/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210415.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 15, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 70
Headlines
ACV AUCTIONS: Faces Jerry Gradl Suit Over Shill Bidding Practices
ADAM B. SCHIFF: AAPS Appeals Class Action Dismissal
ADDY HOSPITALITY: Faces Quintana Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
BARINGS BDC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
BEE LINE BEER: Ruiz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BERRY'S RELIABLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Badon FLSA Suit
BIOGEN INC: Faces Menashe Suit Over 28% Stock Price Drop
BLACKBAUD INC: Clayton Files Suit in District of South Carolina
BLUEMERCURY INC: Bethel Seeks Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime
CLOUDERA INC: Lenick and Jones Can't Intervene in Securities Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Cir.
CREDIT UNION 1: Calhoun Files Class Action in District of Alaska
DIANE EASTER: Dimartino Files Suit in District of Connecticut
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Charles H. Files Suit in District of Columbia
EMBROIDERY LIBRARY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FABRICS & FABRICS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment in Beaty Suit Over Faulty PSRs Flipped
FOUR MINE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
G. WILLI FOOD: Pre-Trial in Suit vs. Euro European Set for Sept. 13
G. WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Food Labeling Standards Dismissed
G. WILLI-FOOD: Class Certification Bid in Israel Suit Pending
G. WILLI-FOOD: July 12 Pre-Trial in Misleading Captions Suit Set
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Martin Class Suit Over Tainted Baby Foods
GLA COLLECTION: Knox Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
HAWAII SUPREME COURT: Dubin Files Suit in District of Hawaii
HENRY GLOBAL: Su's Claim v. Tongzhao Dismissed With Leave to Amend
HOTLINE COURIER: Misclassifies Mail Clerks, Reyes Suit Claims
I-BLADES INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JAPAN CRATE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Distribution of Connor Settlement Fund OK'd
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Edwards
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Artificially Inflates Stock Prices, Palumbo Says
MARY WASHINGTON: Foley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
MAYO CLINIC: Faces Hunter Suit Over Illegal Billing Practices
MEZCO TOYZ: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEWBOLD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Suit Claims
NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Underpays Security Officers, Bray Suit Claims
NURTURE INC: Williams Files Suit in District of Montana
NVR INC: Underpays Loan Officers, Cossaboom et al. Allege
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Dismisses Stirling Class Action
OLLIES BARGAIN: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Allen to 3rd Cir.
ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
OUTPUT INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Roaming Services Suit Awaits Court OK
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit Against 012 Smile Expunged
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit Against 012 Smile Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Action Cert. Bid
PARTNER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
PLUM INC: Moore Suit Removed to Southern District of California
PNC MERCHANT: Second Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lutz Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Castro Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Cir.
PRC-DESOTO INT'L: Sobalvarro Files Suit in California Super. Court
PROJECT RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Cooper Suit Claims
RARE CARAT: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ROGER WILLIAMS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unfair Hearing in D.R.I.
RONALD DESANTIS: Brown Files Suit in Middle District of Florida
ROOT INC: Faces Kolominsky Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Kirola Appeal Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Cir.
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: D&V Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
SANOFI-AVENTIS: IcyHot Patch Non-Compliant with FDA, Tapia Says
SELLAS LIFE: Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Underway
SERVING IMMIGRANTS: Briceno Sues Over Paralegals' Unpaid Wages
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Mann Seeks HSE Employees' Unpaid Overtime
SSA BONDS: $24M Attys. Fees & $4.6M Costs Awarded in Antitrust Suit
SSA BONDS: Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. Deutsche Bank Issued
ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Appeals Mock Suit Ruling to 5th Cir.
TRICIDA INC: Fiore and Block & Leviton Get Lead Roles in Pardi Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Writ of Certiorari Bid in Razak Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Flores Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
VALE SA: Banco Safra Appeal on Dismissal of Class Suit Tossed
VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in ADRs Related Putative Class Suit
VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Securities Class Suit
VALE SA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Samarco Bondholders Suit
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Nick Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
VIDA LONGEVITY: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Fund Internal Processes
VIKING YACHT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
VRAI & ORO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WALGREEN CO: Garcia Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
WATERMARK CONTRACTORS: Picorelli Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Overtime
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Chuluunbat Seeks 7th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit
YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment Bids in Eastwood Suit Granted
ZIM INTEGRATED: Petitioner's Appeal in Suit vs Israel Unit Pending
ZIM INTEGRATED: Putative Class Suit in Israel Underway
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Salamon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
*********
ACV AUCTIONS: Faces Jerry Gradl Suit Over Shill Bidding Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JERRY GRADL MOTORS, INC., and LIFETIME MOTORCARS, INC.,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ACV
AUCTIONS, INC., SUN AUTO GROUP INC. and BRIAN M. MALCHAK, Case No.
1:21-cv-00409 (W.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021) is a class action brought
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
asserting claims under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the
Donnelly Act and the common law.
The claims arise from the Defendants' anticompetitive and wrongful
conduct of employing a shill bidding practice in which the
Defendants use an online automobile auction platform to knowingly
cause bidders such as the Plaintiffs and Class members to bid and
pay more than they otherwise would for motor vehicles offered for
sale using an online auction platform.
CV offers an online platform to enable used car dealers to view,
bid upon and purchase an inventory of automobiles and other motor
vehicles through an online auction. The ACV online auction lasts a
maximum of 20 minutes for each automobile or other motor vehicle
offered for sale to allow bidders to place bids for any particular
vehicle using ACV's services and the ACV platform software allows
the seller to establish the minimum price at which the vehicle can
be automatically sold to a buyer during the auction; all legitimate
bidders are unaware of the floor price, the Plaintiffs contend.
Plaintiff Jerry Gradl Motors is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal
offices located at 711 Niagara Falls Boulevard, North Tonawanda,
New York. Plaintiff Lifetime Motor is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of New York with its principal
offices located at 261 Mill Street, East Aurora, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edward P. Yankelunas, Esq.
Corey J. Hogan, Esq.
Steven M. Cohen, Esq.
HOGANWILLIG, PLLC
2410 North Forest Road, Suite 301
Amherst, NY 14068
Telephone: (716) 636-7600
ADAM B. SCHIFF: AAPS Appeals Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc., et
al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS, et al. v.
ADAM SCHIFF, in his individual capacity and his official capacity
as a Member of Congress for the 28th Congressional District of
California, Case No. 1:20-cv-00106-RC, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive
relief under the First Amendment.
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a
non-profit membership organization that advocates the practice of
private medicine, ethical medicine, and the patient-physician
relationship.
AAPS contests Schiff's views on anti-vaccination movements as
violations of freedom of expression and of the Communication
Decency Act of 1996 and common law tort of abuse of power.
Katarina Verrelli is a New York resident who claims that videos
"Vaxxed" and "Shoot 'Em Up: The Truth About Vaccines" were removed
from Amazon's streaming platform for its views on vaccination,
allegedly on the direct and/or indirect prodding of Schiff as a
member of Congress.
The Plaintiffs are seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated February 2, 2021, granting Defendant's
motion to dismiss and denying as moot Defendant's initial motion to
dismiss.
The appellate case is captioned as Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, et al. v. Adam Schiff, Case No. 21-5080,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, filed on April 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants Association of American Physicians &
Surgeons, Inc. and Katarina Verrelli, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Lawrence J. Joseph, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700-1A
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 747-1790
E-mail: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com
Defendant-Appellee Adam Schiff, in his individual capacity and his
official capacity as a Member of Congress for the 28th
Congressional District of California, is represented by:
Douglas N. Letter, Esq.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
219 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Telephone: (202) 225-9700
E-mail: douglas.letter@mail.house.gov
ADDY HOSPITALITY: Faces Quintana Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN ALEXANDER AMEZQUITA QUINTANA, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADDY HOSPITALITY LLC
d/b/a THE RUST & GOLD, FRANK ANTONETTI, LOUIS COHEN, JASON
JANAWSKY, and RYAN SIPP, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01755
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective
action alleging the Defendant of willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook from
September 2017 through February 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he regularly worked a total of 55.5 hours
per week during his employment with the Defendants from 2017 until
March 20, 2020 when the restaurant closed because of the pandemic.
His duties as a cook resumed when the restaurant reopened on June
1, 2020 and she worked 53 hours per week from June 1, 2020 through
February 2021. Despite working more than 40 hours per week
throughout his employment with the Defendants, the Defendants
failed to pay him the required minimum wage, any overtime bonus at
the applicable overtime rate for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a
workweek, and spread-of-hours compensation at the applicable
minimum wage for each day that he worked a shift exceeding 10
hours, he adds.
Allegedly, the Defendants also failed to provide the Plaintiff with
properly compliant stubs, and with a wage acknowledgement notice
upon his hiring or at any time thereafter.
Addy Hospitality LLC owned and operated The Rust & Gold sports bar
and restaurant located at 70 Gerard Street, Huntingdon Village, New
York 11743. The Individual Defendants are co-owners of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway - Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Tel: (212) 563-9884
BARINGS BDC: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Barings BDC, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the court's September
20, 2019 order dismissing the suit entitled, In re Triangle Capital
Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL, with
prejudice.
The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in two putative securities class action
lawsuits, each filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (and then transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina)
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's common stock between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.
The first lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2017, and was captioned
Elias Dagher, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation, et al., Case
No. 5:18-cv-00015-FL.
The second lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2017, and was
captioned Gary W. Holden, et al., v. Triangle Capital Corporation,
et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.
The Dagher Action and the Holden Action were consolidated and are
currently captioned In re Triangle Capital Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:18-cv-00010-FL.
On April 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed its First Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The complaint alleged certain violations of the
securities laws, including, among other things, that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects between May 7, 2014 and November 1, 2017.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs, among other relief, but did not specify the amount of
damages being sought. On May 25, 2018, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.
On March 7, 2019, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss.
On March 28, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On September 20,
2019, the court entered an order denying the plaintiff's motion for
leave to file a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and
dismissing the action with prejudice.
On October 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal seeking
review of the court's September 20, 2019 order. The plaintiff filed
its opening brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on January 6, 2020.
The defendants filed their response brief on February 28, 2020, and
the plaintiff filed its reply brief on March 27, 2020. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral argument
on the appeal on December 9, 2020.
On February 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the court's September 20, 2019 order
dismissing the action with prejudice.
Barings BDC, Inc. is a business development company specializing in
private equity and mezzanine investments. Triangle Capital
Corporation was incorporated on October 10, 2006 and is based in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
BEE LINE BEER: Ruiz Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ANTONIO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEE LINE BEER BEVERAGE, INC., dba
BEE LINE, and QINGXIANG WANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01768
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021) challenges the Defendants' alleged
unlawful employment practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from approximately
June 2014 until February 2021 to perform duty of forklift
operator.
The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he was paid straight time or a flat amount regardless
of the number of hours he worked. The Defendant did not pay him
overtime at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all the hours he worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant did not provide him with any document or
other statement accounting for his actual hours worked, as well as
with any written notices of his rate of pay and with accurate wage
statements with each payment of wages as required under the FLSA
and NYLL, he adds.
Bee Lie Beer Beverage, Inc. operates a beer distribution company in
Queens under the Bee Line that is owned and controlled by Qingxiang
Wang. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (800) 933-5620
BERRY'S RELIABLE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Badon FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C. and Rhonda Williams
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled
STACEY BADON on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
v. BERRY'S RELIABLE RESOURCES, LLC AND RHONDA WILLIAMS, Case No.
2:19-CV-12317, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, New Orleans.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
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 Badon was employed by the Defendants as a caregiver.
The Defendants seek a review of the Court's Order dated March 10,
2021, denying their motion for appeal of a Magistrate Judge's
Decision to District Court, and the Court's Order dated March 11,
2021, denying their motion to decertify.
The appellate case is captioned as Badon v. Berry's Reliable
Resources, L.L.C., Case No. 21-30191, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 9, 2021.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants Berry's Reliable Resources, L.L.C. and Rhonda
Williams are represented by:
Larry M. Aisola, Esq.
