over Denied Life Insurance Claims
STUPP BROS: Stoklosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
SUBARU: Will Pay to Replace Cracked Windshield, Deadline April 23
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit in NY
SUTTER BAY MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Lawful Wages, Wong-Mikhail Says
TOM'S OF MAINE: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California
TOWER HILL: MSPA Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
TOYOTA MOTOR: Adam B. Lawler Sues Over Defective Car Phone System
TRANS WORLD: Approval of FLSA Settlement Sought in Spack Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Golightly Sues Over Deactivation From Platform
VESPER HEALTHCARE: Facing Purvance Putative Class Suit in New York
VMSB LLC: Certification of Class of Bartenders and Servers Sought
WALMART INC: Facing Opioids Related Class Suits
WASHINGTON MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEBGROUP CZECH: Faces Doe TVPRA Suit Over Sex Trafficking Venture
WELLS FARGO: Magill Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. California
WELLWELL LLC: Faces Olsen ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
WM. BOLTHOUSE: Faces Rodgers Suit in California State Court
WRITERS GUILD: Fails to Pay Residuals Under Basic Agreements
XL FLEET: Klein Law Reminds of May 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
YERBA MATE: Troyer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
ZOOM VIDEO: Data Privacy & Security Measures Suit Underway
ZOOM VIDEO: Discovery Ongoing in User Privacy Related Suit
*********
A&J TOWING: Faces Bryan Property Tort Suit in California State Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A&J Towing
Corporation. The case is captioned as WILLIAM BRYAN vs. A&J TOWING
CORPORATION, Case No. 21STCV11517 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 17, 2021).
The case type is Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort.
AJ's Towing is a 24-hour towing service providing towing and
wrecker services to all of Sacramento.[BN]
The Plaintiffs include BRYAN WILLIAM AKA BRIAN WILLIAMS
INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHER PERSONS AND CLASS SIMILARLY SITUATED.
The Defendants include A&J ENTERPRISES INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
INDIVIDUALLY DBA A&J TOWING CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY; A&J TOWING
CORPORATION FKA A&J TOWING LLC No. 201300410156 A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA A&J ENTERPRISES INC. A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY; ABDO MOHAMMAD AKA MOHAMMED SALIM ABOABDO
AKA MOHAMMAD BASSAM ABDO INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS CEO/SECRETARY AND AS VARIOUS OTHER NAMES BEING USED AS THE
CO-OWNER OF A&J TOWING ENTERPRISES INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
INDIVIDUALLY; ANA MONTIEL GARCIA INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY MANAGER FOR WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC
A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS
INC; CHANDLER DIANA LEE AKA DIANA CHANDLER AKA D CHANDLER AKA DIANA
LEE PERRY INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
CFO/SECRETARY AND AS THE DIRECTOR OF LIEN MACHINE INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY; CHANDLER DIANA LEE AKA DIANA CHANDLER AKA
D CHANDLER AKA DIANA LEE PERRY INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS ONE GENERAL PARTNER/CO-OWNER OF LIEN MACHINE 1 LTD A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP No. 201030900002 FKA LIEN MACHINE
LTD A CALIFORNIA; CHARLES BYERL INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CEO OF WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
INDIVIDUALLY; DARDEN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT/CEO AND AS THE OWNER OF LIEN MACHINE INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY ELAINE G; DISPATCHER JULIAN AKA DOE JULIAN
AKA JOHN DOE EMPLOYEE DISPATCHER WORKING ON DECEMBER 30TH 2020
AFTER 5PM AND ANSWERING PHONE CALLS FOR A&J TOWING CORPORATION FKA
A&J TOWING LLC No. 201300410156 A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
INDIVIDUALLY DBA A&J ENTERPRISES; DREW HOEVEN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY INDIVIDUALLY; ELAINE G DARDEN INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ONE GENERAL PARTNER/CO-OWNER OF
LIEN MACHINE 1 LTD A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP No.
201030900002 FKA LIEN MACHINE LTD A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
No. 200007300031 DBA LIEN MACHINE INC; HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS
INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA US STORAGE
CENTERS-HAWTHORNE-AVIATION AKA US STORAGE CENTERS-SOUTHBAY
INDIVIDUALLY A SUBSIDIARY OF WESTPORT PROP; JOHN DOES AND/OR JANE
DOES TOW TRUCK DRIVERS WHO TOWED/REMOVED ONE "1995 MERCURY MYSTIQUE
VIN No. 1MELM6536SK612488/PLATE No. 8SCF964ON OR ABOUT NOV 3RD 2020
FROM 14680 AVIATION BLVD HAWTHORNE CA 90250 AKA US STORAGE CENTERS"
FOR A&J TOWING CORPORATION F; JUMA FAKHER A AKA F ABDULLAH JUMA AKA
J FAKHER AKA FAKHER ABDULLAH JUMA INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT/CEO/CFO/SECRETARY AND AS VARIOUS OTHER NAMES
BEING USED AS THE OWNER OF A&J TOWING CORPORATION A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY; JUMA FAKHER A AKA F ABDULLAH JUMA AKA J
FAKHER AKA FAKHER ABDULLAH JUMA INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENT/CFO AND AS VARIOUS OTHER NAMES BEING USED
AS THE CO-OWNER OF A&J TOWING ENTERPRISES INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY; LIEN MACHINE 1 LTD A CALIFORNIA LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP No. 201030900002 FKA LIEN MACHINE LTD A 00007300031 DBA
LIEN MACHINE INC INDIVIDUALLY; LIEN MACHINE INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA LIEN MACHINE 1 LTD. A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP No. 201030900002 FKA LIEN MACHINE LTD. A
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP No. 200007300031 INDIVIDUALLY; US
STORAGE CENTERS INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA US
STORAGE CENTERS-HAWTHORNE-AVIATION AKA US STORAGE CENTERS-SOUTHBAY
INDIVIDUALLY A SUBSIDIARY OF WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITE; US STORAGE
CENTERS-HAWTHORNE-AVIATION AKA US STORAGE CENTERS-SOUTHBAY
INDIVIDUALLY A SUBSIDIARY OF WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS INC, A US STORAGE
CENTERS-SOUTHBAY A SUBSIDIARY OF WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS INC A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA US STORAGE CENT; WESTPORT
PROPERTIES INC AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY DBA US STORAGE CENTERS-HAWTHORNE-AVIATION
AKA US STORAGE CENTERS-SOUTHBAY INDIVIDUALLY; WHITAKER INDIVIDUALLY
AND IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PROPERTY MANAGER FOR WESTPORT
PROPERTIES INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY KYLE AKA
HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY No.
199919510062 DBA US STORAGE CENTERS INC A CAL; and WILLIANS BENSON
II AKA WILLIAMS II BENSON INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS PROPERTY MANAGER FOR WESTPORT PROPERTIES INC A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY AKA HAWTHORNE MINI VENTURE LLC A LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY No. 199919510062 DBA US. [BN]
A. PEARLSTEIN: Suit Seeks to Certify Amended Claims as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMEION DOUGLAS v. A.
PEARLSTEIN, et. al., Case No. 6:18-cv-00533-AA (D. Ore.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order issuing a class
certification, pursuant to LR 23.
The NOI OSP inmates who have been the victims of defendants conduct
numbers over 20 and some of them has paroled and joinder of all
members is impractical.
The nationally known Civil Rights Attorney's law firm who plaintiff
will be represented by is currently representing the Malcolm X
family in their quest in seeking the NYPD, FBI, and Government to
open their files in the Assassination of Malcolm X based on the
confession of late undercover NYPD officer Ray Woods who confessed
his participation in the Governments plot to kill Malcolm X and
blame it on the NOI by framing innocent NOI Muslims.
The Plaintiff will be seeking the Amended Claims Certified as a
Class Action.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QikgRa
at no extra charge.[CC]
ABM INDUSTRY: Underpays Warehouse Workers, Berrios Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DORIS BERRIOS, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B), Plaintiff v. ABM INDUSTRY GROUP, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00738-G (N.D. Tex., March 30, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on or about
October 5, 2020 to on or about January 15, 2021 as a warehouse
worker at the Defendant's warehouse in Dallas County.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked an average of
approximately 42 to 45 hours per week without being compensated for
the overtime hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week at the
rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay. In
addition, the Defendant paid her an average of approximately $14.50
per hour worked instead of her base rate of $15.50 per hour worked,
the suit says.
Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract due
to the Defendant's failure to pay the agreed upon wage per hour
that was promised to the Plaintiff. Although the Defendant's
managers/supervisors were notified by the Plaintiff of the
incorrect wage paid to her and other similarly situated warehouse
workers, nevertheless, the Defendant still failed to pay them the
correct wage, alleges the suit.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated warehouse
workers, the Plaintiff seeks all damages for the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, breach of contract, and wage violations, as well
as an award of reasonable and necessary attorney fees and
litigation costs.
ABM Industry Group, LLC provides facility services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq.
URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC
5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 234
Dallas, TX 75230
Tel: (214) 420-3366
Fax: (214) 206-9802
E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com
ABUNDANCIA BAKERY: Mogollan Bid for Class Certification Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL MOGOLLAN and ALBA
MARIA MEJIA, on behalf of themselves, and Class Members, v. LA
ABUNDANCIA BAKERY & RESTAURANT INC., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03202-GBD-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge George B. Daniels
entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. denying motion for partial summary judgment;
3. denying the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment
and decertification;
4. directing the Clerk of Court to close the motions
accordingly.
The Court said, "The Defendants solely object to Magistrate Judge
Aaron's finding that the Plaintiffs' counsel is adequate to
represent the class, citing counsel's deposition misconduct in this
case and "the professional competency questions raised in Chen v.
Wai Cafe Inc." Since the Defendants' objections rehash arguments
previously raised, this Court reviews Magistrate Judge Aaron's
recommendation for clear error and finds none. The Plaintiffs'
counsel's deposition misconduct does not rise to such a level as to
render counsel inadequate to represent the class.
The Plaintiffs bring this collective action against La Abundancia
Bakery & Restaurant Inc., 63-12 La Abundancia Inc., 75-02 La
Abundancia Bakery and Restaurant Corp. 81-16 La Abundancia Inc., M.
Arroyave Food Corp., 37-01 La Abundancia Inc, V. Rojas Food Corp.,
94-19 La Abundancia Inc., 153-40 La Abundancia Inc., 88-26 La
Abundancia Inc. Ruben Rojas and Monica Ferrerosa, alleging claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the New York State
Labor Law.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dfjMVj at no extra charge.[CC]
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Louisiana Court Dismisses Hamm FLSA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMY HAMM, Plaintiff v. ACADIA HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET
AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-1515 (E.D. La.), Judge Susie
Morgan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Red River
Hospital, LLC, and Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction.
The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case filed by
Plaintiff Hamm on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.
On May 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Acadia,
Ochsner-Acadia LLC, and Red River Hospital LLC. She brings causes
of action for violations of 29 U.S.C. Section 207 for failure to
pay overtime compensation for on-duty meal periods and failure to
pay overtime compensation for "off-the-clock" work, among other
wage-based causes of action.
The Plaintiff brings her complaint as a class action on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). She brings causes of action
for two separate classes—one made up of similarly situated
persons in Louisiana ("Louisiana Class"), and the other made up of
similarly situated persons in Texas ("Texas Class").
The Louisiana Class members are "people who have been employed by
Defendants as non-exempt workers involved with patient care at any
location in the State of Louisiana, and who voluntary resigned or
were discharged from employment with Defendants, during the time
period beginning three years preceding the filing of this
Complaint." The Texas Class members are those "who are or who have
been employed by Defendants as non-exempt workers involved with
patient care at any location in the State of Texas during the
period beginning four years preceding the filing of this
Complaint."
The Plaintiff also brings her complaint as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of "all current and
former hourly, non-exempt employees involved with patient care,
including but not limited to nursing staff, nurses, nursing
assistants, nurse aides, technicians, clerks, non-exempt
therapists, or other non-exempt employees with similar job duties
employed at any facility operated by Defendant Acadia Healthcare
Company, Inc. during the time period three years prior to the
filing of the original Complaint until resolution of this action
("Collective Action")."
The Plaintiff brings causes of action for violations of 29 U.S.C.
Section 207, failure to pay overtime compensation for on-duty meal
periods (FLSA Collective Action); violations of 29 U.S.C. Section
207, failure to pay overtime compensation for "off-the-clock" work
(FLSA Collective Action); quantum meruit (Texas Class Action);
money had and received (Texas Class Action); unjust enrichment
(Texas Class Action); violation of Louisiana Civil Code Article
2315, conversion (Louisiana Class Action); violations of Louisiana
Revised Statute Section 23:635, unlawful deductions (Louisiana
Class Action); and violations of Louisiana Civil Code Article 2298,
unjust enrichment (Louisiana Class Action).
Acadia is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Franklin, Tennessee. It Acadia is one the members of
Ochsner-Acadia and is the sole member of Red River Holding Co.,
LLC, which is the sole member of Red River.
Red River is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Texas. It operates Red River
Hospital in Wichita, Texas. The Plaintiff alleges, and the
Defendants agree, she was employed by Red River as a nurse at Red
River Hospital in Wichita Falls, Texas, from approximately February
2015 to December 2019.
Ochsner-Acadia is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Tennessee.20 Acadia is one the
members of Ochsner-Acadia.21 Ochsner-Acadia operates River Place
Behavioral Health in LaPlace, Louisiana.22
The Plaintiff alleges she has been employed by River Place
Behavioral Health from approximately December 2019 to present.
Ochsner-Acadia presents sworn testimony that it is not the
Plaintiff's "employer" at River Place Behavioral Health facility in
LaPlace, Louisiana, and that the Plaintiff's employer at River
Place Behavioral Health is Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC. The Court
finds Acadia LaPlace Holdings, LLC is Plaintiff's current employer,
and she has never been employed by Ochsner-Acadia.
Before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss Red River and
Acadia for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff opposes
the motion. The Court granted the Plaintiff's request for limited
jurisdictional discovery and allowed the parties to provide
supplemental memorandums, which both parties submitted.
The Plaintiff asserts the Court has specific jurisdiction over
Acadia. She makes three arguments as to why she has made a prima
facie showing that the Court has specific jurisdiction over Acadia:
(1) Acadia is subject to specific jurisdiction in Louisiana because
it is the Plaintiff's joint employer subject to liability under the
FLSA; (2) Acadia has sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana and
Plaintiff's wage-based causes of action arise out of those
contacts, and (3) Acadia is subject to jurisdiction in Louisiana
because Oschsner-Acadia, its subsidiary or agent, is subject to
jurisdiction in Louisiana.
The Moving Defendants seek to dismiss Acadia for lack of specific
jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's claims do not "arise out of or
result from Acadia's forum-related contacts," as the Plaintiff's
allegations are based on claims for unpaid wages and the only
entity that employed the Plaintiff in Louisiana is non-party Acadia
LaPlace Holdings, LLC. The Defendants also argue joint employer
status under the FLSA does not confer personal jurisdiction over
Acadia and that Acadia is not subject to personal jurisdiction
based on its subsidiary or agency relationship with
Ochsner-Acadia.
Judge Morgan holds that joint employer status under the FLSA does
not confer personal jurisdiction over Acadia. She finds no Fifth
Circuit case holding that joint employer status under the FLSA is a
substitute for the minimum contacts test in determining whether a
Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over an out of state
defendant. She is persuaded that "joint employer theory and
similar concepts are relevant for determining liability as an
employer under the FLSA, but not for determining whether a court
may exercise personal jurisdiction over a party." She finds the
well-reasoned decisions of other courts to be persuasive and holds
that joint employer status under the FLSA does not confer personal
jurisdiction.
The Judge also holds that Acadia does not have sufficient minimum
contacts with Louisiana and, to the extent it does have contacts
with Louisiana, the Plaintiff's causes of action do not relate to
arise out of those contacts. She says exercising personal
jurisdiction in keeping with due process requires evidence that (1)
Acadia has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and
protections of Louisiana by establishing "minimum contacts" with
Louisiana; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over Acadia does
not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice."
Acadia has not purposefully directed its activities at Louisiana
and this litigation does not result from alleged injuries that
arise out of or relate to those activities. It has not
purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting
activities within Louisiana, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws. Acadia could not reasonably have
anticipated that it would be haled into court in Louisiana. Hence,
the Plaintiff has not met her burden of proving personal
jurisdiction exists. Subjecting Acadia to personal jurisdiction in
Louisiana would offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice and, as a result, not comport with due
process.
Judge Morgan further holds that Acadia is not subject to personal
jurisdiction based on its parent-subsidiary or agency relationship
with Ochsner-Acadia. The Difth Circuit also has held that a
principle may be subject to jurisdiction through its agent if there
is "evidence of one corporation asserting sufficient control to
make the other its agent or alter ego." Based on the evidence, the
Plaintiff has not provided evidence to show that Acadia has
asserted sufficient control to make Ochsner-Acadia or Acadia
LaPlace Holdings, LLC its agent or alter ego and personal
jurisdiction over Acadia is not justified on this ground.
Finally, the Judge holds that Red River is not subject to the
personal jurisdiction of the Court. He finds that Red River does
not have sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana and the
Plaintiff's causes of action do not arise out of Red River's
contacts with Louisiana. He also finds that Red River is not
subject to personal jurisdiction as the subsidiary or agent of
Acadia.
Conclusion
The Plaintiff argues that if Acadia is allowed to splinter the
collective action, and/or avoid state law liability completely, on
a motion to dismiss by claiming it is not subject to personal
jurisdiction in the District, then Acadia will make identical
arguments around the country any time an employee at one of
Acadia's facilities brings a wage and hour action against it,"
which will ultimately lead to inconsistent rulings and a waste of
judicial resources. She cites multiple cases in which Acadia is
currently being sued in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida. She
provides the citations for these cases, noting the cases in
Arkansas and Florida proceeded under similar theories of liability.
However, the Plaintiff does not provide any proof that Acadia has
similar levels of contacts in Louisiana as it does with other
states in which lawsuits are pending, only that Acadia proceeded
under similar theories of liability.
The Defendants argue that allegations that Acadia violated the FLSA
through other subsidiaries in other states are not evidence showing
that jurisdiction is proper. They cite Mason v. AT&T Services,
Inc., which states "to the extent Plaintiff refers to other
lawsuits filed in the Court, she cannot incorporate pleadings or
evidence from a separate action in this case."
In the event the Plaintiff's arguments fail, the Plaintiff
indicates she will name the individual officers and executives
common to each corporate entity as individual defendants in the
action. She also states that, if Acadia and Red River are
dismissed, she will be forced to file an identical lawsuit that
alleges identical facts against related and integrated corporate
defendants.
Only the Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently before the
Court, not the issue of whether the Plaintiff may name additional
defendants in the action or file actions against the Defendants in
other states or the defenses Acadia may raise in proceedings
pending in other jurisdictions.
For these reasons, Judge Morgan granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Red River Hospital, LLC, and Acadia Healthcare Company,
Inc., for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Red River and Acadia are
dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over
them.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order & Reasons is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pkwwvfpx from Leagle.com.
ACORN OUTDOOR: Certification of Forestry Worker Collective Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTY MORTON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ACORN OUTDOOR
SERVICES, INC., and JUSTIN PENICK, Case No. 9:20-cv-00245-MJT (E.D.
Tex., Filed Dec. 14, 2020), the Parties have conferred regarding
the certification of the collective action and have agreed to
certify a collective with the following definition:
"Forestry Workers employed by Acorn Outdoor Services, Inc.,
who,
in the three years prior to the date of the Court's Order
granting this Motion, were paid hourly, received additional
compensation calculated at 1.25 times their regular hourly rate,
and worked more than forty hours in any workweek."
The Parties agree that "Forestry Workers" in the above Collective
definition shall mean those employees whose work primarily involved
operations in the field such as prescribed burning, reforestation,
and timberland management. The Parties further agree that "Forestry
Workers" shall not include those employees whose work primarily
involved driving vehicles for Acorn that required a Commercial
Driver's License (CDL).
The Parties agree that distribution of notice via U.S. Mail and
email will be sufficient to provide members of the proposed
Collective with actual notice of this lawsuit and their right to
participate.
The Parties agree that Defendants will produce a list of the
members of the proposed Collective, including names, last known
mailing addresses and email addresses, to the extent Defendants
have this information in their possession, in Excel spreadsheet
format within 14 days of entry of the Court's Order granting this
Motion.
Acorn was founded in 1997. The company's line of business includes
providing forestry services on a contract or fee basis.
A copy of the Parties motion dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d7TGDu at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 501
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark D. Temple, Esq.
Paul M. Knettel, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
811 Main Street, Suite 1100
Houston, TX
Telephone: (713) 751-1600
Facsimile: (713) 751-1717
E-mail: mtemple@bakerlaw.com
pknettel@bakerlaw.com
ADVANCED FOOT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Martin Labor Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MARTIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. ADVANCED FOOT & ANKLE CARE CENTERS OF OHIO, LLC, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00093 (S.D. Ohio, March 17, 2021) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant for its failure to pay employees
overtime wages seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
the Ohio Wage Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff's FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), while the Ohio Acts claims
are asserted as a class action pursuant to Rule 23. The allegations
are based on personal knowledge as to the named Plaintiff's own
conduct and are made on information and belief as to the acts of
others.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from April 2016 to January 2021 at Defendant's Sidney
Office located at 1000 Michigan Street, Sidney, Ohio.
The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company that provides
podiatric healthcare services in the Southern District of Ohio. The
Defendant operates and manages four offices in the Southern
District of Ohio [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd
Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
AETNA INSURANCE: Smith Seeks Class Action Cert of Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cloman Smith, et al v.
Aetna Insurance, Co., Case No. 5:20-cv-00332-KKC (E.D. Ky.),
Plaintiff Smith asks the Court to enter an order granting class
action certification of the amended complaint pursuant to Federal
Civil Rule 23.
Plaintiff Smith, on his behalf and those individuals similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint alleging Defendant
illegally deducted their Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) disability benefits by the amount of the Federal
Social Security Retirement Benefits, (FSSRB) contrary to
Defendant's relevant ERISA long term disability benefit plan.
Aetna offers health insurance, as well as dental, vision and other
plans.
A copy of Plaintiff Smith's motion to certify class dated March 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mJti5Z
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Portnoy, Esq.
7024 Cloister Rd.
Toledo, OH 43617
Telephone: (419) 874-2775
Facsimile: (419) 874-2777
E-mail: hawkport@aol.com
ALASKA: State Supreme Court Flips Judgment in Metcalfe Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER METCALFE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Appellant v. STATE OF ALASKA, Appellee,
Supreme Court No. S-17157, No. 7512, Judge Peter J. Maassen of the
Supreme Court of Alaska reverses the superior court's ruling on
summary judgment that the repeal of the Article XII, Section 7, of
the Alaska Constitution did not diminish or impair the former
employees' accrued benefits and was, therefore, constitutional.
Article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution provides that the
"accrued benefits" of a State employee retirement system "shall not
be diminished or impaired." Members of the Plaintiff class are
former State employees.
This case is the second appeal in a case challenging changes made
to two of the State's employee retirement systems. Public
employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS") and
the Teachers' Retirement System ("TRS") are eligible for health,
disability, and retirement benefits. Before 2005 these benefits
were separated into different "tiers" depending on when an employee
joined the system. When Metcalfe joined PERS in 1980 he was a
member of Tier 1 -- the most generous tier of benefits available to
any PERS or TRS member.
In 1981, Metcalfe left PERS-eligible employment and withdrew his
retirement system contributions from the system. He thereby became
a "former member" as defined by statute. Corresponding statutes
were also in effect for TRS. Other statutes in effect at the time
provided that a former member who returned to eligible employment
and repaid any refunded contributions, plus interest, would be
placed back in the member's original benefits tier and credited for
previous service years. Essentially, this allowed former members
who returned to eligible employment to reenter PERS or TRS as if
they had never left. Reinstatement of prior benefits tier and
credited service was provided by former AS 39.35.350 for PERS
members and former AS 14.25.062 for TRS members.
The Alaska Legislature made changes to PERS and TRS in 2005,
including closing the existing tiers to new members and creating a
defined contribution plan. Alaska Statutes 39.35.350 and 14.25.062
were repealed effective June 30, 2010. Former members were granted
a five-year period to return to eligible employment and repay their
refunded contributions if they intended to take advantage of the
reinstatement provided by the repealed statutes. Failure to act
during this five-year period resulted in the permanent forfeiture
of their previously credited service. The legislative changes
provided no benefit to members specifically intended to offset this
apparent detriment.
Mr. Metcalfe did not return to eligible employment in the five-year
period. In 2012 he inquired about his eligibility for PERS
retirement benefits, and the Division of Retirement and Benefits
notified him that, because of the repeal of AS 39.35.350, he was
"not eligible to reinstate his prior service, and any entitlement
based on his prior PERS service was forfeit."
In 2013, Metcalfe filed a complaint in the superior court alleging
that the repeal of AS 39.35.350 and AS 14.25.062 violated his
rights and those of other similarly situated persons protected by
article XII, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution. The superior
court dismissed Metcalfe's claims for contract damages and for
declaratory and injunctive relief as time-barred. Metcalfe
appealed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Metcalfe's contract
damages claim on the ground that the remedy it sought was not
appropriate for a violation of article XII, section 7; the proper
remedy, rather, was recognition of the constitutionally protected
contract. It reversed the dismissal of the declaratory and
injunctive relief claim and remanded for further proceedings,
holding that the claim was not time-barred and that the superior
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the claim
was ripe for review. It also declined to answer whether Metcalfe
had a vested PERS right under former AS 39.35.350 until "the
superior court has the opportunity to resolve both the class action
issues and the remaining declaratory judgment issues in the first
instance."
Following remand the superior court certified the case as a class
action. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
court granted. The court reasoned that (1) the protections of
article XII, section 7 apply only to members of State retirement
systems, and because Metcalfe and the class are statutorily defined
as "former members" their claims are not protected; and (2) the
repeal of reinstatement of credited service did not diminish or
impair an "accrued benefit" of a state employee retirement system.
Metcalfe appeals on behalf of the class.
Judge Maassen opines that under the Supreme Court's consistent
interpretations of article XII, section 7, the repeal of the
statutory right of reinstatement diminished Metcalfe's accrued
benefits. Alaska Statute 39.35.350 was in effect at the time he
entered State employment. It provided a clear benefit: the
opportunity for him to leave State employment, withdraw his PERS
contributions, then repay the contributions and reinstate his
credited service if he was again employed by the State.
The Judge holds that Metcalfe, and other persons considering the
advantages and disadvantages of State employment while the statute
was in effect, could reasonably rely on this provision when making
important employment decisions. The statutory option was "an
element of the bargained-for consideration" the State gave "in
exchange for Metcalfe's assumption and performance of the duties of
his employment." And for purposes of the article XII, section 7
protection, the benefit became an "accrued benefit" as soon as
Metcalfe became employed and enrolled in the system.
Judge Maassen also agrees with Metcalfe that "the key determination
for whether an individual has standing to claim article XII,
section 7 protection is whether they have a vested right to a
benefit generated by membership in the State's public retirement
systems." There will certainly be cases when current membership is
dispositive of a former member's rights because the right to the
benefit was extinguished when the member left the system; this
would be the case, for example, if Metcalfe, as a former member,
were trying to claim health benefits under PERS. But that is not
his claim. The benefit Metcalfe is claiming is one that was
promised would be available to him only if he first became a
"former member." To say that he cannot claim the benefit because
he is a former member is plainly to render the State's promise
illusory and to diminish or impair the promised benefit.
Lastly, Judge Maassen opines that allowing the State to take back
its promise of conditional reinstatement and restoration of
credited service time would undermine one of the primary purposes
of state employee retirement systems: "To induce persons to enter
and continue in public service." This inducement works in the long
term only if employees can trust the State's promise that the
accrued benefits of system membership will not be diminished or
impaired. Article XII, section 7 ensures that the State's promises
are kept.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Maassen concludes that the statutory
reinstatement right was an accrued benefit of the retirement system
protected against diminishment or impairment by article XII,
section 7. He, therefore, reverses the superior court's judgment
and remands the case for further proceedings.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2t8c7544 from Leagle.com.
Jon Choate -- LAWYERS@CHOATELAWFIRM.COM -- Choate Law Firm LLC, in
Juneau, Alaska, for Appellant.
Jessica M. Alloway, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage,
and Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, in Juneau, Alaska, for
Appellee.
ALTO MUSIC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alto Music of Orange
County, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Alto
Music of Orange County, Inc., Alto Music Of Dutchess County, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03064 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Alto Music of Orange County, Inc. -- https://www.altomusic.com/ --
operates as an online shopping portal. The Company offers retail
sale of musical instruments such as guitars, drums, keyboards, live
sound and DJ, band, orchestra, and other services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AMDOCS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 8 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 Central District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Amdocs Limited
(NASDAQ: DOX) ordinary shares between December 13, 2016 and March
30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June
8, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.
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").
On March 31, 2021, Jehoshaphat Research ("Jehoshaphat") published a
short-seller report addressing Amdocs, which alleged 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
reborrowing 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 complaint, filed on April 9, 2021, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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.
If you purchased Amdocs ordinary shares during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210409005469/en/
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
AMDOCS LIMITED: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ: DOX) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now.
Class Period: Dec. 13, 2016 – Mar. 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/DOX
Contact an Attorney Now: DOX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ: DOX) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented and omitted
material facts, including 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.
The Complaint alleges that on Mar. 31, 2021, the truth emerged when
Jehoshaphat Research published a scathing report entitled, "Where
Did Amdocs' Profits And Auditors Go?", concluding that Amdocs is "a
massive financial deception" and "the stock is uninvestable."
Based on a review of Amdocs international subsidiaries' filings
overseas, Jehoshaphat claims Amdocs has overstated profits by as
much as 50%, that its reported profit margins are "wildly"
inflated, and approximately 1/3 of Amdocs' stated cash is
unavailable for use. Jehoshaphat reported that former employee and
direct competitor interviews confirmed its findings that Amdocs
"has been losing business for years but has made up for these
losses by inflating financials, sometimes to a point beyond
recognition by the country managers." Jehoshaphat also raised
concerns about the Company subsidiaries' auditor resignations
during the last two years.
In response, the price of Amdocs shares fell over 11% on Mar. 31,
2021, wiping out hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder
value.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Amdocs cooked its
books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.
If you are an Amdocs 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
Amdocs 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 DOX@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]
AMERI-FORCE CRAFT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shakespeare Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARCHIE SHAKESPEARE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERI-FORCE CRAFT SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No.
37-2021-00013962-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., April 1,
2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Shakespeare was employed by the Defendants as staff.
Ameri-Force Craft Services Inc is headquartered in the United
States. The Company's line of business includes providing
employment services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 883-4900
E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com
-and-
Lonnie C. Blanchard, Iii
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
5211 East Washington Blvd. # 2262
Commerce, CA 90040
Telephone: (213) 599-8255
Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in Anti-Steering Rules Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the appeal in the putative merchant class action suit entitled, In
re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
is pending.