208 W. Judge Perez Drive
Chalmette, LA 70043
Telephone: (504) 913-6182
E-mail: lawlmaj@aol.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees Stacey Badon, on Behalf of Herself and All
Those Similarly Situated, Deborah Ann Carson, Shena Day, Tineka
Benn, Francine Veal Dixon, and Anthony Badon are represented by:
Jody Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON & JACKSON
201 Saint Charles Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 599-5953
E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
BIOGEN INC: Faces Menashe Suit Over 28% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR D. MENASHE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS, JEFFREY D.
CAPELLO, and MICHAEL R. MCDONNELL, Case No. 1:21-cv-10479-IT (C.D.
Cal., March 19, 2021) is a class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Biogen
securities between October 22, 2019 and November 6, 2020, inclusive
(the Class Period) seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On October 22, 2019, Biogen issued a press release entitled "Biogen
Plans Regulatory Filing for Aducanumab in Alzheimer's Disease Based
on New Analysis of Larger Dataset from Phase 3 Studies." On
November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled "FDA
advisory panel convenes to discuss whether Biogen Alzheimer's drug
should be approved" which stated that "Biogen shares were halted
ahead of the advisory panel meeting."
Later on November 6, 2020, Reuters published an article entitled
"U.S. FDA panel votes cannot ignore unsuccessful trial data on
Biogen Alzheimer's drug." On this news, Biogen's stock price fell
$92.64 per share, or 28%, to close at $236.26 per share on November
9, 2020, the next trading day, damaging investors, says the suit.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the
Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.
Biogen Inc. purports to discover, develop, manufacture, and deliver
therapies for treating neurological and neurodegenerative diseases
including aducanumab (BIIB037) which is an investigational human
monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's
disease. Biogen licensed aducanumab from Neurimmune under a
collaborative development and license agreement. Since October 2017
Biogen and Eisai have collaborated on the development and
commercialization of aducanumab globally.[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
BLACKBAUD INC: Clayton Files Suit in District of South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackbaud Inc. The
case is styled as Kassandre Clayton, Kathleen Arman, Sonya
Garcia-Martinez, Joseph Frontera, Angela Maher, Ralph Peragrine,
Michele Pettiford, Theresa Welsh, Latricia Ford, Clifford Scott,
Robert Watts, Jr., Jason Money, Nicole Money, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackbaud Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-01058-JMC (D.S.C., April 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Blackbaud (NASDAQ:BLKB) -- https://www.blackbaud.com/ -- is the
world's leading cloud software company powering social good.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street
Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Fax: (312) 253-1443
Email: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Desiree Cummings, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1832
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 693-1058
Email: dcummings@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Frank Burton Ulmer, Esq.
McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
701 East Bay Street, Suite 411
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 444-5404
Fax: (843) 444-5403
Email: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
- and -
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LAW OFFICE
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
- and -
Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
217 Lucas Street, Suite G
Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: harper@whitfieldbryson.com
- and -
Howard Theodore Longman, Esq.
STULL STULL AND BRODY
354 Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 1800
Livingston, NJ 07039
Phone: (973) 994-2315
Fax: (973) 994-2319
Email: hlongman@ssbny.com
- and -
Kelly K Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
Email: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Marlon E Kimpson, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE
PO Box 1792
Mt Pleasant, SC 29465
Phone: (843) 216-9000
Fax: (843) 216-9440
Email: mkimpson@motleyrice.com
- and -
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Phone: (845) 356-2570
Email: memert@kgglaw.com
- and -
Melissa S Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON AND WARSHAW LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 389-0600
Fax: (612) 389-0610
Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com
BLUEMERCURY INC: Bethel Seeks Store Managers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE BETHEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02743 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2021) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a "Store Manager"
(SM) from approximately March 2018 to March 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout her employment with the
Defendant, she and other similarly situated employees were required
by the Defendant to work up to 40 hours per week. However, the
Defendant did not compensate them for the time spent performing
pre-shift and post-shift duties, during time recorded as unpaid
meal breaks, and engaging in work-related communications when away
from the store. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees were allegedly denied by the Defendant of their
lawfully earned 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 per workweek. In addition, the Defendant failed to
keep accurate records of their hours worked, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover money damages from
the Defendant, including all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees,
litigation costs and other injunctive and equitable relief as the
Court shall deem just and proper.
Bluemercury, Inc. operates BLUEMERCURY retail stores in over 20
states, including New York, Florida, California, and New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
800 3rd Ave., Suite 2800
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (800) 616-4000
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Camar R. Jones, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
CLOUDERA INC: Lenick and Jones Can't Intervene in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CLOUDERA, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:19-CV-03221-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy J. Koh of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, denies the motion to intervene filed by putative class
members Larry Lenick and Cade Jones.
Lead Plaintiff Mariusz J. Klin and the Mariusz J. Klin MD PA 401K
Profit Sharing Plan, along with Named Plaintiffs Robert Boguslawski
and Arthur P. Hoffman, bring the putative securities class action
against Defendants Cloudera, Hortonworks, Inc., Intel Corp., and
certain current and former officers and directors of Cloudera and
Hortonworks, pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5,
and Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On Dec. 16, 2019, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the Court appointed Plaintiff Mariusz
J. Klin and the Mariusz J. Klin MD PA 401K Profit Sharing Plan as
the Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as the lead counsel.
On Feb. 14, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint that expanded the class definition, added new
claims under the Securities Act of 1933, and added the Movants as
named Plaintiffs.
On Feb. 28, 2020, the Defendants requested that the Court reopens
the lead plaintiff appointment process because the consolidated
class action complaint added claims and new plaintiffs. On March
18, 2020, the Court vacated its order appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel; ordered publication of notice of the amended
complaint in compliance with the PSLRA; and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process.
On May 18, 2020, the Movants moved for appointment as lead
plaintiffs and for the approval of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP as lead
counsel. The same day, Mariusz J. Klin and the Mariusz J. Klin MD
PA 401K Profit Sharing Plan moved for reappointment as lead
plaintiff and for approval of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as lead
counsel. On May 28, 2020, Movants filed a statement of
non-opposition to Klin's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff.
On July 27, 2020, the Court appointed Mariusz J. Klin and the
Mariusz J. Klin MD PA 401K Profit Sharing Plan as the Lead
Plaintiff and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC as the lead counsel.
On Sept. 22, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.
On Oct. 16, 2020, the Movants filed the instant motion to
intervene. On Oct. 30, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an
opposition. On Oct. 30, 2020, the Defendants filed an opposition.
On Nov. 6, 2020, the Movants filed a reply.
The Movants argue that intervention is appropriate as a matter of
right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and with the
permission of the Court under Rule 24(b). They seek to intervene
for themselves and the absent class members to file a
complaint-in-intervention alleging claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the Movants seek to bring a
claim under Section 11 for allegedly materially false and
misleading statements contained in Cloudera's Registration
Statement and Form 425 Prospectuses concerning "Unleveraged Free
Cash Flow and operating cash flow margin."
The Lead Plaintiff's consolidated amended class action complaint
alleges claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
allegedly materially false and misleading statements made in the
Cloudera Registration statement. However, the Lead Plaintiff's
consolidated amended class action complaint focuses on statements
related to Cloudera's technological capabilities and the reason for
Cloudera's merger with Hortonworks, rather than statements related
to Cloudera's cash flow accounting practices. The Lead Plaintiff
and the Defendants argue that Movants' motion to intervene should
be denied under both Rule 24(a) and 24(b).
Judge Koh denies the Movants' motion to intervene as a matter of
right pursuant to Rule 24(a). First, the Lead Plaintiff and the
Movants therefore share the same ultimate objective, which is the
largest possible financial recovery for the putative class.
Second, the Movants have not provided evidence of collusion,
nonfeasance, adversity of interest, incompetence, or lack of
financial resources, or otherwise provided evidence to overcome the
presumption of adequacy that attaches when the existing party and
putative intervenor share the same ultimate objective. Finally,
the Lead Plaintiff is incentivized to pursue the largest recovery
for putative class members, including Movants and absent class
members. The Movants have not otherwise demonstrated that their
interest diverges in any respect from the Lead Plaintiff, or that
the Lead Plaintiff's representation is otherwise inadequate
Judge Koh also denies the Movants' motion to intervene pursuant to
Rule 24(b). She finds that although the Movants would pursue a
different theory of liability if they were litigating the putative
class members' claims under Section 11 of the 1933 Act, the Lead
Plaintiff and the Movants have the same interest in pursuing the
largest possible recovery for the putative class pursuant to those
claims. Moreover, the Movants do not provide any other evidence to
overcome Lead Plaintiff's "presumption of adequacy of
representation." As such, the Judge finds that the putative
"intervenors' interests are adequately represented by other
parties."
Furthermore, as both the Lead Plaintiff and the Defendants point
out, permissive intervention would likely delay the proceedings of
the case. The Defendants have already timely filed their motions
to dismiss, and intervention would delay resolution of the motions
to dismiss. Moreover, the initiation of discovery is currently
stayed pursuant to the PSLRA, and permissive intervention would
further delay the initiation of discovery.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Koh deneis the Movants' motion to
intervene.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/zvu99s2d from Leagle.com.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Thomas Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jason Thomas appeals from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled JASON THOMAS, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00718-LAB-BLM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California,
San Diego.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Mar. 24, 2021, Judge
Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of California dismissed
with prejudice Thomas' claims and dismissed without prejudice the
putative class claims.
Plaintiff Thomas filed this putative consumer class action against
Costco Wholesale, bringing claims based on the marketing and sale
of earbuds. Thomas is a California citizen and Costco is a
Washington corporation; jurisdiction is based on the Class Action
Fairness Act. Plaintiff alleges he purchased earbuds advertised as
the latest version of the 2nd Generation Apple AirPods that were
capable of wireless charging.
Mr. Thomas argues that the earbuds were an "unknown hybrid mix"
that did not include a wireless charging case, and were incapable
of wireless charging. Specifically, he alleges the earbuds were
advertised as "Apple AirPods Wireless Headphones with Charging Case
(2nd Generation)."
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Order entered by Judge
Burns.
The appellate case is captioned as Jason Thomas v. COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Case No. 21-55335, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 9, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Jason Thomas Mediation Questionnaire is due on
April 16, 2021;
-- Appellant Jason Thomas opening brief is due on June 7, 2021;
-- Appellee Costco Wholesale Corporation answering brief is due
on July 7, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JASON THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq.
KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP
12636 High Bluff Dr., Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (760) 806-4388
E-mail: daryoosh@mysdlawyers.com
Defendant-Appellee COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION is represented by:
Aaron J. Moss, Esq.
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 21st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3610
E-mail: amoss@greenbergglusker.com
CREDIT UNION 1: Calhoun Files Class Action in District of Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Union 1. The
case is styled as Kamiesha Calhoun, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Credit Union 1, Case No.
3:21-cv-00088-TMB (D. Alaska, April 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Credit Union 1 -- https://www.cu1.org/ -- is a not-for-profit
credit union that serves over 84000 Alaskan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
DIANE EASTER: Dimartino Files Suit in District of Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diane Easter, et al.
The case is styled as Kevin Dimartino, Michael Milchin, Steven
Pagartanis, Kenneth Pelletier, John Matera, Eugene Castelle, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. D. Easter,
Warden FCI Danbury; Acting Warden of FCI Danbury Current Unknown;
FCI Danbury Medical Staff; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Case No.
3:21-cv-00498-KAD (D. Conn., April 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus for Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
D. Easter is the Warden of the Federal Correctional Institution
(FCI), Danbury, a low-security United States federal prison for
male and female inmates in Danbury, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se:
Kevin Dimartino
Michael Milchin
Steven Pagartanis
Kenneth Pelletier
John Matera
Eugene Castelle
DANBURY, CT 06811
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
ROUTE 37
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Charles H. Files Suit in District of Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
et al. The case is styled as Michelle Charles H., Israel F., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, a municipal corporation, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, OFFICE OF THE STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-00997-CJN (D.D.C., April 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Education for Civil Rights of
Handicapped Child.
Washington, DC, the U.S. capital -- https://dc.gov/ -- is a compact
city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie Ann Madison, Esq.
TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 204-8474
Fax: (202) 289-6795
Email: smadison@tpmlaw.com
EMBROIDERY LIBRARY: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Embroidery Library,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Embroidery Library, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01943 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Embroidery Library -- https://www.emblibrary.com/ -- offers a wide
range of artisan-crafted machine embroidery designs to bring ideas
to life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
FABRICS & FABRICS: Burbon Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fabrics & Fabrics,
Inc. The case is styled as Luc Burbon and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Fabrics & Fabrics, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-01944 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Fabrics & Fabrics -- https://fabrics-fabrics.com/ -- offers
high-quality couture fashion fabrics and luxury designer textiles
for couturiers, dressmakers, apparel designers, costume designers &
sewing enthusiasts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment in Beaty Suit Over Faulty PSRs Flipped
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB BEATY, JESSICA BEATY, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-35141 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Ford.
Ford started manufacturing cars with panoramic sunroofs ("PSRs") in
2007, and soon after began receiving complaints from customers who
alleged that their PSRs exploded without warning. It later added
PSRs to the Ford Escape model line.
In 2017, Jessica Beaty was driving her 2013 Ford Escape when the
sunroof suddenly shattered for no apparent reason, causing glass to
fall on Jessica and her infant daughter. After the incident, the
Beatys filed a putative class action complaint against Ford,
asserting claims for fraudulent concealment under Washington common
law and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
("CPA"), Wash. Rev. Code Section 19.86.010 et seq.
On appeal, the Beatys challenge the district court's determinations
that a reasonable factfinder could not conclude: (1) that Ford knew
about the risk that its PSRs could spontaneously explode on the
2013 Ford Escape, the first Escape model to include a PSR option;
and (2) that the tendency of Ford PSRs to spontaneously explode is
not a material defect.
The Ninth Circuit concludes that there is a triable issue of
material fact regarding whether Ford knew about the risk that PSRs
in its 2013 Ford Escape model would spontaneously shatter. Under
Washington law, a common-law fraudulent concealment claim requires
that "the vendor has knowledge of the concealed defect."
Similarly, under the CPA, a duty to disclose arises only when the
seller has knowledge of a latent defect. Pre-sale customer
complaints to both Ford and the National Highway Traffic
Administration ("NHTSA") create a triable issue as to whether Ford
knew that its PSRs were prone to spontaneously explode under
ordinary use. Under Washington law, pre-sale complaints can
"amount to knowledge" of the defect. Where pre-sale complaints are
made directly to the manufacturer, and therefore a court can be
sure that the manufacturer defendant received them, the complaints
are circumstantial evidence that the defendant is on notice of the
defect.
Ford next contends that even if customer complaints can be enough
for a rational juror to find knowledge, the Beatys' claims fail
because the complaints involved PSRs on a different model of car.
The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that the Beatys presented
evidence based on customer complaints that PSRs in
Ford-manufactured cars were prone to shatter for no apparent reason
-- the specific defect at issue. Their expert in glass failure
analysis opined that the defect exists in all Ford PSRs because
they are built the same way by the same two manufacturers, and thus
share five "common, defective design features, including their
size, thickness, curvature, connection to the vehicles' unibody
frames, and use of ceramic paint or frit."
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Beatys, as
it must, the Ninth Circuit finds that a reasonable juror could find
that Ford knew that the PSR defect would persist in the
substantially similar PSRs installed in the 2013 Ford Escape. It
also concludes that a reasonable juror could find that the risk of
a spontaneously shattering PSR is material to consumers under
Washington law. Materiality is an element of both of the Beatys'
claims.
Finally, even if the district court did not apply an erroneous
standard of materiality, the Ninth Circuit notes that there is a
triable issue of fact as to whether the PSR shattering issue would
be material to a reasonable consumer. Ford makes much of its
calculated failure rate of 0.05%,4 but a reasonable juror could
find that even a small risk that a PSR might explode without
warning is a material fact, given that the practical question is
whether to purchase a luxury accessory at a premium. The Beatys
produced sufficient evidence that Ford's PSRs fail prematurely and
in unexpected ways, which is contrary to consumer expectations.
Other carmakers and NHTSA have also recognized that the distraction
caused by an unexpected loud explosion and sudden shower of glass
"could distract the driver" and create "the risk of a crash."
Though Ford contends that no serious injuries have occurred yet, it
is reasonable to assume that a consumer will attach importance to
traumatic occurrences that result in "only" near-misses and
relatively minor abrasions. The Beatys have produced sufficient
evidence to preclude summary judgment on materiality.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/9c336ps from Leagle.com.
FOUR MINE: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Four Mine, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Four Mine, Inc. d/b/a
withclarity.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-01915 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
With Clarity -- https://www.withclarity.com/ -- is a source of
loose natural and lab diamonds and engagement rings online with
free at-home try on.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
G. WILLI FOOD: Pre-Trial in Suit vs. Euro European Set for Sept. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a pre-trial
hearing in the putative class action suit against Euro European
Dairies, is set for September 13, 2021.
A lawsuit and motion to approve as class action was filed with the
Haifa district court on September 9, 2020 against Euro European
Dairies.
The applicant claimed that Euro European Dairies violated its
obligations to import and market Gaude cheese in the quantities and
prices it undertook as part of duty-free tenders that Euro European
Dairies had received.
The applicant claims that he and the members of the group suffered
damages in the amount of NIS 57 million.
A response to the request for approval was submitted on February 1,
2021, and a pre-trial hearing was set for September 13, 2021.
At this early stage, the Company and its legal counsel are unable
to assess the chances of success of the class action.
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.
G. WILLI FOOD: Suit Over Food Labeling Standards Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a verdict was
reached deleting the motion and dismissing the lawsuit filed on
July 17, 2019 subject to payment of immaterial amounts by the
Company to the claimant in the case.
A lawsuit and motion to approve as class action was filed against
the Company and 11 other respondents with the Jerusalem District
Court for misleading consumers by allegedly not complying with the
food labeling standard in connection with certain products.
The applicant claimed that the respondents have jointly caused
monetary damages of NIS 5 and more than NIS 3 million to him and
the other members of the group of plaintiffs, respectively.
The Company filed an application to dismiss the motion.
On May 12, 2020 a verdict was reached deleting the motion and
dismissing the lawsuit subject to payment of immaterial amounts by
the Company to the claimant in the case.
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.
G. WILLI-FOOD: Class Certification Bid in Israel Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to
approve class certification in the putative class action suit
related to product approval by the chief rabbinate of Israel, is
pending.
A lawsuit and motion to approve as class action was filed with the
central district court on May 7, 2020 against the Company and two
other respondents.
The applicant claimed that the Company marketed several products as
approved by the chief rabbinate of Israel before such rabbinate
approval was obtained, thus allegedly violating various laws. The
applicant contends that at this time he cannot estimate the amount
damages to the members of the class action.
A response to the request for approval was filed on February 4,
2021, and a pre-trial hearing was set for March 15, 2021.
Further hearing has yet to be schedule.
At this early stage, the Company and its legal counsel are unable
to assess the chances of success of the class action.
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.
G. WILLI-FOOD: July 12 Pre-Trial in Misleading Captions Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the pre-trial
hearing in the putative class action suit related to misleading
captions, is scheduled for July 12, 2021.
A lawsuit and motion to approve as class action was filed with the
Haifa District Court on June 24, 2020 against the Company, Euro
European Dairies, and another respondent.
The applicant claimed that the Company marketed several products
with misleading captions contrary to provisions of the law and
relevant regulations.
A response to the request for approval was submitted on November 9,
2020, and a pre-trial hearing was scheduled for July 12, 2021.
G. Willi-Food said, "At this early stage, the Company and its legal
counsel are unable to assess the chances of success of the class
action."
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports,
markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The
company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its
name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company
was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G.
Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food
Investments Ltd.
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Martin Class Suit Over Tainted Baby Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
LACY MARTIN and HOLLY SILVERTHORN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY (d/b/a
Nestle Nutrition, Nestle Infant Nutrition, Nestle Nutrition North
America), Case No. 2:21-cv-05846 (D.N.J., March 19, 2021) alleges
that Gerber sold purportedly "organic," "natural," and "non-GMO"
baby food that, in fact, contained harmful levels of certain heavy
metals, including arsenic, mercury, cadmium, and lead.
As a recent congressional report from the Subcommittee on Economic
and Consumer Policy found, Gerber's baby food
products allegedly contain significant levels of toxic heavy
metals, which can endanger infant neurological development.
Not knowing that Gerber baby food -- billed as "organic",
"natural," and "non-GMO" -- contained these harmful ingredients,
the Plaintiffs Lacy Martin and Holly Silverthorn bought Gerber
foods to feed to their young children. If Plaintiffs had known that
the Gerber baby foods contained these dangerous ingredients, they
would not have purchased Gerber baby foods for their infant
children.
Because Defendant misrepresented the true nature of the ingredients
in its Tainted Baby Foods when it failed to disclose the presence
or risk of dangerous levels of heavy metals, the Plaintiffs bring
this action, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Gerber for breach of express and implied
warranties, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of
consumer protection law.
Plaintiff Martin purchased Defendant's baby foods to feed to her
two-year-old and seven-month-old children. Ms. Martin purchased
Gerber 1st Foods Single Grain Cereals (rice; oatmeal), and Gerber
Toddler Meals (pasta stars in meat sauce with green beans; yellow
rice, chicken, and vegetables with green beans and carrots).
Plaintiff Silverthorn, a resident of Buffalo, New York, purchased
the Defendant's Products to feed to her fifteen-month-old daughter.
Ms. Silverthorn purchased Gerber Crawler Snacks (arrowroot
cookies), Gerber Organic BabyPops (banana raspberry), Gerber
Natural 2nd Foods (strawberry and banana; banana; banana and
blueberry; apple, zucchini, and peach), and Gerber Natural 1st
Foods (pear).
As a result of Defendant's negligent, reckless, and/or knowingly
deceptive conduct as alleged, the Plaintiffs were injured when they
paid for the Tainted Baby Foods that were not as represented.
To stop the sale of Gerber baby foods containing dangerous heavy
metals to unwitting parents buying food for their babies, the
Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring that Defendant stop the
sale of its products with these metals and instead test its
products so that it can both (1) confirm that ingredients are at
safe levels, and (2) disclose those levels to Plaintiffs and the
consuming public.
The Plaintiff all seeks monetary relief that restores monies paid
for the products to the proposed Class and Sub-Classes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
2 Hudson Place, Suite 100
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Telephone (856) 526-1100
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Allison W. Parr, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
aparr@tzlegal.com
- and -
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com
GLA COLLECTION: Knox Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GLA COLLECTION
COMPANY, INC. The case is styled as John A. Knox, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. GLA
COLLECTION COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-00885-SEB-MJD (S.D.