A putative merchant class action in the Eastern District of New
York, consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II),
alleged that provisions in American Express' merchant agreements
prohibiting merchants from differentially surcharging American
Express cards or steering a customer to use another network's card
or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and
"non-discrimination" contractual provisions) violate U.S. antitrust
laws.
On January 15, 2020, American Express' motion to compel arbitration
of claims brought by merchants who accept American Express and to
dismiss claims of merchants who do not was granted.
Plaintiffs have appealed part of this decision.
American Express Credit Account Master Trust provides financial
services. The company is based in New York, New York.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Marcus Corporation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.
In July 2004, American Express was named as a defendant in another
putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York
and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al.,
in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of American Express charge cards and
credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws.
The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.
American Express Credit Account Master Trust provides financial
services. The company is based in New York, New York.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oliver Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 25, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that
American Express continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American Express Company and
American Express Travel Related Services Company Inc.
On January 29, 2019, American Express was named in a putative class
action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, captioned Anthony Oliver, et al. v. American
Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services
Company Inc., in which the plaintiffs are holders of MasterCard,
Visa and/or Discover credit cards (but not American Express cards)
and allege they paid higher prices as a result of American Express'
anti-steering and non-discrimination provisions in violation of
federal antitrust law and the antitrust and consumer laws of
various states.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief. The
court dismissed plaintiffs' federal antitrust claim, numerous state
antitrust and consumer protection claims and their unjust
enrichment claim.
The remaining claims in plaintiffs' complaint arise under the
antitrust laws of 11 states and the consumer protection laws of six
states.
American Express Credit Account Master Trust provides financial
services. The company is based in New York, New York.
APPLE INC: Custodero Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled FRANK CUSTODERO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE,
INC., Defendant, Case 5:21-cv-02397-EJD, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 2,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-02397 to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J
Davila.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers
and related personal computing and mobile communication devices
along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals,
and networking solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard F. Lesser, Esq.
SIMON LESSER PC
355 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 599-5455
Facsimile: (212) 599-5459
-and-
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
D. Frank Davis, Esq.
John E. Norris, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
2154 Highland Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
APPLE INC: Faces Stephens Suit Over Alleged Online Illegal Gambling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUE STEPHENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00055-GHD-RP (N.D.
Miss., March 18, 2021) asserts claims against Apple to recover
money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to Section 87-1-5 of the
Code of Mississippi.
Apple allegedly promotes, enables, and profits from games
downloaded from its App Store and played by numerous Mississippi
residents that constitute illegal gambling under the statutory law
and the strong public policy of the state of Mississippi.
Plaintiff Lue Stephens is an adult resident citizen of the state of
Mississippi, residing in Monroe County, Mississippi.
Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and
sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
1438 N. State Street
Jackson, MS 39202
Telephone: (601) 624-7460
Facsimile: (866) 900-4850
E-mail: Chris@WeldyLawFirm.com
AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Probes Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AQST). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Aquestive and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") "regarding the New Drug Application (NDA) for Libervant(TM)
(diazepam) Buccal Film for management of seizure clusters."
Aquestive advised investors that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA cited that,
in a study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight
groups showed a lower drug exposure level than desired. The Company
intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling
to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired
exposure levels."
On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or
34.69%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 2020.
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]
AREVAL CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sanchez Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AREVAL CORP., d/b/a/ La Gioconda, and PIETRO
ARENELLA, Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-02862 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 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.
Mr. Sanchez was employed by the Defendants as delivery man.
Areval Corp. d/b/a/ La Gioconda owns and operates an Italian
restaurant and wine bar, located at New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com
ARMADILLO ENTERPRISES: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Armadillo
Enterprises, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Armadillo Enterprises,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03021 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Armadillo Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.armadilloent.com/ -- is
a manufacturer and distributor of guitars, basses, acoustic
guitars, and drum products based in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Athenex, Inc. ("Athenex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATNX)
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York, and
docketed under 21-cv-00413, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquire Athenex common stock between August 7, 2019 and
February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is
brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"),
15 U.S.C. SecSec 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 17
C.F.R. Sec 240.10b-5.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Athenex 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.
Athenex is a "global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of
cancer." Athenex is "organized around three platforms, including an
Oncology Innovation Platform, a Commercial Platform, and a Global
Supply Chain Platform." One of the Company's main drug candidates
is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of
metastatic breast cancer.
On August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral
paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with
statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase
3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. In this release, the
Company stated that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application
("NDA") meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
and would "be preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible."
Over the next several months, Defendants continued to laud their
Phase 3 study of oral paclitaxel plus encequidar.
On September 1, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA had
accepted for filing Athenex's NDA for Oral Paclitaxel and
Encequidar in metastatic breast cancer with priority review. In
this release, Athenex announced that the FDA had set a target
action date of February 28, 2021 for the Company's NDA, and that
"the FDA has communicated that it is not currently planning to hold
an advisory committee meeting to discuss the application."
Then, on December 9, 2020, Athenex announced that it had presented
updated Phase 3 data on survival and tolerability associated with
Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar in patients with metastatic breast
cancer. The Company announced that it had presented this Phase 3
data at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, and that the
data "demonstrat[ed] clinical benefits in efficacy and tolerability
of oral paclitaxel versus IVP in patents with metastatic breast
cancer . . . . The findings further support the superiority of
increased ORR [objective response rate] observed with oral
paclitaxel."
The complaint alleges 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: (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 recommend 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.
Before the markets opened on March 1, 2021, Athenex issued a press
release entitled "Athenex Receives FDA Complete Response Letter for
Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar for the Treatment of Metastatic
Breast Cancer." In this release, Athenex noted that the "FDA Issues
a CRL to indicate that the review cycle for an application is
complete and that the application is not ready for approval in its
present form." This release further provided that "[i]n the CRL,
the FDA indicated its concern of safety risk to patients in terms
of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae on the Oral
Paclitaxel arm compared with the IV paclitaxel arm."
In this March 1, 2021 press release, Athenex further stated that
the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty over the
results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at
week 19 conducted by blinded independent centra review (BICR). The
[FDA] stated that the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may
have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR."
Last, in this release, Athenex wrote that the FDA "recommended that
Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in
a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative
of the population of the U.S. The [FDA] determined that additional
risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity, which may involve
dose optimization and / or exclusion of patients deemed to be at a
higher risk of toxicity, are required to support potential approval
of the NDA."
On this news, the price of Athenex's shares plummeted from their
February 26, 2021 closing price of $12.10 per share to a March 1,
2021 close of just $5.46 each. This represents a one-day drop of
approximately 55%, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in
lost market capitalization.
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]
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Kearney Suit Over Defective Sunroofs Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVE KEARNEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN
WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
17-13544 (D.N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant BMW AG's
Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
The putative class action arises out of the Plaintiffs' purchase of
BMW vehicles with defective sunroofs. The Plaintiffs are consumers
who each reside outside of New Jersey and purchased their
respective Vehicle outside of New Jersey but within the United
States. BMW AG is a publicly traded German stock company with its
principal place of business in Munich, Germany. Defendant BMW of
North America, LLC ("BMW NA") is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in New Jersey and is a
wholly owned indirect subsidiary of BMW AG, separated by five
levels of intermediate entities.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the Vehicles contain defective
sunroofs that "suddenly and unexpectedly explode," resulting in
"shattered glass showering over the driver and passengers."
Despite having knowledge of this defect, the Defendants allegedly
concealed its existence in at least three general instances.
First, the Defendants omitted references to the defect in
advertisements, owner's manuals, and warranty pamphlets. Second,
they "upsold" the Plaintiffs by encouraging them to purchase luxury
packages that include a sunroof, without disclosing the defect.
Third, the Defendants have disingenuously stated that "exploding
sunroofs are caused by a rock or some other foreign object," rather
than an inherent defect, and have denied warranty coverage on that
basis. The Plaintiffs, however, do not allege that they personally
were denied warranty coverage.
BMW AG designs and manufactures BMW vehicles in Germany for
worldwide distribution. It is not qualified to do business in the
United States, has no agent for service of process in the United
States, pays no taxes in the United States, does not own or use any
real property within the United States, and maintains no employees
within the United States. BMW AG also does not sell, advertise,
market, distribute, or warrant vehicles to dealers or consumers
within the United States. Rather, BMW AG sells its vehicles to BMW
NA, which takes possession of the automobiles in Germany and serves
as the exclusive distributor of BMW vehicles within the United
States. BMW NA then markets, advertises, warrants, and sells BMW
automobiles to United States consumers.
Beyond their manufacturer-distributor relationship, BMW AG and BMW
NA interact in several other ways. Employees from BMW NA regularly
communicate with employees in parallel departments at BMW AG and
collaborate on issues such as regulation, product analysis, and
warranty coverage. Similarly, the two entities share information
related to technical service issues through a computerized system
that collects data from all markets worldwide. BMW AG also
evidently has some influence on personnel decisions impacting BMW
NA.
The two entities have collaborated on issues related to shattering
sunroofs as well. For example, BMW AG employees solicited and
received field reports, photographs, vehicle parts, and other
information related to the sunroofs from employees of BMW NA. On
at least one occasion, in response to a BMW NA employee's email
inquiry, a BMW AG employee advised on issues related to warranty
coverage for shattered sunroofs, stating that claims should be
denied when "caused by stone impact" or where the glass was
"pre-damaged." The BMW NA employee testified that other colleagues
at BMW NA asked similar questions about warranty coverage.
Finally, BMW NA represented BMW AG's interests in investigations by
United States regulatory bodies related to shattering sunroofs.
Dave Kearney initiated the action on Dec. 22, 2017. On March 13,
2018, Kearney filed an Amended Complaint adding two additional
Plaintiffs and asserting twelve claims against Defendants. On Aug.
29, 2018, Judge Walls dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for breach
of express warranty and unjust enrichment, along with two statutory
consumer protection claims. After the case was consolidated with
an action alleging substantially similar violations related to
defective sunroofs in BMW vehicles, the Plaintiffs filed the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC") on Oct. 23, 2018.
The 23-count CCAC alleges claims for common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and consumer
protection violations. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a
nationwide class of consumers who purchased the Vehicles, along
with sub-classes of consumers who purchased the Vehicles in
California, Texas, Maryland, Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and
South Carolina. The Plaintiffs effected foreign service upon BMW
AG on Nov. 7, 2019.
BMW AG now moves to dismiss the CCAC for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs maintain that the Court may exercise
jurisdiction over BMW AG because (1) the contacts of BMW NA can be
imputed to its parent company under an alter ego or agency theory,
or (2) the Court has specific personal jurisdiction over BMW AG
because the action arises out of BMW AG's direct interactions with
its subsidiary in New Jersey.
Judge Arleo addresses each contention in turn and ultimately
concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to present a persuasive
basis for jurisdiction.
First, as evidence of BMW AG's alleged control over its subsidiary,
the Plaintiff points to (1) BMW AG's influence over personnel
decisions at BMW NA; (2) the regular collaboration and information
sharing between employees of each entity on "issues related to
product investigations, warranty coverage, replacement parts, and
regulation;" (3) solicitations from BMW AG for data concerning
shattered sunroofs; and (4) intercompany communications related to
warranty coverage for shattered sunroofs.
But while these facts may show that BMW AG itself has contacts with
New Jersey, the Judge holds they do not suggest that BMW AG's
activities "deviate from the normal amount of control a parent has
over its subsidiary" or "reach the point of dominance." Notably,
nothing in the record indicates that BMW AG exercised influence
over BMW NA's marketing, sale, or distribution activities, creating
a clear line of demarcation between parent-manufacturer and
subsidiary-distributor. Consequently, the Judge declines to impute
BMW NA's jurisdictional contacts to BMW AG.
Second, the Judge finds that the Defendants' internal efforts to
investigate sunroofs do not show BMW AG's involvement in
consumer-facing statements concerning the Vehicles. BMW AG states
that BMW NA is exclusively responsible for the marketing and sale
of BMW vehicles in the United States and serves as the exclusive
warrantor of BMW vehicles in the United States, and the Plaintiffs
fail to provide evidence to the contrary. The Plaintiffs cannot
also rely on the location of their respective injuries, which they
do not allege occurred in New Jersey. The Plaintiffs have thus
failed to establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction
over BMW AG. The Judge need not assess whether some other
considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.
Finally, the Judge holds that the Plaintiffs have had the benefit
of discovery from BMW NA for over two years and have supported
their claim of jurisdiction with deposition testimony, emails, and
other evidence discussing the relationship between BMW NA and its
parent. She is unpersuaded that further discovery from BMW AG
would serve a valuable purpose.
For the reasons she stated, Judge Arleo granted BMW AG's Motion to
Dismiss. She dismissed the Plaintiffs' CCAC as to BMW AG for lack
of personal jurisdiction. An appropriate order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/b2jp7sxd from Leagle.com.
BHP BILLITON: Court Partly Grants Bid to Dismiss Pennington Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et al., Individually and on
Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs v. BHP BILLITON
PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE) LLC, MMGJ ARKANSAS UPSTREAM LLC, and,
MERIT ENERGY INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:20-cv-00178-LPR (E.D.
Ark.), Judge Lee P. Rudofsky of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, grants in part,
denies in part, and stays in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
The case is about royalty payment obligations under three variants
of oil and gas leases. The Plaintiffs are the lessors in the oil
and gas leases. The Defendants are the lessees. The named
Plaintiffs are Dan Larry Pennington, Norma J. Bryant, and Aaron
Parish Black, as Trustee of the Ralph J. and Reba J. Family Trust
and as Trustee of the Reba J. Parish Trust. The Plaintiffs sued
the Defendants individually and on behalf of three subclasses of
others similarly situated. The Defendants are MMGJ Arkansas
Upstream, LLC, BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville), LLC, and
Merit Energy Company, LLC. MMGJ is the successor-in-interest to
BHP Billiton Petroleum (Fayetteville).
In short, the Plaintiffs leased natural gas drilling rights to
Defendants in exchange for royalty payments. They allege that the
Defendants have breached their respective leases by failing to pay
royalties in accordance with the leases' respective royalty
provisions. More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have underpaid royalty payments owed to them (and others
similarly situated) every month since Jan. 1, 2015.
On June 3, 2020, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to
Dismiss. They argue that dismissal is appropriate under Rule
12(b)(2) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Alternatively, the Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' class
claims should be stricken from the Amended Complaint.
Because it is a diversity jurisdiction case, Judge Rudofsky applies
the substantive law of the forum state--Arkansas.
I. Rule 12(b)(2)
The Defendants' personal jurisdiction argument is only about Merit.
In order to survive a motion to dismiss based on a lack of
personal jurisdiction, the party asserting jurisdiction must make a
prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Defendants assert
that the Amended Complaint "fails to establish that the Court has
general or specific jurisdiction over Merit, a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware." The Defendants
argue that the Amended Complaint "contains no allegations that
Merit did anything in Arkansas with regards to Plaintiffs that
establishes specific jurisdiction." They assert that the
Plaintiffs' evidence "does nothing to establish that Merit's
operations are so substantial as to render Merit at home in
Arkansas."
Judge Rudofsky holds that the Defendants are correct. Magnitude
alone does not chin the bar. And even if it could, the Defendants
note that "Merit has roughly 25,000 wells spread across six
states," and that "Merit's operations in Arkansas accounted for
only about 10% of its overall revenue in 2019." In short, the
Judge finds that Merit's "largest operations are all in other
states." The Plaintiffs have therefore failed to make a prima
facie showing of general personal jurisdiction over Merit. And the
Plaintiffs have not produced any other facts or advanced any other
arguments relating to any other basis for exercising personal
jurisdiction over Merit. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Merit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) is
granted without prejudice.
II. Rule 12(b)(6)
The Defendants make two arguments for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6). First, they contend that the Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the five-year statute of limitations for asserting breach
of contract claims in Arkansas. Second, they argue that the
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to satisfy "the Twombly
standard for pleading claims."
Judge Rudofsky holds that principles of comity and federalism
require more. In the case, that means the right thing to do is to
certify the statute of limitations question to the Arkansas Supreme
Court. The Arkansas Supreme Court should have the opportunity to
authoritatively interpret the relevant state statute and background
state common law, especially because a decision on this issue in
this case could have wide-scale ramifications for other contracts
made within the State. If the Judge were to answer the statute of
limitations question on his own, he would be treading perilously
close to the very edges of his authority as a federal judge. His
remit does not extend to making law and certainly not to making law
for the State of Arkansas.
The Judge further holds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
Twombly pleading standard. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint
alleges: (1) the existence of valid lease agreements between the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants; (2) the Defendants' monthly royalty
payment obligations; (3) breaches of the Defendants' royalty
payment obligations to the Plaintiffs; and (4) damages to the
Plaintiffs resulting from the Defendants' breaches. Therefore, the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied.
III. Motion to Strike Class Claims
The Defendants alternatively argue that the Court should strike all
of the class allegations in the Amended Complaint.
Having reviewed the class allegations and the Parties' arguments,
Judge Rudofsky concludes that he will not foreclose the possibility
of class certification at the pleading stage. The Defendants'
request to strike the class allegations is premature. The
Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to make a timely motion for
class certification, and the Defendants will have an opportunity to
oppose it. Neither Party should read into this decision any
suggestion as to what the Court might think about class
certification.
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, Judge Rudofsky grants in part,
denies in part, and stays in part the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Separate Defendant Merit is dismissed without prejudice
for lack of personal jurisdiction. Except for the statute of
limitations issue, the Defendants' 12(b)(6) arguments are denied.
The Defendants' request that the Court strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations is also denied.
With respect to the statute of limitations issue, the Court will
issue a Certification Order for transmission to the Arkansas
Supreme Court within two weeks of the date of the Order. Deadline
of each Party to submit a proposed certified question on the
statute of limitations issue for the Court's review was on April 7,
2021. The corresponding portion of the Motion to Dismiss will be
stayed. The Clerk is directed to administratively terminate the
Motion, which will be revived when the Arkansas Supreme Court
responds to the Certification Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/22y69f34 from Leagle.com.
BOSTON DUCK: Latour Seeks Initial FLSA Collective Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY LATOUR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP, SEAWEED, INC., CYNTHIA L. BROWN, and ANTHONY
J. CERULLE, Case No. 1:21-cv-10003-DPW (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
1. preliminarily certifying Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards
Act
(FLSA) claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), for a class of:
"all former and current Boston Duck Tours, LP employees who
have worked on an hourly basis at any time since January 4,
2018 and who were not paid premium pay for overtime hours;"
2. approving the form of Notice and Consent to Sue; and
3. directing the defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's
counsel, in electronic format, the names, addresses, email
addresses and telephone numbers of all members of the FLSA
Class within 20 days.
Boston Duck is a privately owned company that operates historical
tours of the city of Boston using replica World War II amphibious
DUKW vehicles. Boston Duck Tours first started running tours in
Boston, MA on October 5, 1994.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3e3pcSt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
Josh Gardner, Esq.
GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
One State Street, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 390-7570
E-mail: nick@gardnerrosenberg.com
BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, McNamara Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX MCNAMARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH, INC., Case No. (March 17, 2021) is
a class action complaint alleging that the Defendant failed to
provide the Plaintiff and the putative class adequate notice of
their right to continued health care coverage under the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.
The Defendant, the plan sponsor of the Health Plan (Plan), has
repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide participants and
beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by
COBRA, of their right to continue their health insurance coverage
following an occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by the
statute.
Because the Defendant's COBRA notice allegedly omits several
critical information items, it collectively violates 29 C.F.R.
section 2590.606–4(b)(4), which requires the plan administrator
of a group-health plan to provide a COBRA notice "written in a
manner calculated to be understood by the average plan
participant." Without information on when COBRA coverage ends, and
who is the Plan Administrator, the notice is not written in a
manner calculated to be understood by the average plan
participant.
As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, the Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs
and expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
CAESARSTONE LTD: Settlement in Israel Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement agreement
in the class action before the Central District Court in Israel
remains subject to court approval.
A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion for its class
certification were filed against the company in April 2014 in the
Central District Court in Israel mainly claiming the company did
not provide adequate warnings with respect to its products and that
by the company's conduct it violated the plaintiff's autonomy.
The plaintiff alleged that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a class
action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216 million
(approximately $56 million), calculated by claiming damages of NIS
18,000 ($4,668) for each individual who worked in fabrication
workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative roles and who
have been exposed to dust generated by the fabrication of the
company's products.
The plaintiff claimed that there are 12,000 such individuals who
worked at 400 fabrication workshops in Israel, each of which
employed 10 fabricators and five administrative persons, with one
rotation during the relevant period.
In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in compensation
for special and general damages, such as medical disability,
functional disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses,
medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof and
quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action.
The plaintiff was seeking, among other things, to compel us to
notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and
each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake a
medical examination and assert their rights.
On January 4, 2018, the company and the plaintiff submitted to the
Israeli District Court a settlement agreement. If the settlement
agreement is approved by the Court, the claim will be dismissed and
we will make payments on a one-time basis, without any admission of
liability, in an aggregate amount of approximately NIS 9.0 million
(approximately $2.8 million) to fund certain safety-related
expenses at fabrication facilities in Israel, as well as
plaintiff's compensation and legal expenses.
Caesarstone said, "As of the date of this report, the settlement
agreement remains subject to the approval of the Court. The Israeli
State Attorney General had notified the Court of its objection to
the proposed settlement. We expect the Court will issue its ruling
during the first half of 2021."
Caesarstone Ltd., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
sells engineered quartz surfaces under the Caesarstone brand in the
United States, Australia, Canada, Israel, Europe, and
internationally. Its engineered quartz slabs are used as
countertops in residential kitchens, as well as serve the
renovation and remodeling market. The Company's products are also
used in other applications, such as vanity tops, wall panels, back
splashes, floor tiles, stairs, and other interior surfaces that are
used in various residential and non-residential applications. It
sells its products directly to fabricators, sub-distributors, and
resellers; and indirectly through a network of independent
distributors. The Company was formerly known as Caesarstone Sdot
Yam Ltd. and changed its name to Caesarstone Ltd. in June 2016.
Caesarstone Ltd. was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in MP
Menashe, Israel.
CANOO INC: Rosen Law Reminds of June 1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Canoo Inc. f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp.
IV (NASDAQ: GOEV) between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already
been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than June 1, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Canoo 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 Canoo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2067.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 1, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Canoo had decreased its focus
on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription
model; (2) the Company's engineering services was not a viable
business, would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021, and would
not reduce operational risk; (3) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (4) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (5) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Canoo class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2067.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]
CANOO INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Canoo Inc. ("Canoo") (NASDAQ: GOEV) between August 18, 2020 and
March 29, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/canoo-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14516&wire=5
Allegations against GOEV include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(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) 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.
If you suffered a loss in Canoo you have until June 1, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Bid to Dismiss Rodriguez Class Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, v.
CASCADE COLLECTIONS LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00120-JNP-DBP (D. Utah),
the Hon. Judge Jill N. Parrish entered an order:
1. denying Cascade's motion to dismiss;
2. denying Cascade's motion to strike;
3. granting in part and denying in part Cascade's motion for
summary judgment;
4. granting summary judgment in favor of Cascade on all of
Rodriguez's method-of-dispute claims;
5. denying summary judgment in favor of Cascade on all other
claims and for the bone fide error affirmative defense;
6. denying Rodriguez's motion for summary judgment;
-- The court concludes that Rodriguez has proven his 30-day-
deadline claim under sections 1692g and 1692e. Rodriguez
has also established his amount-due claim under sections
1692g and 1692e. But the court denies summary judgment in
favor of Rodriguez because the issue of whether Cascade
can prove a bone fide error affirmative defense remains
for resolution at trial; and
7. granting in part and denying in part Rodriguez's motion for
class certification
-- The court grants certification of a class under Rule
23(b)
(3). The court denies certification of a class under Rule
23(b)(2). The court will enter a separate class
certification order.
The court finds that Rodriguez has met the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) for certifying a class action lawsuit and
appoints him as the class representative. But the court denies
certification under Rule 23(b)(2). The court will enter a separate
class certification order.
Rodriguez sued Cascade, alleging that the collection letter
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
complaint quoted the portion of the letter stating that if
Rodriguez wished to dispute the validity of the debt, he had to
notify Cascade by either mailing a letter to the address provided
or calling one of the two telephone numbers listed in the letter.
Rodriguez took out a loan to purchase a truck. He fell behind on
his payments, and his account was referred to Cascade for
collections. Cascade mailed a letter to Rodriguez in an attempt to
collect the debt.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mCOAC8 at no extra charge.[CC]
CDA INC: Class of Terminated Employees in McKenzie Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID McKENZIE, Plaintiff v. CDA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-213-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification.
From May 2011 until April 2019, Plaintiff McKenzie was employed as
a salesperson by Defendant CDA, a company that manufactures and
supplies disc media, flash media, and microphone solutions.
McKenzie was stationed in Minnesota but repeatedly visited CDA's
headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he had
supervisors. Prior to April 2019 CDA had at least 148 employees in
its Charlotte offices.
The Complaint alleges that in April 2019 CDA terminated the
employment of McKenzie and the majority of its other employees,
reporting to the North Carolina Department of Commerce ("NCDC")
that it was permanently closing three locations: Its South Tryon
Street office with 70 employees, its Brookford Street office with
69 employees, and its Nations Ford Road office with nine employees.
CDA also reported to NCDC that the permanent closures would become
effective on June 8, 2019.
However, McKenzie contends that this statement was inaccurate, and
that most employees had already been terminated on or around April
9, 2019, with the residual packaging workforce terminated on or
around April 30, 2019. He contends that CDA terminated over 100
employees in April 2019, representing over half of CDA's workforce,
and maintained only a couple of managers and a skeleton crew to
handle the residual work.
The Plaintiff filed suit in the district on May 3, 2019, alleging
violations of the United States Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification ("WARN") Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 2101, et seq. (Count
I), and looking to recover unpaid commissions under the Minnesota
Payment of Wages Act ("PWA") (Count II). He claims that CDA is
liable under the WARN Act for the failure to provide him and other
similarly situated former employees at least 60 days advance notice
of their employment losses, as required by the WARN Act.
On Oct. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class as
to Count I of his Complaint. The Defendant has not filed a
response to either the Complaint or the Motion, nor have they filed
any other motions in the case.
After consideration of the Plaintiff's arguments and a review of
the record, Judge Conrad finds that the Plaintiff has met his
burden in showing cause to certify a class with regard to his WARN
Act claim, and the Defendant has provided no evidence or arguments
in opposition to the Plaintiff's position. The Plaintiff has
established that for the purposes of the WARN Act claim, the class
matches the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
requirements under Rule 23(a), as well as the predominance and
superiority requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff has
also established that he is an adequate representative of the WARN
Act class, and that his counsel possesses the necessary skill and
expertise to represent same as the class counsel.
The Judge, therefore, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
The class for the Plaintiff's WARN Act claim is defined as: "All
individuals who are or were employed by Defendant and whose
employment was terminated by Defendant on or about April 10, 2019,
or within 30 days of that date, without 60 days advance written
notice."
Plaintiff David McKenzie is designated as the class representative
for this claim; and Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP is authorized
to serve as the class counsel to represent the class.
Within 14 days of the entry of the Order, the counsel for both
parties are directed to submit a joint filing to the Court
describing the desired language of the notice to be delivered to
the class members, highlighting any disagreements on language
requiring attention by the Court.
Within 20 days of the Order, the parties or their counsel will
confer and conduct an Initial Attorney's Conference. Pursuant to
Local Rule 16.1(B), within seven days of the parties' conference,
the parties will complete and file a revised Certification of
Initial Attorney's Conference, which will include a proposed
discovery plan. The parties are encouraged to work together to
come up with an agreed upon discovery plan.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2j5kj5r7 from Leagle.com.
CENTRUS ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Walburn Class Suit in Ohio Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss
filed in the class action suit initiated by Jeffrey Walburn, is
pending.
On September 3, 2020, the Company, Enrichment Corp., nine other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site
and eleven individuals in their personal capacity some of whom are
current and former DOE employees were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed by Walburn, Charles O. Lawson Jr.,
Kimberly M. Lawson, James A. Brogdon, Stephen Patrick Spriggs,
Donald Slone, Vicki P. Slone, Victoria Slone Moore, Toni West, Carl
R. Hartley, Heather R. Hartley, Vina Colley, Antony Preston, David
B. Rose, Michael E. Groves, George W. Clark, Estate of Kathy Sue
Brogdon (deceased), Estate of Jay Paul Brogdon (deceased), and Jon
Doe(s), and Jane Doe(s), on behalf of themselves and all similarly
situated individuals in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
The complaint alleges that the named defendants conspired and
concealed nuclear incidents in violation of the Price-Anderson Act,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and other
state claims.
The complainants seek damages and equitable and injunctive relief
arising from economic losses, property losses, and non-economic
damages resulting from toxic and radioactive releases from the
Portsmouth GDP.
On November 20, 2020, the Walburn Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to add two individuals to the complaint as defendants in
their individual capacity. One of those individuals is Daniel
Poneman, Centrus' Chief Executive Officer.
In the 78 page complaint, Mr. Poneman is referenced twice without
any cited allegations against him; once in the caption and once
referencing his position at the Company. The Company has notified
its insurance carrier regarding the claim.
On February 11, 2021, the Walburn Plaintiffs amended their
complaint for a second time to replace two corporate defendants
with two others (one of whom was a contractor to Enrichment Corp.
and also to its predecessor prior to its privatization in 1998 and
the other a former DOE contractor) and removed four named
individual defendants from the complaint.
On March 2, 2021, Walburn Defendants filed their motion to dismiss.
The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.
Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be
covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The
Company and Enrichment Corp. have provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.
Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
CENTRUS ENERGY: Dismissal of Matthews Class Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the order
of dismissal of the class action suit initiated by James Matthews,
is pending.
On November 27, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp. and six other
DOE contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP
site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by
James Matthews, Jennifer Brownfield Clark, Joanne Ross, the Estate
of A.R., and others similarly situated, in the Common Pleas Court
of Pike County, Ohio.
On January 3, 2020, the complaint was removed to the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio for adjudication. The
complaint sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law for alleged off-site
contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth
GDP site.
The Matthews Plaintiffs expressly contended that the ongoing and
continuous releases that injured the Plaintiffs and Class Members
were not "nuclear incidents" as that term is defined in the
Price-Anderson Act, but rather "freestanding state law claims
concerning traditional-style state regulation."
On July 27, 2020, the court granted the Company, Enrichment Corp.
and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint because
the Matthews Plaintiffs had opted not to proceed under the
Price-Anderson Act which preempts state law.
On August 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On November 17, 2020,
the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their appellant brief and on February
1, 2021, the Matthews Defendants filed their brief. On February 22,
2021, the Matthews Plaintiffs filed their reply brief.
The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.
Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be
covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act. The
Company and Enrichment Corp. had provided notifications to DOE
required to invoke indemnification under the Price-Anderson Act and
other contractual provisions.
Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
CENTRUS ENERGY: McGlone Class Action in Ohio Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Centrus Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by Ursula McGlone, Jason
McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and
through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
On May 26, 2019, the Company, Enrichment Corp., and six other DOE
contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth GDP site
(including, in the case of the Company, the American Centrifuge
Plant site located on the premises) were named as defendants in a
class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone,
Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through
their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
The complaint seeks damages for alleged off-site contamination
allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth GDP site.