Ind., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
GLA Collection Company, Inc. -- https://glacompany.com/ -- offers a
full range of services and has over 40 years of experience in
recovering accounts receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Victor T. Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
HAWAII SUPREME COURT: Dubin Files Suit in District of Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Supreme Court of
the State of Hawaii, et al. The case is styled as Gary Victor
Dubin, doing business as: Dubin Law Offices, doing business as the
Dubin Law Offices; Christie Adams, Toru Akehi, Gwen Alejo-Herring,
Gloria Almendares, Jeris Yukio Amazaki, Debra Anagran, Dirk Apao,
Margaret Apao, Jerry Badua, Julia Badua, Liao Lucy Bamboo, Mia Ban,
Roman Baptiste, Charles Bass, Laurie Bass, Agripino Pascua Bonilla,
Ruth Rojas Bonilla, Sherilyn May Rojas Bonilla, Kanoa Ross Bristol,
Donna Brooks, David R. Brown, Reynaldo Cabudol, Christy Carrico,
Phineas Casady, Joyce Chandler, William Chandler, Jennifer Chapman,
Luis C. Chavez, Stephen Cheikes, Mervin Halfred Naea Ching, Lucia
Ching, Sutah Chirayunon, Seung Choi, Brett Christiansen, Ah Mei
Chun, Hugh John Coflin, Janet Coflin, Russel Cole, Paul Collins,
Watoshna Lynn Compton, George Costa, Gregory Clyde Souza Cravalho,
Toni Noelani Cravalho, Roger Cundall, Eric Lee Davies, William
Davis, Vandetta Davis, Yukiko Hayashi Day, Paige De Ponte, Fatima
Dunca, Carolina Cabudol Eala, Edwin Paet Eala, David Wendell Ellis,
Lori Lynn Ellis, Janice Ellison, Scott Ellison, Nelie Baniaga
Escalante Norberto Ramelb Escalante, Elena Fedorova, Akiko
Fergerstrom, Justin Fergerstrom, John J. Freepartner, III, Lisa
Marie Freepartner, Michael J. Fuchs, Irene Sajor Gano, Royd Allen
Gano, Edna Gantt, Paul Gantt, Leah Gillespie, Elizabeth Gillette,
David Goodwin, Malia Grace, Antonio Grafilo, Nelia Grafilo, Howard
Greenberg, Kenneth Hagmann, Michael Jon Hammer, Darryl Hashida,
Sean Hayworth, Nicole Flores Hosaka, Tod Hosaka, Christian Jensen,
David Kaplan, Donald Karleen, Beata Karpusiewicz, Jaroslaw
Karpusiewicz, Yvonne M. Keahi, Keith Kimi, Oteliah Kind, Kory
Klein, Mary Knudsen, Ralph Knudsen, Eleana U. Koakou, Lenore
Lannon, Stephen Laudig, Mallory Aspili Longboy, Shari Arakawa
Longboy, Frank James Lyon, Eric Mader, Amy Kathleen Maher, Michael
Charles Maher, Gwen Marcantonio, Armand Mariboho, Darla Mariboho,
Jennifer Martin, Maryellen Markley, Laura Marques, Chanelle Leola
Mattos, Joseph Keaoula Mattos, William McThewson, Emilou N.A.
Mikami, Rickey R. Mikami, Troy Mizukami, Jonnaven Jo Monalim, Misty
Marie Monalim, Robert-Gavin Moore, Teresa Moore, Thomas Morton,
Terry Lynne Ohara Moseley, Yvonne Nielsen, Ailyn Ounyoung, Samrit
Ounyoung, David L. Owles, Lori Y. Owles, Raquel Pacheco, John
Perreira, Rose Perreira, Michael Pierce, Mario Portillo, Eboni
Prentice, Rosario Ramos, Lurline Rapoza, Merrillyn M. J. L. Rapoza,
John Riddel, Jr., Jeanette Rosehill, Marcus Rosehill, Ray J. Ruddy,
Michele Colleen Rundgren, Todd Rundgren, Jo Russo, Kelly
Kalanikapulahao Sampaio, Richard Milikona Sampaio, Jr., John
Savage, Ronald Schranz, John Shigemura, Jason Siegfried, Meleana
Smith, Jody Solbach, Elizabeth Spector, Daniel Joseph Spence,
Eileen Evelyn Stephenson, Connie Swierski, David Swierski, Bonnie
Swink, Jack Swink, Evelyn Takenaka, Nadine Tamayose, Reid Tamayose,
Karri Teshima, Clover Thede, Dylan Thede, Lana M. Toleafao, Saumani
Lopi Toleafoa, Bruce Robert Travis, Elise Travis, Darren Tsuchiya,
Lance Tsuchiya, Malia Olivas Tsuchiya, Anthony Tucker, Gladys
Tupulua, Hedy Udarbe, Rustico Udarbe, Valerie Uyeda, Edward
Vallejo, Jon Van Cleave, M.D., Patrick Verhagen, Stephen Ward,
Donavan Webb, Valerie Woods, Lerma Yamashita, Jack Young, Nancy
Patsy Young, individually and on behalf of all clients of Hawaii
attorneys similarly situated v. Supreme Court of the State of
Hawaii, in its legislative rule-making capacity and in its judicial
capacity; The Honorable Mark E. Reckenwald, in his official
capacity while serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
State of Hawaii; The Honorable Paula A. Nakayama, The Honorable
Sabrina S. McKenna, The Honorable Michael D. Wilson, in her
official capacity while serving as Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the State of Hawaii; The Honorable Katherine S. Leonard,
in her official capacity while serving as appointed substitute
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii;
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court, in its
individual capacity as a non-agency Special Master; Disciplinary
Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court in its individual capacity as a
non-agency Special Master; Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of
the Hawaii Supreme Court in its individual capacity as a non-agency
Special Master; Bradley R. Tamm in his individual capacity while
serving under color of law as both the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court
and Fund Administrator of the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
of Hawaii Supreme C; Clifford L. Nakea, in his individual capacity
while serving under color of law as Chairperson of the Disciplinary
Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court; Roy F. Hughes, in his individual
capacity while serving under color of law as a Hearing Officer of
the Disciplinary Board of the Hawaii Supreme Court; Charlene M.
Norris, in her individual capacity while serving under color of law
as Senior Disciplinary Counsel of the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel of the Hawaii Supreme Court; Andrea R. Sink, in her
individual capacity while serving under color of law as an
Investigator of the the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the
Hawaii Supreme Court; Case No. 1:21-cv-00175-JAO-KJM (D. Haw.,
April 9, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
The Supreme Court of Hawaii -- https://www.courts.state.hi.us/ --
is the highest court of the State of Hawaii in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith M. Kiuchi, Esq.
1001 Bishop St. Ste 985
Honolulu, Hi 96813
Phone: 533-2230
Fax: 533-4391
Email: kkiuchi106@cs.com
- and -
Gary Victor Dubin, Esq.
DUBIN LAW OFFICES
55 Merchant St Ste 3100
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 537-2300
Fax: 523-7733
Phone: gdubin@dubinlaw.net
HENRY GLOBAL: Su's Claim v. Tongzhao Dismissed With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONG SU, et al., Plaintiffs v. HENRY GLOBAL CONSULTING
GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-02235-ODW (PLAx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California grants Henry Tongzhao USA
Consulting, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On March 6, 2020, the Plaintiffs initiated the putative class
action against Defendants Henry Global Consulting Group ("Global");
Goldstone Advisors, Ltd.; and Henry Tongzhao USA Consulting, Inc.,
erroneously sued as Tongzhao USA Consulting, Inc. ("Tongzhao").
The Plaintiffs allege they hired Global to act as their immigration
agent, and Global failed to disclose a "finder's fee" that it
earned for referring Plaintiffs to investment projects in the
United States.
The U.S. EB-5 visa program provides a method for immigrant
investors to become lawful permanent residents by investing capital
in a U.S. business that will employ at least ten workers. The
Plaintiffs allege Global is an international immigrant investment
company that identifies and refers foreign investors, like the
Plaintiffs, to third-parties for potential EB-5 investments.
Global secured agreements with the third-parties ("Migration Agent
Agreements" or "MAAs") to market and sell EB-5 investment
opportunities to the Plaintiffs.
Under the terms of the MAAs, Global received a "finder's fee" for
"securing EB-5 investments and keeping those EB-5 investors in the
[project] until the end." The Plaintiffs allege Global never
disclosed it received a "finder's fee" under the MAAs, and that
their investments failed as a result of the fees, which often
exceeded $50 million.
According to the Plaintiffs, they also hired Global to act as their
immigration agent, which included "preparing and/or assisting with
the preparation of all immigration documents." They contend
Global's role as their immigration agent required the Defendants to
uphold certain fiduciary duties, which the Defendants breached by
Global's failure to disclose the finder's fee.
Based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs assert one claim for breach
of fiduciary duty against the Defendants. Tongzhao moves to
dismiss, claiming that the Plaintiffs' sparse allegations
concerning its involvement in Global's actions are insufficient to
state a claim against Tongzhao.
In opposition, the Plaintiffs contend that the facts alleged in the
Complaint demonstrate that Tongzhao is directly liable: (1) for
breach of fiduciary duty, or (2) as a co-conspirator for its role
in the purported scheme; or (3) indirectly liable for Global's
actions as a joint venturer.
Despite the Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary, Judge Wright
holds that Tongzhao is correct -- the Plaintiffs' scant factual
allegations concerning Tongzhao fail to establish that it is liable
for breach of fiduciary duty under either theory.
First, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs do not allege that
Tongzhao prepared immigration petitions or that the Plaintiffs
hired Tongzhao as an immigration consultant. Thus, they have not
demonstrated the existence of a fiduciary relationship between
Tongzhao and the Plaintiffs. To the extent thePlai ntiffs seek to
hold Tongzhao directly liable for breach of fiduciary duty, their
claim fails.
Second, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to hold Tongzhao liable
for breach of fiduciary duty under a conspiracy theory, their claim
fails. The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' Complaint makes no
mention of a "conspiracy," and there are no facts alleged that
support the existence of one. The Plaintiffs cannot simply beef up
their deficient factual allegations by asserting new legal theories
in their Opposition.
Third and finally, to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to hold
Tongzhao liable for breach of fiduciary duty under a joint venture
theory, the Judge holds that their claim fails. The Plaintiffs'
vague allegations that Global controlled Tongzhao and that the
Defendants utilized Tongzhao's office to communicate with the
Plaintiffs, to store documents, and as a meeting place, do not
satisfy the elements required to prove a joint venture.
Judge Wright concludes that the Plaintiffs' allegations with
respect to Tongzhao are utterly deficient, and their attempt to
fill in the gaps in their Complaint by asserting new legal theories
in opposition to Tongzhao's Motion fails. Moreover, based on the
Plaintiffs' allegations that Global "controlled" Tongzhao and that
"Tongzhao earned no money and has no assets," it is not entirely
clear why Tongzhao is a party to this litigation. Regardless,
because amendment does not appear entirely futile, the Plaintiffs
will have another opportunity to state a claim against Tongzhao, if
they so choose.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wright grants Tongzhao's Motion
and the Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty as to
Tongzhao is dismissed with leave to amend. If the Plaintiffs
choose to file a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), they must do so
no later than 21 days from the date of the Order. If they file a
FAC, the Defendants must file their responses no later than 14 days
from the date of the FAC filing.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/by2tat36 from Leagle.com.
HOTLINE COURIER: Misclassifies Mail Clerks, Reyes Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALICIA REYES, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
HOTLINE COURIER SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00753-B
(N.D. Tex., March 31, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff continuously worked for the Defendant as an
hourly-paid mail clerk/document rep in the mailroom/document center
of CVS Health's Irving, TX corporate office since approximately
April 2017.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant classified her and every
other hourly-paid mail clerk/document rep in the mailroom/document
center of CVS Health's Irving, TX corporate office as "independent
contractors" in an attempt to avoid paying them overtime
compensation. Although they regularly worked in excess of 40 per
week, the Defendant denied them of overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours they worked in a workweek over 40, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendant for
himself and other similarly situated employees all unpaid overtime
premium, liquidated damages equal in amount of the unpaid overtime
compensation, litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.
Hotline Courier Services, LLC provides onsite clerical and
administrative support services in the mailroom/document center of
CVS Health's Irving, TX corporate office. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
HERSH LAW FIRM, PC
3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75219-5133
Tel: (214) 303-1022
Fax: (214) 550-8170
E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com
I-BLADES INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I-Blades, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. I-Blades, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03093
(S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
i-BLADES Smartcase -- https://i-blades.com/ -- is a protective
phone case with built-in smart technology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JAPAN CRATE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Japan Crate, LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Japan Crate, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03096 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Japan Crate -- https://japancrate.com/ -- is a Tokyo-based online
monthly subscription service that sends its subscribers a crate of
Japanese candy, snacks and drinks on a monthly basis to share the
experience of visiting Japan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Distribution of Connor Settlement Fund OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Patricia Connor, Individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:10-cv-1284-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants Plaintiff Connor's Motion for a
Second Distribution to Class Members and Cy Pres Distribution from
the Residual Settlement Fund.
On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Section 227,
et seq. On Feb. 15, 2015, the Court issued a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal approving of the Settlement Agreement between
the parties.
The Settlement Agreement provided that each approved claimant would
be issued a settlement check, the amount of which would depend on
the number of claimants. The Plaintiff states that although checks
were issued to all claimants, approximately 12% were not cashed,
leaving a balance of $924,515.17 in the Settlement Fund from the
uncashed checks.
The Plaintiff now moves for the Court's authorization of a second
distribution to the 94,811 claimants who cashed their initial
checks. She simultaneously moves for authorization of distribution
of any unclaimed funds remaining after the second distribution to
two proposed cy pres recipients, the Consumer Federation of America
and New Media Rights.
Although the Settlement Agreement indicates that remaining
settlement proceeds be distributed to a cy pres recipient, the
Plaintiff argues that the parties did not contemplate a cy pres
distribution of this size -- almost $1 million -- and thus a second
distribution to claimants should be made before a cy pres
distribution.
In Malta v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 3:10-cv-01290-BEN-NLS,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121844 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017), the Court
confronted a similar situation in which the plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion for a second distribution of settlement proceeds.
It found that "although the Agreement provides for cy pres
distribution of unclaimed funds from the first distribution of the
Settlement Fund, it is not clear from the Agreement that a cy pres
distribution of this size was contemplated." Noting that a second
distribution would be small but not de minimis, it authorized a
second distribution to those class members who had cashed the
initial settlement checks despite there being no provision for a
second distribution in the settlement agreement.
Judge Curiel concurs with the reasoning in Malta. Like in Malta,
the Settlement Agreement's brief reference to a cy pres
distribution of remaining funds does not necessarily suggest that
the parties contemplated such a large sum -- over 10% of the total
amount intended to be distributed to claimants -- be directed
towards a cy pres recipient when distribution to claimants remains
viable. The Defendant's lack of objection to the Motion supports
this conclusion regarding the parties' intent. A second
distribution would also be feasible given that the amount remaining
in the settlement fund, $924,515.17, would cover administrative
costs associated with the distribution and result in a non-de
minimis distribution of $8.19 to each claimant who had cashed the
initial settlement check.
Further, although little case law addresses this precise issue, the
Judge holds that the Ninth Circuit precedent regarding cy pres
distributions affirms the Court's view that a second distribution
to class members, where possible and not contrary to the aims of
the settlement agreement, is often preferable to a cy pres
distribution. The cy pres (often translated as "next best")
distribution approach is typically employed when distribution to
individual class members is infeasible, but compensation directed
towards to a related institution or non-profit organization would
best approximate such benefits to the class. Accordingly, although
the Settlement Agreement does not expressly contemplate a second
distribution to claimants, directing the remaining funds towards
the claimants would further the settlement's purpose of
compensating claimants for potential violations of the TCPA.
Thus, the Judge grants the Plaintiff's Motion for a Second
Distribution to Class Members.
Judge Curiel also grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Cy Pres
Distribution from the Residual Settlement Fund. He finds that
although the Plaintiff cannot calculate precisely the amount of
unclaimed funds that will remain after the second distribution, it
is likely to be de minimis. The experience of the first
distribution suggests that many, but not all, claimants will cash
the second settlement checks. Even if far fewer claimants cash the
second settlement checks due to their lower value, a third
distribution would entail yet another set of administration costs,
potentially again exceeding $100,000.
Therefore, it is unlikely that following a second distribution
there will be more than de minimis funds available for a third
distribution given the administrative costs associated with
distribution to claimants. It would therefore be burdensome, and
contrary to the language of the Settlement Agreement, to require a
third and likely de minimis distribution to claimants before
permitting distribution to a cy pres recipient.
Additionally, the Judge finds that there is a "substantial nexus"
between the interests of the class members and the proposed cy pres
recipients, the Consumer Federation of America ("CFA") and New
Media Rights ("NMR"), and that a cy pres distribution to these
organizations would be consistent with the objectives of the TCPA.
The Judge orders that the cy pres distribution from the Residual
Settlement Fund be completed should there be funds remaining
following the second distribution, to recipients CFA and NMR.
The Judge vacates the hearing set for April 9, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5f6p97yv from Leagle.com.
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: 9th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Edwards
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and
SUPERCOM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-15070 (9th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dispositive orders and its summary judgment in
favor of Leaders in Community Alternatives.
Appellants William Edwards, Robert Jackson, James Brooks, and Kyser
Wilson appeal from the district court's dispositive orders and its
summary judgment in favor of Leaders in Community Alternatives
("LCA").
Pursuant to the County of Alameda's contract with LCA to provide
electronic-monitoring services for criminal defendants on pre-trial
or home detention, the California Superior Court and the probation
department respectively referred Appellants to LCA's program.
LCA's program is fully funded by fees charged to participants, and
LCA's ability-to-pay determination during the relevant period was
based on household income.
The Appellants signed an enrollment form with LCA, which included a
"Supervision Fee Agreement" that imposed an enrollment fee and a
commitment to pay specified daily fees. They also agreed to pay
LCA the first fourteen days of their fees in advance and
acknowledged that failure to make timely payments could result in
their termination from the program.
LCA's 2017 client handbook provided that LCA had the right to
submit a report to the court if clients failed to pay or otherwise
failed to comply with the program's regulations. The handbook also
notified clients that failure to adhere to the conditions could
lead to termination from the program, and possible revocation and
incarceration. Next, it advised clients that LCA would work with a
participant regarding their fees, if there is a change in their
financial status while on the program. Finally, the handbook
listed the governing state codes that provide for the participant's
rights.
The Appellants filed a putative class action against LCA and others
and asserted several claims, including a Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claim. They assert that they
each paid LCA amounts they could not afford because their LCA case
workers allegedly threatened them with "violation" reports if they
failed to pay, which Appellants allegedly believed would send them
to jail. They also claim that LCA did not conduct an inquiry into
their ability to pay these fees. Despite the clear language in the
handbook, they contend that LCA did not inform them that they only
needed to pay what they could afford or that they had a right to
have a judge determine their fees.
The district court dismissed all the Defendants except for LCA, as
well as each of the claims except for the RICO claim. The district
court rejected the wire fraud and Travel Act predicates. It also
rejected Edwards's and Brooks's Hobbs Act and state extortion
predicates because they failed to allege sufficient facts; Edwards
and Brooks were dismissed from the case. The district court
permitted Jackson and Wilson to proceed on the Hobbs Act and state
extortion predicates of their RICO claim. The district court
concluded its decision by directing the Appellants to file an
amended complaint within 35 days of its order, and the order listed
Jan. 4, 2019, as the deadline. It clarified its order on July 11,
2019, stating that it had dismissed Edwards and Brooks from the
action because their counsel had insisted that they remained part
of the action.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Edwards and Brooks filed motion for leave to
amend on July 25, 2019, which the district court denied as untimely
and prejudicial to LCA at that stage of the proceeding.
LCA moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted.
The district court held that the LCA employees' allegedly
threatening statements to Wilson and Jackson were not wrongful
under the Hobbs Act or the California Penal Code, so that the
extortion claims failed. It reasoned that the statements were not
wrongful because they occurred in the context of repeated cautions
that LCA would report failures to pay to the court, and that the
judge might remand them to jail.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Jackson and Wilson appeal from the district
court's summary judgment. Edwards and Brooks appeal from the
district court's dismissal of their RICO extortion claims and
denial of their motion for leave to amend.
A complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a
claim for relief that is "plausible on its face" to survive a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The complaint
"does not need detailed factual allegations," but the Appellants
must provide "more than labels and conclusions" to withstand
scrutiny under Rule 12(b)(6). The Ninth Circuit construes the
pleaded facts "in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party."
The Ninth Circuit concludes that the Appellants chose to enter into
these payment agreements with LCA rather than serve jail time. LCA
was, therefore, entitled to payment for the electronic monitoring
services rendered. Furthermore, the warnings from LCA employees
were not wrongful; the admonitions about potential jail time for
noncompliance were within legal bounds. W ilson and Jackson also
did not have a reasonable fear that LCA would send them back to
jail as they knew LCA only had the power to report violations to
the court. The LCA employees may have engaged in "hard bargaining"
techniques, but Wilson and Jackson have failed to present
sufficient evidence of extortion.
For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/vn2wnww from Leagle.com.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Artificially Inflates Stock Prices, Palumbo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PALUMBO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORPORATION AND STEPHEN S. BURNS, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00633 (N.D. Ohio, March 19, 2021) is a securities class
action against Lordstown and Burns on behalf of all persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown common
stock from October 26, 2020 through March 17, 2021, inclusive (the
Class Period).
The action alleges that the Defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the Company's stock price in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Lordstown is an electric vehicle startup company. Founded in 2018,
Lordstown sought to become the first manufacturer of a full size,
all-electric pickup truck. The very next year, Lordstown acquired a
shuttered 6 million square-foot factory from General Motors in
Lordstown, Ohio that had once employed approximately 10,000 people.
Lordstown held itself out as a savior of this Northern Ohio region
that promised to transform the Mahoning Valley into the epicenter
for electric vehicle production, which the Company dubbed "Voltage
Valley."
In June 2020, the Company revealed its "Endurance" electric pickup
truck in a splashy ceremony that received national media attention.
During the event, the Defendant Burns, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") heavily promoted the Endurance's growth
prospects, declaring that "we have our whole year, our first year
of production already pre-sold" and deliveries of the all-electric
truck would begin in "early 2021.
Then, on March 17, 2021, during an earnings call with investors
after market close, Defendant Burns disclosed that Lordstown was
under investigation by the SEC. During the call, Burns stated that
the Company was cooperating with the SEC, and that Lordstown's
board of directors had formed a special committee to conduct an
internal inquiry, the suit says.
On this news, Lordstown's share price plunged by nearly 14%,
falling from a close price of $15.09 per share on March 17, 2021 to
just $13.01 per share on March 18, 2021, a decline of $2.08 per
share -- representing a stunning 58% decline from the Class Period
high.
As a direct result of the Defendants' alleged materially false and
misleading statements, and the sharp decline in the market value of
the Company's shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered substantial losses and damages.
Plaintiff Palumbo purchased Lordstown common stock during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and the alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.
Lordstown is an electric vehicle ("EV") company headquartered in
Lordstown, Ohio. The Company's first production automobile is the
Endurance, a full-size electric pickup truck that the Company
claimed got about 250 miles of range on a single charge.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
CLIMACO WILCOX PECA
& GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public Square, Suite 1950
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Telephone: (216) 621-8484
Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com
- and -
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 3334
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
- and -
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 997-0860
Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM Law, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Telephone: (484) 324-6800
Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
MARY WASHINGTON: Foley Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Washington
Healthcare Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Foley, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mary
Washington Healthcare Services, Inc. dba ODC Recovery Services,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00239-JAG (E.D. Va., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Mary Washington Healthcare --
https://www.marywashingtonhealthcare.com/ -- exists to improve the
health of the people in the communities they serve.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Edward Bowman, II, Esq.
REPUBLIC DISABILITY
P.O. Box 2081
Ashland, VA 23005
Phone: (804) 227-4110
Fax: (804) 277-4257
Email: Jim@jebowman.com
MAYO CLINIC: Faces Hunter Suit Over Illegal Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hunter and all other similarly situated v. MAYO CLINIC,
SHAINA ARCHER, Case No. 0:21-cv-00742-ECT-HB (D. Minn., March 19,
2021) is a civil class action seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief as well compensatory damages and seeking to enjoin further
illegal practices of the massive ingoing fraud and deceptive
practices and full recovery of the financial products owed to the
Federal and State of Minnesota tax money paid by fraud and
deception.