The McGlone Plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of (i) all
current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the
Portsmouth GDP site and (ii) all students and their parents at the
Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993-present.
The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019 and on January 10,
2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020,
the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims
and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of
the litigation process.
On August 18, 2020, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three
of the individual plaintiffs.
On September 29, 2020, the defendants filed their response in
opposition to the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their
reply brief. As of this filing, the court has not made a ruling.
On March 18, 2021, the McGlone Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and
allegations.
The Company believes that its operations at the Portsmouth GDP site
were fully in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
regulations.
Further, the Company believes that any such liability should be
covered by indemnification under the Price-Anderson Nuclear
Industries Indemnity Act. The Company and Enrichment Corp. have
provided notifications to DOE required to invoke indemnification
under the Price-Anderson Act and other contractual provisions.
Centrus Energy Corp. supplies nuclear fuel and services for the
nuclear power industry in the United States, Japan, Belgium, and
internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Low-Enriched
Uranium (LEU) and Contract Services. The Company was formerly known
as USEC Inc. and changed its name to Centrus Energy Corp. in
September 2014. Centrus is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland.
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Champignon Brands Inc. (OTC: SHRMF) between March 27,
2020 and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Champignon investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.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) Champignon had undisclosed material weaknesses and
insufficient financial controls; (2) Champignon's previously issued
financial statements were false and unreliable; (3) Champignon's
earlier reported financial statements would need to be restated;
(4) Champignon's acquisitions involved an undisclosed related
party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and subsequent reporting
delays and issues, the British Columbia Securities Commission would
suspend Champignon's from trading; and (6) as a result, defendants'
statements about Champignon's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
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 9,
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-2057.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.
View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210410005042/en/
CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]
CHESTER ASHER: Williams Files ADA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chester A. Asher,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Chester A.
Asher, Inc., Ashers Chocolates/Lewistown, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03065 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Chester A. Asher, Inc. -- https://www.ashers.com/ -- produces and
markets chocolate and cocoa products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Galindo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUELO GALINDO, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
aggrieved employees v. CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
corporation; SMITHFIELD FRESH MEATS CORP., a Delaware corporation;
SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., a Delaware corporation;
SMITHFIELD, an entity of unknown form; SMITHFIELD FOODS INC., an
entity of unknown form; SMITFIELD/FARMER JOHN, an entity of unknown
form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV10625 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2021) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime under the
California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff is a resident of California, and during the time
period relevant to this Complaint, was employed by the Defendants
as a non-exempt hourly employee based out of the Defendants' office
in Los Angeles, California.
Citi Staff is a warehousing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremi anlaw.com
roman@yeremi anlaw.com
COMCAST CORP: Tillage Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Consumers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES TILLAGE and JOSEPH
LOOMIS, Individually, As Private Attorneys General, and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. COMCAST CORPORATION; and
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case
No. 3:17-cv-06477-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on July 15, 2021 to enter an order:
1. certifying the following Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and 23(b)(3):
"All consumers residing in California who purchased
residential cable television services from Comcast and whom
Comcast charged a Broadcast TV Fee and/or a Regional Sports
Fee from January 1, 2014 to the date of class certification.
Excluded from the Class are consumers whose accounts are
established by a residential bulk account;"
2. appointing themselves as class representatives; and
3. appointing their counsel (Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP and Hattis & Lukacs) as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(g).
This case concerns a systemic, deceptive pricing scheme that
Comcast has perpetrated on California consumers since 2014.
Comcast Corporation is an American telecommunications conglomerate
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dc73md
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
Roger N. Heller, Esq.
Jalle H. Dafa, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
rheller@lchb.com
jdafa@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com
ahalfon@lchb.com
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Ave. NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Telephone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
COMMUNITY.COM: Faces Adler TCPA Suit in Central Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Community.com, Inc.
The case is captioned as Shawn Adler, et al. v. Community.com,
Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02416-SB-JPR (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
involving restrictions of use of telephone equipment. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
Jaclyn L Anderson, Esq.
MaryBeth Lipp, Esq.
LIPPSMITH LLP
555 South Flower Street Suite 4400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 344-1820
Facsimile: (213) 513-2495
E-mail: g@lippsmith.com
jla@lippsmith.com
mb@lippsmith.com
CR PENSION: Court Tosses Stanton Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur Stanton, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. The NCR Pension Plan,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02309-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge
Michael L. Brown entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and
2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
to strike.
The Plaintiff identifies five Subclasses:
-- (a) All Participants in the Plan, including Participants in
former employee benefit plans that merged into the Plan,
whether active, inactive or retired, and their
beneficiaries, surviving spouses, and Estates; who were
employed by the Company both before and on or after January
1, 1976; who became Participants under the 1976 Plan in
accordance with Part II, Section 1, paragraph C of the 1976
Plan; and who did not receive Credited Service, in whole or
in part, in accordance with Part II, Section 2, paragraph B
of the 1976 Plan because of a pre-ERISA break in their
service (collectively, "Subclass A").
-- (b) All Participants in the Plan, including Participants in
former employee plans that merged into the Plan, whether
active, inactive or retired, and their Case beneficiaries,
surviving spouses, and Estates; who were employed by the
Company on or after January 1, 1976; who became
Participants in accordance with Part II, Section 1,
paragraph A of the 1976 Plan; who had not completed 10
or more Years of Service at the time they terminated
employment with NCR; and who did not receive their Basic
Monthly Benefit, in whole or in part, upon their Normal
Retirement Date in accordance with Part II, Section 2,
paragraph A of the 1976 Plan (collectively, "Subclass B").
(c) All members of Subclass A or Subclass B who were not
given a copy of the Summary Plan Description for the Plan
(collectively, "Subclass C").
-- (d) All members of Subclass A or Subclass B who were not
given notice of their eligibility for benefits under the
Plan (collectively, "Subclass "D").
-- (e) All members of Subclass A or Subclass B who were not
given the opportunity to elect and receive a lump-sum
distribution of their benefits in 2012 or 2014
(collectively, "Subclass E").
The Court said, "The Defendants stated that there could be well
over 100,000 employees who worked at NCR from 1961 to 1975. And
Plaintiff has shown that in 2018 over 13,000 people were receiving
benefits or were eligible for future benefits. Plaintiff, however,
has not produced any evidence as to the number of individuals who
were deemed ineligible for benefits because of a break in service
or because they had not completed 10 or more years of service. The
proposed classes do not consist of all employees who worked at NCR
from 1961 to 1975. They do not include those who were found
eligible for benefits. The Plaintiff has offered no evidence
indicating how large these classes of individuals might be.
Although possibly tempting to assume some percentage of these
employees must have been part of the requisite plan and must have
been denied benefits because of a break in service or because they
had not completed 10 or more years of service, "a plaintiff still
bears the burden of establishing every element of Rule 23." Vega,
564 F.3d at 1267. The Court notes Plaintiff also alleged in his
complaint that "[t]he number of members of the appropriate Subclass
is believed to be approximately 500 or more." There is nothing more
to this allegation, however, than speculation. The Plaintiff
provides no evidence to substantiate his claim that each Subclass
will have 500 or more members."
The Plaintiff worked for NCR from 1961 to 1970, when he took a
leave of absence for about a year. He returned in 1971 and worked
until 1980, when he left for other employment. He retired from the
workforce in 2015 and sought benefits in 2016, claiming he had 10
years of Credited Service. NCR denied his claim after determining
he had not worked for ten continuous years.
Plaintiff Stanton previously worked for NCR Corporation and says he
is entitled to benefits under its pension plan. Defendants, who are
responsible for that plan, say otherwise. The Plaintiff brought
this lawsuit claiming Defendants violated Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and their fiduciary duties to
him and several classes of other similarly situated people.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated March 29, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a0Gnmk at no
extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Credit Suisse Group AG ("Credit Suisse" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CS). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Credit Suisse and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On March 29, 2021, Credit Suisse disclosed that it anticipated
significant losses in connection with positions linked to Archegos
Capital Management ("Archegos") after Archegos failed to meet
margin calls the prior week, forcing the liquidation of more than
$20 billion in holdings. That same day, Bloomberg reported that
"[m]uch of the leverage used by [Archegos] was provided by banks
including Nomura Holdings Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG through
swaps and so-called contracts for difference[.]"
On this news, Credit Suisse's stock price fell $1.48 per share, or
11.5%, to close at $11.39 per share on March 29, 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]
CREDIT UNION: Faces Hickmond Suit Over OD Fees in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
LARONDA HICKMOND, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CREDIT UNION OF NEW JERSEY, Case No. 3:21-cv-05588
(D.N.J. March 17, 2021) is a civil action seeking monetary damages
and restitution from CUNJ, arising from its practices of assessing
"overdraft fees" (or "OD Fees") to consumer deposit accounts that
were never even overdrawn, and assessing OD Fees as a result of
non-recurring debit card transactions without the informed consent
of accountholders.
According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, unfair and
unconscionable, these practices breach contractual promises that
CUNJ made to all accountholders -- namely, that it would charge OD
Fees only as a result of transactions that actually overdraw an
account
Allegeldy, the contractual checking account documents promise that
CUNJ will only charge an OD Fee on a transaction where "the
available funds in your share or deposit account are not sufficient
to pay the full amount of a check, draft, transaction, or other
item, plus any applicable fee."
Nonetheless, as happened to Plaintiff here, CUNJ regularly charges
OD Fees to its consumer deposit accounts even where they are not
overdrawn. Specifically, Plaintiff was repeatedly charged OD Fees
on routine transactions, even though, according to the monthly
account statements prepared by CUNJ, her account balance never went
into the negative for the supposed overdraft event. By definition,
then, there were always funds to pay the full amount of those
transactions -- yet CUNJ assessed an OD Fee on them anyway, says
the suit.
On behalf of herself and the putative classes, Plaintiff seeks
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for CUNJ’s breach of
contract. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
CRSC LLC: Misclassifies Construction Workers, Hernandez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRSC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00632
(E.D. La., March 30, 2021) is a collective and class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virgin Islands Fair Wage
and Hours Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately
October 2016 until December 2019 as a construction worker.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated construction workers as exempt from
overtime compensation. Despite regularly working well in excess of
40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek. Instead, they were paid on a project rate basis, the
Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover damages from the
Defendant on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
construction workers, that includes all the unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees,
litigation costs, expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
other relief as may be necessary and appropriate.
CRSC, LLC provides a wide range of construction services to
customers in both the government and private sectors, including
providing disaster recovery and management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CUTTERS WIRELINE: Lindsay Renewed Bid for Class Certification Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THAD LINDSAY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. CUTTERS WIRELINE
SERVICE, INC., a Utah corporation; MESA WIRELINE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; LONE WOLF WIRELINE, INC., a Utahs
corporation; WIRELINE SPECIALITES, INC., a New Mexico Corporation;
CAPITAN CORPORATION, a Texas corporation; and CAPITAN WIRELINE,
LLC, a Texas limited liability company, collectively d/b/a Cutters
Wireline Group, Case No. 1:17-cv-01445-PAB-SKC (D. Colo.), the Hon.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
Renewed Motion for Class Certification of State Law Claims.
Judge Brimmer says plaintiff has not demonstrated commonality and,
even if he did, individual issues would predominate over any common
ones. As a result, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden for
certification under Rule 23.
Plaintiff Lindsay, a resident of Colorado, worked as a wireline
operator for Cutters from August 31, 2010 to February 3, 2015.
Cutters is the parent company of various wireline companies that
operate in different states and regions.
The Plaintiff alleges that, during the time period identified in
the proposed class, Cutters operators were paid an hourly rate plus
a bonus that was calculated as a percentage of the amount of work
invoiced. Operators were paid time and a half for any work in
excess of 40 hours per week; however, plaintiff states that this
overtime rate "was calculated based on [the] hourly rate alone." As
a result, an operator's bonus was not a factor in calculating
overtime pay. Plaintiff believes that the bonus should have been
included and, therefore, he and other operators were underpaid.
Cutters eventually changed its policy and began "factoring bonus
pay into overtime rates as of Summer 2016."
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a0Va06 at no extra charge.[CC]
CYTODYN INC: Faces Lewis Securities Suit Over Shares Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CYTODYN, INC., NADER Z. POURHASSAN, and MICHAEL
MULHOLLAND, Case No. (W.D. Wash., March 17, 2021) is a federal
securities action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired CytoDyn common stock between
March 27, 2020, and March 9, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period)
seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CytoDyn is a publicly-traded biotechnology company. Headquartered
in Vancouver, Washington, and incorporated in Delaware, CytoDyn is
focused on the development and commercialization of a drug named
"Leronlimab" which has long been promoted as a potential 19 therapy
for HIV patients.
Since the beginning of the global COVID-19 pandemic, however,
CytoDyn has made an about-face and has begun to aggressively tout
Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19. After CytoDyn's pivot to
hyping Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19, CytoDyn's stock
price rose exponentially. Throughout 2019, CytoDyn's stock traded
for less than 24 $1.00 per share. Upon the pivot to hyping
Leronlimab as a COVID-19 treatment, however, CytoDyn's stock price
skyrocketed. The hype hit its peak when CytoDyn shares reached over
$10 per share on June 30, 2020.
CytoDyn issued numerous press releases, conducted conference calls,
participated in interviews, and aggressively utilized several
third-party investor relations and stock newsletter 3 services to
tout Leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID- 19 and to pump
up the stock price of CytoDyn while executives aggressively sold
shares.
Indeed, while CytoDyn's stock price was sufficiently pumped with
the COVID-19 cure hype, long-term shareholders, including
Defendants Pourhassan and Mulholland, dumped millions of shares.
For example, on April 30, 2020, after exercising options to
purchase millions of CytoDyn shares at prices less than $1.00 per
share, Defendant Pourhassan sold over 4.8 million shares of CytoDyn
stock, for over $15.7 million in total proceeds. Defendant
Pourhassan's sale was approximately 85% of his total holdings of
CytoDyn stock. In addition, on December 21, 2020, Defendant
Mullholland sold over 1.1 million shares for over $5.8 million in
total proceeds. Thereafter, on December 28, 2020, Defendant
Mullholland sold over 711,000 shares for over $4.4 million in total
proceeds.
In addition to overstating the viability of Leronlimab as a
COVID-19 treatment, CytoDyn also engaged in an alleged wrongful
scheme with its lender, Iliad Research and Trading L.P. and its
principal John Fife, whereby Iliad and other Fife entities operated
as an unregistered securities dealer for CytoDyn. In connection
with Iliad lending funds to CytoDyn, Iliad obtained a convertible
promissory note from CytoDyn and converted the note into newly
issued shares of CytoDyn and sold those shares into the public
market at a profit, in violation of the dealer registration
requirements of the federal securities laws, the suit asserts.
Following the Individual Defendants' cash-out of CytoDyn shares at
artificially inflated prices, the price of CytoDyn shares dropped
precipitously to the detriment of Plaintiff and the class. The
market has learned that CytoDyn's development and marketing of
Leronlimab as a treatment for COVID-19 was not commercially viable
for CytoDyn, added the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased CytoDyn shares at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the alleged corrective disclosures.
The Defendant CytoDyn is a biotech company based in Vancouver,
Washington. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Powell, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
kpowell@tousley.com
- and -
John T. Jasnochp, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
CYTODYN INC: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of CytoDyn Inc. There is no cost to
participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until the
lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.
CytoDyn Inc. (OTCMKT:CYDY)
Class Period: March 27, 2020 - March 9, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
According to the complaint, CytoDyn Inc. allegedly made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
CytoDyn securities were actively traded over the counter (OTC) in
the United States. While the exact number of Class members is
unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can be ascertained only
through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are
hundreds or thousands of members in the proposed Class. Record
owners and other members of the Class may be identified from
records maintained by CytoDyn or its transfer agent and/or OTC
Markets and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail,
using the form of notice similar to that customarily used in
securities class actions.
Learn about your recoverable losses in CYDY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/cytodyn-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14541&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
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]
DADDIES BOARD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daddies Board Shop,
LLC. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Daddies Board Shop, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03016 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Daddies Board Shop -- https://www.daddiesboardshop.com/ -- is a
custom complete longboard skateboard store.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
DELTA GALIL: Figueroa Class Certification Bid Junked
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO FIGUEROA, v.
DELTA GALIL USA, INC., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-07796-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order denying to
certify a general class of employees and various subclasses thereof
in this wage-and-hour action.
The Court said, "As defendants correctly observe, Figueroa's claims
are plainly atypical of the Volt employees. This defect is
compounded by another: of Figueroa's four proposed subclasses, none
feature predominant questions of fact or law."
Contemporary Brands is a California corporation comprised of three
denim retailers: For All Mankind, Splendid, and Ella Moss.
Pennsylvania clothing conglomerate V.F. owned Contemporary Brands
until August 2016, when it sold the subsidiary to Delta. Prior to
this sale, Contemporary Brands operated five California
distribution/raw materials facilities, with one in the city of Los
Angeles, three in the city of Vernon, and one in the city of
Fontana (the Fontana facility). In December 2017 -- roughly sixteen
months after the corporation changed hands -- Delta consolidated
its operations into the Fontana facility, and shut down all other
active facilities.
Delta Galil is a manufacturer and marketer of private label apparel
products for men, women and children.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a1tBnC at no extra charge.[CC]
DEPUY INT'L: Implant Settlement Approval Hearing Set on May 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action relating
to certain DePuy ASR metal on metal hip implants ("ASR Implants"),
which were voluntarily recalled in August 2010.
The proposed settlement, which is not an admission of liability
from the defendants, requires approval of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, and provides for the creation of a $15.5 million
CDN settlement fund that will be used to pay compensation to
eligible Class Members as well as legal fees and other deductions.
The court is scheduled to hear the motion to approve the settlement
on May 11, 2021.
The certified ASR Class includes all persons resident in Canada
other than British Columbia or Quebec who underwent the surgical
implantation of the ASR(TM) XL Acetabular Hip System or ASR(TM) Hip
Resurfacing System in a surgery occurring in Canada. Class members
who had their implants prematurely revised, as that term is defined
in the settlement, may be able to seek compensation.
The court-approved Notice informing Class Members about the
proposed settlement, date of the hearing, and contact details for
lawyers representing the Class can be found here:
https://complexlaw.ca/#FL-DePuyASR. [GN]
DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Krakauer Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that DISH Network L.L.C.
continues to defend the "Krakauer Action".
On March 25, 2009, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary DISH
Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States
Attorney General and several states in the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois (the "FTC Action"),
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as
analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The
plaintiffs alleged that the company, directly and through certain
independent third-party retailers and their affiliates, committed
certain telemarketing violations.
A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer that were at issue in the FTC Action are also
the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network
L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").
Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.
On May 22, 2017, the Court ruled that the violations were willful
and knowing, and trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call
made in violation of TCPA.
On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor
of the class.
DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.
On October 15, 2019, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a petition for writ
of certiorari, requesting that the United States Supreme Court
agree to hear a further appeal, but it denied the petition on
December 16, 2019.
On January 21, 2020, DISH Network L.L.C. filed a second notice of
appeal relating to the district court's orders on the claims
administration process to identify, and disburse funds to,
individual class members.
On June 29, 2020, Krakauer filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
On December 1, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit granted the motion, finding that the appeal was
premature.
The district court currently is deciding how to handle the $10.76
million in disbursable judgment funds for which no corresponding
class member was identified, but has indicated that it will not
refund those monies to DISH Network L.L.C. During the third
quarter 2019, the $61 million judgment was paid to the court.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISH DBS: Trial in Retirement Trust Suit to Begin Sept. 7
---------------------------------------------------------
DISH DBS Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that trial in City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et al., Case No. A-19-797799-B, is
scheduled to start sometime during the five-week "stack" beginning
September 7, 2021.
On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.
The lawsuit named as defendants Mr. Charles Ergen, the other
members of the EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its
officers, DISH Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's
affiliates.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.
In the operative First Amended Complaint, filed on October 11,
2019, the plaintiff dropped as defendants the EchoStar board
members other than Mr. Ergen. The trial of this matter is
scheduled to start sometime during the five-week "stack" beginning
September 7, 2021.
Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A common stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.
DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case, but cannot
predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this suit or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.
DISH DBS Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides pay-TV
services under the DISH and Sling brands in the United States. The
company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Englewood,
Colorado. DISH DBS Corporation is a subsidiary of DISH Network
Corporation.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Proctor Bid to Certify Class Junked as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANEL PROCTOR, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00701-TNM (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Trevor N. McFadded entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;
2. granting the Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment;
and
3. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
"The Clerk of Court shall close this case. This is a final,
appealable order," Judge McFadded says.
Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac
River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9n9B9 at no extra charge.[CC]
DOUG CONNOR: Reguena Asks Permit to Send Notice to Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXY REGUENA, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. DOUG CONNOR, INC. a
Florida For Profit Corporation, and DANA CONNOR, Individually, Case
No. 6:20-cv-01670-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order permitting court-supervised notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to
all:
""Grapple Truck Drivers" (a/k/a "Drivers" and/or "Truck
Drivers"
and other employees performing similar duties, however variously
titled) employed by Defendants, DOUG CONNOR, INC. and DANA
CONNOR (collectively "DCI" or "Defendants"), within the last
three years (the "FLSA Collective")."
The Plaintiff also requests the court to:
a. Require DCI to identify all members of the FLSA Collective
by
providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates
of employment, cell phone number, and e-mail addresses in
electronic and importable format, e.g . a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of an order;
b. Permit Plaintiff's counsel to send Court-approved notice of
this action to the members of the FLSA Collective via U.S.
Mail, e-mail, and text message;
c. Permit Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder notice via e-
mail and text message to the members of the FLSA Collective
at the half-way point in the notice period;
d. Approve a 60 day opt-in period from the date the Court-
approved notice is sent during which the members of the FLSA
Collective may join this case by returning their written
consents; and
e. Allow members of the FLSA Collective to electronically sign
and return the Consent to Become an Opt-In Plaintiff.
The Defendants offer land clearing, demolition, excavation,
grinding, grading, import fill, storm drainage, sanitary sewer
cleanup, water distribution, concrete work and road construction
services to its customers.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 30, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dNmekM at no extra
charge.[CC]
Trial Counsel for Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated
are:
Matthew Gunter, Esq.
James Henson, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32802-4979
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
E-mail: MGunter@forthepeople.com
JJHenson@forthepeople.com
EASTERN METAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Cooper Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW COOPER, ANTHONY MOORE, and NEFTALI DELGADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
EASTERN METAL RECYCLING, LLC; CAMDEN IRON & METAL, INC. d/b/a
EASTERN METAL RECYCLING, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07720
(D.N.J., April 1, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as supervisors.
EASTERN METAL RECYCLING, LLC provides recycling services. The
Company recycles steel, demolition wastes, and non-ferrous metals.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Michael Groh, Esq.
MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 273-1054
Facsimile: (215) 525-021
E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
mgroh@phillyemploymentlawer.com
EBANG INT'L Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ebang International Holdings, Inc.
("Ebang" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: EBON) investors that acquired
securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021.
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.
Analyst Hindenburg Research published a report on April 6, 2021,
alleging the Chinese cryptocurrency company is directing proceeds
from its IPO last year into a "series of opaque deals with insiders
and questionable counterparties. "Ebang raised $21 million in
November 2020, According to the report, stating that the proceeds
would go "primarily for development," and that $21 million was
allegedly directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of
the company's Chairman/CEO Dong Hu. It was also noted in this
report that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong
Stock Exchange failed as a result, to widespread media coverage of
its relationship with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
scheme that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish(ing) into thin air". On April 6, 2021, share price
fell $0.82, or approximately 13%, on this news, to close at $5.53
per share thereby injuring investors.
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
Attorney Advertising [GN]
EL SAN JUAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MERCY CASTILLO, JESSICA LORA, and ULISES RODRIGUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EL
SAN JUAN CITY ISLAND ON 5TH AVE LLC, MANUEL VIDAL, and JOSEFINA
VIDAL, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02824 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.
EL SAN JUAN CITY ISLAND ON 5TH AVE LLC owns and operates a
restaurant in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicola Ciliotta, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: nciliotta@katzmelinger.com
ENSIGN UNITED: Asked to Address Issues Raised in Newell Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS NEWELL, an individual, for himself and those
similarly situated; MIGUEL CALDERON, an individual, for himself and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES
DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC., a California corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01314-NONE-JLT (E.D. Ca.), Judge Dale A. Drozd of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing adequately
addressing several issues raised by the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement
within 30 days from the date of the Order.
On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs commenced a class action lawsuit
against defendant in Kern County Superior Court, arising out of the
requirement that employees remain on offshore oil platforms owned
by the Defendant for multi-day shifts while receiving pay for only
part of each day. Following the expiration of the required
statutory notice period set forth in California Labor Code Section
2698 et seq., the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
Aug. 3, 2015, alleging claims for minimum wage violations, unfair
competition, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide
lawful meal periods, failure to pay overtime and doubletime premium
wages, and pay stub violations, as well as an additional cause of
action pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").
On Feb. 5, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Newton v.
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd., holding that California
labor law applies to the Outer Continental Shelf ("OCS") platforms
where proposed class members have worked, that state law is not
inconsistent with federal law and thus California state wage and
hour laws are adopted as surrogate federal law on the offshore
platforms. The Ninth Circuit's holding and existing California law
suggested that plaintiffs had a potential avenue to prevail on
their primary overtime theory.
However, on June 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court reversed
the Ninth Circuit's decision in Newton, holding that where federal
law addresses the relevant legal issue, state law is not adopted as
surrogate federal law on the OCS. 139 S. Ct. at 1881. In light of
the Supreme Court's reversal, the parties stipulated that the
Plaintiffs would amend their complaint to assert an overtime claim
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and a rest break claim
under California law, among other clarifications of the pleadings,
and plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on Aug. 22,
2019.
Thereafter, on Sept. 19, 2019, the Defendant removed the action to
the federal court. The parties again stipulated to the Plaintiffs'
filing of the operative third amended complaint, which was filed on
Jan. 29, 2020.
On Feb. 28, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a collective of workers and facilitated notice
under the FLSA, which the Defendant opposed. The assigned
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations on April 29,
2020, recommending that the Plaintiffs' motion be granted. The
Defendant filed objections to those findings and recommendations,
and the Plaintiffs filed a response. The findings and
recommendations remained pending when the parties moved into a
settlement posture.
Over the course of the litigation, the parties participated in
three mediation sessions, with the final one taking place before
Justice Stephen J. Kane (Ret.) on Sept. 18, 2020. Following the
conclusion of the mediation, the parties agreed to settlement terms
and, on Sept. 29, 2020, the parties notified the court of their
settlement. The assigned magistrate judge ordered the parties to
file a motion for preliminary approval of the class and
representative settlement by Dec. 18, 2020, and vacated all pending
dates, conferences, and hearings.
On Dec. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed the present unopposed motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. As part
of that motion, the Plaintiffs have also moved for conditional
certification of the settlement class but have not specifically
revisited the issue of conditional certification of the FLSA
collective addressed by the magistrate judge in the April 29, 2020
findings and recommendations.
Judge Drozd has reviewed the pending motion and directs the parties
to submit supplemental briefing adequately addressing several
issues raised by the pending motion.
A. Excessive Attorneys' Fees
The Plaintiffs' counsel requests fees representing 35% ($840,000)
of the maximum settlement amount, and costs and expenses not
exceeding $15,000. However, Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiffs'
motion does not sufficiently explain why the Court should depart
from the 25% benchmark. The Plaintiffs merely represent that the
request "is consistent with the risk and work performed in the
case, and the relevant legal authority, and it will be fully
disclosed in the proposed Notice to the Settlement Class Members."
The type of work described in the declaration of Brian Hefelfinger
only reflects the tasks commonly associated with litigation and
thus does not address why counsel's above-benchmark fee request is
justified. The Judge will require at least a general showing as to
why the Plaintiffs' counsel's representation in this matter
warrants an above-benchmark fee award. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
are directed to file supplemental briefing justifying the
above-benchmark attorneys' fees request at this preliminary
approval stage.
B. Excessive Enhancement Awards
Plaintiff Newell seeks an enhancement award of $35,000, which is
approximately 1.5% of the overall settlement amount. He estimates
that he has spent in excess of 275 hours over five years of
litigation beginning in June 2015. Plaintiff Calderon seeks an
enhancement award of $25,000, which is approximately 1.0% of the
overall settlement award. He estimates that he has spent in excess
of 150 hours over two years of litigation beginning in early 2019.
Ultimately, both named Plaintiffs declare that they fully
cooperated in litigating the case, risked the loss of future
employment by filing class actions against their employer, and took
on significant financial risk due to the possibility they could
ultimately lose the case and be forced to pay for defendant's
attorneys' fees or other costs. According to the calculations
provided by the class counsel, however, "if every class member
submits a claim herein the per capita Individual Settlement Class
Member Payment is $7,817.59 before deduction of taxes,
administrative costs, litigation costs, attorneys' fees and the
LWDA Payment." Thus, enhancement awards of $35,000 and $25,000 are
disproportionately higher than that of the prospective award to be
made to the average class member, although individual awards will
vary based on the class members' number of hours worked.
Judge Drozd has preliminarily approved $15,000 and $10,000
incentive payments in the past, but common incentive awards are
often lower. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are directed to file
supplemental briefing justifying the above-benchmark enhancement
award requests at this preliminary approval stage, keeping in mind
the Court's particularized concern that the enhancement awards may
be excessive relative to the amount other class/collective members
are likely to receive.
C. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements
The Plaintiffs' motion refers to Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and
superiority requirements but does not sufficiently explain how
these requirements are met. Regarding predominance, the Plaintiffs
only state that "the litigant's decision to stipulate to
certification and bring cross-motions for summary adjudication of
the OCSLA legal issues in this matter, as applied uniformly to all
Settlement Class Members, is clear evidence that the common legal
and factual issues in this matter 'predominate' over individual
issues."
Judge Drozd says this logic is not persuasive, particularly in
light of the fact that elsewhere in their motion, the Plaintiffs
concede that "the Defendant contends that class certification is
not warranted." They further assert in a conclusory fashion that
"the Settlement Class Members worked in similar offshore locations,
were affected by common policies, and maintained common claims
based upon the Defendants' uniform offshore worker policies which
affected their wages and hours." Even if the Judge were to accept
this conclusory assertion, it goes only to commonality, not
predominance or superiority. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are
directed to file supplemental briefing addressing in more detail
whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements are satisfied.
D. FLSA Settlement
The Plaintiffs previously filed a motion for conditional
certification and facilitated notice under the FLSA, seeking to
define those "similarly situated" for the FLSA collective action as
follows: "All current and former all hourly employees of Ensign
United States Drilling (California) Inc., who, at any time within
three years from the date of filing of this lawsuit, worked on oil
platforms off of the California coast and who stayed on such
platforms for periods of 24 hours or more."
The proposed settlement agreement provides that $200,000 of the
settlement amount will be "allocated to claims under the FLSA to be
awarded on a pro rata basis to the Settlement Class members who
submit a valid and timely FLSA Claim Form by including that sum in
the Net Settlement Payment."