The Plaintiff contends that Mayo clinic is fraudulently billing the
United states Bureau of Prisons by the same-preform tests, etc., on
federal prisoners in the Federal Medical Center in Rochester,
Minnesota and the defendant Mayo Clinic has done hundreds of
unneeded tests and bill the Bureau of prisons who are not
scrutinized, not even by Congress.
The Mayo Clinic has cheated the taxpayers who the funds come, of
billions of dollars in unnecessary, fraudulent practices. The
Bureau of Prisons and Mayo Clinic signed a contract in 1980s agree
to provide for care and treatment, the Plaintiff adds.
Plaintiff Michael Hunter is a resident of the State of Minnesota.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
Mayo Clinic is a nonprofit American academic medical center focused
on integrated health care, education, and research.[BN]
MEZCO TOYZ: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mezco Toyz, LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mezco Toyz, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03098 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mezco Toyz -- https://www.mezcotoyz.com/ -- is a toy company that
makes action figures and other collectibles based on original and
licensed properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
NEWBOLD SERVICES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LEKETIA R. NOBLE, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. NEWBOLD SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant its alleged willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
August 10, 2010 to November 20, 2020 as a full-time, non-exempted,
hourly paid clerk and head janitorial employee.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not receive
compensation for the off-the-clock hours work she performed during
her employment with the Defendant. Specifically, she worked
10-off-the-clock hours from Monday to Friday that were not paid at
any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate established by the
FLSA. In addition, she was not able to take lunch break at least
twice a week, and yet she was deducted automatically half-an-hour
lunch breaks every day. Therefore, despite working more than 40
hours in a week, the Defendant willfully denied the Plaintiff of
her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times her regular rate of pay for every hour that she
worked over 40, the suit alleges.
Subsequently on or about November 20, 2020, when the Plaintiff
complained verbally to her supervisors about unpaid lunch hours and
off-the-clock hours numerous times without getting any response,
she was forced to edit Payroll records to deduct 30 minutes and
altering time records for 10 or 12 employees. Because of that, the
Plaintiff was fired by the Defendant for falsifying some
paperwork.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover from the
Defendant any unpaid overtime hours, liquidated damages,
retaliatory damages, and any other relief as allowable by law.
Newbold Services, LLC provides staffing, janitorial, maintenance,
and facility management services to commercial accounts such as
businesses, hospitals, warehouses, etc. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zanro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE: Underpays Security Officers, Bray Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DESMOND BRAY, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE
GROUP, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-at-00309 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2021) arises from the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Northbay as a
non-exempt hourly paid security officer from on or about 2013 to
January 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated security officers were required by the Defendant to engage
in a pass down of information and gear pre-shift/post-shift wherein
the outgoing officer has to brief the incoming officer about
current happenings at the hospital and has to handed off the
NorthBay provided phone and radio to the incoming officer. The
Defendant required them to carry with them the radio and cell
phones while they were on duty, including during their attempted
meal and/or rest break. Allegedly, the Defendant did not compensate
them for the time they spent performing the Pass Down and those
attempted meal and/or rest breaks at the applicable regular and
overtime rate at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours they worked in excess of 40 in a workweek and also
failed to provide them with accurate wage statements.
On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated nonexempt
hourly paid security officers, the Plaintiff filed a requisite
letter to California's Labor Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) on
March 25, 2021 pursuant to the California Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act of 2004. The Plaintiff demands restitution of
their unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, meal and rest break pay,
liquidated damages, itemized wage statement penalties, and waiting
time penalties, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.
NorthBay Healthcare Group is a nonprofit health care organization
that includes two hospitals in Solano County: NorthBay Medical
Center in Fair field and NorthBay VacaValley Hospital in Vacaville
NorthBay. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah L. Jones, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
THIERMAN BUCK LLP
7287 Lakeside Drive
Reno, NV 89511
Tel: (775) 284-1500
Fax: (775) 703-5027
E-mail: info@thiermanbuck.com
NURTURE INC: Williams Files Suit in District of Montana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nurture, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Caitlin Williams, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nurture, Inc., John Does 1-50,
ABC Businesses 1-20, Case No. 9:21-cv-00044-DLC (D. Mont., April 9,
2021).
The nature of suit is istated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Nurture, Inc. doing business as Happy Family --
https://www.happyfamilyorganics.com/ -- is an organic baby and
toddler food company in the US.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse C. Kodadek, Esq.
Martin Rogers, Esq.
WORDEN THANE
321 West Broadway, Suite 300
Missoula, MT 59802-4116
Phone: (406) 721-3400
Fax: (406) 721-6985
Email: jkodadek@wordenthane.com
mrogers@wordenthane.com
NVR INC: Underpays Loan Officers, Cossaboom et al. Allege
---------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA COSSABOOM f/k/a MELISSA COLLINS and ANN ADAIR HATCH, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
9:21-cv-80627-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2021) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as loan officers,
Plaintiff Cossaboom was from approximately December 2017 to August
2018 in Tampa, Florida, while Plaintiff Hatch was from
approximately June 2017 to August 2019 in West Palm Beach,
Florida.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated loan officers as non-exempt from
overtime. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for the overtime hours they worked. Allegedly, although
they worked more than 40 hours per week as required by the
Defendants, the Defendants instructed them to record only 40 hours
per week on their timesheets.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practices, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated loan
officers suffered damages. Thus, the Plaintiffs bring this
complaint seeking relief for unpaid overtime pay and an additional
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief as the Court shall deem just and
proper.
NVR, Inc. operates homebuilding and mortgage banking, while NVR
Mortgage Finance, Inc. primarily focus is to serve the needs of NVR
homebuyers. The Corporate Defendants jointly employed the
Plaintiffs and the proposed FLSA Collective. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 447-8888
Fax: (561) 447-8831
E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
lpardell@shavitzlaw.com
- and –
Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612) 256-3200
Fax: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: fisher@nka.com
kkienzle@nka.com
OLLIE'S BARGAIN: Court Dismisses Stirling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. 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 January 31, 2021, that the court
handling the class action lawsuit captioned Robert Stirling et al.
v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No.
1:19-cv-08647-JPO, has ordered the case to be closed.
On September 17, 2019, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Robert Stirling et al. v. Ollie's Bargain Outlet
Holdings, Inc. et al., Civ. No. 1:19-cv-08647-JPO was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, Mark Butler, Jay Stasz, and John Swygert
alleging federal securities law violations.
After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs Bernard L. Maloney and
Nathan Severe to act on behalf of the putative class, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information about the Company's earnings,
projections, supply chain, and inventory during the period March
26, 2019 through August 28, 2019.
On May 8, 2020, Ollie's and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the action in its entirety, which was fully briefed by July
22, 2020.
On February 10, 2021, the court entered an Order granting Ollie's
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the case as
failing to state a claim and ordered the case to be closed.
Ollie's Bargain Outlet Holdings, Inc. is a highly differentiated
and fast-growing, extreme value retailer of brand name merchandise
at drastically reduced prices. Known for its assortment of products
offered as "Good Stuff Cheap," the company offers customers a broad
selection of brand name products, including housewares, food, books
and stationery, bed and bath, flooring, toys and hardware. The
company is based in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
OLLIES BARGAIN: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Allen to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant OLLIES BARGAIN OUTLET INC. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled IRMA ALLEN and BARTLEY MICHAEL
MULLEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. OLLIE'S BARGAIN OUTLET, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2-19-cv-00281, in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 9, 2021, Judge
William S. Stickman, IV of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania:
(i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
Request for Judicial Notice; and
(ii) granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.
Plaintiffs Allen and Mullen, filed this putative class action under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, requesting injunctive
and declaratory relief on the ground that Defendant Ollie's does
not provide people utilizing wheelchairs or scooters with full and
equal enjoyment of its facilities in violation of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Sections
12181-12189. The Plaintiffs maintain that Ollie's used policies and
procedures that facilitated or caused fixed and movable access
barriers to unlawfully restrict the interior pathways of its
stores, thereby, preventing people with disabilities from obtaining
Ollie's goods.
The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) of
the Order entered by Judge Stickman.
The appellate case is captioned as Irma Allen, et al. v. Ollies
Bargain Outlet Inc., Case No. 21-8017, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 9, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner OLLIES BARGAIN OUTLET INC. is represented by:
Richard L. Etter, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
One PPG Place, Suite 1900
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 230-8963
E-mail: retter@foxrothschild.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents IRMA ALLEN and BARTLEY MICHAEL MULLEN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Ian Brown, Esq.
R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
Nicholas Colella, Esq.
Kelly K. Iverson, Esq.
Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 253-6401
E-mail: ibrown@carlsonlynch.com
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
kiverson@carlsonlynch.com
eavery@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
James P. McGraw, Esq.
LAFFEY & ASSOCIATES
415 Chartiers Avenue
Carnegie, PA 15106
Telephone: (412) 429-7079
ONTRAK INC: Faces Yildrim Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER YILDRIM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ONTRAK, INC., TERREN S. PEIZER, and BRANDON
H. LAVERNE, Case No. 2:21-cv-02460 (C.D. Cal., March 19, 2021) is a
class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Ontrak securities between November 5, 2020 and
February 26, 2021, inclusive pursuing claims against the Defendants
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ontrak is a healthcare company that offers a
Predict-Recommend-Engage platform that organizes and automates
healthcare data integration and analytics. A critical component of
this platform are Ontrak programs, which are 25 designed to provide
healthcare solutions to members with behavioral conditions that
cause or exacerbate chronic medical conditions.
On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announced
preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year
2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had
terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The
Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider
basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's]
performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible
cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical 9 outcomes data
or medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the
coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was
seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance
metrics."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than
46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021, thereby
injuring investors, the suit says.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the
Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on
achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical
outcomes or medical cost savings.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Plaintiff Yildrim purchased Ontrak securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements
and/or material omissions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
OUTPUT INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Output, Inc. The case
is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Output, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03101
(S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Output -- https://output.com/ -- helps make music with best in
class creative software plugins and studio gear.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
PARTNER COMMS: Accord in Roaming Services Suit Awaits Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties
in a class action related to the charging of V.A.T for roaming
services are seeking court approval of a settlement agreement.
On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that
Partner is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation and/or
is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming services that
are consumed abroad.
The applicant demands to return the total amount of V.A.T that was
charged by Partner for roaming services that were consumed abroad.
The applicant also pursued an injunction that will order Partner to
stop charging V.A.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad.
In August 2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014, the
applicant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The hearing was held in May 2016 before an expanded panel of seven
judges and the Supreme Court accepted the appeal in July 2017 and
dismissed the District Court's decisions.
The claim was reverted back to the District Court.
In March 2020, a settlement agreement was filed for the Court's
approval.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit Against 012 Smile Expunged
--------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25,
2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiff
in the putative class action suit filed against 012 Smile, filed a
request to expunge their appeal which the court granted.
On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet
Service Provider.
The claim alleges that the respondents breached certain provisions
of their licenses by not offering their services at a unified
tariff to the same type of customers.
The total amount claimed against 012 Smile, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was not stated by the applicant.
In December 2019, the Court dismissed the motion and in January
2020, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
Following a hearing held in the Supreme Court, the applicant filed
a request to expunge their appeal and on February 16, 2021, the
Court expunged their appeal.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
PARTNER COMMS: Appeal in Suit Against 012 Smile Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F 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 class action suit against 012 Smile related to the
alleged excessive charge of tariffs from occasional customers for
each long-distance call minute, is pending.
On September 11, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile and two other
international long-distance operators.
The claim alleges that the respondents charged excessive tariffs
from occasional customers for each long-distance call minute,
contrary to the Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and
Broadcasting), that allows a licensee to charge reasonable payment
for a telecommunication service that it provides.