However, Judge Drozd finds that the settlement agreement does not
set out a separate definition for a FLSA collective or even provide
the number of class members who are entitled to receive a FLSA
payment. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs fail to address whether there
is a bona fide dispute over the FLSA claims or how the $200,000
FLSA amount was calculated, including whether liquidated damages
were included in that calculation. Additionally, neither the
motion for preliminary approval nor the settlement agreement
address whether the FLSA damages period was two or three years in
this case. Finally, the Plaintiffs have not provided any
information as to how the $200,000 FLSA payment was valued or how
much each settlement class member may receive from that amount.
Given that the Plaintiffs previously sought to conditionally
certify a FLSA collective, which the efendant opposed, the Judge
directed the Plaintiffs are directed to file supplemental briefing
addressing and clarifying whether they seek conditional
certification of a FLSA collective action in addition to the Rule
23 settlement class, whether such certification is appropriate,
whether a bona fide dispute over the FLSA claims exists, and how
the $200,000 FLSA payment was calculated.
E. Valuation of Claims
The Plaintiffs estimate that "if every class member submits a claim
herein the per capita Individual Settlement Class Member Payment is
$7,817.59 before deduction of taxes, administrative costs,
litigation costs, attorneys' fees and the LWDA Payment." However,
this estimated payment was simply calculated by dividing the number
of settlement class members (307) from the total settlement amount
($2.4 million, and thus is not an accurate estimate for the
following reasons, Judge Drozd holds.
First, the Individual Settlement Class Member Payment does not
account for the various deductions from the total settlement
amount, which means the individual payments will be much lower than
estimated. Second, while the Judge recognizes the individual
amounts are based on the number of hours each class member worked
during the claims period, the Plaintiffs have not provided any
information about the size of the average or median award or even a
range of awards possible under the settlement. Third, the
Plaintiffs have not provided any information as to how the $200,000
FLSA award was calculated or how much each settlement class member
may receive from that award. Finally, given the high attorneys'
fees and enhancement awards requested, the Judge must evaluate
whether such awards are reasonable in light of the individual
payments owed to the settlement class members.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are directed to file supplemental
briefing providing an approximate size of the average or median
award owed to each settlement class member or a range of possible
awards under the settlement, including the $200,000 FLSA payment,
as well as specifying how plaintiffs' claims were valued against
that potential recovery.
F. Notice to California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
Judge Drozd must review and approve any settlement of PAGA claims,
and the proposed settlement must be submitted to the LWDA at the
same time that it is submitted to the Court. The Plaintiffs fail
to demonstrate whether notice of the settlement was provided to the
LWDA and thus, they must be and are directed to file supplemental
briefing explaining whether this has been accomplished.
G. Notice Correction
Judge Drozd notes that the proposed notice states that the final
fairness hearing will be held before Chief Magistrate Judge
Thurston in Bakersfield, California. However, the parties have not
consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge and
therefore, it will be the district judge that would approve any
settlement and conduct any final fairness hearing. Currently,
there is no district judge assigned to the action, but a final
fairness hearing will be held before Judge Drozd in Fresno,
California.
H. Continuing Jurisdiction of Trial Court
Finally, the settlement agreement states that post-judgment, the
Court "shall retain jurisdiction of this action solely for the
purpose of interpreting, implementing, and enforcing this
Settlement consistent with the terms set forth herein." Judge
Drozd declined to retain jurisdiction post-judgment without a
specific showing that it is necessary in the action.
For the reasons he explained, Judge Drozd directed the parties will
file supplemental briefing and documentation addressing the
following issues raised by the pending motion for preliminary
approval within 30 days from the date of his Order: the
above-benchmark attorneys' fees; the enhancement awards for class
representative Plaintiffs Newell and Calderon; whether the proposed
Rule 23 settlement class definition satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3); whether the parties seek to conditionally certify a
FLSA collective action in addition to the Rule 23 settlement class;
the average or median award owed to each individual class member,
or a range of possible awards under the settlement; the potential
recovery compared to the terms of the settlement; and any other
issues identified.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3x3xs62d from Leagle.com.
EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Shen Putative Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exela Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Bo Shen.
On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff, Bo Shen, filed a putative class
action against the Company, Ronald Cogburn, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, and James Reynolds, the Company's former Chief
Financial Officer.
Plaintiff claims to be a current holder of 1,333 shares of Company
stock, purchased on October 4, 2019 at $4.02/share.
Plaintiff asserts two claims covering the purported class period of
March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020: (1) a violation of Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against all defendants; and (2)
a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr.
Cogburn and Mr. Reynolds.
The allegations stem from the Company's press release, dated March
16, 2020 (announcing the postponement of the earnings call and
delay in filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2019), and press release and related SEC
filings, dated March 17, 2020 (announcing its intent to restate its
financial statements for 2017, 2018 and interim periods through
September 30, 2019).
Exela said, "At this early stage in the litigation, it is not
practicable to render an opinion about whether an unfavorable
outcome is probable or remote with respect to this matter; however,
the Company has moved to dismiss the case and believes it has
meritorious defenses and will vigorously assert them."
Exela Technologies, Inc. provides transaction processing solutions
and enterprise information management services worldwide. The
company is based in Irving, Texas.
FARMERS AUTOMOBILE: Garrido Suit Removed from State Ct. to D. Nev.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit ELIZABETH GARRIDO, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. FARMERS AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, DOES 1 through
10, Case No. A-21-829905-C (Filed February 23, 2021) was removed
from the Eighth Judicial District Court in and for the County of
Clark to the United States District Court in and for the District
of Nevada on March 17, 2021.
The the District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-00440-JCM-BNW to the proceeding.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Garrido purports to seek class-wide relief for
Defendants Farmers' failure to provide and charge a fair and
appropriate insurance premium and to provide premium reduction to
its Nevada automobile insurance policyholders amid the COVID-19
pandemic.
Farmers Automobile operates as an insurance firm. The Company
offers auto, home, business, life, and health insurance
services.[BN]
Attorneys for Farmers Insurance Exchange are:
Jordan T. Smith, Esq.
M. Magali Mercera, Esq.
Robert A. Ryan, Esq.
PISANELLI BICE PLLC
400 South 7th Street, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NE 89101
E-mail: jts@pisanellibice.com
mmm@pisanellibice.com
rr@pisanellibice.com
FARMERS GROUP: Taqueria Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Taqueria El Primo LLC,
Victor Manuel Delgado Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo
Produce, Inc., Virginia Sanchez-Gomez, and Benjamin Tarnowski, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Farmers
Group, Inc., Truck Insurance Exchange, Farmers Insurance Company,
Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance
Company, and Mid-Century Insurance Company, Case No.
0:19-cv-03071-JRT-BRT (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying a Damages Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), and an Injunctive Class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), defined as
follows:
-- Damages Class
"All persons or entities who purchased an insurance
policy
on or after January 17, 2013 within the State of Minnesota
from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act;"
and
-- Injunctive Class
"All persons or entities who purchased an insurance
policy
on or after January 17, 2013 within the State of Minnesota
from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act,
and who maintain that policy"
Excluded from both the Damages Class and the Injunctive
Class are Farmers' employees or officers; any entity in
which any Farmers has a controlling interest or which has
a controlling interest in any Defendant; and Farmers’
legal representatives, assigns, and successors. Also
excluded are any judge to whom this case is assigned and
members of that judge’s immediate family;
2. appointing the following Class Representatives:
a) For the Damages Class, named Plaintiffs Taqueria El Primo
LLC, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc.,
Virginia Sanchez-Gomez, and Benjamin Tarnowski, as well as
El Chinelo Market, LLC; and
b) For the Injunctive Class, named Plaintiff Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, as well as El Chinelo Market, LLC; and
3. appointing Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Helmuth &
Johnson PLLC, and Sawicki & Phelps, P.A., as Class Counsel.
Farmers Insurance is an American insurer group of automobiles,
homes and small businesses and also provides other insurance and
financial services products. Farmers Insurance has more than 48,000
exclusive and independent agents and approximately 21,000
employees.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7vTcg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
David W. Asp, Esq.
Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
Jennifer L. M. Jacobs, Esq.
Stephen M. Owen, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: dwasp@locklaw.com
kgmarttila@locklaw.com
jlmjacobs@locklaw.com
smowen@locklaw.com
- and -
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78 th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
- and -
Paul J. Phelps, Esq.
SAWICKI & PHELPS, P.A.
5758 Blackshire Path
Inver Grover Heights, MN 55076
Telephone: (651) 730-6900
Facsimile: (651) 730-8110
E-mail: pphelps@mnlawyers.com
FIGURE 8: Daniell Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFF DANIELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FIGURE 8 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00125-KRG (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying the case as a collective action and authorizing him to
send his proposed notice of this case under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to:
"all current and former employees of Figure 8 Communications,
Inc. who were paid on a piece rate basis at any time within
three years prior to this action’s filing date through the
final
disposition of this action at any time from three years before
this case was filed to the present."
Mr. DaNiell further moves for an order directing Figure 8 to
provide his legal counsel, Weisberg Cummings, P.C., a
computer-readable file (e.g., an Excel spreadsheet) with the name,
mailing address, dates of employment, Social Security Number, and
employee ID number for each such worker, and to conspicuously post
the notice in all Figure 8 break rooms or other common areas for
its employees.
Figure 8 provides construction installation and maintenance
services to telecommunication companies throughout the Northeast
United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3d7FkCS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
FLO HEALTH: Gamino Consumer Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TESHA GAMINO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FLO HEALTH, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00198, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02551-JCS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged invasion of privacy,
intrusion upon seclusion, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and violations of the California Constitution, the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Comprehensive Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act, and the Federal Wiretap Act by intercepting
or using the electronic communications of the Plaintiff and Class
members on the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, a mobile
application, without prior consent.
Flo Health, Inc. is a mobile application developer that maintains a
principal place of business at 541 Jefferson Ave. Ste. 100, Redwood
City, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
FORD MOTOR: Court Dismisses Thornburgh's Gross Negligence Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Otto E. Thornburgh, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Co., Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01025-HFS (W.D. Mo.), Judge Howard F. Sachs of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.
Mr. Thornburg has filed a putative class action against Ford,
alleging that Ford, through its operation of the Ford Kansas City
Assembly Plant releases odors that invade the Plaintiff's property,
causing property damage through negligence, gross negligence, and
nuisance.
The Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $5 million on behalf of
himself and the putative class which is defined as including "all
owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing within
two (2) miles of the Plant's property boundary."
Ford has filed a motion to dismiss both counts for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Ford
does not contest the facts as alleged by the Plaintiff at this
stage of the proceedings. Instead, it argues that there is no
cause of action for nuisance or negligence as a matter of law.
Because there is no pending contest as to the alleged facts, facts
will be discussed as necessary to resolving the motion.
The parties agree that Missouri law controls. To the extent the
Defendant relies on "foreign law," including trial court unreported
decisions, the defense is speculative regarding Missouri law.
I. Nuisance (Count I)
The Defendant first argues that the Plaintiff's Nuisance claim
should be dismissed for failure to specify whether the nuisance is
public or private and for failure to characterize the alleged
nuisance as either permanent or temporary.
The Defendant argues that to the extent the Plaintiff alleges a
public nuisance, the public nuisance claim should be dismissed
because: (a) the Plaintiff fails to plead any special injury
recognized by Missouri courts; (b) the Plaintiff's alleged special
injury necessarily cannot be special because a large part of the
community suffers from it as well; (c) recent decisions dismissed
public nuisance claims very similar to what is asserted here for
failing to adequately allege a "special injury;" and (d) the
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged that a common community right
has been interfered with. Ford also argues that the Plaintiff's
allegations based on public nuisance should be dismissed because
the Plaintiff also failed to sufficiently plead that a common
community right has been interfered with such as health, safety,
peace, or convenience.
Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff,
Judge Sachs concludes that the complaint includes allegations more
significant than inconvenience and annoyance. For example,
affidavits include statements describing: "a strong paint type
smell can often be smelled outside our home. It smells like an
open paint can is under my nose." Putative class member Melissa
Crispin stated that when the fumes are strong, she can't go
outside, open her windows, and the smell can make you nauseous and
"a little high" and she suffers from headaches." Putative class
member Malinda Gardner reported a smell that reminds her "of paint
and rotten bananas mixed together."
Such factual allegations are more than plausible factual
allegations that the Defendant's activities substantially and
unreasonably interfered with the Plaintiff's use and enjoyment of
his private property. Based on the foregoing, the Judge denies
Ford's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's nuisance claim.
II. Negligence and Gross Negligence (Count II)
Ford also argues that Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege a
claim for negligence. First, Ford argues that to the extent the
claim is for gross negligence that claim should be dismissed
because Missouri does not recognize gross negligence. Second, it
asserts that the allegations are insufficient to support a claim
for ordinary negligence.
Judge Sachs finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint includes, among
other things, allegations regarding Ford's specific operational
duties and failures, including allegations relating to its duties
and failures with respect to its "exhaust emission stacks," "Paint
Shop spray booths and curing ovens," "VOC emission processing
systems," "emission capture and add-on control systems" and
"systems for processing wastewater and paint sludge." Hence, the
complaint, as alleged provides sufficient allegations to support a
negligence claim. Very similar allegations recently survived a
motion to dismiss in Sines v. Darling Ingredients, 2020 WL 5015488
(D.N.J. 2020).
Accordingly, for the reasons he stated, Judge Sachs granted in part
and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint. Claims in Count II related to gross negligence are
dismissed without prejudice to the allegations of negligence. In
all other respects, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/rxhxmrh8 from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Faces Coleman TCPA Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNINE COLEMAN and CHRISTOPHER BUSH, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC
d/b/a FORD CREDIT, Case No. 8:21-cv-00647 (M.D. Fla., March 18,
2021) sues Ford Motor for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs brings this class action for damages and other
equitable relief resulting from the Defendant's unlawful conduct in
negligently or knowingly and/or willfully placing calls to the
cellular telephones of Plaintiffs and putative Class Members for
non-emergency purposes, using an automatic telephone dialing system
without their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA.
The Plaintiffs and putative Class Members were not Ford customers
at the time the calls at issue were placed.
Plaintiff Coleman, is and was at all times relevant to this matter
a citizen of Pinellas County, Florida. Plaintiff Bush, is and was
at all times relevant to this matter a citizen of Tarrant County,
Texas.
Ford Credit is the financial services arm of Ford Motor Company,
and is headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. The predominant share
of Ford Credit's business consists of financing Ford and Lincoln
vehicles and supporting Ford and Lincoln dealers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Octavio "Tav" Gomez, Esq.
Joshua R. Kersey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 222-2490
E-mail: TGomez@forthepeople.com
JKersey@ForThePeople.com
AWynne@ForThePeople.com
FORTUNE MEDIA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sanchez Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FORTUNE MEDIA (USA) CORPORATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-02345-AJN (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2020) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its Website, www.shopmzb.com, and therefore denial
of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read Website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant is an Italian coffee company, and owns and operates
the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New
York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
FOURPOINT ENERGY: Rounds Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenny Wayne Rounds and
Randy Carl Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FourPoint Energy, LLC n/k/a Unbridled Resources, LLC,
Case No. 5:20-cv-00052-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying classes for two claims arising
out of FourPoint's oil-and-gas payment practices in Oklahoma:
CLASS I: For the period beginning October 8, 2014, all non-
excluded persons or entities entitled to share in royalty
proceeds payable under any lease that contains an express
provision stating that royalty will be paid on gas used off the
lease premises.
Class I Exclusions: Excluded from Class I are: (1) FourPoint,
its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and di-
rectors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the
United States of America and the State of the Oklahoma; (3)
publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their affiliates;
(4) persons or entities that Plaintiffs’ counsel may be
prohib-
ited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules
of Professional Conduct; (5) officers of the court; and (6)
owners in wells that FourPoint acquired from QEP Energy
Company, but only to the extent of their ownership in a lease
subject to the settlement agreement reached in Chieftain
Royalty Company v. QEP Energy Company, No. CIV-11-212-R (W.D.
Okla.); and
CLASS II: For the period beginning October 8, 2014, all non-
excluded persons or entities: (1) whose payments for oil-and-gas
proceeds from Oklahoma wells from FourPoint (or FourPoint’s
designee) were outside of the time frames imposed by the
Production Revenue Standards Act; and (2) whose payments did not
include statutory interest.
Class II Exclusions: Excluded from Class II are: (1) Four-
Point, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers,
and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities
of the United States of America and the State of the Okla-
homa; (3) publicly traded oil-and-gas companies and their
affiliates; (4) persons or entities that Plaintiffs’ counsel
may
be prohibited from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Okla-
homa Rules of Professional Conduct; and (5) officers of the
court.
Each Plaintiff owns royalty interests under leases containing
express off-lease-gas-use clauses. Plaintiff Rounds owns a royalty
interest under a lease recorded in the records of Roger Mills
County, Oklahoma, at Book 236, Pages 218–19. See Ex. 5,
FPE-00000001, Rounds Lease. Plaintiff Smith owns a royalty interest
under a lease recorded in the records of Roger Mills County,
Oklahoma, at Book 279, Pages 504–05. See Ex. 6, FPE-00000002,
Smith Lease.
FourPoint Energy is a private exploration and production company
headquartered in Denver, Colorado. Founded by the leadership of the
former Cordillera Energy Partners, the team has decades of
industry-leading experience and is dedicated to creating value that
makes a difference.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdtoVS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 W. Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
David R. Gleason, Esq.
Charles V. Knutter, Esq.
MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON
211 N. Robinson
One Leadership Square, St. 1350
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-3357
Facsimile: (405) 232-6515
E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com
knutter@moricoli.com
FSM ZA: Patzfahl Files Renewed Bid to Send Notice to Drivers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Patzfahl, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Judge Lynn S. Adelman
v. FSM ZA, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01202-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff Patzfahl asks the Court to enter an order authorizing him
to send notice of the pendency of this action to his
similarly-situated co-workers.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to notify the following
employees:
"All current and former delivery drivers employed at any
Toppers
Pizza location owned/operated by Defendants FSM ZA, LLC,
Perfect Timing, LLC, and/or Garett Burns from August 6, 2017 to
the date of the Court's Order approving notice.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mALMpj
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan Spencer, Esq.
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Biller & Kimble, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
- and -
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
- and -
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
GOAT MILK: Sanchez Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISTIAN SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOAT MILK STUFF LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03051 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.goatmilkstuff.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (2) empty links, (3) redundant
links, and (4) linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Goat Milk Stuff LLC is a goat milk soap manufacturing company doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FL: Judge to Consider Sales Tax Refund Options
-------------------------------------------------------------------
tampabay.com reports that a Hillsborough Circuit Court judge said
he retains the authority to help devise a public refund of the
nearly $503 million collected through the voided Hillsborough
transportation surtax.
Circuit Judge Rex Barbas' April 7 order in the case of Commissioner
Stacy White versus Hillsborough County over the penny on the sales
tax included the provision that "this court also retains
jurisdiction to consider the pending motions for supplemental
relief" and, if appropriate, to grant that relief "regarding the
possible return of the surtax receipts to the clerk and the
disposition of the surtax receipts."
The order, called a final judgment, came eight days after a hearing
attended by attorneys for White, Hillsborough County, the
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, municipal governments
and the Hillsborough Clerk of the Circuit Court in an attempt to
determine who has jurisdiction over a refund procedure.
Voters approved the sales tax in November 2018 and it produced
nearly $503 million in the 27 months it was collected before the
Florida Supreme Court ruled it illegal in a case brought by White.
He had sued, saying elected commissioners, not a citizens committee
that advocated for the referendum, retained the authority on
allocating the sales tax proceeds.
Hillsborough commissioners said they would refund the tax and their
outside counsel looked to Barbas for guidance in a March 17 motion.
White filed a separate motion the following day asking for the
court to close his case, contending "Hillsborough County is seeking
to hijack this case" in asking the help on delivering refunds.
The refunds remain at issue because of circuit court lawsuits
seeking class action status from Apollo Beach resident Robert
Emerson, filed in both Hillsborough and Leon counties.
At least one Hillsborough commissioner, Kimberly Overman, publicly
expressed concern that a class action suit could enrich the law
firms administering the refund, leaving less for the public who
paid the sales tax.
White said that Barbas' ruling likely ends his involvement.
"My legal team anticipates that the issue of the return and
disposition of surtax receipts will be resolved in such a way that
there will be no further need for me to take a position on these
issues," White said in a text message.
In agreeing to close White's case, Barbas did not rule on the
motion from attorney Alan Zimmet, the county's outside counsel. He
asked the judge to take input from the office of the Hillsborough
Clerk of the Circuit Court, the Florida Department of Revenue and
others and then to issue an order "setting forth procedures and
requirements for disposition of surtax revenues that were
collected, but not yet expended." [GN]
HOME DEPOT: Pimentel Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR PIMENTEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV07317, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03051 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 overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay timely wages, failure to reimburse for
all necessary business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is a home improvement retailer
headquartered in Cobb County, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Melis Atalay, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
aaron.cole@ogletree.com
melis.atalay@ogletree.com
HP INC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Marketing of Laptop Computers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK TWARDZIK on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HP INC., and NVIDIA CORPORATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-00396-UNA (D. Del., March 18, 2021) is class action
complaint against HP and NVIDIA for rescission, monetary damages,
and injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other
similarly-situated consumers across the country who purchased an HP
laptop computer containing the slowed variant of the NVIDIA GeForce
MX150 graphics processor unit (Class Laptops).
The HP Envy 13 is an "ultrabook" laptop, so-called due to its small
size and allegedly high performance. HP also sells Envy laptops
with similar specifications in larger sizes. The NVIDIA GeForce
MX150 (the "MX150") is a graphics card. The most important part of
the graphics card, i.e., the "brain" of the card, is the graphics
processing unit ("GPU").
In tests comparing the performance of the Class Laptops against
approximately two dozen laptops containing either the Standard
MX150 or the Slowed MX150, the Class Laptops were 20 to 28 percent
slower than the fastest laptop (which contained the Standard
MX150), and 9 to 17 percent slower than the average of all laptops
tested, the suit says.
Through its alleged misleading marketing, the Defendants violated
the common law of Delaware and Maryland, as well as statutes
prohibiting misleading and unfair sales practices across the
country. The Plaintiff brings common law warranty and unjust
enrichment claims and claims against the Defendants under various
States' unfair and unlawful trade practices statutes and the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology company
headquartered in Palo Alto, California, that develops personal
computers (PCs), printers and related supplies, as well as 3D
printing solutions. Nvidia Corporation is an American multinational
technology company incorporated in Delaware and based in Santa
Clara, California. It designs graphics processing units for the
gaming and professional markets, as well as system on a chip units
for the mobile computing and automotive market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
1301 Walnut Green Road
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 274-2180
E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE, 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
IMPACT GROUP: Herrera Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HELDER HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. IMPACT GROUP, LLC; and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV20228, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April
8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03075 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 provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due upon separation, and unfair business
practices.
Impact Group, LLC is a wholesaler and distributor of food products,
headquartered in Boise, Idaho. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alaya B. Meyers, Esq.
Tracy R. Williams, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 705-3000
Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
E-mail: ameyers@littler.com
trwilliams@littler.com
INTEL CORP: Court OK's Bid to Dismiss Complaint with Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: INTEL CORP. CPU MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. e
3:20-cv-00863-SI (D. Ore.), the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered
an order:
1. granting Intel's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
2. allowing the Plaintiffs leave to amend, within 28 days from
the date of this Opinion and Order, only the following: (a)
Plaintiffs’ Nationwide claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law alleging unfair conduct; (b) Plaintiffs’
Nationwide claim for unjust enrichment; and (c) Plaintiffs’
state subclass claims; and
3. directing the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this
Opinion and Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
In this multidistrict proceeding, the Plaintiffs bring a putative
nationwide class action against Defendant Intel Corporation (Intel)
relating to certain security vulnerabilities in Intel's
microprocessors. Plaintiffs allege that Intel knew for decades
about certain design defects in its microprocessors that created
security vulnerabilities and that Intel failed to disclose or
mitigate these vulnerabilities.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the ways in which these security
vulnerabilities could be exploited became publicly known beginning
in January 2018, with new ways continuing to be discovered and
publicized. These forms of exploit have become generally known as
"Spectre," "Meltdown," "Foreshadow," "ZombieLoad," "SwapGS,"
"RIDL," "LazyFP," "CacheOut," and "Vector Register Sampling," among
others. Th Plaintiffs contend that until Intel fixes the alleged
defects at the hardware level, additional ways to exploit these
security vulnerabilities will likely continue to be discovered.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g0S7Jq at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
- and -
Rosemary M. Rivas
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
- and -
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER PC,
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
- and -
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
- and -
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
HELLMUTH & J OHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
- and -
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel F. Katz, Esq.
David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq
David Krinsky, Esq
Samuel Bryant Davidoff, Esq
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20005
- and -
Steven T. Lovett, Esq
Rachel C. Lee, Esq
STOEL RIVES LLP
760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
ISM VUZEM: Maslic FLSA & TVPRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SASA MASLIC, individually and on behalf of putative
class, IVAN DRZAIC, ROBERT HERNAUS, LEOPOLD HUBEK, LEON
HUDOLDETNJAK, ELVIS KOSCAK, TOMICA PANIC, STJEPAN PAPES, ZELJKO
PULJKO, DARKO SINCEK, DAVID STANTE, NEDELJKO ZIVANI, GOGO REBIC,
and MITJA POGOREVC, v. ISM VUZEM D.O.O., ISM VUZEM USA, INC., VUZEM
USA, INC., HRID-MONT D.O.O., IVAN VUZEM, ROBERT VUZEM, EISENMANN
CORPORATION, TESLA, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Case No.
HG20072866, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-02556 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California state labor law and human
trafficking violations under the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act and the California Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.
ISM Vuzem D.O.O. is a mechanical installation company based in
Slovenia.
ISM Vuzem USA, Inc. is a mechanical installation company,
headquartered in South Carolina.
Vuzem USA, Inc. is a mechanical installation company, headquartered
in South Carolina.
HRID-MONT D.O.O. is a mechanical installation company based in
Slovenia.
Eisenmann Corporation is a company that provides systems for
surface finishing, air pollution control, anaerobic digestion and
process and high-temperature technologies, headquartered in
Illinois.
Tesla, Inc. is an American electric vehicle and clean energy
company based in Palo Alto, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander J. Holtzman, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
Facsimile: (415) 293-6899
E-mail: AHoltzman@bsfllp.com
- and –
Aaron D. Langberg, Esq.
TESLA, INC.
901 Page Avenue
Fremont, CA 94538
Telephone: (510) 828-8959
E-mail: alangberg@tesla.com
- and –
Aaron M. Bernay, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
3300 Great American Tower
301 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-6800
Facsimile: (513) 651-6981
E-mail: ABernay@fbtlaw.com
JP MORGAN: Dennis Bid to Certify Class in Antitrust Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., et al. v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06496 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan
entered an order granting motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- antitrust involving
antitrust litigation (Monopolizing Trade).
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City. JPMorgan
Chase is incorporated in Delaware. As a "Bulge Bracket" bank, it is
a major provider of various investment banking and financial
services.
The Plaintiffs include FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P.,
FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL
HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES Docket No.
16-cv-06496 (LAK) RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated.
The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS,
S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG,
AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING
CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK
AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC,
MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA
LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA)
PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50.[CC]
Counsel for Representative Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Geoffrey M. Horn, 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
ghorn@lowey.com
- and -
Christopher McGrath, Esq.
Christopher Lovell, Esq.
LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440
New York, NY 10110
Telephone: (212) 608-1900
E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
cmcgrath@lshllp.com
Counsel for Orange County Employees Retirement System are:
Todd Seaver, Esq.
Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-320
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com
chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
JUBILEE MART: Faces Nelson Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA NELSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUBILEE MART, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02184 (W.D. Tenn., March 30, 2021) alleges the Defendant of
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from on or about March
18, 2018 until on or about March 21, 2021 as a cashier.
The Plaintiff asserts that despite routinely working in excess of
40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay her and other
similarly situated employees their lawfully earned overtime at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Instead, they were only
paid straight time in cash for all overtime hours they worked
without withholding, added the Plaintiff.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages from the Defendant for
unpaid overtime premiums, including liquidated damages,
compensatory and punitive damages, litigation costs and expenses
together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other
relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
Jubilee Mart, LLC operates a miscellaneous retail store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan G. Crone, Esq.
Philip Oliphant, Esq.
THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
88 Union Ave., 14th Floor
Mempher, TN 38103
Tel: (800) 403-7868
Tel: (901) 737-7740
Fax: (901) 474-7926
E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com
KARUNA THOMPSON: Douglas Seeks Class Action Cert. of Amended Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMEION DOUGLAS v. KARUNA
THOMPSON et. al., Case No. 6:20-cv-00546-AA (D. Ore.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order issuing a class
certification, pursuant to LR 23.
The NOI OSP inmates who have been the victims of defendants conduct
numbers over 20 and some of them has paroled and joinder of all
members is impractical.
The nationally known Civil Rights Attorney's law firm who plaintiff
will be represented by is currently representing the Malcolm X
family in their quest in seeking the NYPD, FBI, and Government to
open their files in the Assassination of Malcolm X based on the
confession of late undercover NYPD officer Ray Woods who confessed
his participation in the Governments plot to kill Malcolm X and
blame it on the NOI by framing innocent NOI Muslims.
The Plaintiff will be seeking the Amended Claims Certified as a
Class Action.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dSqPCo
at no extra charge.[CC]
KIDS CARE: Faces Brandt Employment Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kids Care Dental &
Orthodontics. The case is captioned as Wendle Brandt on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and as a private attorney general v.
Kids Care Dental & Orthodontics, Case No.
34-2021-00296816-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., March 18,
2021).
The suit arises from employment-related issues.
Kids Care offers fear-free pediatric dentistry services in Northern
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St Ste 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
KOTTEMANN LAW: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Banks FDCPA Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERICKA BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KOTTEMANN LAW FIRM. CONSOLIDATED WITH SHELITA
KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. KOTTEMANN LAW FIRM, ET AL., Civil Action Nos. 19-375-JWD-EWD,
20-340-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), Judge John W. deGravelles of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied the
Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Clerk's Entry of Default and to
Compel Arbitration.
The case is a putative class action brought pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et
seq. The Defendant is Kottemann Law Firm, a Louisiana company that
uses mail, telephone, or facsimile in a business, the principal
purpose of which is the collection of debts.
The Plaintiff is a Louisiana resident who allegedly incurred an
obligation to First Heritage Credit of Louisiana, LLC ("FHC").
Thereafter, FHC "or a purchaser, assignee, or subsequent creditor"
contracted with the Defendant to collect on the alleged debt owed.
In connection with this debt, on Dec. 17, 2018, the Defendant sent
the Plaintiff a collection letter.
Based on this letter, the Plaintiff brings three causes of action
against Defendant, alleging that the Defendant's debt-collection
practices violated various provisions of the FDCPA. Specifically,
the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692(e) by falsely representing the amount of the debt, threatening
to take action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended
to be taken, and using false, deceptive and misleading
representations in connection with the collection of a debt; 15
U.S.C. Section 1692(f) by attempting to collect an amount not
expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or
permitted by law; and finally, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692(g) by
overshadowing the validation notice.
The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief,
actual and statutory damages, attorney's fees, and any other relief
this Court "may deem just and proper."
The matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Set Aside
Clerk's Entry of Default and to Compel Arbitration filed by the
Defendant. In support of its motion, the Defendant argues that the
entry of default should be set aside for "good cause" shown under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(c). Next, it urges the Court to
set aside the default entry because all three of the factors set
forth in Lacy v. Sitel Corp., 227 F.3d 290, 291-92 (5th Cir. 2000)
are met.
In closing, the Defendant notes that because it provided a
reasonable explanation for its untimely response, there is no
injustice to the Plaintiff, and it has demonstrated meritorious
defenses, good cause exists to set aside the Clerk's Entry of
Default. Moreover, given that there is only an entry of default,
relief in the case should be "more readily granted than a motion to
set aside a default judgment." As such, the entry of default
should be vacated, the Defendant's request for arbitration should
be granted, and the case should be stayed pending the outcome of
arbitration.
In opposition, the Plaintiff argues that the Court should not set
aside the default entry because the Defendant's default was both
willful and intentional. First, the record demonstrates that the
Defendant was acutely aware at every stage in these proceedings
that the Plaintiff's claims were not settled or being arbitrated.
Next, she emphasizes that the Defendant is is a law firm, and Mr.
Kottemann is an attorney with over 20 years of experience. Third,
the Plaintiff also points out that the Defendant was willful as
evidenced by its lack of prompt action and continued ignorance of
the case, despite her repeated attempts at communication. In
conclusion, the Plaintiff notes that the Defendant made a choice to
willfully ignore the case for almost a year -- despite being on
actual notice of its default -- therefore it should not be allowed
to rely on the general policy in favor of resolving cases on their
merits for relief in the case.
After carefully considering the record, the counsel's briefs and
supporting documents, Judge deGravelles finds that the Defendant's
default was willful. Based on the docket entries and the
Plaintiff's counsel's declaration, it is evident that the Defendant
had notice of the suit and the default entered against it and
nevertheless chose not to respond. The affidavit proffered by Mr.
Kottemann does nothing to dispel this.
Thus, the record clearly demonstrates that the default was willful
and intentional. In accordance with Fifth Circuit precedent, Judge
deGravelles pretermits a discussion of the other "non-exclusive
good cause" factors and finds the Defendant's willful behavior to
be dispositive of the instant motion. Further, as the Fifth
Circuit has explained, a party who has defaulted must succeed in
setting aside the default entry before they can file motions that
go to the merits of the case.
As such, the Judge denied the Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration, to dismiss for lack of standing, and to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. The Defendant's motion for leave to file
an answer and affirmative defenses is likewise denied.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wuezc88u from Leagle.com.
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Jamallah Brown Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMALLAH BROWN,
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and LOANCARE, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-CV-00280-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on August 3-6, 2021 pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, to enter an order certifying the following
classes:
-- Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Class
"All persons in the United States (1) with a mortgage
insured
by the Federal Housing Administration securing a property
located in any state, district, or territory other than
California or Texas (2) originated or serviced by Lakeview
(3) and subserviced by LoanCare (4) and who paid one or more
Pay-to-Pay Fee to LoanCare during the applicable statutes of
limitations through the date a class is certified."
-- North Carolina Class:
"All persons (1) with a residential mortgage loan securing a
property in North Carolina, (2) serviced or subserviced by
LoanCare (3) who paid one or more Pay-to-Pay Fee between May
14, 2017 through the date a class is certified, and (4) whose
deed of trust conforms to the requirements of one of the
following: the Federal Housing Administration, Veteran’s
Administration ("VA"), Federal National Mortgage Association
("FNMA" or "Fannie Mae"), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("FHLMC" or "Freddie Mac"), and/or the United
States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"); and
-- North Carolina Subclass
"All persons in the North Carolina Class whose loans were
owned or serviced by Lakeview."
The FHA Class will pursue claims against Defendant Lakeview Loan
Servicing LLC for breach of contract. The North Carolina Class will
pursue claims against both Defendants for violations of the North
Carolina Mortgage Debt Collection and Servicing Act, N.C. Gen.
Stat. Section 45-91(4).
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court:
(1) appoint her Class Representative on behalf of both proposed
Classes;
(2) appoint James L. Kauffman of the law firm of Bailey &
Glasser LLP and Hassan A. Zavareei and Kristen G. Simplicio
of the law firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP as Class Counsel;
and
(3) direct that notice be sent to the Class Members.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 30,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLR99O
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
Jacob R. Franchek, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS
301 S. College Street, 34th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
E-mail: joshua.davey@troutman.com
jacob.franchek@troutman.com
- and -
Michael J. Gleason, Esq.
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
One America Plaza
600 W. Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
E-mail: mjg@hahnlaw.com
- and -
Erica L. Calderas, Esq.
Steven A. Goldfarb, Esq.
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114
E-mail: elc@hahnlaw.com
sag@hahnlaw.com
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Leidos Holdings, Inc. There is
no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:LDOS)
Class Period: May 4, 2020 - February 23, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021
The LDOS lawsuit alleges Leidos Holdings, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during
the class period that: (1) the purported benefits of the Company's
acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses
were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos' products suffered from
numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection
systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly
overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in LDOS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/leidos-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14541&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
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]
LEIKIN INGBER: Van Vleck FDCPA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCE NICOLAS VAN VLECK, Plaintiff v. LEIKIN, INGBER &
WINTERS, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 20-11635 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Stephanie Dawkins Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice, and denied as moot all other pending motions.
Plaintiff Van Vleck filed the lawsuit against the law firm of
Leikin, Inger & Winters, PC, on June 22, 2020. Van Vleck asserts
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA") arising from the Defendant's
in-person service of process on Van Vleck while the Michigan
Governor's declaration of emergency and stay-at-home orders were in
place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On April 23, 2020, Van Vleck was personally served with a suit
filed by Ingber to collect a debt owed to Ingber's client. He
believed that, because of the process server's age, the process
server "was at a high risk group to the effects of COVID-19" and
therefore "could be a super spreader" of the COVID-19 virus. He
cried after being served because he was afraid he had caught
COVID-19 and would give it to his family. He also spoke to his
doctor about his contact with the process server.
The summons served on Van Vleck was the SCAO1 form that is
pre-printed to indicate that a defendant has 21 days after personal
service to answer the complaint. The SCAO form did not disclose
that, on March 23, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court suspended the
need to a respond to a complaint during the period of the COVID-19
state of emergency.
Van Vleck contends that the Defendant's actions violated the FDCPA
and Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act as it relates
to him because serving process during the period in which the State
of Michigan was under various orders restricting public gatherings
was "harassment," under Section 1692c and 1692d. He also alleges
that the use of the SCAO form violated the rights of a class of
people because the representation in the SCAO summons that the
Plaintiff had 21 days to answer the complaint in the Collection
Case was false or misleading, in violation of Section 1692e.
The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing
that Van Vleck has failed to sufficiently allege Article III
standing to assert his claims under the FDCPA. The Court held a
video hearing on the motion on March 17, 2021, pursuant to notice.
Regarding to Count I, Van Vleck alleges the personal service of a
summons and complaint in a debt collection matter was not necessary
to sustain or protect life or to conduct minimum basic operations
under the Governor's EO. Accordingly, Van Vleck maintains that the
Defendant violated the EO by effectuating personal service on Van
Vleck.
In its motion to dismiss, the Defendant contends that Van Vleck's
fear of contracting COVID-19 is not a sufficiently concrete injury
such that he has standing to assert this claim. It relies
primarily on Buchholz v. Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F.3d 855, 860
(6th Cir. 2020) in support of its argument. In Buchholz, the court
concluded that Buchholz lacked standing because the threat of
litigation was not "certainly impending" at the time he filed his
FDCPA complaint.
Judge Davis finds that the complaint fails to allege a sufficiently
close relationship between the alleged violation of the FCDPA and
the common law tort of battery. She also finds that Van Vleck's
claim is also not based on a "certainly impending" harm, but
instead, is based on a speculative fear of contracting COVID-19.
Van Vleck does not allege that the process server had COVID-19 and
the Judge concludes that the fear of contracting COVID-19 from a
brief outdoor encounter is an alleged injury that is far too
speculative to support standing. Accordingly, the Judge finds that
Van Vleck has not alleged an injury-in-fact sufficient to support
Article III standing for this claim.
With respect to Count II, the Defendant argues that Van Vleck's
mistaken belief that he had only 21 days to answer the complaint is
not a concrete injury. It argues that under Lyshe v. Levy, 854
F.3d 855 (6th Cir. 2017), Van Vleck cannot establish a concrete
harm. The Lyshe court found that misrepresentations concerning
state court procedures "was not the type of harm the FDCPA was
designed to prevent" and, even if it were, the plaintiff did not
allege that he acted on the misinformation. Similarly, to the
extent Van Vleck was misled regarding the deadline to answer the
complaint, such a misstatement regarding the deadline does not
appear to be the kind of harm that the FDCPA was designed to
prevent.
Mr. Van Vleck says that because of the incorrect 21-day deadline,
he took actions inconsistent with the extension provided by the
Administrative Order. Specifically, he filed an answer in state
court, hired an attorney, and borrowed money to pay a discounted
settlement to resolve the matter so he would not have to go to
court.
In Judge Davis' view, Van Vleck has not alleged that he took any
detrimental actions in reliance on the representation regarding the
answer deadline. The steps that Van Vleck took because of the
misstated 21-day deadline are not indicative of an injury. He
would have been required to answer the complaint at some point
regardless of the misstated deadline, and filing an answer is not
"detrimental to his personal financial position or legal rights."
Moreover, the causal chain is plainly broken because Van Vleck's
alleged injury -- resolution of the admittedly owed debt -- is the
result of advice of counsel, not the 21-day misstatement. Again,
the crux of the matter is that Van Vleck has not alleged any
detrimental reliance. Accordingly, he has alleged no harm that is
fairly traceable to the Defendant's conduct and does not have
standing to assert this claim.
As for supplemental jurisdiction, Judge Davis holds that where, in
the case, the Court has "dismissed all claims over which it has
original jurisdiction," the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly advised
that the district courts should not exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims. Accordingly, Van Vleck's state
law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Finally, Judge Davis addresses the remaining pending motions.
Regarding Van Vleck's motion to certify the class action, the Judge
finds that when it is determined that a plaintiff such as Van Vleck
does not have an individual claim, he cannot serve as a class
representative and the motion to certify the class must be denied
as moot. Accordingly, the Motion to Certify the Class Action is
denied as moot, as are the Motion to Stay the Decision on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and the Renewed Motion
to Consolidate Cases.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Davis granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, dismissed the Plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice, and denied as moot all the other pending motions.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2mvs35ek from Leagle.com.
LIC PAYROLL: Misclassifies RSMs and ASMs, Sapozhnikov Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKHAIL SAPOZHNIKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIC PAYROLL PROCESSING CORP., and PERSONAL
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 507473/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., March 30, 2021) is a class and collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a retail sales
manager (RSM) and assistant store manager (ASM) from October 2017
through June 9, 2020 at their Avenue X location in Brooklyn, New
York.
According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated RSMs and ASMs as exempt
employees. Allegedly, the Defendants denied them of overtime wages
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek and/or minimum wages for all
hours worked. In addition, the Defendants did not provide them with
statutorily required wage notices and wage statements under the
NYLL, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation for himself and all other similarly situated RSMs and
ASMs, as well as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs and other relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
The Corporate Defendants are T-Mobile third party retailers that
opened T-Mobile retail stores throughout the East Coast, including
New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
335 18th Pl. NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Tel: (207) 744-1407
E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com
- and –
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 West Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Wins Full Summary Judgment in Kennedy ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
Appellant-Plaintiff v. Beverly M. Kennedy, Appellee-Defendant,
Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-PL-837, the Court of Appeals of
Indiana:
(i) affirms in part and reverses in part the trial court's
partial grant of summary judgment in favor of the
Appellee-Defendant Kennedy; and
(ii) enters full summary judgment for Lincoln National.
Lincoln National is a purveyor of group long-term disability
("LTD") benefits insurance, and it issued the Policy. Kennedy
received the Policy as part of her compensation from her former
employer, the University of Louisville. The Policy is not governed
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The
Policy contains a choice-of-law provision that Kentucky state law
governs.
In September of 2010, Kennedy was unable to work full-time due to
several medical conditions, including COPD, fibromyalgia, and back
issues. By December of 2010, Kennedy was unable to work at all. In
December of 2010, Kennedy applied for LTD benefits under the
Policy. Lincoln National initially denied her claim, whereupon
Kennedy filed suit in Kentucky in the Jefferson County Circuit
Court.
After Kennedy initiated litigation, Lincoln National reversed its
denial, began paying Kennedy $2,322 in monthly Policy benefits on
June 2, 2011, and settled Kennedy's suit. Her Policy disability
date is Dec. 2, 2010, and, under the Policy's elimination period,
she was required to be continuously disabled for 180 days before
benefits were paid. From June 2, 2011, to June 2, 2013, Lincoln
National paid Kennedy benefits under the Policy's Total Disability
'own occupation' disability period, wherein an insured is found to
be unable to perform each of the main duties of her own
occupation.
Kennedy also applied for and received social security disability
benefits (SSDBs) from the Social Security Administration ("SSA"),
which found her to be disabled as of Sept. 21, 2010. Her initial,
gross SSBDs award was $1,964. However, Kennedy's Medicare Part B
insurance premiums were deducted from her SSDBs, reducing the
amount she actually received in SSDBs per month. Kennedy also
received a retroactive SSDBs award of $25,914.
On Dec. 23, 2013, Lincoln National notified Kennedy by letter that
it had determined that Kennedy was totally disabled as of June 2,
2013, under the Policy's 'any occupation' provision, wherein an
insured is found to be unable to perform each of the main duties of
any occupation. In addition, relying on Policy provisions, Lincoln
National notified Kennedy that it sought to offset/reduce her 'any
occupation' Policy monthly benefits by the amount of her SSDBs as
of June 2, 2013. To that end, Lincoln National corresponded with
Kennedy's attorney, requesting a copy of Kennedy's complete SSDBs
award and again notifying her of its intention to offset. Kennedy
refused to provide Lincoln National with information pertaining to
her SSDBs award.
After paying Kennedy full Policy benefits for over three years, on
Nov. 11, 2014, Lincoln National filed the instant suit in the
Circuit Court of Washington County, Indiana, where Kennedy resided.
It sought declaratory judgment to determine its offset right as of
June 2, 2013, and to compel Kennedy to provide information
pertaining to her SSDBs award. On March 6, 2015, Kennedy filed an
answer to Lincoln National's complaint for declaratory judgment as
well as counterclaims on behalf of herself and a putative class,
raising breach of contract and tort claims.
On July 28, 2016, Lincoln National moved for summary judgment on
its complaint and Kennedy's counterclaims. On Aug. 28, 2019, the
trial court held a hearing on Lincoln National's summary judgment
motion.
On Oct. 18, 2019, the trial court granted partial summary judgment
to each party, concluding that Lincoln National was entitled to
offset Kennedy's SSDBs from her Policy benefits because she was
awarded both benefits for the "same Disability,'" as required by
the Policy. However, it ruled in favor of Kennedy that the Policy
was ambiguous regarding the amount of the offset and strictly
construed that ambiguity against Lincoln National to hold that it
was only entitled to offset the amount of Kennedy's SSDBs after her
Medicare Part B insurance premiums had been deducted. The trial
court further ordered that any reimbursement to Kennedy from
Lincoln National would be subject to accrued interest at 12%,
compounded annually.
On Nov. 18, 2019, Lincoln National filed a motion to correct error,
and Kennedy filed a motion to reconsider. On March 9, 2020, the
trial court entered an amended order on summary judgment which was
materially the same as its Oct. 18, 2019, order apart from
directing that any reimbursement to Lincoln National from Kennedy
would also be subject to 12% annual interest. On April 22, 2020,
the trial court stayed proceedings, including Kennedy's request for
class certification, until the resolution of this appeal.
Appellant-Plaintiff Lincoln National appeals the trial court's
partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Kennedy, on its
complaint for declaratory judgment pertaining to a group long-term
disability benefits policy it issued. Kennedy cross-appeals the
trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Lincoln
National.
Lincoln National presents the Appellate Court with one issue, which
it restates as the following two:
(1) Whether the Policy's Discretionary Clause dictates that
Court of Appeals reviews Lincoln National's interpretation of the
Policy only for reasonableness; and
(2) Whether the Policy's language which permits it to offset
Kennedy's Policy benefits by the social security disability
benefits ("SSDBs") for which she is eligible includes any amounts
deducted from her SSDBs for her Medicare Part B premiums.
On cross-appeal, Kennedy presents the Court with three issues,
which it restates as:
(1) Whether Lincoln National may offset Kennedy's SSDBs
because they are the result of the same Disability for which she
received Policy benefits, as required by the Policy;
(2) Whether Kennedy's Medicare Part B premiums fall under an
exception from offset under the Policy; and
(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
ordered that any reimbursement to Lincoln National from Kennedy for
overpayment of benefits would be subject to accrued interest at 12%
compounded annually.
The Court of Appeals finds that the Policy provides that an
insured's monthly benefit amount is offset/reduced by the
recipient's Other Income Benefits (OIB), including SSDBs. It is
not disputed that SSDBs qualify as an OIB under the Policy or that
the Policy permits Lincoln National to offset SSDBs if they result
from the 'same Disability' for which the insured receives Policy
benefits. The dispute is whether Kennedy received her SSDBs and
Policy benefits for the 'same Disability.'
The Appellate Court finds that Lincoln National designated its
Abilities Form which was completed by Kennedy's physician as part
of her application for Policy benefits and upon which it based the
Policy benefit award. The Abilities Form indicated that Kennedy
suffered from COPD with emphysema, severe fibromyalgia, and
mechanical back pain, among other conditions. Lincoln National
also designated Kennedy's SSA decision awarding her SSBDs based
upon its conclusion that she suffered from severe fibromyalgia,
degenerative disc disease, and COPD.
Given the parity of these conditions which formed the bases for the
respective benefits determinations, Lincoln National demonstrated
that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether
both benefits were awarded for the 'same Disability,' as required
by the Policy. As Kennedy did not designate any evidence creating
a dispute, the Appellate Court concludes that Lincoln National was
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, it
affirms the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Lincoln
National.
Having concluded that Lincoln National may offset Kennedy's SSDBs
under the terms of the Policy, the Appellate Court addresses
Lincoln National's contention that the trial court erred when it
determined that the Policy's offset provision was ambiguous,
construed that ambiguity in favor of Kennedy, and concluded that
Lincoln National is only entitled to offset the amount she actually
receives from the SSA after her Medicare Part B premium is
deducted. The resolution of this issue turns on the meaning of the
term 'is eligible' as used in the Policy.
Lincoln National argues that 'is eligible' is unambiguous and that
the court should apply its plain meaning. Kennedy contends that
the term is ambiguous and that ambiguities, especially those
involving exclusions or benefits limitations, are construed
strictly against the insurer and in favor of coverage under
Kentucky law.
The Court of Appeals finds that Kennedy has not identified, either
in her written submissions to the court or at oral argument, any
ambiguity in the term 'is eligible.' It also does not find the
term to be ambiguous, and, therefore, it applies its plain and
ordinary meaning. It is undisputed that Kennedy is legally
qualified, and has satisfied the necessary conditions, to receive
the gross amount of her SSDBs benefit. Indeed, this gross amount
constitutes the available funds from which the SSA deducts her
Medicare premium. Therefore, Lincoln National is entitled to
offset the gross amount of Kennedy's SSDBs award.
Given the plain and ordinary meaning of the term 'is eligible,' the
Court of Appeals concludes that Lincoln National is entitled to
offset the gross amount of Kennedy's SSDBs, not the net amount she
receives after her Medicare Part B premium is deducted. Therefore,
it reverses the trial court and enter summary judgment for Lincoln
National.
Kennedy also contends that her Medicare premium falls under an
exception to the Policy's offset provision, and, thus, Lincoln
National is not authorized to include the amount of her premium in
its offset of her SSDBs award.
The Court of Appeals observes that the Policy's list of exceptions
does not expressly include Medicare premiums. It also observes
that for a form of income to fall within the purview of the
exception proffered by Kennedy, it must be a 'reimbursement.'
However, Kennedy does not even attempt to argue that the term
'reimbursement' is ambiguous, and, again, the Appellate Court does
not find it to be so. Therefore, the Court applies the plain and
ordinary meaning of the word. A 'reimbursement' is defined as a
"repayment." A Medicare premium is a payment made by the insured
for insurance coverage, not a reimbursement of any kind.
Therefore, a Medicare premium is not an exception under the plain
meaning of the Policy and is properly subject to offset. As such,
the Court concludes that Kennedy's Medicare Part B premium does not
fall within an exception to offset.
Ms. Kennedy lastly asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion when it ordered that Lincoln National was entitled to
collect any overpayment of benefits from her and that the
"unreimbursed overpayment will be subject to accrued interest at
12% compounded annually. The Court of Appeals finds no abuse of
discretion in the substance or the timing of the trial court's
ruling and holds that the trial court properly found that Lincoln
National was entitled to offset Kennedy's SSDBs.
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concludes that Lincoln
National was entitled to full summary judgment as a matter of law
based on the Policy's provisions, and therefore, it reverses the
trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Kennedy and
enters summary judgment in favor of Lincoln National. In addition,
it concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
it ordered that Lincoln National was entitled to reimbursement of
overpaid benefits, subject to interest.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yvyzuv7k from Leagle.com.
Bart A. Karwath, Mark J. Crandley, Barnes Thornburg, LLP, in
Indianapolis, Indiana, Edmund S. Sauer -- esauer@bradley.com -- in
Nashville, Tennessee, Jason A. Walters -- jwalters@bradley.com --
in Birmingham, Alabama, Attorneys for appellant.
Thomas E. Scifres, Salem, Indiana, Andrew Grabhorn, Michael D.
Grabhorn, in Louisville, Kentucky, Attorneys for Appellee.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces Rico Suit Over Common Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW RICO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORP., STEPHEN S. BURNS, RICH SCHMIDT,
and JULIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 4:21-cv-00616-PAG (N.D. Ohio, March
18, 2021) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Lordstown
securities between August 3, 2020 and March 17, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period") pursuant to the the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
On August 3, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that they
had entered into a definitive merger agreement through which, upon
closing, the combined company would remain listed on the NASDAQ
stock exchange under the new ticker symbol "RIDE." DiamondPeak was
setup as a special purpose acquisition company (also known as a
SPAC). DiamondPeak's shares traded on the NASDAQ stock exchange
under the ticker symbol "DPHC."
The August 3, 2020 release provided, in relevant part that the
transaction valued Lordstown "at an implied $1.6 billion pro forma
equity value," and that the transaction as expected to deliver
approximately $675 million in gross proceeds. The release announced
that the transaction was expected to close in the fourth quarter of
2020.
On October 22, 2020, Lordstown and DiamondPeak announced that
DiamondPeak shareholders had approved the merger. On October 23,
2020, Lordstown announced that it had completed the business
combination with DiamondPeak, and that beginning on October 26,
2020, Lordstown's Class A shares would begin trading on the NASDAQ
Global Select market under the ticker symbol "RIDE," and that its
warrants would trade on NASDAQ under the symbol "RIDEW."
During the Class Period, and as alleged, Lordstown repeatedly
lauded its pre-order agreements with prospective customers.
Moreover, the Company stated numerous times that it was "on track"
to begin production of the Lordstown Endurance in September 2021.
Before the markets opened on March 12, 2021, analyst Hindenburg
Research published a scathing report on Lordstown entitled: "The
Lordstown Motors Mirage: Fake Orders, Undisclosed Production
Hurdles, and a Prototype Inferno." As alleged in greater detail
below, in this report, Hindenburg noted that Lordstown has "no
revenue and no sellable product," and wrote that the Company "has
misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities."
The Hindenburg report concluded that Lordstown's "orders are
largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer
legitimacy," and that a former employee "explained how the company
is experiencing delays and making 'drastic' design modifications,
putting [Lordstown] an estimated 3-4 years away from production,"
rather than the Company being "on track" for a September 2021
production start, added the suit.
On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell
approximately 16.5% in one day, down from its March 11, 2021
closing price of $17.71 to a March 12, 2021 close of just $14.78.
This represents hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market
capitalization.
Then on March 17, 2021, after trading had closed, the Company held
an earnings call on which Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown
had received an inquiry from the SEC. Remarkably, although
Lordstown also issued a press release and a Form 8-K announcing its
fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results after trading
closed on March 17, 2021, the Company failed to disclose the
existence of the SEC inquiry in those filings. On this news, the
stock fell approximately another 9% in aftermarket trading.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company's purported
pre-orders were non-binding.
Plaintiff Rico acquired and held shares of Lordstown at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, and has been
damaged by the revelation of the Company's material
misrepresentations and material omissions.
According to its website, Lordstown is an automotive company
founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty
electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. The Company's
purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric
full-size pickup truck. The Company is headquartered in Lordstown,
Ohio. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Merriman Legando, Esq.
WILLIAMS & KLANG, LLC
DREW LEGANDO (0084209)
1360 W. 9th St., Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
E-mail: drew@merrimanlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER: Palm Global Seeks Lawsuit's Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palm Global Small Cap
Master Fund LP, Kenneth Grossman, and Pinnacle Acquisition Fund II
LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Steven Rogers, Lowenstein Sandler LLP, Porzio Bromberg & Newman,
P.C. and John and Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 21-01210-VFP, the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on April 27, 2021 for entry of an
order granting summary judgment on Counts I, II and III of
Plaintiffs Complaint.
On February 19, 2019, Aceto Corporation and related affiliated
debtors (the Debtors-in-Possession) commenced the above-captioned
cases under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11
U.S.C. Section 101-1330 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Mr. Rogers served as General Counsel and/or chief legal officer of
Aceto, during which time Lowenstein acted as Aceto's primary
outside counsel. By Order dated September 18, 2019 [Main Case
Docket No. 996] (the Confirmation Order), this Court confirmed the
Plan in the above-captioned bankruptcy case.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas J. McGill, Esq.
WEBBER MCGILL LLC
760 Route 10, Suite 104
Whippany, NJ 07981
Telephone: (973) 739-9559
Facsimile: (973) 739-9575
E-mail: dmcgill@webbermcgill.com
MAGNA INT'L: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Davis ERISA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MELVIN DAVIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. MAGNA
INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-11060 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division,
denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint and strike jury
demand.
The four named Plaintiffs in the action are individuals who
invested in a 401k plan called the Magna Group of Companies
Retirement Savings Plan during their employment with Magna. The
Plaintiffs are Melvin Davis, Wayne Anderson, Shawnetta Jordan and
Dakota King. Magna is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in Troy, Michigan. It is a subsidiary of Magna
International Inc., a global automotive supplier that specializes
in mobility technology.
The class action is brought pursuant to sections 409 and 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 1109 and 1132. The Plaintiffs bring the action
against the Plan's fiduciaries: Magna, the Board of Directors of
Magna, and its members during the class period, the Magna
International of America, Inc. Investment Committee and its members
during the class period, and the United States Pension and
Retirement Savings Committee and its members during the class
period. The Plaintiffs define the class period as April 30, 2014
through the date of judgment in the action.
The Plan is a defined contribution retirement plan. In such a
plan, the participants have individual accounts and the Plan
provides for benefits based upon the amount contributed, and any
income, gains and losses, expenses, and any forfeitures which may
be allocated to the participant's account. At all times during the
Class Period the Plan had more than one billion dollars in assets
under management. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the Plan had $1.6 billion
in assets under management for all funds.
The Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants
as fiduciaries of the Plan breached the duties they owed to the
Plan, tom and to other participants in the Plan by (1) 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 (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan
despite the availability of identical or similar investment options
with lower costs and/or better performance histories as required by
the Plan's investment policy.
The Plaintiffs' claims are breach of the fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence, brought against the Investment Committee
Defendant and its members (First Claim), and failure to adequately
monitor fiduciaries, brought against Magna, the Board and the
Committee Defendants (Second Claim).
The Defendants move to dismiss these claims under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of standing) and 12(b)(6) (failure
to state a claim). They have submitted several exhibits with their
motion to dismiss, including excerpts from publicly available
annual Department of Labor Form 5500 reports for the years 2016
through 2018; excerpts from the 401k Averages Book, the 1998
Department of Labor Study (and an underlying article), and the ICI
Study cited in Plaintiffs' complaint; and the Schedule of
Investment for the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account
publicly available from Principal's website. They also submitted a
declaration from Jose Bustamante, Senior Program Manager of the
Retirement Program at Magna. The Plaintiffs have not objected to
these exhibits and Jdge Edmunds finds that they can be considered
in the motion to dismiss.
A. Whether Plaintiffs Have Standing
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs invested in only two of
the Plan's fund options that they challenged, and therefore have
not alleged an "injury in fact" that is "concrete and
particularized" as to all of the challenged options. Plaintiffs
King and Jordan invested in the Principal LifeTime Hybrid 2050
collective investment trust ("CIT"), and Plaintiffs Davis and
Anderson invested in the Principal LifeTime Hybrid 2030 CIT. The
Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims
for the remaining eleven investment options at issue, because for
these, the Plaintiffs have not alleged an "injury in fact" that is
"concrete and particularized."
Judge Edmunds opines that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Article III because they allege actual injury to
their own plan accounts and they allege injury in fact that is
causally related to the conduct they challenge on behalf of the
Plan. She denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
B. Whether Plaintiffs Have Stated A Claim For Relief
The Defendants argue that even if the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have standing, they have failed to state a plausible
claim for breach of ERISA's duty of prudence. They also challenge
the Plaintiffs' comparison of the challenged investment options
with the median fees for plans of a similar size from an Investment
Company Institute ("ICI") study, presented in the table at
paragraph 81 of the Plaintiffs' complaint.
Judge Edmunds finds that Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d
585, 593 (8th Cir. 2009) instructive in recognizing that "no matter
how clever or diligent, ERISA plaintiffs generally lack the inside
information necessary to make out their claims in detail unless and
until discovery commences." "If plaintiffs cannot state a claim
without pleading facts which tend systemically to be in the sole
possession of defendants, the remedial scheme of the statute will
fail, and the crucial rights secured by ERISA will suffer." More
than one court has acknowledged the hurdle that the Plaintiffs face
in bringing such a case.
The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have included allegations
that the Defendants may not have acted singularly toward
benefitting the Plan beneficiaries and have sufficiently stated a
claim for breach of loyalty.
In Count II of the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Magna, the
Board, and the PRS Defendants ("Monitoring Defendants") failed to
adequately monitor the Investment Committee in violation of 29
U.S.C. 1109(a) and 1132(a)(2). The Defendants' only argument for
dismissal of this claim assumes that the Plaintiffs failed to
allege breaches of fiduciary duty as to the Investment Committee.