The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action was not stated by the applicant.
In July 2019, the Court dismissed the motion and in October 2019,
an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
PARTNER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Action Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F 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 class action suit related to customer
discrimination, is pending.
On May 4, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.
The claim alleges that Partner discriminated between its cellular
customers, including between new customers and existing customers,
by offering the same type of customers, different terms, an action
which would not be in accordance with the provisions of its
license.
The applicant noted that it cannot estimate the total amount
claimed in the lawsuit if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action.
In December 2019, the Court dismissed the motion and in January
2020, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
PARTNER COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F 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 class action suit initiated on January 4, 2016 with
a claim of NIS 234 million, is pending.
On January 4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company.
The claim alleges that Partner charges its customers the full price
of telecommunication packages that are intended for use abroad
despite the fact that the packages are not fully utilized and does
not allow customers to transfer the balance to the next trip abroad
or to receive a credit for the balance.
The total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the
applicant to be approximately NIS 234 million.
In April 2020, the Court dismissed the case and in June 2020 the
plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision.
Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider
of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony,
internet and television services). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the
NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the
Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
PLUM INC: Moore Suit Removed to Southern District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mayra Moore, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Plum, Inc. doing business as: Plum
Organics, a California corporation; Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02021-00014695-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the San
Diego Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on April 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00624-LAB-LL to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Plum, Inc. -- http://www.plumorganics.com/-- provides nutritious
organic baby foods, toddlers, and kid snack food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 762-1910
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Keri E. Borders, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 229-9500
Fax: (213) 625-0248
Email: kborders@mayerbrown.com
PNC MERCHANT: Second Circuit Vacates Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHOI'S BEER SHOP, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PNC
MERCHANT SERVICES COMPANY, L.P., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
20-3090 (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
vacated the district court's judgment dismissing the putative class
action.
The district court's judgment, entered on Sept. 10, 2020, dismissed
Choi's Beer's putative class action against Defendant-Appellee PNC
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court reasoned that Choi's Beer did not satisfy
Article III's personal stake requirement because (1) its claim for
damages was moot in light of PNC's crediting of Choi's Beer's
account for the disputed annual fee imposed in 2019; and (2) its
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief based on anticipated
future charges were too speculative to confer standing.
The question before the Second Circuit is whether Choi's Beer
alleges a personal stake in any one of its claims such that the
controversy remains live.
The Second Circuit reviews de novo the district court's
determination that Choi's Beer lacks standing to pursue its claims
for injunctive and declaratory relief, and it holds that the
district court erred when dismissing Choi's Beer's claims as too
speculative to confer standing. It finds that Choi's Beer does not
merely allege that it has been harmed in the past or speculate that
future harm might occur; it alleges quite concretely that "PNC has
programmed its computer systems to always assess annual fees on
less than 30 days' notice."
The fees, it alleges, are "imposed as a planned yearly 'release.'"
Although the parties' contract describes the annual fee as
discretionary, the complaint alleges that the fee is in fact
assessed "every year." And the fact that PNC credited the account
of Choi's Beer for the disputed 2019 fee does not undermine the
claim that Choi's Beer is at "substantial risk" of being charged
the "programmed" fee again.
Taking these alleged facts as true and drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of Choi's Beer, as it must on a motion to
dismiss, the Second Circuit holds that Choi's Beer, as a current
PNC customer subject to a programmed fee, does more than simply
speculate when it alleges that it is likely (indeed, certain) to be
charged the fee again.
The Second Circuit also find PNC's two alternate grounds to support
dismissal unpersuasive. Both of them relate exclusively to PNC's
charge of the fee in 2019, and therefore they would be inadequate
to defeat Choi's Beer's claim related to the future imposition of
annual fees. But even in relation to the 2019 fee alone, they would
fall short.
PNC first argues that Choi's Beer fails to meet the injury prong of
the standing inquiry because it did not allow PNC time to
investigate and adjust the annual fee under the terms of the
parties' contract. However, whether Choi's Beer suffered an injury
under the terms of the contract presents a question of contractual
standing, not Article III standing.
PNC also argues that Choi's Beer fails to allege an adequate
breach-of-contract claim because it "fails to allege any damages,"
insofar as PNC refunded Choi's Beer the disputed fee. Appellee's
Br. at 41. But the complaint did allege damages. PNC's
post-complaint actions (the refund) are relevant to determining
whether Choi's Beer's claims later became moot, but they have no
bearing on whether the complaint was adequate to begin with.
For these reasons, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's
judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Summary Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/krnu6zcm from Leagle.com.
E. ADAM WEBB -- Contact@WebbLLC.com -- Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC,
in Atlanta, Georgia, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
PERRY A. NAPOLITANO -- pnapolitano@reedsmith.com -- (M. Patrick
Yingling -- mpyingling@reedsmith.com -- and Justin J. Kontul --
jkontul@reedsmith.com -- on the brief), Reed Smith LLP, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and in Chicago, Illinois, for
Defendant-Appellee.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lutz Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Lutz filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL LUTZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2-20-cv-00676, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action complaint brought against Defendant for its alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.
Plaintiff owns a credit card account issued by Capital One Bank
which allowed him to purchase goods and services from businesses
that agreed to accept the account as payment for goods and
services.
The complaint arises from Defendant's lawsuit filed against
Plaintiff in August 2019 to collect the Account owed by Plaintiff
from Capital One Bank that was purchased by Defendant.
According to the complaint, Defendant could not lawfully collect
the defaulted Account by filing suit against Plaintiff because
Defendant failed to provide prior notice requirements to Plaintiff
that includes his right to cure his defaulted Account within 21
days of the date of receipt of the notice, and details about the
defaulted account, the amount due, and whom payment must be made.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the members of the
proposed classes suffered injury, including monetary harm for any
attorneys' fees paid to defend against the lawsuits filed by
Defendant without legal authority.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated January 19, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint, and Opinion and Order dated March 9,
2021, denying Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Lutz v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, Case No. 21-1656, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 7, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL LUTZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
Defendant-Appellee PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC is represented
by:
Tammy L. Adkins, Esq.
Amy Gilbert, Esq.
David L. Hartsell, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 750-5727
E-mail: tadkins@mcguirewoods.com
agilbert@mcguirewoods.com
dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq.
Mcguirewoods
260 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 667-7907
E-mail: jshaw@mcguirewoods.com
PPG INDUSTRIES: Castro Appeals Ruling in Labor Suit to Ninth Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rogelio Castro filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled ROGELIO CASTRO, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;
SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, a California corporation; SIERRACIN
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. Case No. 2:20-cv-02110-PA-MRW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.
The lawsuit is a putative class action involving third party
putative class members' private and confidential personal and
employment information, including but not limited to, putative
class members' names, addresses, telephone numbers, social security
numbers, personal identifiable information, dates of employment,
job titles, employment personnel files, timekeeping data, payroll
data, financial information, and other private and confidential
information for which special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is
warranted.
Mr. Castro is seeking a review of the Court's Order dated March 10,
2021, where it held that 1) Defendants will have judgment in their
favor and against Plaintiff and the class on the certified claims;
2) Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed without prejudice
except for Plaintiff's class/representative rest break claim,
class/representative wage statement claims, and derivative claims
therefrom, as well as representative meal break waiver claim and
representative drug testing claim that were adjudicated in the
Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment; and 3) Plaintiff takes
nothing and Defendants will have their costs of suit.
The appellate case is captioned as Rogelio Castro v. PPG
Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-55340, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 9, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Rogelio Castro Mediation Questionnaire is due on
April 16, 2021;
-- Appellant Rogelio Castro opening brief is due on June 8,
2021;
-- Appellees PPG Industries, Inc., Sierracin Corporation and
Sierracin/Sylmar Corporation answering brief is due on July 8,
2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ROGELIO CASTRO, individually, and on behalf of
members of the general public similarly situated, is represented
by:
Melissa Grant, Esq.
John Ely Stobart, Esq.
Ryan Wu, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 566-4811
E-mail: melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
Defendants-Appellees PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation; SIERRACIN/SYLMAR CORPORATION, a California
corporation; and SIERRACIN CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, are
represented by:
Maggy Athanasious, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
2049 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-0308
E-mail: mathanasious@littler.com
- and -
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com
PRC-DESOTO INT'L: Sobalvarro Files Suit in California Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PRC-Desoto
International Inc. The case is styled as Denis Leonel Sobalvarro,
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PRC-Desoto
International Inc., Case No. BCV-21-100813 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern
Cty., April 12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
PRC-Desoto International Inc. -- http://www.ppgaerospace.com/--
produces sealants and coatings. The Company offers waterproofing,
coatings, and aerospace sealants. PRC-Desoto serves customers in
the aviation, aerospace, glass, and telecommunications sectors
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Perez, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAKE D. FINKEL
3470 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 830
Los Angeles, CA 90010-3916
Phone: (213) 787-7411
Fax: (323) 916-0521
Email: Alex@lawfinkel.com
PROJECT RESOURCES: Fails to Pay Overtime, Cooper Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
DWAYNE COOPER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. PROJECT RESOURCES GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01060 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2021) files
this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as Damage Field
Investigator.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated employees as exempt from overtime. Despite
routinely working in excess of 40 hours per seven-day 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 worked
over 40 in a seven-day workweek, he adds.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages in the amount of
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all
other relief to which the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
the Plaintiff are entitled under the FLSA.
Project Resources Group, Inc. provides outside plant damage
investigation and recovery services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
440 Louisiana, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (832) 798-1184
Fax: (832) 553-7261
E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com
RARE CARAT: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rare Carat, Inc. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Rare Carat, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01914 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Rare Carat -- https://www.rarecarat.com/ -- is America's #1 source
of unbiased advice for diamond engagement rings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
ROGER WILLIAMS: Faces Smith Suit Over Unfair Hearing in D.R.I.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Smith, and similarly situated persons v. Roger Williams Law
School, United States Department of Education, and American Bar
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-00133-MSM-LDA (D.R.I., March 19,
2021) arises after Roger Williams Law School (RWU) purposely gave
the Plaintiff unfair hearing and edited the Zoom hearing video so
that his rights on appeal were not as live.
RWU Law's Honor Board Process is supposed to be confidential but
RWU either through indifference or purposeful action can never keep
it secret. As the only law school in the state, they have a duty to
make sure their hearings are fair and information is not leaked.
Mr. Smith says that Roger Williams did not provide a fair hearing
to him during the honor board process and subjected him to
expulsion without an adequate opportunity to defend himself. His
complaints were dismissed arbitrarily. He adds that RWU Law has
failed to recruit and hire adequate racial minority faculty and the
USDofE and ABA should never have funded them after the "Ralph
Pappito incident." The OCR investigation procedure is
discriminatory on its face. Persons with certain disabilities
cannot possibly file a complaint, says the suit.[BN]
RONALD DESANTIS: Brown Files Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ron Desantis, et al.
The case is styled as Delano Brown, for himself and those similarly
situated v. Ron Desantis, Governor of Florida, in his official
capacity; Terry L. Rhodes, Executive Director Florida Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles, in his official capacity; Ashley Moody,
Attorney General for the State of Florida, in her official
capacity; Case No. 3:21-cv-00382-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 9,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
Ronald Dion DeSantis -- https://www.flgov.com/ -- is an American
attorney and politician serving as the 46th governor of Florida
since 2019.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
400 Century 21 drive
D48
Jacksonville, FL
PRO SE
ROOT INC: Faces Kolominsky Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ILIA KOLOMINSKY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROOT, INC., ALEXANDER TIMM, DANIEL ROSENTHAL, MEGAN
BINKLEY, CHRISTOPHER OLSEN, DOUG ULMAN, ELLIOT GEIDT, JERRI DEVARD,
LARRY HILSHEIMER, LUIS VON AHN,
NANCY KRAMER, NICK SHALEK, and SCOTT MAW, Case No.