As set forth, the Judget found that tje Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pled that claim therefore the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Count II will be denied.
C. Motion to Strike Jury Demand
The Plaintiffs withdraw their jury demand.
Conclusion
For the reasons she stated, Judge Edmunds denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint and struck the jury demand.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/pxk4v3uj from Leagle.com.
MAJESTIC CARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fortin Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA FORTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAJESTIC CARE STAFF LLC; MAJESTIC CARE STAFF
HOLDINGS LLC; MAJESTIC CARE OHIO MANAGEMENT LLC; MAJESTIC CARE OHIO
HG OPERATIONS HOLDINGS LLC; and WISE MEDICAL STAFFING, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01467-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, April 1,
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 Fortin was employed by the Defendants as nursing
assistant.
MAJESTIC CARE STAFF LLC provides community-based skilled nursing
throughout the states of Indiana and Ohio, specializing in clinical
services such as short-term rehabilitation, long-term care, and
memory care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
Columbus, OJ 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
MEALPRO LLC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mealpro LLC. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Mealpro LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03023
(S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mealpro -- https://www.mealpro.net/ -- is a nationwide ready-to-eat
meal delivery service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MEDAILLE COLLEGE: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medaille College
Foundation, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v.
Medaille College Foundation, Inc., Medaille Foundation, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03066 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Medaille College -- https://www.medaille.edu/ -- provides a
well-rounded higher education, and preparations for work in the
field via internships, practitioner faculty and teamwork.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
MEDICUS HEALTHCARE: Moreau Bid for Conditional Cert. Junked as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leah Moreau v. Medicus
HealthCare Solutions, LLC and Medicus Hospitalist Services, LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01107-JD (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph A.
DiClerico, Jr. entered an order terminating as moot the following
motions:
-- the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification;
-- the plaintiff's motion to quash;
-- the parties' assented-to motion for a protective order; and
-- the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a reply,
The Court said, "Counsel has advised the court that the case has
settled. There are currently several motions pending. Moreau moved
for conditional certification of a collective action, and the
defendants filed an objection. Moreau also moved to quash discovery
subpoenas issued by the defendants and for a protective order, and
she then filed a motion for leave to file a reply to the
defendants’ objection to that motion. The parties filed an
assented-to motion for a protective order. In light of the notice
of settlement, the pending motions are now moot."
Leah Moreau brought suit, alleging that Medicus HealthCare
Solutions, LLC and Medicus Hospitalist Services, LLC. improperly
classified her as an independent contractor and failed to pay her
overtime in violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
She also alleged a putative collective action under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b).
A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a4EUvq at no extra charge.[CC]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Hamm Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY HAMM, et al., Plaintiffs v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, issued an order:
(1) denying Plaintiff Hamm's motion for class certification;
(2) denying MBUSA's motion to strike the report of the
Plaintiff's expert Dr. D.C. Sharp pursuant to Federal Rule
of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
(3) denying MBUSA's motion to strike the report of the
Plaintiff's expert Murat Okcuoglu also pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
(4) denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to strike the
expert report and testimony of MBUSA's expert, Kevin Lane
Keller.
Plaintiff Hamm is an owner of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with
an allegedly defective automatic transmission known as the 722.9
7G-Tronic transmission. Hamm purchased his used Mercedes-Benz 2006
CLK350 vehicle in December 2012 from Stevens Creek Toyota in San
Jose, California. At the time of Hamm's purchase, Stevens Creek
Toyota was a Toyota dealership (i.e., not a Mercedes-Benz
dealership). Hamm is the fourth owner of the used Mercedes-Benz
2006 CLK350 vehicle.
The alleged transmission defect typically manifests itself outside
the 4 year/50,000 mile duration of MBUSA's New Vehicle Limited
Warranty. The alleged defect causes Mercedes-Benz vehicles with
the 722.9 transmission to enter "limp mode" in which their vehicles
cannot shift or accelerate. Hamm's transmission failed by
exhibiting the defect at issue: his vehicle locked into low gear,
was unable to accelerate, and the Check Engine Light was
illuminated.
Mr. Hamm points to warranty claims relating to the 722.9
transmissions as well as MBUSA's "repair kits," remedying issues
affecting various 722.9 transmissions, as evidence of the alleged
defect. He alleges that MBUSA knew of the defect but failed to
disclose it, thereby violating the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA") and the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL").
The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California owners and
lessees of Mercedes vehicles equipped with the 722.9 transmission,
seeking damages under the theory that all California purchasers of
the class vehicles paid more for their car, that had an undisclosed
defect, than they would have paid had the defect not been present
or been disclosed prior to the vehicles' sale.
The Plaintiff Hamm seeks to certify the following class: All
California owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped
with the 722.9 7G Tronic transmission.
In the alternative, Plaintiff Hamm seeks the certification of a
narrower class defined as: All California owners and lessees of
Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with the VGS1 generation of the
722.9 7G Tronic transmission (which were equipped on the 2004-2007
Mercedes model year vehicles outfitted with the 722.9 7G Tronic
transmission).
Judge Davila begins with analyzing the requirements for class
certification under Rule 23(a). Afterwards, he examines class
certification requirements under Rule 23(b)(3). Finally, the Judge
turns its attention to three Daubert motions, two from MBUSA to
strike the reports of the Plaintiff's experts D.C. Sharp and Murat
Okcuoglu, and one from Plaintiff Hamm to strike MBUSA's expert
report of Kevin Keller.
A. Motion for Class Certification
Ultimately, because Judge Davila finds that Hamm will be unable to
show that predominance exists under Rule 23(b)(3), Hamm is also
unable to meet all of the requirements of Rule 23(a), namely
typicality, for the same reasons that defeat predominance under
Rule 23(b)(3). Under the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis,
because Hamm is unable to use common evidence to infer reliance
across the class, Hamm may be subject to unique defenses that would
render his claims atypical to those of the class. And because
individual inquiries will predominate in determining reliance
across the class, the predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3)
is not met and the class cannot be certified as a result.
B. Daubert Motions
MBUSA moves to strike Dr. D.C. Sharp and Murat Okcuoglu's expert
reports in support of the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification for failing to meet the standards required by Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Rule
702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Judge Davila denies both
motions.
Regarding Okcuoglu, the Judge finds that Okcuoglu's expert report
need not be stricken because he has yet to identify the specific
cause of the alleged common defect at this stage. Okcuoglu has
"already procured several exemplar vehicles and valve bodies" of
the various 722.9 transmissions "to undertake that analysis."
Okcuoglu has also presented a sufficient methodology for
determining the existence of an alleged common defect plaguing the
722.9 transmissions. His expert report need not be stricken
because he has yet to complete the comparison analysis methodology
he has outlined. The very purpose of Okcuoglu's methodology is to
identify the precise cause of the defect allegedly present in the
722.9 transmissions by comparing MBUSA's "repair kits" to
unrepaired 722.9 transmissions.
With respect to Dr. Sharp, the Judge is satisfied that Dr. Sharp
has employed a valid scientific methodology by utilizing a hedonic
regression. MBUSA's criticisms regarding the data used and
variables included or omitted within Dr. Sharp's damages model
should be properly challenged in the adversarial process "through
competing evidence and incisive cross-examination." Contrary to
MBUSA's claims and when considering Hamm's legal theory, Dr.
Sharp's damages model has no requirement to attribute damages to a
specific component or iteration of the 722.9 transmissions when
Hamm asserts that all of the 722.9 transmissions are defective,
regardless of iteration or components present. MBUSA cannot assert
that a disclosure of the alleged defect never occurred and then
simultaneously fault Hamm for failing to precisely identify when
disclosure of the alleged defect occurred.
For the reasons he set forth, Judge Davila denied Plaintiff Hamm's
motion for class certification; denied Defendant MBUSA's motion to
strike the report of Plaintiff's expert Dr. D.C. Sharp and motion
to strike the report of Plaintiff's expert Murat Okcuoglu. And
because the motion for class certification is denied, the
Plaintiff's motion to strike MBUSA's expert report and testimony of
Kevin Lane Keller is deemed moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wpuduzv from Leagle.com.
MMD INC: Fails to Pay Earned Wages & Overtime, Busby Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESHONE BUSBY and STEPHANIE HERRERA, on behalf of themselves and in
their representative capacity as private attorney general v. MMD,
INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV1 0709 (Calif. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2021) is a
representative action for recovery of penalties under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this suit on behalf of the Aggrieved
Non-Exempt Employees to recover civil penalties and address the
employer's violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants implemented uniform
policies and practices that deprived them and Aggrieved Employees
of earned wages, including minimum wages, straight time wages,
overtime wages, tips, premium wages, and which failed to reimburse
necessary expenses, and lawful meal and/or rest breaks.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants at various times as
non-exempt employees in or from Defendants' dispensaries, shops or
retail stores in the State of California during the relevant time
period. At various times, the Plaintiffs were employed as
budtenders, customer service employees, cashiers, and delivery
personnel.
MMD, Inc. operates dispensaries, shops, and stores in California.
Per its website, MMD was founded in 2006, and opened its first
medical dispensary in North Hollywood. MMD operates dispensaries in
Southern California, and maintains an extensive cannabis menu
online and in-store. MMD sells products in its stores and through
delivery operations.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Malte L. L. Farnaes, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
Anthony E. Rivera, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 210
Encinitas, CA 92024
Telephone: (760) 942-9431
Facsimile: (760) 942-9431
E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com
clucio@farnaeslaw.com
anthony@farnaeslaw.com
MMM CONSUMER: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MMM Consumer Brands
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. MMM Consumer Brands Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03057 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
MMM Consumer Brands Inc. doing business as Martha & Marley Spoon --
https://marleyspoon.com/ -- delivers delicious, 30-minute recipes
with farm-fresh ingredients to your door.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Glaab Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DANIEL GLAAB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL, INC., W.
ALEXANDER HOLMES, and LAWRENCE ANGELILLI, Case No. 2:21-cv-01887,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on April 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 3:21-cv-00815-S to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about MoneyGram's business, operational and financial
results in order to attract investors to purchase MoneyGram
securities at artificially inflated prices of between June 17, 2019
and February 22, 2021.
MoneyGram International, Inc. is a money transfer company, with its
principal executive offices at 2828 N. Harwood St., 15th Floor,
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
MOVE INC: Faces Gutenberg Infringement Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Move, Inc. The case
is captioned as George Gutenberg v. Move, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02382-ODW-AFM (C.D. Calif., March 17, 2021).
The lawsuit arises from copyright infringement-related issues.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II.
Move, Inc. is a real estate listing company based in Santa Clara,
California. The company operates the Move Network of real estate
websites, the largest of which is Realtor.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff George Gutenberg on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated is represented by:
Jonah Adam Grossbardt, Esq.
SRIPLAW
8730 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 350
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (323) 364-6565
Facsimile: (561) 404-4353
E-mail: jonah.grossbardt@sriplaw.com
MPW INDUSTRIAL: Breslin Seeks Field Service Technicians' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BRESLIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situate,
Plaintiff v. MPW INDUSTRIAL WATER SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00582-MEM (M.D. Pa., March 30, 2021) brings this
complaint against the Defendant seeking all available relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salaried employee
from approximately February 2018 until March 2021 in the position
of Field Service Technician.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to accurately
determine his and other similarly situated Field Service
Technicians' overtime compensation. Purportedly, the Defendant
incorrectly converts the weekly salary to a regular hourly rate by
dividing the salary by 40, and then pays the employee 50% of the
regular hourly rate for each overtime hour. As a result, the
Defendant willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable
rate in accordance with the FLSA and the PMWA, the Plaintiff adds.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated Field Service
Technicians, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs,
expenses, and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
MPW Industrial Water Services, Inc. offers a variety of industrial
cleaning, water treatment, facility management, environmental
management and container management services to thousands of
clients throughout North America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Tel: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
N3 LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Austin Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
KENDON AUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. N3 LLC, d/b/a N3 RESULTS, and ACCENTURE LLP,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01354-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 4, 2021) is
an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.
Plaintiff Austin was employed by the Defendants as sales
representative.
N3, LLC operates as a sales and marketing execution firm. The
Company performs commercial, business, marketing, opinion, and
other economic research. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
1201 N. Peachtree Street, NE
400 Colony Square, #200
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (877) 946-8293
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
NATROL LLC: Bid for Summary Judgment Partly Denied in Vitello
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE VITELLO, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. NATROL, LLC,
Case No. 4:18-cv-00915-SEP (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Sarah E.
Pitlyk entered an order:
1. denying in part the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
2. allowing the Plaintiff, 30 days from the date of this Order,
to respond to the Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's
admissions regarding her use of Cognium undermine her MMPA
and unjust enrichment claims, after which Defendant will have
10 days to reply;
3. denying without prejudice the Motion for Summary Judgment in
all other respects;
4. denying the Plaintiff's Rule 56(d) Motion as it relates to
Defendant's surviving argument for summary judgment and
denying as moot as to all other claims; and
5. denying without prejudice to refiling after the Court's
ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment.
Natrol manufactures and distributes a variety of nutritional and
herbal supplements through supermarkets, drugstores, health food
stores, and mass-market.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Qi2xcy at no extra charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Union Square Supply Suit Over Price Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNION SQUARE SUPPLY INC, Individually and On Behalf of a Class of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO, CITY
OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND WORKER
PROTECTION, LORELAI SALAS, as Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIALS & HEARINGS, and JONI KLETTER, as Commissioner
and Chief Administrative Law Judge of the Office of Administrative
Trials and Hearings, INSPECTOR DAVI, and INSPECTOR JOHN DOE(S) AND
INSPECT, Case No. 1:21-cv-02390 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2021) is a
civil rights class action lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and monetary damages pursuant the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Monell liability
against the Defendants.
The Defendants have allegedly abused RCNY section 5-42(b)(1) to set
fixed prices for goods sold by the Plaintiff and the Class Members.
The Defendants also allegedly have abused 6 RCNY section 5-42(b)(1)
to allow for a definition of price gouging to evolve by case law
instead of published standards set up by a regulated board as
occurs in tenant rent control.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants outrageously high fines
and penalties serve no public benefit to New Yorkers, when
well-intentioned store owners are not given notice of the maximum
price limits. The conduct, actions, and policy of Defendants are
intentional in its violation of the Federal and State Constitution,
the due process rights, and the right to be free of excessive fines
of the Plaintiff and Class Members.
Plaintiff Union Square Supply Co. is incorporated in the State of
New York and has its principal place of business at 130 Fourth
Avenue, New York, New York.
Defendant De Blasio is the duly elected Mayor of the City of New
York. Th Defendant NYC is a duly constituted municipal corporation
of the State of New York existing and operating under and by the
virtue of the laws of the State of New York.
In March 12, 2020, De Blasio and NYC declared a local state of
emergency in the City of New York, under Emergency Executive Order
No. 98. On March 15, 2020, De Blasio and NYC approved the adoption
of the emergency rule, set to expire on July 12, 2020. On March 15,
2020, Lorelai Salas and the DCWP promulgated the notice of adoption
of the emergency rule.
The notice of the emergency rule declared that the "practice of
price gouging with regard to personal and household goods and
services" is unconscionable. The notice also defined price gouging
as "when a merchant takes advantage of an abnormal disruption in
the marketplace and charges excessive prices, taking advantage of
the consumer’s inability to bargain or seek a better price,
resulting in a gross disparity between the value received by a
consumer and the price paid."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. La Reddola, Esq.
LA REDDOLA, LESTER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 230
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 745-1951
NEW YORK: Court Tosses Class Petitioner's Bid for Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUNIOR ONOSAMBA-OHINDO, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. JEFFREY
SEARLS, in his official capacity as the Acting Administrator of the
Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Case No. 1:20-cv-00290-EAW
(W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford entered an order
denying the Class Petitioner's motion for certification of the
Post-Hearing Class without prejudice.
The Court said, "Class Petitioner may, if he chooses, bring a
renewed motion for class certification that addresses the concerns
identified by the Court, and in particular sets forth the precise
indivisible declaration that he contends the Court could issue in
this matter."
Previously, in a Decision and Order dated September 2, 2020 (D&O),
the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
The D&O also granted in part, denied in part, and reserved decision
in part on Petitioners’ motion for class certification and
certified a Pre-Hearing Class, defined as follows:
"All individuals currently detained at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility under section 1226(a) who will have a custody
hearing before the Batavia or Buffalo Immigration Courts.
A copy of the Court's decision and order dated March 29, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t6Gwfq at no
extra charge.[CC]
NISSAN NORTH: Rogue Vehicles Have CVT Defect, Landa Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MENACHEM LANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. and NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY,
LTD., Case No. 3:21-cv-00232 (M.D. Tenn., March 17, 2021) is a
consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose material
facts and a safety concern to consumers regarding 2014-2020 Nissan
Rogue vehicle equipped with an Xtronic Continuously Variable
Transmission (Class Vehicles).
The Plaintiff Landa brings this action individually and on behalf
of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any
Class Vehicles designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold,
warranted, and/or serviced by Nissan North America, Inc., and
Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
The Plaintiff contends that Nissan marketed and sold the Class
Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' Xtronic
Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) was defective.
Allegedly, the CVT is defective in the following ways: it causes
sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking (commonly referred
to as "juddering" or shuddering"), stalling, or lurching when
drivers attempt to accelerate their vehicles; it causes the vehicle
to lag or delay when the driver tries to accelerate, causing an
unsafe, unpredictable acceleration; it exhibits a hard deceleration
or "clunk" when drivers either slow down or accelerate at low
speeds; it causes complete transmission failure in the middle of
roadways and it suffers catastrophic failure, necessitating
replacement.
Plaintiff Landa is a citizen of New York, residing in Brooklyn, New
York. Mr. Landa purchased his certified pre-owned 2016 Nissan Rogue
from Nissan City of Port Chester in Port Chester, New York on
October 31, 2019.
Nissan North America, Inc. was engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
in New York and throughout the United States of America.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caroline Ramsey Taylor, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
518 Monroe Street
Nashville, TN 37208
Telephone: (615) 921-6500
Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
E-mail: caroline@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
Amey J. Park, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ldeutsch@bm.net
josterwise@bm.net
apark@bm.nets
NRG TEXAS: White Suit Removed from State Court to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT WHITE, et al., v. NRG TEXAS POWER LLC, et al., Case No.
2021-11686, was removed from the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, 158th Judicial District to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on March 16, 2021.
The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:21-cv-00870 to the proceeding.
More than one hundred individual Plaintiffs sued more than one
hundred defendants, who are owners and/or operators of power
generation facilities (including Removing Defendants) and power
transmission/distribution companies, in the State Case.
The Plaintiffs include NIC KAMISH, LACY GREJCHA, DESTANI HARRIS,
BUKOLA SIMEON, KENA BURAS, GWEN MAYBERRY, TONYA REYES-DICKERSON,
KAYLA BUTLER, CHERYL FREESTONE, MUSTAFA ABUDEIAB, CLEMENT
ADEGBENRO, SHERRY AINSLIE, ROBIN AKIN, BRANDON AKRIDGE, MARTHA
ALLISON, ROY ALVAREZ, MAYRA AMAYA, DANIEL APODACA, LANAMAY ARCHER,
GINGER ARMBESTER, JAMES ARNETT, WARDRICK ATKINS, DONELLE BANKS,
WILLIAM BARNETT, TIFFANY CASHETTE BECTON, PATRICE BOOKER, JANE
BRAMBLETT, CHRISTINE BREEDLOVE-SCHMITZ, BRENDA BRICE, ASHLEY BROWN,
AUDRA BROWN, TERRENCE BROWN, WAYNE BUCKHEIT, MARY BUICE, LYNN BYRD,
EMILY CAHILL, CHRISTINA CALDWELL, CARLOS CANINO, TRALANE CARDONA,
LEEANN CARMEN, JACORIAN CARTER, ALISA CHARLES, GLENN CLARK,
SHENEIKA COLE, SIMONE COLEMAN, ADDIE COOLEY, ELIZABETH CRAWFORD,
SHAQUALA CYRUS, TERRELL DANCY, ESPERANZA DEGRATE, MARJORIE
DERUSHA-MORRIS, EMMA DIXON, PAMELA DOOLEY, AMANDA DUNCAN, GAIL
EDWARDS, LINDA FAVORS, FELICIA FIELDS, JUANICE FILIPPELLI, RAUL
FLORES, JAMIEJO FLOWERS, DRATON FLOYD, ARLENE FOLEY, RODRICK
FOSTER, GABRIEL GAYTAN, SAMANTHA GLUCK, JEAN GRIFFIN, WENDELL GTAY,
CYNTHIA GUAJARDO, DEJOUR GUE, JASMINE HALL, ALAIN HANSON, JOAN
HARRIS, WILLIAM HELM, SHAMEKIA HENDERSON, DERRICK HENRY, PATRICIA
HILL, MARGARET HINTZ, DANIEL HOARD, JOHN HOLLYFIELD, ROBYNNE
HORTON, SHEREKA HUBBARD, ASHLEY HUNTER, JEANNIE HURD, ZALIA ISRAEL,
JAMILIA R JACKSON, JOSHUA JACKSON, KARRIE JACKSON, LADANIEL
JACKSON, SHONTAYA JACKSON, LISA JEFFERSON, DANIELLE JERNIGAN, ROSE
JOHNSON, SHANNUN JOHNSON, DAWN KERR, JOSHUA KIZER, SHERRI LAMBIASE,
LISA LINDSAY, MARILYN LINDSEY-HARRIS, ALICIA LOWERY, MONICA MACK,
RICHARD MARQUART, BORIS MARROQUIN, JENESSA MATHIS, CYNTHIA MCCLURE,
ANDREA MENDEZ, ADRIANNA MENDOZA, GWEN MILLER, JESUS MORALES,
CYNTHIA MORRIS, RANDOLPH MOSLEY, TAMERA MUÑOZ, PRESTON NAQUIN,
RONALD NDAWULA, FAITH OMORUYI, CARLOS ORTIZ, BRAD OSBORNE, ANITA
OZUNA, RISHI PATEL, CONCHITA PATTY, REBECCA PEREZ, KAREN PRESTON,
HOLLI REVELL, MARTRENTIA RIVERS, TROY ROBERTS, IRENE RODRIGUEZ,
CHERYL RUBRECHT, CLYDE SALYER, DEANA SANCHEZ, LESLIE SCHANNE,
REYLYN SILAS, LATASHA SIMMONS, CONNIE SIMMS, DENISE SIMMS, FRANCES
SMITH, GERALD SMITH, MICHAEL SPAIN, LATISSA SPEARS, KASIE STEPHENS,
JENNIFER STEWART, EVANGELIE STURGEON, VERONICA TOLES, SHELBY
TOLLEFSON, SHOOU TSAI, HIROSHI URABE, ERICKA VALENCIA, OTHELA
VASHER, DJUANA VINCENT, SHANE WAMPLER, BETTIE WEBB, TOM WEEKS, PAPY
WENYI, JOHNNY WHITE, TERENCE WHITE, KATHY WHITTEN, CHRISTOPHER
WILLIAMS, KAMESHIA WILLIAMS, CAROLINE WILSON, WILL WITZSCHE, and
ECKIE WOODARD.
The Defendants include 226HC 8ME LLC, 2W PERMIAN SOLAR LLC, AEP
TEXAS INC., ANSON SOLAR CENTER LLC, APERION ENERGY TEXAS LLP,
AVANGRID TEXAS RENEWABLES LLC, AVIATOR WIND LLC, AZURE SKY WIND
PROJECT LLC, BARNEY M DAVIS LP, BASTROP ENERGY PARTNERS LP, BEARKAT
WIND ENERGY I LLC, BLUE SUMMIT III WIND LLC, BLUEBONNET ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC., BORGER ENERGY ASSOCIATES LP, BULL CREEK WIND LLC,
CALPINE CORPORATION, CANADIAN BREAKS LLC, CAP RIDGE WIND III LLC,
CENTERPOINT ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC LLC, COLBECK'S CORNER LLC,
COLETO CREEK POWER LLC, COLORADO BEND II POWER LLC, COMANCHE PEAK
POWER COMPANY LLC, CONCHO BLUFF LLC, CONCHO VALLEY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC., CRANELL WIND FARM LLC, CROSS TEXAS TRANSMISSION
LLC, CROSSETT POWER MANAGEMENT LLC, DYNEGY OPERATING COMPANY,
DYNEGY POWER AMERICA INC, EASTEX COGENERATION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
EASTMAN COGENERATION LP, ECTOR COUNTY ENERGY CENTER LLC, EI DU PONT
DENEMOURS AND COMPANY (SRW), EIF CHANNELVIEW COGENERATION LLC,
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION TEXAS LLC, ENEL GREEN POWER ROADRUNNER
PROJECT II LLC, ENGIE LONG DRAW SOLAR LLC, ENNIS POWER COMPANY LLC,
ENTERGY TEXAS INC., EXELON GENERATION COMPANY LLC, EXGEN HANDLEY
POWER LLC, EXGEN TEXAS II POWER, LLC, EXGEN TEXAS POWER LLC,
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION EXXONMOBIL REFINING & SUPPLY, EXXONMOBIL OIL
CORPORATION, FLAT TOP WIND I LLC, FOARD CITY WIND LLC, FORMOSA
UTILITY VENTURE LTD, FREEPORT POWER LIMITED, FRONTERA GENERATION
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, GENTEX POWER CORPORATION, GOODWELL WIND ENERGY
PROJECT LLC, GRANDVIEW WIND FARM LLC, GREGORY POWER PARTNERS LLC,
GUADALUPE VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC., HAYS ENERGY LLC, HEART
OF TEXAS WIND LLC, HIGH LONESOME WIND POWER LLC, HORSE HOLLOW WIND
I LLC, HORSE HOLLOW WIND II LLC, HORSE HOLLOW WIND III LLC, INADALE
WIND FARM LLC, INGLESIDE COGENERATION LP, IPA OPERATIONS INC.,
JAVELINA WIND ENERGY II LLC, KIOWA POWER PARTNERS LLC, LA CHALUPA
LLC, LA FRONTERA HOLDINGS LLC, LAS LOMAS WIND PROJECT LLC, LCRA
TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORPORATION, LIGHTHOUSE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
INC., LIVE OAK WIND PROJECT LLC, LOCKET WINDFARM LLC, LOGAN'S GAP
WIND LLC, LONE STAR TRANSMISSION LLC, LONGHORN WIND PROJECT LLC,
LOS VIENTOS WINDPOWER 1A LLC, LOS VIENTOS WINDPOWER 1B LLC, LOS
VIENTOS WINDPOWER III LLC, LOS VIENTOS WINDPOWER IV LLC, LUMINANT
GENERATION COMPANY LLC, MAGIC VALLEY WIND FARM I LLC, MARYNEAL
WINDPOWER LLC, MAVERICK CREEK WIND LLC, MEDINA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
INC., MESA POWER PAMPA LLC, MESQUITE CREEK WIND LLC, MESQUITE STAR
SPECIAL LLC, MESQUITE WIND LLC, MESTENO WINDPOWER LLC, MIDLOTHIAN
ENERGY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MIDWAY SOLAR LLC, MOUNTAIN CREEK POWER
LLC, NAVARRO COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC., NOTREES WINDPOWER
LP, NRG COTTONWOOD TENANT LLC, NRG ENERGY INC., NRG SOUTH TEXAS LP,
NRG TEXAS LLC, NUECES BAY LLC, OAK GROVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC,
OCI SUNRAY LLC, ODESSA-ECTOR POWER PARTNERS LP, OKLAHOMA MUNICIPAL
POWER AUTHORITY, ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC, ONCOR
ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY NTU LLC, OPTIM ENERGY ALTURA COGEN LLC,
PANDA SHERMAN POWER LLC, PANDA TEMPLE POWER II LLC, PANTHER CREEK
WIND FARM THREE LLC, PAPALOTE CREEK I LLC, PAPALOTE CREEK II LLC,
PARIS GENERATION LP, PATRIOT WIND FARM LLC, PATTERN PANHANDLE WIND
2 LLC, PHR HOLDINGS LLC, POST OAK WIND LLC, PUMPKIN FARM WIND LLC,
RATTLESNAKE WIND I LLC, RAYBURN COUNTRY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.,
RAYMOND WIND FARM LLC, RE MAPLEWOOD LLC, RE RAMBLER LLC, RELOJ DEL
SOL WIND FARM LLC, RIO NOGALES POWER PROJECT LP, ROADRUNNER SOLAR
PROJECT LLC, ROSCOE WIND FARM LLC, RUSK COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
INC., SAN PATRICIO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC., SANDY CREEK ENERGY
ASSOCIATES LP, SE ARAGORN LLC, SEMPRA ENERGY, SHAKES SOLAR LLC,
SHANNON WIND LLC, SOUTH PLAINS WIND ENERGY LLC, SOUTHWEST TEXAS
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC., SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY,
SPINNING SPUR WIND THREE LLC, STELLA WIND FARM LLC, SWEENY
COGENERATION LLC, TEMPLE GENERATION I LLC, TENASKA FRONTIER
PARTNERS LTD, TENASKA GATEWAY PARTNERS LTD, TEXAS ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE INC., TEXAS POWER GROUP LLC, TEXAS-NEW MEXICO POWER
COMPANY, THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, TRINITY HILL WIND FARM LLC, TX
HERE FORD WIND LLC, UPTON COUNTY SOLAR 2 LLC, UTILITY HOLDINGS LLC,
VISTRA ASSET COMPANY LLC, VISTRA CORP., VISTRA PREFERRED INC.,
WESTERN TRAIL WIND LLC, WILDCAT CREEK WIND FARM LLC, WIND ENERGY
TRANSMISSION TEXAS LLC, WISE COUNTY POWER COMPANY LLC, WOLF HOLLOW
I POWER LLC, WOLF HOLLOW II POWER LLC, WOODWARD MOUNTAIN WIND
LLC.[BN]
Defendants Bastrop Energy Partners LP, ExGen Texas Power, LLC,
Frontera Generation Limited Partnership, Mountain Creek Power LLC,
Paris Generation LP, and Wolf Hollow I Power LLC are represented
by:
Jeremy A. Fielding, Esq.
Michael Kalis, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1601 Elm Street, 27th Floor
Dalllas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 972-1770
Facsimile: (214) 972-1771
E-mail: jeremy.fielding@kirkland.com
Michael.kalis@kirkland.com
- and -
Dustin Womack, Esq.
ANNA ROTMAN, P.C.
609 Main Street
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 836-3600
Facsimile: (713) 836-3601
E-mail: anna.rotman@kirkland.com
dustin.womack@kirkland.com
NUTRAMARKS INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NutraMarks, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. NutraMarks, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03040 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Nutramarks Inc was founded in 1993. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing, fabricating, or processing of drugs in
pharmaceutical preparations for human or veterinary use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Lopez Seeks to Certify Background Check Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDA LOPEZ v. OLLIE'S
BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-02120-GAP-LRH (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying Fair
Credit Reporting Act case as a class action.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Background Check
Class:
"All natural persons in the United States who: (1) were the
subject of a consumer report that was procured by Defendant (or
caused to be procured by Defendant) for an employment purpose;
(2) to whom Defendant presented, or to whom Defendant claims to
have presented, the forms, before procuring that report; (3)
within two years of the filing of this lawsuit, through the date
the Class List is prepared."
Defendant Ollie's owns and operates approximately 400
discount-retail stores selling closeout merchandise and excess
inventory nationwide. Like many employers, Ollie's obtains consumer
reports (commonly known as "background checks") and uses them to
screen job applicants. Nothing requires that employers use such
reports in the hiring process. If employers don't want to follow
the FCRA's requirements, they can simply obtain applicants'
criminal history directly from the courts, or even from law
enforcement. Ollie's chose to purchase consumer reports in its
hiring process. As a result, Ollie's is bound by the FCRA's strict
disclosure requirements.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/328md5E
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
ONYX ENTERPRISES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Onyx Enterprises
Int'l Corp. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Onyx Enterprises Int'l
Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-03041 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
PARTS iD Inc., originally founded in 2008 as Onyx Enterprises,
Int'l, Corp., -- https://www.partsidinc.com/ -- is a
technology-driven, digital commerce company focused on creating
custom infrastructure and unique user experiences within niche
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PACIFICA, CA: Provisional Class Certification Sought in Geary Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN GEARY, LINDA MILES,
JARED CARR, HARRY BODE, STEPHEN SANDERS, and all others similarly
situated, v. CITY OF PACIFICA, Case No. 3:21-cv-01780-VC (N.D.
Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and Civil L. R. 7-1, for provisional
certification of a class of:
"all persons in the City of Pacifica, California (the City) who
currently reside, seek to reside, or have resided in an oversize
vehicle within the City as their only form of shelter between
December 9, 2019 and the present."
According to the complaint, Pacifica has long resisted efforts to
increase housing affordability, resulting in an acute housing
shortage and skyrocketing housing costs that have made fixed
housing increasingly unaffordable and pushed many residents into
vehicles as their only available shelter. At any one time, there
have been as many as seventy-five inhabited RVs on the streets of
Pacifica. Rather than find ways to accommodate or allow vehicularly
housed people to stay in Pacifica, however, the City has attempted
to expel them—first by enacting an ordinance that criminalized
the act of remaining in a vehicle overnight (the Human Habitation
Ban) and then by enacting the OSV Ban.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 30, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wJaV5L at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Grayce Zelphin, Esq.
Brandon Greene, Esq.
William S. Freeman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 621-2493
Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
E-mail: gzelphin@aclunc.org
bgreene@aclunc.org
wfreeman@aclunc.org
- and -
Shirley Gibson, Esq.
Ashley Luo, Esq.
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY
Sobrato Center for Nonprofits
330 Twin Dolphin Dr. Ste 123
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 558-0915
Facsimile: (650) 517-8973
E-mail: sgibson@legalaidsmc.org
aluo@legalaidsmc.org
- and -
Thomas Zito, Esq.
Sean Betouliere, Esq.
Shira Tevah, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, 4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: tzito@dralegal.org
sbetouliere@dralegal.org
stevah@dralegal.org
PANDA PLATES: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panda Plates Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Panda Plates Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03043 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Panda Plates Inc. -- https://yumblekids.com/ -- provides food
products. The Company offers pizza, salads, gazpacho, soups,
chicken wings, spaghetti, garlic bread, and beverages..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PAUL A. SCHMITT MUSIC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul A. Schmitt Music
Company. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Paul A. Schmitt Music
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-03067 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Schmitt Music -- https://www.schmittmusic.com/ -- is an American
retail company which specializes in acoustic pianos, digital
pianos, band and orchestra instruments, guitars and other musical
instruments, sheet music and accessories, as well as offering
services such as instrument repair and music instruction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PEACHCAP TAX: Leonard Files Suit in Georgia Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PeachCap Tax &
Advisory, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Clyde E. Leonard Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
PeachCap Tax & Advisory, LLC, David Harrison Miller, Eric Steven
Burnette, Case No. 2021CV348012 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., April
8, 2021).
The case type is stated as "TORT/NEGLIGENCE."
PeachCap -- https://peachcap.com/ -- has broken down the silos
between tax, wealth, and accounting to offer clients a fully
integrated approach to all-things financial.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PLAYBOY ENT: Scott Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LATHARIO SCOTT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES,
INC., Case No. 21STCV02362 was removed from the Superior Court of
the County of Los Angeles, California, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 18,
2021.
The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-2421 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that Playboy violated the Florida Security of
Communications Act by purportedly intercepting, without consent,
his electronic communications with Playboy's website. The Plaintiff
purports to bring his claims on behalf of himself and a class of
"no less than 100 individuals" comprised of:
"[a]ll persons residing within the State of Florida who
visited the Defendant's website and whose electronic
communications were intercepted" without their consent."
Playboy Enterprises is an adult entertainment company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
17 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
The Defendant is represented by:
Scott S. Humphreys, Esq.
BALLARD SPAHR LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915
Telephone: (424) 204-4400
Facsimile: (424) 204-435
E-mail: humphreyss@ballardspahr.com
PORCH GROUP: Hagens Berman Probes for Possible Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Porch Group Inc. (NASDAQ: PRCH) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. The firm is
investigating possible securities law violations and certain
investors may have valuable claims.
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PRCH
Contact An Attorney Now: PRCH@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Porch Group Inc. (NASDAQ: PRCH) Investigation:
The investigation is focused on whether Porch Group has
misrepresented its actual leverage and inflated its gross margins.
On Apr. 8, 2021, analyst Spruce Point Capital Management published
a scathing report entitled "A Porch On A Flimsy Foundation."
According to Spruce Point, Porch "is a classic example of a Company
that has never found a business model that makes sense and was in
technical default with a going concern warning before using the
frothy SPAC market as an opportunity to allow insiders to dump
shares."
Spruce Point accuses the company of concealing or obscuring
numerous business activities from 2017 – 2021 and faking a
partnership service that doesn't exist. Spruce Point also estimates
that Porch understates its true leverage by keeping up to $1.1
billion potential exposure to financial guarantees off its books
and artificially inflates its gross margins by engaging in barter
transactions.
In response, the price of Porch shares sharply fell on Apr. 9,
2021.
"We're focused on investors' losses and whether Porch Group has
cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you are a Porch Group 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 Porch
Group 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 PRCH@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and 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]
PRESIDIO INC: LaPrairie Employment Class Suit Removed to W.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC LAPRAIRIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PRESIDIO, INC., PRESIDIO HOLDINGS,
INC., PRESIDIO LLC, PRESIDIO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS LLC, PRESIDIO
NETWORKED SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC and PRESIDIO TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL,
LLC, Case No. E2020009128, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of Monroe, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of New York on April 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of New York assigned
Case No. 6:21-cv-06306 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York Labor Law and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Presidio, Inc. is a provider of information technology services
based in New York, New York.
Presidio Holdings, Inc. is a global digital systems integrator
developing innovative technology solutions to help clients
digitally transform their business, headquartered in New York, New
York.
Presidio LLC is a provider of information technology services based
in New York, New York.
Presidio Networked Solutions LLC is an information technology
services company based in Maryland.
Presidio Networked Solutions Group, LLC is an information
technology solutions provider based in Texas.
Presidio Technology Capital, LLC is an information technology
solutions provider headquartered in Norcross, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Salvo, Esq.
Brian E. Middlebrook, Esq.
John T. Mills, Esq.
GORDON & REES LLP
1 Battery Park Plaza, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 269-5500
Facsimile: (212) 269-5505
E-mail: jsalvo@grsm.com
bmiddlebrook@grsm.com
jtmills@grsm.com
PRIMAL ELEMENTS: Paguada Files ADA Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Primal Elements, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Primal Elements, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03020 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Primal Elements -- https://www.primalelements.com/ -- is dedicated
to providing the highest quality glycerin soap, candles, bath and
skin care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Narrows Claims in Byrd Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETHANY BYRD et al., Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT
INSURANCE CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:20-cv-119-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), Judge David J. Hale of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville
Division, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
partial motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.
Plaintiffs Bethany Byrd, Sandra Vance, and Destiny Hicks assert
that Defendants Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Progressive
Casualty Insurance Company, and Progressive Paloverde Insurance
Company improperly denied them personal injury protection ("PIP")
benefits. The Plaintiffs, both individually and as a putative
class, filed the action against the Defendants for breach of
contract and failure to pay PIP benefits in violation of the
Kentucky Motor Vehicle Reparations Act ("MVRA"); they also seek a
declaratory judgment.
The Defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. Specifically, Progressive
Direct moves to dismiss all claims asserted by Byrd; Progressive
Casualty and Progressive Paloverde move to dismiss Vance and
Hicks's claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and
18% statutory interest and attorney fees under the MVRA; and
Progressive Casualty additionally moves to dismiss Hicks's MVRA
claim in its entirety.
The Plaintiffs assert that in failing to pay their PIP benefits in
full, the Defendants breached their contracts with them and
violated the MVRA. They also seek a declaratory judgment that the
Defendants have waived the right to dispute the Plaintiffs' claims;
that the Plaintiffs' claims are timely; that the Defendants'
contracts with the Plaintiffs are reformed; and that the
Defendants' "past and continued non-payment of PIP benefits on the
basis of paper reviews" lacked reasonable foundation and violated
the MVRA.
A. Claims preempted by MVRA
The Defendants argue that the MVRA bars the Plaintiffs' claims for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The Kentucky Supreme
Court has held that the MVRA "provides an exclusive remedy where an
insurance company wrongfully delays or denies payment of no-fault
[i.e., PIP] benefits, citing Foster v. Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins.
Co., 189 S.W.3d 553, 557 (Ky. 2006). The MVRA is a comprehensive
act which not only relates to certain tort remedies, but also
establishes the terms under which insurers pay no-fault benefits,
and provides for the penalties to which insurers are subjected if
they fail to properly pay no-fault benefits. The principle set
forth in Foster -- that the MVRA provides the exclusive remedy when
an insurance company denies payment of no-fault benefits -- has
been followed in subsequent federal and state cases.
The Plaintiffs argue that the MVRA provides the 'exclusive remedy'
for extracontractual damages" but that it does not preempt their
claims for breach of contract because "a breach of contract claim
is proper when the contract contains benefits, terms and conditions
which are in addition to those required by the MVRA.
Judge Hale opines that none of the case law cited by the Plaintiffs
supports this contention. And current case law contradicts it. As
in Risner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 14-41-HRW,
2014 WL 5431284, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2014), the Plaintiffs'
breach-of-contract claims rest on the Defendants' denial of the
Plaintiffs' PIP benefits. The Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract
claims are, therefore, preempted by the MVRA and must be
dismissed.
As for their declaratory-judgment claim, the Plaintiffs argue that
"the MVRA does not preclude actions for declaratory judgments" and
that "courts within Kentucky, both state and federal, have been
declaring the existence of justiciable controversies and the rights
of parties under insurance contracts and the MVRA for decades."
But nearly all the cases cited by the Plaintiffs predate Foster v.
Ky. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 189 S.W.3d 553, 557 (Ky. 2006). And
the one post-Foster case the Plaintiffs cite is inapposite because
there the insurer brought the declaratory-judgment claim. Because
the Plaintiffs' "lawsuit is directly dependent on the Defendants'
failure to pay no-fault benefits, there is no cause of action for
damages beyond a violation of the MVRA," and the Plaintiffs' claims
for declaratory judgment will be dismissed.
B. MVRA Claims
First, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' MVRA claims for
18% interest on their unpaid benefits and attorney fees should be
dismissed because the Defendants "had a 'reasonable basis' to not
pay PIP benefits."
Judge Hale finds that although the Plaintiffs attempt to
distinguish Irvin v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2020 WL
4004808, at *8 (W.D. Ky. 2020), based on the fact that the insurer
in Irvin made remedial efforts for its post-Sanders denials whereas
the Defendants have "made no such remedial efforts," this
distinction has no impact on Irvin's holding. But the Judge agrees
with the Plaintiffs that Irvin's holding "does not affect the
remedies due following Sanders." Accordingly, for the reasons set
forth in Irvin, he will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim for 18% interest and attorney fees, but only as
to those damages accrued prior to Sanders.
Second, the Defendants argue that Byrd and Hicks's MVRA claims are
barred by the statute of limitations. They have submitted pay logs
showing that the last payment Progressive Direct made on Byrd's
claim was issued Aug. 13, 2015; and the last payment that
Progressive Casualty made on Hicks's claim was issued March 15,
2018. Since Byrd filed her complaint on Feb. 12, 2020, and Hicks
was added as a party in the amended complaint filed June 3, 2020,
the Defendants argue that both Byrd and Hicks missed their
respective two-year filing windows.
Among other things, Judge Hale opines that American Pipe tolls the
statute of limitations during the pendency of a putative class
action, allowing unnamed class members to join the action
individually or file individual claims if the class fails, citing
China Agritech, 138 S. Ct. at 1804. The February 2020 filing of
the action thus tolled the statute of limitations on Hicks's MVRA
claim, and that claim will not be dismissed.
For the reasons he set forth, and being otherwise sufficiently
advised, Judge Hale granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
the Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract and declaratory-judgment claims
(Counts I and III), Byrd's MVRA claim (Count II), and Vance and
Hicks's MVRA claims for 18% interest and attorney fees for damages
accrued prior to the Sanders decision (Count II). Those claims are
dismissed. The Judge denied the Defendants' motion as to Vance and
Hicks's MVRA claims for 18% interest and attorney fees for damages
accrued post-Sanders and Hicks's remaining MVRA claim (Count II).
The matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay,
to conduct a status conference to develop a final litigation
schedule with respect to the remaining claims. The final schedule
will include a settlement conference.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 31, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/hcvebwas from
Leagle.com.
PURITY ORGANIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purity Organic, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Purity Organic, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03044-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Purity Organic -- https://purityorganic.com/ -- is a consumer goods
company that offers organic juice, tea, and coconut water.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
REALEATS AMERICA: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RealEats America Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. RealEats America Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-03026 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RealEats -- https://www.realeats.com/ -- is a food tech company
that offers a premium meal prep delivery service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
RESPONDUS INC: Faces Bridges Suit Over Alleged BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP BRIDGES; and CHENG WU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RESPONDUS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01785 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2021)
alleges violation of Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant provides sophisticated
digital surveillance technologies to third parties, such as
schools, that wish to monitor college and high school students
during academic assessments. However, the Defendant does not
disclose or obtain written consent before collecting, capturing,
storing, or sharing users' biometric information or biometric
identifiers. It also fails to disclose what it does with that
biometric data after collection and does not comply with Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act on retention and destruction
requirements for private entities that possess biometric
identifiers or biometric information, added the suit.
Respondus Inc. develops assessment applications for the electronic
learning. The Company offers application for creating and managing
exams. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
1114 Dublin Road
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 488-0400
Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
misny@mmmb.com
-and-
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Mary C. Turke, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson Street #201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
mary@turkestrauss.com
-and-
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
-and-
Lauren E. Urban, Esq.
1424 N. Hoyne Ave.
Chicago, IL 60622
Telephone: (419) 344-1146
lauren.elizabeth.urban@gmail.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Lavin Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW M. LAVIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD
SECURITIES, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., CITADEL SECURITIES, LLC,
CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS LLC, and MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00115, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 8, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-21351-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, common law conspiracy,
business conspiracy, and violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.
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.
Citadel Securities LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Citadel Enterprise Americas LLC is a financial services company,
headquartered at 131 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois.
Melvin Capital Management LP is a financial services company,
headquartered at 535 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Parker J. Lavin, Esq.
ROBERTS TATE, LLC
2487 Demere Road, Suite 400
St. Simons Island, GA 31522
Telephone: (912) 638-5200
Facsimile: (912) 638-5300
E-mail: plavin@robertstate.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Minnick Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Minnick, Jhanna White, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial
LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00489, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21353 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invests in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Moody Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David Moody, Julie Moody, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC; Robinhood
Markets Inc.; Citadel Securities, LLC; Citadel Enterprise Americas,
LLC (formerly known as: Citadel LLC), Case No. 4:21-cv-00861, 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 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21349-CMA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invests in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Carl Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
Eric D. Monek Anderson, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 954-4400
Email: bwisoff@fbm.com
EMonekAnderson@fbm.com
ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Ng Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brian Ng, Chetan Patel, Anuj Kapur, Jayesh Shah,
Summit Thakral, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood
Securities, LLC, Robinhood Markets Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
4:21-cv-00311, 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 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21350-CMA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for Breach
of Contract.
Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an
institutional brokerage company. The Company provides online and
mobile application-based discount stock brokerage solutions that
allows users to invests in publicly-traded companies and
exchange-traded funds.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shreedhar R. Patel, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
4265 San Felipe, Ste. 1000
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (713) 622-7271
Email: spatel@reichandbinstock.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Odean L. Volker, Esq.
HAYNES AND BOONE LLP
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4000
Houston, TX 77010
Phone: (713) 547-2036
Email: odean.volker@haynesboone.com
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Suit Alleges Automatic Card Shufflers Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
CASINO QUEEN, INC. d/b/a DraftKings at Casino Queen; and CASINO
QUEEN MARQUETTE, INC. d/b/a Casino Queen Marquette, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION; BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a SHFL
Entertainment or Shuffle Master; and BALLY GAMING, INC., d/b/a
Bally Technologies, f/k/a Bally Gaming and Systems, f/k/a SHFL
Entertainment, Inc., f/k/a Shuffle Master, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-01798 (N.D. Ill., April 2, 2021) alleges violation of
the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs assert in the complaint that the Defendants is
engaged in the monopolization of the market for automatic card
shufflers used at casinos through the Defendants’ abuse of the
patent system and judicial process to exclude and drive out
competitors from the market. The Defendants which manufacture and
sell fully automated card shufflers under the Shuffle Master,
DeckMate, and Bally names, allegedly procured patents by fraud and
then asserted those patents in sham lawsuits against competitors,
which effectively excluded competitors from the market and caused
the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to pay more for
automated card shufflers than they otherwise would have in a
competitive market.
Scientific Games Corporation provides gambling products and
services. The Company offers technology platforms, robust systems,
engaging game content, and related marketing solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 899-9090
Facsimile: (312) 251-1160
E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com
-and-
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
clebsock@hausfeld.com
-and-
Scott Martin, Esq.
Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
Broad Financial Center
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1195
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com
jbayoumi@hausfeld.com
-and-
Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
Marco Cercone, Esq.
Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf
CUNNINGHAM, LLC
1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street
Buffalo, NY 14202
E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
cercone@ruppbaase.com
SECURIAN FINANCIAL: Ciofoletti Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROCCO CIOFOLETTI, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SECURIAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., et al., Case No.
0:18-cv-03025-JNE-ECW (D. Minn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a) and (b)(3);
2. appointing all Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel; and
3. appointing them as Class Representatives.
Securian is a mutual holding company that provides a range of
financial products and services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uJzNbG
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Ciofoletti and Stospal Plaintiffs are:
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
Attorneys for Ciofoletti Plaintiffs are:
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57 th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
Attorneys for Stospal Plaintiff are:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
WEXLER WALLACE LLP
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
kae@wexlerwallace.com
SIGNET JEWELERS: Suit Against Subsidiary Ongoing in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited 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 SJI, a company
subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs filed a class action
lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of
Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that US store-level employment practices are
discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with
respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the
matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed
on a class-wide basis.
The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a
Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide
hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive
relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22,
2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims
and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion
claims.
The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.
Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed.
April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an order denying the
Claimants' Motion. SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's
Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants
opposed. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part.
On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order.
On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appealed the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed.
The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed,
and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants
filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the
Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class
Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination
Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the arbitrator granted
the Claimants' motion.
On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issued to
the putative members of the collective action.
SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's
Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay
Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March
31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.
On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion. On March 23,
2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re
Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, which
Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May
31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion
and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which Claimant's
opposed.
On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Claimants filed a
Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015,
and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the
Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from
requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief
class certified in the arbitration.
The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016 and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a
Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016, which Claimants
opposed. The matter was fully briefed, and oral argument was heard
on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part on January 27,
2017.
Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016,
and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August
1, 2016. Approximately 10,314 current and former employees
submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action;
however, some have withdrawn their consents.
The number of valid consents is disputed and yet to be determined.
SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124. On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that
the absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.
On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed, and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017. On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in
the arbitration motions for summary judgment, and for
decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay Act and Title VII
promotions claims. On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's
motions was heard.
On January 26, 2018, SJI filed in the arbitration a Motion to
Vacate The Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award And Tolling Order
asserting that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
conditionally certifying the Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the
absent claimants to opt-in the litigation.
On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator. On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator
issued an Order partially granting SJI's Motion to Amend the
Arbitrator's November 2, 2017, Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case
Management Plan resulting in a continuance of the May 14, 2018
trial date.
A new trial date has not been set.
On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's August 17, 2017
Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class Determination Award finding that
the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties
(absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court
further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class
action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII
matter from 70,000 to potentially 254. Claimants disputed that the
number of claimants in the Title VII is 254.
On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018. On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a
Rule 28(j) letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of
the Supreme Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No.
17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal. The Second
Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to submit
additional arguments on that issue, which were submitted. On
November 18, 2019 the Second Circuit issued an order reversing and
remanding the District Court's January 15, 2018 Order that vacated
the Arbitrator's Class Determination Award certifying for
declaratory and injunctive relief a Title VII pay and promotions
class of female retail sales employees.
The Second Circuit held that the District Court erred when it
concluded that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority in purporting
to bind absent class members to the Class Determination Award. The
Second Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to decide
the narrower question of whether the Arbitrator erred in certifying
an opt-out, as opposed to a mandatory, class for declaratory and
injunctive relief. On December 2, 2019, SJI filed a petition for a
hearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
On January 15, 2020, SJI filed a Rule 28(j) letter in the Second
Circuit. On that same day the Second Circuit denied the petition
for rehearing en banc. On January 21, 2020, Sterling filed its
motion for stay of mandate with the Second Circuit pending the
filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court. On January 22, 2020, the Second Circuit granted Sterling's
motion for stay of mandate. SJI's petition for a writ of certiorari
from the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on October 5, 2020.
On January 27, 2021 the District Court ordered the case remanded to
the AAA for further proceedings in arbitration.
SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
determined or estimated.
Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholder Class Suits in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Slack Technologies, 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 January 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend shareholder class action suits in California.
Beginning in September 2019, seven purported class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers, and certain investment funds associated with certain of
its directors, each alleging violations of securities laws in
connection with the Company's registration statement on Form S-1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
All but one of these actions were filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Mateo, though one plaintiff
originally filed in the County of San Francisco before refiling in
the County of San Mateo. The remaining action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
In the Federal Action, captioned Dennee v. Slack Technologies,
Inc., Case No. 3:19-CV-05857-SI, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in January 2020.
In April 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss.
In May 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to
certify the court's order for interlocutory appeal, which the court
granted.
The Company and the other defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the district court's order to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which was granted in July 2020. The
Company and the other defendants filed their opening brief with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2020. The plaintiff filed
its opposition brief in December 2020. The Company and the other
defendants filed their reply brief in February 2021. Oral argument
has been set for May 2021.
The state court actions were consolidated in November 2019, and the
consolidated action is captioned In re Slack Technologies, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 19CIV05370.
An additional state court action was filed in San Mateo County in
June 2020 but was consolidated with the State Court Action in July
2020. The Company and the other defendants filed demurrers to the
complaint in the State Court Action in February 2020.
In August 2020, the court sustained in part and overruled in part
the demurrers, and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint, which they did in October 2020. The Company and the
other defendants answered the complaint in November 2020.
The plaintiff in the San Francisco Action has sought dismissal of
that action after joining the State Court Action. That dismissal
remains pending.
The Federal Action and the State Court Action seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement.
Slack Technologies, Inc. is the leading channels-based messaging
platform, used by millions to align their teams, unify their
systems, and drive their businesses forward. Slack offers a secure,
enterprise-grade environment that can scale with the largest
organizations in the world. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.
SNAPMEDTECH INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Lepera Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA LEPERA, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. SNAPMEDTECH, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10
inclusive, Case No. 1:21-cv-00444-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal., March 17,
2021) is a class action lawsuit against Snapmedtech doing business
as SnapNurse for failing to include stipends in the regular rate of
pay when calculating overtime wages, inducing persons to move to
California and/or within California to perform travel assignments
for it with knowingly false misrepresentations, and failing to
timely pay all wages owing at the termination of employment.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of West Virginia. From January 2021 to
March 16, 2021, Plaintiff was employed by SnapNurse as a Traveler
and assigned to work at Saint Agnes Medical Center in Fresno,
California.
SnapNurse employs numerous hourly health care professionals for
short-term travel assignments at health care providers throughout
California (Travelers).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2b
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone (626) 808-4357
Facsimile (626) 921-4932
E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
SOS LIMITED: Pomerantz Law Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against SOS Limited ("SOS" or the "Company") (NYSE: SOS), and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States ("U.S.") District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 21-cv-07454, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired SOS American depository shares ("ADSs") between
July 22, 2020 and February 25, 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 by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), against the
Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased SOS ADSs during the Class
Period, you have until May 31, 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.
SOS is a technology company that purportedly provides marketing
data, technology, and solutions for emergency rescue services. When
the Company went public in April 2017, it was known as "China Rapid
Finance Limited" and claimed to focus on a peer-to-peer,
micro-lending business. The Company later changed its name to "SOS
Limited" in July 2020 and sold its peer-to-peer, micro-lending
business in August 2020, rebranding itself into an emergency
services business. In January 2021, the Company again shifted its
business focus, this time to cryptocurrency mining.
Critical to SOS's purportedly successful transition into a
cryptocurrency mining business were the Company's claims to have
entered into an agreement with HY International Group New York Inc.
("HY"), which calls itself the "world's largest mining machine
matchmaker," to acquire 15,645 mining rigs-i.e., personal computing
machines built specifically for cryptocurrency mining-for $20
million, and the Company's plans to purchase FXK Technology
Corporation ("FXK"), a purported Canadian cryptocurrency technology
firm.
In addition to rapidly changing its business focus, SOS has also
rapidly changed the location of its headquarters. According to the
Company's SEC filings, the address of the Company's principal
executive offices has changed no less than five times since the
Company went public in April 2017.
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) SOS had misrepresented the true
nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal
executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and FXK were
either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by
the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the type and/or
existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper
Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the
Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake
addresses and doctored photos of crypto mining rigs to create an
illusion of success. The analysts noted, for example, that SOS's
SEC filings listed a hotel room as the Company's headquarters. The
analysts also questioned whether SOS had actually purchased mining
rigs that it claimed to own, as the entity from which SOS
purportedly bought the mining rigs appeared to be a fake shell
company. The analysts further alleged that the photos SOS had
published of their purported "mining rigs" were phony. Culper noted
that photographs of SOS's "miners" did not depict the A10 Pro
machines that the Company claimed to own and instead appeared to
show different devices altogether. Hindenburg, for its part, found
that the original images from SOS's website actually belonged to
another company.
On this news, SOS's American depositary share ("ADS") price fell
$1.27 per share, or 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADS on February
26, 2021.
After the end of the Class Period, between February 27 and March 3,
2021, Hindenburg subsequently provided additional information on
SOS that further supported its earlier allegations, including
pictures, highlighting, inter alia, how SOS had allegedly taken
steps to hide the misconduct noted in the February 26, 2021
corrective disclosures.
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]
SOUTH COAST: Fails to Pay All Wages, Talavera Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and the general Public v. SOUTH COAST RESTORATION, INC., a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No.
30-2021-01189756-CU-OE-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., March 17,
2021), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages, failed
to provide meal breaks labor inclusive, and failed to provide rest
periods in violation of the California Labor Code.
South Coast Restoration, Inc. was the employer of the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Class during the Class Period. During the liability
period, the Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated
hourly persons and due to Defendant's uniform payroll practices,
allegedly deprived Plaintiff and the Class of proper premium
overtime, failed to schedule Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class in such
a manner that allowed Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class to receive
and/or take their meal and/or rest breaks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janelle Carney, Esq.
JANELLE CARNEY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC
14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E, 2nd Floor
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Telephone: (909) 521-9609
Facsimile: (909) 393-0471
E-mail: Janelle@JanelleCarneyLaw.com
SPRING HOME: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASANA COCKRELL On behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. SPRING HOME HEALTH
CARE LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00346-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 16(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
a. conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
action under section 216(b) against Defendant Spring Home
Health Care LLC on behalf of Named Plaintiff and others
similarly situated;
b. directing that the notice and consent attached hereto be sent
by United States mail and email to all former and current
similarly situated Ohio home health employees of Defendant
who worked over 40 hours in any workweek at any time in the
period measured from three years prior to the filing of this
Motion to the present;
c. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing
a list in electronic and importable format, of the names,
positions of employment, last-known mailing addresses, email
addresses, and dates of employment of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant at any time from
three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the
present; and
d. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the Court,
be sent to such current and former employees within seven
days of receipt of the list using the home and email
addresses provided by the Defendant.
Spring Home is a home health agency in Gahanna, Ohio.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 31,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mG8Ym3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: (614) 949-1181
Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
SSA BONDS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. BofA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-03711-ER
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Class Plaintiffs'
application for final approval of the Agreement of Settlement with
Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch
International, Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited,
and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated dated Aug.
11, 2017.
Due and adequate notice having been given to the Settlement Class
as required in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order and Notice
Order, the 90-day period provided by the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1715(d).
Based on the record before him, including the Preliminary Approval
Order entered on March 5, 2018 and Notice Order entered on July 15,
2020, the submissions in support of the Settlement between the
Class Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of each
Settlement Class Member, and the Settling Defendant, Judge Ramos
finds that all requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied.
The Court certifies solely for settlement purposes the following
Settlement Class: All persons or entities who, from Jan. 1, 2005 to
the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, entered into an SSA
bond transaction with a Defendant; a direct or indirect parent,
subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant; a Released
Party; or an alleged co-conspirator, where such Persons were either
domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled
outside of the United States or its territories, entered into an
SSA bond transaction in the United States or its territories or
that otherwise involved United States trade or commerce."
Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP are appointed, solely for settlement
purposes, as the Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Class Plaintiffs are appointed, solely for settlement purposes,
as class representatives for the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Ramos grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in
the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all
Settlement Class Members, and is in compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal will not affect in any
way the right of the Plaintiffs or Releasing Parties to pursue
claims, if any, outside the scope of the Released Claims. Claims
to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement are not released.
To the extent permitted and/or authorized by law, the purchase,
sale, and trading of SSA Bonds by the Settling Defendant will
remain in the case against (a) any of the other Defendants
currently named in the Action; (b) any other Person formerly named
in the Action as a defendant; or (c) any alleged co-conspirators or
any other Person subsequently added or joined in the Action, other
than Settling Defendant and Released Parties, as a potential basis
for damage claims and may be part of any joint and several
liability claims.
Any Plan of Allocation submitted by the Co-Lead Counsel or any
order entered regarding the Fee and Expense Application will in no
way disturb or affect this Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
and will be considered separate from the Final Judgment and Order
of Dismissal.
The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Without further Court
order, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to
carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
immediately.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2r8v3bts from Leagle.com.
SSA BONDS: Court Enters Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. HSBC
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document
Relates To: ALL ACTIONS, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-03711-ER
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Class Plaintiffs'
application for final approval of the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with HSBC Securities (USA),
Inc. and HSBC Bank plc dated Dec. 20, 2018.
Due and adequate notice having been given to the Settlement Class
as required in the Court's Preliminary Approval Order and Notice
Order, the 90-day period provided by the Class Action Fairness Act,
28 U.S.C. Section 1715(d).
Based on the record before the Court, including the Preliminary
Approval Order entered on March 6, 2019 and Notice Order entered on
July 15, 2020, the submissions in support of the Settlement between
the Class Plaintiffs, for themselves individually and on behalf of
each Settlement Class Member, and the Settling Defendant, and any
objections and responses thereto, Judge Ramos finds -- solely for
purposes of effectuating the Settlement -- that all requirements of
Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
have been satisfied.
The Court certifies solely for settlement purposes the following
Settlement Class: "All persons or entities who, from January 1,
2009 to the date of the Preliminary Approval Order, entered into an
SSA bond transaction with a Defendant; a direct or indirect parent,
subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant; a Released
Party; or an alleged co-conspirator, where such Persons were either
domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled
outside of the United States or its territories, entered into an
SSA bond transaction in the United States or its territories or
that otherwise involved United States trade or commerce."
Pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
law firms of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP are appointed, solely for settlement
purposes, as the Co-Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Class Plaintiffs are appointed, solely for settlement purposes,
as the class representatives for the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Ramos grants final approval of the Settlement set forth in
the Settlement Agreement on the basis that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, all
Settlement Class Members, and is in compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal will not affect in any
way the right of the Plaintiffs or the Releasing Parties to pursue
claims, if any, outside the scope of the Released Claims. The
claims to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement are not
released.
To the extent permitted and/or authorized by law, the purchase,
sale, and trading of SSA Bonds by Settling Defendant will remain in
the case against (a) any of the other Defendants currently named in
the Action; (b) any other Person formerly named in the Action as a
defendant; or (c) any alleged co-conspirators or any other Person
subsequently added or joined in the Action, other than Settling
Defendant and Released Parties, as a potential basis for damage
claims and may be part of any joint and several liability claims.
Any Plan of Allocation submitted by the Co-Lead Counsel or any
order entered regarding the Fee and Expense Application will in no
way disturb or affect the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal and
will be considered separate from the Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal.
The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement according to
the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Without further Court
order, the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to
carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
There is no just reason for delay in the entry of this Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal. The Clerk of the Court is
directed to enter the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal
pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
immediately.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/jzkf7bku from Leagle.com.
STANDARD INSURANCE: Tinker Sues Over Denied Life Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN TINKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00995-KLM (D. Colo., April 8, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract.
According to the complaint, the Defendant denied payment of
additional $150,000 term life coverage to the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated insurance beneficiaries. The Plaintiff
asserts that her husband was issued life insurance coverage by
Standard in the guaranteed issue amount of $50,000 under a policy
issued to his employer. The Plaintiff further contends that
Standard began to accept premium amounts for both the guaranteed
issue amount and for additional term insurance benefits in the
amount of $150,000.
Standard Insurance Company is an insurance firm with its principal
place of business in Portland, Oregon. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. McComber, Esq.
Timothy A. Daniels, Esq.
FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 3400
Dallas, TX 75202
Telephone: (214) 939-2000
Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
E-mail: ryan.mccomber@figdav.com
tim.daniels@figdav.com
- and –
Nicholas Paul Hansen, Esq.
HANSEN LAW FIRM, LLC
501 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80246-1330
Telephone: (303) 785-7777
Facsimile: (303) 954-8326
STUPP BROS: Stoklosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA STOKLOSA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. STUPP BROS., INC., d/b/a STUPP CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-00162-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., March 18, 2021) is a putative
class action under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN Act) to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages and
benefits, and those wages and benefits due to all others similarly
situated as a result of Stupp's conduct.
Stupp operates manufacturing and support for oil and gas pipelines
throughout several states, including Louisiana. Stupp has various
manufacturing facilities including the Spiral Mill facility and the
HFW Mill facility, both located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the
"Manufacturing Facilities"). The Manufacturing Facilities produces
oil and gas pipelines. The Manufacturing Facilities employed
approximately 300 employees who were subject to a mass layoff.
The Plaintiff and the other former employees of the Manufacturing
Facilities received a letter in the mail in dated August 24, 2020,
which informed them that layoffs would occur from October 24, 2020
through November 7, 2020.
The letter allegedly stated that as a result of market conditions
and forecasted operating levels, plant operations would be
curtailed, more than one third of Stupp's workforce would be
affected, and that layoffs could exceed six months in duration.
Notably, through the August 24, 2020 letter, Stupp acknowledged
that 60 days' notice would be, at least, October 24, 2020. However,
on September 17, 2020, the Plaintiff and numerous other employees
were terminated well in advance of the October 24, 2020 date. The
Plaintiff was not given a full 60 days' notice of the impending
mass layoffs or her resultant loss of employment.
Plaintiff Stoklosa is a citizen of Denham Springs, Louisiana and at
all relevant times was employed at the Manufacturing
Facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Centner, Esq.
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Adam J. Florek, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: dcentner@peifferwolf.com
SUBARU: Will Pay to Replace Cracked Windshield, Deadline April 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
click2houston.com reports that rock chips and then cracks are
common on car windshields in our area, but your vehicle may be more
susceptible to them. This one automaker has agreed to repair or
replace the cracked windshields in some of its vehicles.
Subaru made the offer to settle a class-action lawsuit that claims
the carmaker failed to let customers know about a design defect
that causes the windshields to crack in some 2015 to 2016 Subaru
Outbacks and Legacy vehicles.
When the glass was manufactured, an issue with the de-icer, made
the windshield more susceptible to cracking, according to the
lawsuit.
If you have one of the vehicles and your windshield has not cracked
yet, Subaru is extending your warranty for the original windshield
to 8 years. It was 5 years.
If you already had to pay to have your windshield repaired or
replaced, you can submit a claim form to get reimbursed. You only
have until April 23rd to file that claim. [GN]
SUNDIAL GROWERS: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sundial Growers Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in New York related to its
initial public offering (IPO).
In connection with the company's IPO, the company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, as well as the
underwriters of its IPO, were named as defendants in several
putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed between September
9, 2019 and November 1, 2019.
The cases were consolidated in two separate actions depending on
the court in which they were first filed, one in the Supreme Court
of New York, New York County, captioned In re Sundial Growers Inc.
Securities Litigation, Index No. 655178/2019 (the New York IPO
Action), and the other in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned In re Sundial Growers Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master Case No. 1:19-cv-08913-ALC (the
Federal IPO Action).
The complaints in each of the two consolidated actions assert
claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act of 1933, as amended. They generally allege that the company
made material misstatements and omissions in the prospectus and
registration statement in connection with the IPO with respect to,
among other things, the failure to disclose systemic quality
control issues as well as the return of cannabis and termination of
the supply agreement by one of the Company's customers.
The complaint in the Federal IPO Action also includes allegations
that the company made misstatements as to revenue. The New York IPO
Action was dismissed on May 15, 2020 and the dismissal was affirmed
on February 16, 2021, by the Appellate Division, First Judicial
Department, of the Supreme Court of New York. The Federal IPO
Action remains pending.
Sundial Growers Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The
Company produces and grows a range of cannabis strains. Sundial
Growers serves customers in Canada. The company is based in
Calgary, AB, Canada.
SUTTER BAY MEDICAL: Fails to Pay Lawful Wages, Wong-Mikhail Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA WONG-MIKHAIL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUTTER BAY MEDICAL FOUNDATION, doing business as SUTTER
HEALTH, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 21CV378378 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara, March 18, 2021)
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay lawful wages and failed
to timely pay wages pursuant to the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff Maria Wong-Mikhail was employed by the Defendant from
July 2016 through February 10, 2020. During her employment with
Defendant, she occupied non-exempt, hourly positions. From July
2016 until September 2019, she was employed as a Pharmacist
Technician. Thereafter, she as employed as a Patient Service
Representative from September 2019 until the last day of her
employment on February 10, 2020.
During the relevant time period, the Defendant implemented a
timekeeping policy and practice for Employees which rounded their
clock-in and clock-out times in a manner resulted in a loss of time
worked. Allegedly, the Plaintiff and Class Members were
consistently underpaid and were required to work off the clock and
without pay, including for overtime wages they did not
receive.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
TOM'S OF MAINE: Bruno Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Perry Bruno, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Tom's of
Maine Inc., Case No. 21STCV07782, was removed from the Los Angeles
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 8, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03064 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Tom's of Maine -- https://www.tomsofmaine.com/ -- is a brand name
and manufacturing company of personal care products with only
natural ingredients and a majority-owned subsidiary of
Colgate-Palmolive since 2006.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Kate Spelman, Esq.
JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 239-2246
Fax: (213) 239-5199
Email: kspelman@jenner.com
TOWER HILL: MSPA Bid for Class Certification Tossed as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, v. TOWER HILL PRIME INSURANCE
CO., a Florida profit corporation, and TOWER HILL CLAIMS SERVICES,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No.
1:18-cv-00157-AW-GRJ (N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor
entered an order:
1. granting MSPA's motion for leave to file a surreply;
2. granting Tower Hill's motion for summary judgment;
3. denying MSPA's motion for class certification as moot;
4. denying as moot all pending motions related to the class
certification; and
5. directing the clerk to enter a judgment that says "This case
was resolved on summary judgment. The Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed on the merits, and plaintiff shall take nothing.
Final judgment is entered in defendants' favor." The clerk
will then close the file.
The Court said, "MSPA has not shown that federal policies or the
practicalities of litigation support borrowing a federal
limitations period. It has met neither requirement for departing
from the default rule of borrowing from state law. Florida Statute
section 95.11(3)'s four-year limitations period applies here. And
because MSPA's claim accrued more than four years before this suit
began, Tower Hill is entitled to summary judgment."
MSPA's claim arises under the MSP Act's private cause of action, 42
U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A). All agree the Act’s text includes
no statute of limitations. But all also agree that when Congress
creates a cause of action without expressly adopting a limitations
period, courts "'borrow' the most suitable statute or other rule
of
timeliness from some other source." DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of
Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983).
A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QhuP78 at no extra charge.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR: Adam B. Lawler Sues Over Defective Car Phone System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM B. LAWLER LAW FIRM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00354 (S.D. Ill., April 1, 2021) is a class action by the
Plaintiff and the Class who purchased or leased a Toyota vehicle
with a defective hands-free phone system in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that when the driver of the
Toyota uses the hands-free phone system to make or receive a call
the person on the other end of the call hears an echo of his or her
own words (the "Echo Defect"). The Echo Defect exists due to a
defect in the "head unit" hardware and software manufactured by
Toyota and placed in every Class Vehicle, he added.
The Echo Defect makes continuation of the phone conversation
impossible to maintain, meaning the Plaintiff and Class Members
have therefore purchased or leased vehicles with hands-free phone
systems that are virtually unusable. The Echo Defect exists
regardless of whether the Toyota driver initiates or receives a
phone call, and whether the person on the other end is using a cell
phone, a landline, or a hands-free phone system in a vehicle, the
suit asserts.
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. retail and sells new and used
automotive. The Company offers cars, trucks, SUVs, crossovers,
hybrids, hybrid cars, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Kevin P. Green, Esq.
GOLDENBERG HELLER
& ANTOGNOLI, P.C.
2227 South State Route 157
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
tom@ghalaw.com
kevin@ghalaw.com
-and-
Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq
Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-5799
Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
-and-
Mike Arias, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG &
TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14 th Floor
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com
TRANS WORLD: Approval of FLSA Settlement Sought in Spack Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROL SPACK, TABITHA
SCHMIDT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as Collective representative, v. TRANS WORLD
ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION and RECORD TOWN, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-01335-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. certifying the Settlement Class;
2. approving the class action settlement; and
3. approving the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March
30, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3d7Ic2X at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Settlement Class are:
Pha T. Mashel, Esq.
MASHEL LAW, L.L.C.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Golightly Sues Over Deactivation From Platform
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOB GOLIGHTLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and CHECKR, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03005 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Chance Act provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by deactivating the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated drivers from Uber's platform using the
results of their background check from Checkr, specifically their
criminal history, for employment purposes.
Allegedly, the Defendant Uber failed to comply with the Fair Chance
Act's provision to 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.
As a result of Uber's actions, the Plaintiff and the proposed class
have been deprived of their rights and have lost income, earnings,
and other benefits.
Mr. Golightly drove for Uber from approximately 2014 through August
27, 2020.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is a company that provides ride hailing
services, headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Checkr, Inc. is a company that offers background check services,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
Carolyn Coffey, Esq.
MOBILIZATION FOR JUSTICE, INC.
100 William Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 417-3858
Facsimile: (212) 417-3890
E-mail: mlitrownik@mfjlegal.org
- and –
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80207
Telephone: (720) 295-8846
Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
VESPER HEALTHCARE: Facing Purvance Putative Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp. 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 company
is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Purvance v. Vesper
Healthcare Acquisition Corp., et al., Index No. 650365/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.).
On December 8, 2020, the Company, Hydrate Merger Sub I, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub I"), Hydrate Merger Sub II, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub II"), LCP Edge Intermediate, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and indirect parent of Edge Systems LLC d/b/a The
HydraFacial Company, and LCP Edge Holdco, LLC, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, which provides for, among other
things: (i) the merger of Merger Sub I with and into HydraFacial,
with HydraFacial continuing as the surviving corporation (the
"First Merger"); and (ii) immediately following the First Merger
and as part of the same overall transaction as the First Merger,
the merger of HydraFacial with and into Merger Sub II, with Merger
Sub II continuing as the surviving entity.
As a result of the Mergers, HydraFacial will be combined with
Merger Sub II, which will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company. The transactions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
including the Mergers, will constitute a "usiness Combination" as
contemplated by the Company's Amended & Restated Certificate of
Incorporation.
The Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby were
unanimously approved by the Board of Directors of the Company on
December 8, 2020.
On January 18, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York by a purported Company stockholder in
connection with the Business Combination:
Purvance v. Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp., et al., Index No.
650346/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
On January 19, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York by the same purported
Company stockholder in connection with the Business Combination:
Purvance v. Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp., et al., Index No.
650365/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
On January 26, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York by a different
purported Company stockholder in connection with the Business
Combination:
Watkins v. Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp., et al., No.
1:21-cv-00713 (S.D.N.Y.).
On February 8, 2021, a lawsuit was filed in the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, by a different
purported Company stockholder in connection with the Business
Combination: Elstein v. Saunders et al., No. 21-3028CA01 (Fla. 11th
Cir. Ct.).
The complaints name the Company and some or all of the current
members of the Board as defendants. The complaints allege, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board in
connection with the Business Combination.
The complaints also allege that the Preliminary Proxy Statement is
misleading and/or omits material information concerning the
Business Combination.
The complaints generally seek, among other things, injunctive
relief, damages, and an award of attorneys' fees.
On March 2, 2021, counsel for Jordan Rosenblatt, a purported Vesper
shareholder, sent a demand letter alleging that Vesper and its
board had breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal
securities laws in connection with the Preliminary Proxy Statement.
Also on March 2, 2021, counsel for Patrick Plumley, a purported
Vesper shareholder, sent a demand letter alleging that Vesper and
its board had breached their fiduciary duties and/or violated
federal securities laws in connection with the Preliminary Proxy
Statement. Both letters sought additional disclosures.
Vesper said, "The Company believes these allegations are without
merit and intends to defend against them; however, the Company
cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of any
proceedings that may be brought in connection with these
allegations."
Vesper Healthcare Acquisition Corp. is an early-stage blank check
company incorporated in July 2020 as a Delaware corporation whose
business purpose is to effect a merger, capital stock exchange,
asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar
business combination with one or more businesses, which the company
refers to throughout this report as our initial business
combination. The company is based in Miami, Florida.
VMSB LLC: Certification of Class of Bartenders and Servers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL ROSELL and ROBERTO
GONZALEZ, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated,
v. VMSB, LLC, d/b/a GIANNI'S and d/b/a CASA CASUARINA, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-20857-KMW (S.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
Plaintiffs' Florida Constitution and Florida Minimum Wage Act
(FMWA) claim (Count II) as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Plaintiffs' proposed class definition is:
"All "Bartenders and Servers" who worked for the Defendant at
Gianni's (The Villa Casa Casuarina at the Former Versace Mansion
location), 1116 Ocean Dr., Miami Beach, FL 33139, at any time
from February 26 2015, to the present, who (1) were not provided
notice of the employer's intention to take a tip credit to
satisfy minimum wage obligations; and/or (2) were required to
participate in a mandatory tip pool in which tips were shared
with "Captains" and with the restaurant itself."
The Plaintiffs seek leave to appoint Israel Rosell and Roberto
Gonzalez as Class Representatives, and Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). The proposed Class Representatives
and class counsel are respectively qualified, and will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of members of the class, the
Plaintiffs add.
The Defendant owns and operates "Gianni's," a restaurant on Ocean
Drive in Miami Beach, Florida. The Defendant has employed over 100
servers and bartenders in the three years preceding the date
collective notice issued in this action alone.1 In addition, Daniel
Tamir, Defendant's director of finance, and corporate
representative designated to testify regarding the factual bases
underlying the Defendant asserted affirmative defenses, testified
that there are approximately 150 members within Plaintiffs'
proposed class definition.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g7xRpi
at no extra charge.[CC]
Trial Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
ANDREW R. FRISCH, ESQ.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com
Afrisch@forthepeople.com
WALMART INC: Facing Opioids Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------
Walmart 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 January 31, 2021, that the company is facing two
class action suits regarding the Company's disclosures with respect
to opioids.
The Company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws regarding the Company's
disclosures with respect to opioids filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5,
2021 purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired
Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020.
A derivative action was also filed by one of the Company's
shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware on February 9, 2021 alleging breach of fiduciary duties
against certain of its current and former directors with respect to
oversight of the Company's distribution and dispensing of opioids.
Walmart Inc., is engaged in the operation of retail, wholesale and
other units in various formats around the world. The Bentonville,
Arkansas-based Company operates through three segments: Walmart
U.S., Walmart International and Sam's Club. The Company was
previously known as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and changed its name to
Walmart Inc. on February 1, 2018.
WASHINGTON MUSIC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Washington Music
Sales Center, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Washington Music
Sales Center, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03014 (S.D.N.Y., April 8,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Washington Music Sales Center Inc. doing business as Chuck Levin's
Washington Music Center -- https://chucklevins.com/ -- provides
musical instruments. The Company offers guitars, drums, keyboards,
and folk instruments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
WEBGROUP CZECH: Faces Doe TVPRA Suit Over Sex Trafficking Venture
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. WebGroup Czech Republic, as, WGCZ Holding, as, WGCZ Limited,
sro, NKL Associates sro, Traffic F, sro, GTFlix TV, sro, FTCP,
sro, VS Media, Inc., HC Media, sro, HC Multimedia LLC, FBP Media
sro, Serverstack, Inc., Digital Ocean Holdings, Inc., and Digital
Ocean, LLC f/k/a/ Digital Ocean, Inc., STEPHANE MICHAEL PACAUD,
DEBORAH MALORIE PACAUD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02428 (C.D. Cal., March
18, 2021) is class action complaint against the Defendants, who
financially benefited from, or otherwise participated in, a sex
trafficking venture in which the Plaintiff was a victim.
The Plaintiff, who was under eighteen years of age at the time of
filming, was depicted in commercial sex acts and child pornography,
which was then made available for viewing on websites owned or
operated by the Defendants. This violated, among other laws, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.
The Plaintiff and the proposed class are victims and survivors of
childhood sex trafficking who had videos and images of their
childhood sex trafficking sold and/or distributed on websites
owned, operated, managed and controlled by Defendants. Defendants
have exploited this child sexual abuse material for profit.
The Defendants, on their websites, created, organized, and
disseminated images and videos that depict child sexual abuse,
often referred to as child pornography. Each of these images and
videos are crime scenes the Defendants monetized.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Mona Amini, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
mona@kazlg.com
- and -
Kimberly Lambert Adams, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY
316 S. Bavien Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7056
E-mail: kadams@levinlaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Magill Suit Removed from State Ct. to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS R. MAGILL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO BANK,
N.A., Case No. CGC-20-588327 (Filed December 7, 2020), was removed
from the San Francisco Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on March 17, 2021.
The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
21-1877 to the proceeding.
Mr. Magill brings two causes of action on behalf of himself and the
proposed class, including (1) Breach of Contract Including the
Covenant of Good Faith 8 and Fair Dealing; and (2) Violation of
California Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco,
California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial
offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq.
Melissa A. Freeling, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
501 West Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
Telephone: (619) 338-6500
Facsimile: (619) 234-3815
E-mail: moreno@sheppardmullin.com
mfreeling@sheppardmullin.com
WELLWELL LLC: Faces Olsen ADA Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wellwell LLC. The
case is captioned as Olsen v. Wellwell LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02330-MKV (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2021).
The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 764-7171
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
WM. BOLTHOUSE: Faces Rodgers Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WM. BOLTHOUSE FARMS,
INC. The case is captioned as RODGERS, ET AL. vs. WM. BOLTHOUSE
FARMS, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, Case No. BCV-21-100621 (Cal.
Super., Kern Cty., March 17, 2021),
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe. A case
management conference will be held on Sept. 20, 2021.
Bolthouse Farms, founded 1915 in Grant, Michigan, is a vertically
integrated farm company specializing in refrigerated
beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff Dejanee Rodgers on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:
Sydney A. Adams, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Ave Ste 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
E-mail: sadams@maternlawgroup.com
WRITERS GUILD: Fails to Pay Residuals Under Basic Agreements
------------------------------------------------------------
JAY MARTEL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST, INC., a
California corporation; VIACOM MEDIA NETWORKS, a Delaware
corporation; COMEDY PARTNERS LLC, a New York limited liability
company; CENTRAL PRODUCTIONS LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; LRF DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a California corporation;
HELLO DOGGIE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, Case No.
2:21-cv-02389 (C.D. Calif., March 17, 2021) contends that the
Employer Defendants failed to abide by the requirements of the
triannual Theatrical and Television Basic Agreements (Basic
Agreements) by improperly computing or simply not paying residuals
owed thereunder for the use of television motion pictures in new
media (New Media Use), in particular with respect to ad-supported
video-on-demand services (AVOD).
The Defendants are signatories to, or have otherwise assumed or
personally guaranteed obligations under, the Basic Agreements
negotiated by the Defendant Writers Guild of America, West Inc.
(WGA). Each of the Basic Agreements issued in 2011, 2014, and 2017
requires the Employer Defendants to pay television writers covered
thereby, including Plaintiff, specified royalties for the
commercial exploitation of their work.
The Employer Defendants clandestinely undertook this pattern and
practice across dozens of television programs (including, by way of
example, Key & Peele, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, and Tosh.0)
(collectively the Series).
Between late 2019 and early 2020, the Employer Defendants
negotiated a collective settlement with the WGA concerning their
systemic underpayment and nonpayment of royalties for distribution
of the Series in the AVOD market (the "Settlement"), wiping out the
Employer Defendants’ historical liabilities across the Series in
exchange for a single paltry lump-sum payment (the "Settlement
Payment"). The WGA and the Employer Defendants then proceeded to
bury the Settlement Agreement in confidentiality, says the suit.
Plaintiff Martel is an Emmy and Peabody Award-winning writer and
producer who served as showrunner for Key & Peele, one of the
television programs included in the Series. Martel is a dues-paying
member of the WGA in good standing whose writing work on Key &
Peele is covered by the Basic Agreements.
Writers Guild of America West, Inc. is a California corporation
that represents television writers, including Plaintiff and the
Class, with its principal place of business and corporate
headquarters located in Los Angeles, California.
WGA is a party to the Basic Agreements and Settlement Agreement.
The Defendant Viacom Media Networks is a division of Viacom
International Inc.
Comedy Partners LLC is a New York limited liability company with
its principal place of business and corporate headquarters located
in New York, New York. Comedy has assumed the obligations of a
signatory to the Basic Agreements, Corporation Management
Solutions, Inc., and is a party to the Settlement Agreement.
Central Productions LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business and corporate headquarters located in
New York, New York. The Defendant LRF Development Company, Inc. is
a California corporation with its principal place of business and
corporate headquarters located in Beverly Hills, California.
Hello Doggie, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business and corporate headquarters located in New York,
New York. Hello is a signatory to the Basic Agreements and a party
to the Settlement Agreement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
Daniel B. Lifschitz, Esq.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
439 North Canon Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 975-1080
Facsimile: (310) 975-1095
E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
djohnson@jjllplaw.com
dlifschitz@jjllplaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
Melanie M. Palmer, Esq.
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law
palmer@kiesel.law
- and -
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Bobby Pouya, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, California 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
bpouya@pswlaw.com
XL FLEET: Klein Law Reminds of May 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of XL Fleet Corp. There is no cost
to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you have until
the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.
XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE:XL)
Class Period: October 2, 2020 - March 2, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period XL Fleet
Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured
to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported
sales and backlog; (2) at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL
featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (3)
XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5%
to 10% of fleet savings; (4) XL lacks the supply chain and
engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in XL:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/xl-fleet-corp-loss-submission-form?id=14541&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
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]
YERBA MATE: Troyer Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY TROYER, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
YERBA MATE CO., LLC, a limited liability company; GUAYAKI
SUSTAINABLE RAINFOREST PRODUCTS, INC., a corporation, Case No.
3:20-cv-06065-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court
on May 20, 2021 to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for an order:
1. determining that a class action is proper as to all causes
of
action in the operative complaint on the grounds that: (1)
the class is ascertainable and sufficiently numerous, (2)
common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
issues, (3) the class representative's claims are typical of
the class, (4) the class representative will adequately
represent the interests of the class, and (5) class treatment
is superior;
2. certifying a class of:
"all Defendants The Yerba Mate Co. and Guayaki Sustainable
Rainforest Products, Inc.'s ("Defendants") delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked in California and who were classified
by Defendants as exempt from overtime during the period from
April 6, 2016, to the present"; and
3. certifying the following subclasses:
(a) Meal Period Subclass: all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked one or more shifts in excess of six
hours in California and who were classified by Defendants
as exempt from overtime during the period from April 6,
2016, to the present;
As an alternative to Subclass (a): all Defendants'
delivery driver "hacedors" who worked one or more shifts
in excess of six hours in California without receiving a
30-minute break during which they were relieved of all
duties, and who were classified by Defendants as exempt
from overtime during the period from April 6, 2016, to
the present;
(b) Second Meal Period Subclass: all Defendants' delivery
driver "hacedors" who worked one or more shifts in excess
of 10 hours in California without receiving a second 30-
minute break, and who were classified by Defendants as
exempt from overtime during the period from April 6,
2016, to the present;
As an alternative to Subclass (b): all Defendants'
delivery driver "hacedors" who worked one or more shifts
in excess of 12 hours in California without receiving a
second 30-minute break, and who were classified by
Defendants as exempt from overtime during the period from
April 6, 2016, to the present;
(c) Rest Break Subclass: all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked one or more shifts of three and
one-half hours or more in California and who were
classified by the Defendants as exempt from overtime
during the period from April 6, 2016, to the present;
As an alternative to Subclass (c): all Defendants'
delivery driver "hacedors" who worked one or more shifts
of three and one-half (3.5) hours or more in California
without receiving a paid 10-minute break during which
they were relieved of all duties, and who were classified
by Defendants as exempt from overtime during the period
from April 6, 2016, to the present;
(d) Overtime Subclass: all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked one or more shifts in excess of
eight hours in a day or forty (40) hours in a workweek in
California, and who were classified by Defendants as
exempt from overtime during the period from April 6,
2016, to the 28 present;
As an alternative to Subclass (d): all Defendants'
delivery driver "hacedors" who worked one or more shifts
in excess of eight hours in a day or 40 hours in a
workweek in California and were not properly paid all
overtime wages, and who were classified by Defendants as
exempt from overtime during the period from April 6,
2016, to the present;
(e) Minimum Wage Subclass all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked in California and were not properly
paid all minimum wages and who were classified by the
Defendants as exempt from overtime during the period from
April 6, 2016, to the present;
(f) Wage Statement Subclass: all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked in California and received an
itemized wage statement, and who were classified by
Defendants as exempt from overtime during the period of
April 6, 2017, to the present;
(g) Terminated Employee Subclass: all Defendants' delivery
driver "hacedors" who worked in California and were not
properly paid all wages (including accrued and unused
vacation hours) on termination or within 72 hours thereof
and who were classified by Defendants as exempt from
overtime during the period of April 6, 2017, to the
present; and
(h) Recorded Subclass: all Defendants' delivery driver
"hacedors" who worked in California within the presence
of Defendants' cameras during the period of April 6, 2019
to the present.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a6uFql
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
Brian G. Lee, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-0988
Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
E-mail: kyoon@yoonlaw.com
syasuda@yoonlaw.com
blee@yoonlaw.com
- and -
Mark L. Webb, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK L. WEBB
994 Clayton, No. 2
San Francisco, CA 94117
Telephone: (415) 515-0960
ZOOM VIDEO: Data Privacy & Security Measures Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, 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 January 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
related to the company's data privacy and security measures.
On April 7, 2020, and April 8, 2020, securities class action
complaints were filed against the company and two of its officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The plaintiffs are purported stockholders of the Company.
The complaints allege, among other things, that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions of material fact about the company's data privacy and
security measures.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On May 18, 2020, the actions were consolidated.
On November 4, 2020, the court appointed a lead plaintiff.
On December 23, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.
The response to the complaint is currently stayed while the court
considers a motion for reconsideration regarding its lead plaintiff
appointment.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.
ZOOM VIDEO: Discovery Ongoing in User Privacy Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Video Communications, 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 January 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit relating to the
company's alleged privacy and security practices, including alleged
data sharing with third parties.
Beginning on March 30, 2020, multiple putative class actions have
been filed against the company in various U.S. federal district
courts and state courts relating to the company's alleged privacy
and security practices, including alleged data sharing with third
parties.
The company had also been sued under the DC private attorney
general statute on behalf of members of the general public.
The plaintiffs claim violations of a variety of state consumer
protection and privacy laws, and also assert state constitutional
and common law claims such as negligence and unjust enrichment. The
U.S. Privacy Class Actions seek to certify both nationwide and
state-specific classes of individuals using the company's services
in certain time periods.
The plaintiffs seek various forms of injunctive and monetary
relief, including restitution, statutory and actual damages,
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
The federal cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the
Northern District of California with the company's consent; lead
plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed; and plaintiffs filed their
first amended consolidated class action complaint on October 28,
2020.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
consolidated class action complaint on December 2, 2020, which is
pending ruling by the court, and the parties are presently engaged
in discovery, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on June 25, 2021.
Zoom Video Communications, Inc. provides a video-first
communications platform that delivers happiness and fundamentally
changes how people interact. The company connects people through
frictionless and secure video, voice, chat, and content sharing and
enable face-to-face video experiences for thousands of people in a
single meeting across disparate devices and locations. The company
is based in San Jose, California.
*********
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 ***