2:21-cv-01197-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, March 19, 2021) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired: (a) Root securities between October 28, 2020
and March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period");
and/or (b) Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering conducted on October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or
"Offering").
The Plaintiff pursues claims against the the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Leading up to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an
innovator in the personal insurance space with a new data -- and
technology -- driven business model that was ready to disrupt
traditional insurance markets and capture disproportionate market
share, in part because of the Company's telematics -- driven
approach to insurance -- i.e., the collection and transmission of
vehicle -- use data through devices.
On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on Form S-1
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several
amendments, was declared effective on October 27, 2020 (the
"Registration Statement").
On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8 million
shares of the Company's Class A common stock to the public at
$27.00 per share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43
million.
On October 29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the
SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part
of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with
the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents").
According to the complaint, the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root would
foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least
several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company
would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its
cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of
Root's purportedly unique, data -- driven advantages, several of
the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed
significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter
alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result,
the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout
the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed
to state information required to be stated therein.
On March 9, 2021, Bank of America ("BofA") Securities analyst
Joshua Shanker ("Shanker") initiated coverage of Root with an
"Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely
to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will
require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets
to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that insurers
Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would
continue to impede the Company's profitability, with Progressive
and Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of
amount of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data"
used to price their auto insurance.
On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to
close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total
decline of 54.93% from the Offering price. At the time this
Complaint was filed, Root's stock price has continued to trade
below the $27.00 per share Offering price, damaging investors.
As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Root securities
during the Class Period and/or Root Class A common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the IPO, and suffered damages as a result of the federal
securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading
statements and/or material omissions.
Root provides insurance products and services in the U.S. The
Company was historically focused on auto insurance, and operates a
direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through
mobile applications, as well as through the Company's website. The
Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wagoner, Esq.
ROBERT J. WAGONER CO., L.L.C.
107 W. Johnstown Road
Gahanna, Ohio 43230
Telephone: (614) 796-4110
Facsimile: (614) 796-4111
E- mail: bob@wagonerlawoffice.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Kirola Appeal Ruling in ADA Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ivana Kirola filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled IVANA KIROLA, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:07-cv-03685-SBA, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the City discriminates against mobility-impaired
persons by failing to eliminate all access barriers from, or
otherwise ensure accessibility to, the City's libraries, swimming
pools, parks, and public rights-of-way (i.e., the City's network of
sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and other outdoor pedestrian
walkways). She also complains that the City's policies and
practices for ensuring access, removing access barriers, and
handling public access complaints are deficient.
Ms. Kirola is seeking a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated March 12, 2021, granting Defendants' motion for judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as Ivana Kirola v. City and County
of San Francis, et al., Case No. 21-15621, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 7, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Ivana Kirola Mediation Questionnaire was due April
14, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by May 5, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on June 4, 2021;
-- Appellant Ivana Kirola opening brief is due on July 14,
2021;
-- Appellees Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, City and County
of San Francisco, Chris Daly, Bevan Duffy, Sean Elsbernd, Ed Jew,
Sophie Maxwell, Jake McGoldrick, Ross Mirkarimi, Gavin Newsom,
Aaron Peskin and Gerardo Sandoval answering brief is due on August
16, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant IVANA KIROLA, On Behalf of Herself and The
Certified Class of Similarly Situated Persons, is represented by:
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
Defendant-Appellee CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; GAVIN NEWSOM,
in his official capacity as Mayor; AARON PESKIN, in his official
capacity as President of the Board of Supervisors; JAKE MCGOLDRICK;
MICHELA ALIOTO-PIER; ED JEW; CHRIS DALY; SEAN ELSBERND; BEVAN
DUFFY; TOM AMMIANO; SOPHIE MAXWELL; ROSS MIRKARIMI; and GERARDO
SANDOVAL, in their official capacities as members of the Board of
Supervisors, are represented by:
James Moxon Emery, Esq.
Ronald P. Flynn, Esq.
Elaine Mary O'Neil, Esq.
SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1390 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 554-4628
E-mail: jim.emery@sfgov.org
ronald.flynn@sfcityatty.org
neil@sfgov.org
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: D&V Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I 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 the motion to
file a second amended complaint against the Trust is still
pending.
On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants.
The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on
behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the
Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012.
The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, claims
against SandRidge were discharged without recovery and SandRidge
remains a nominal defendant to the extent necessary to allow
recovery from applicable insurance policies or proceeds.
On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In addition, as a result of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal
defendant.
On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.
In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the
litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by
purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers of
common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.
On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, arguing that
non-purchasers of common units in the Trust lack statutory standing
to pursue claims against the Trust. On January 18, 2019, the Court
granted the Trust's motion dismissing claims brought by purchasers
of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II.
On July 2, 2018, the defendants filed a motion for partial judgment
on the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations. On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.
Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.
On April 2, 2020, the Trust filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Trust, arguing that
there is no evidence of requisite intent by the Trust, and further,
that the alleged acts and omissions of other defendants are not
properly attributable to the Trust. That motion remains pending.
On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust. That motion remains
pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.
SANOFI-AVENTIS: IcyHot Patch Non-Compliant with FDA, Tapia Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KYLA TAPIA, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-01942-DMR (N.D. Calif., March 19, 2021) is a suit on behalf
of herself and similarly situated consumers who purchased
Defendant's Product.
The Defendant sells, markets, and distributes IcyHot (TM) Lidocaine
Patch ("the Product").
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members were
damaged because they would not have purchased (or would not have
paid a premium) for Defendant's Product had they known the true
facts regarding the strength of the Product's lidocaine dose and/or
the non-compliance of the Product with government regulations.
Nearly every individual suffers muscle aches and pains and seeks
relief for this common problem. When consumers purchase
pain-relieving products the strength of the dose is an important
purchasing consideration. In fact, consumers willingly pay a
premium for pain-reliving products that have strong doses, the suit
adds.
Consumers are also seeking medicine and pain-relief products they
can trust, and often consumers look to governmental agencies, such
as the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), for
guidance on what is permissible and what is not.
The Defendant takes advantage of this consumer preference for
strong doses by prominently representing on the front of its label
that its Product is a "Max Strength Lidocaine" Product. The
Defendant also takes advantage of consumer preference for regulated
and effective medical products by marketing, distributing, and
selling the Product under the guise of being compliant with FDA
regulations. However, Defendant makes this representation in a
knowingly false manner, the suit alleges.
Allegedly, not only is Defendant's labeling and marketing of the
Product non-compliant with FDA regulations for product families of
its type, but Defendant's Product contains only 4% lidocaine while
similar prescription patches contain 5% lidocaine.
Ms. Tapia is a citizen of California residing in Menlo Park, which
is in San Mateo County. She purchased Defendant's Product on
numerous occasions during all applicable statute of limitations
periods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Telephone: 856-772-7200
Facsmile: 856-210-9088
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU & TOMINA PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
SELLAS LIFE: Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Underway
-------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2021,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
related to AbstralZ(R).
On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that Galena and certain of Galena's former officers and
directors failed to disclose that Galena's promotional practices
for AbstralZ(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets) were allegedly
improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and criminal
liability, and that these alleged failures rendered Galena's
statements about its business misleading.
The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On August 21, 2018, the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint. On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.
On October 22, 2018, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted the company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On December
20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.
On January 29, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On January 5, 2021, the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted the company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice to file an amended complaint. On February 18,
2021, the lead plaintiffs filed a third Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.
SELLAS said, "We deny the allegations in this action and intend to
vigorously defend against them. We are unable, however, to predict
the outcome of this matter at this time."
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is
headquartered in New York.
SERVING IMMIGRANTS: Briceno Sues Over Paralegals' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLA V. BRICENO and GIOVANNI J. VELEZ, and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SERVING IMMIGRANTS, INC. and
MAGDALENA CUPRYS, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-21239-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 31, 2021) brings this
complaint as a collective action to recover money damages from the
Defendants for their alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as paralegals,
allege that despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not appropriately pay them and other similarly
situated paralegals all their regular and overtime hours at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours
worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiffs added that the Defendants
were able to keep track of the number of hours they worked although
they did not clock in an out, and they were paid strictly in cash
without any paystub or record showing the number of days and hours
they worked, wage rate, employment taxes withheld, etc. Moreover,
Plaintiff Velez did not receive his pay for the last week of his
employment at the moment of his resignation on or about July 31,
2019.
The Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the amount shown to be due
for unpaid wages and overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 weekly with interest, as well as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other relief
as the Court deems equitable and just and/or available pursuant to
Federal Law.
Serving Immigrants, Inc. is a full-service immigration law firm
offering a complete range of immigration services to both
businesses and individuals. Magdalena Cuprys is the owner and
practicing lawyer of the firm. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zanro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Mann Seeks HSE Employees' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
TERRENCE MANN, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SPECIALIST STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
GLOBAL ENERGY, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00050 (W.D. Tex., March
31, 2021) brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was staffed by the Defendant to Exxon from March 0,
2019 until July 25, 2019 as a Health, Safety, and Environmental
(HSE) employee.
Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts
that he was never paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of
40 hours in a workweek. Instead, he was only paid a flat amount for
each day he worked regardless of the number of hours he worked.
Specialist Staffing Solutions, Inc. is a global recruitment
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
SSA BONDS: $24M Attys. Fees & $4.6M Costs Awarded in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 awards attorneys' fees equal to
$23,875,000 (25% of the total Settlement Amount across the three
Settlements) and $4,585,828.62 in payment of litigation expenses.
The Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and service awards came before the Court for hearing on
April 2, 2021. Judge Ramos has considered all papers filed and
proceedings held in connection with the action, and is fully
informed on these matters.
Having considered all papers and proceedings in these matters,
Judge Ramos awards attorneys' fees equal to $23,875,000 (25% of the
total Settlement Amount across the three Settlements) and
$4,585,828.62 in payment of litigation expenses, and interest on
such attorneys' fees and expenses at the same rate as the earnings
in the Settlement Fund, accruing from the inception of each such
Fund.
Settlement Classes representatives (i) Sheet Metal Workers Pension
Plan of Northern California, (ii) Iron Workers Pension Plan of
Western Pennsylvania, and (iii) Alaska, Department of Revenue,
Treasury Division, and Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation are each
awarded $10,000 from the Settlement Fund in recognition of their
contributions and reasonable expenses related to the action on
behalf of the Settlement Classes.
The fees, expenses, service awards, and interest awarded herein
will be payable from the Settlement Fund upon entry of the Order.
In the event that any of the Settlements is terminated or does not
become Final or the Effective Date does not occur in accordance
with the terms of that particular Stipulation, the Order will be
rendered null and void to the extent provided in that Stipulation
and will be vacated in accordance with that Stipulation.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2c9chk77 from Leagle.com.
SSA BONDS: Final Judgment in Antitrust Suit v. Deutsche Bank Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Deutsche Bank AG and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. dated Aug. 15, 2017.
Based on the record before the Court, including the Preliminary
Approval Order entered on March 2, 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, 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 certified solely for settlement purposes the following
Settlement Class: "All persons or entities who, from January 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 the class representatives for the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Judge Ramos granted 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
the 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. 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 te 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 the 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 a Fee and Expense Application will in no
way disturb or affect te 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/2ckzmpb8 from Leagle.com.
ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Appeals Mock Suit Ruling to 5th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant St. David's Healthcare Partnership filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MELANIE MOCK, On
Behalf of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. ST. DAVID'S
HEALTHCARE PARTNERSHIP, L.P., LLP, Case No. 1:19-CV-611, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Andrew W. Austin of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division, recommended that the
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed
without prejudice.
The case is a putative class action suit in which Plaintiff Mock
asserts Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act and
Federal Declaratory Judgment Act claims against Defendant St.
David's. Mock asserts that St. David's improperly charged her and
other patients hidden emergency department fees for "overhead
expenses" in the form of a surcharge.
The Plaintiff seeks to proceed on behalf of all patients who
received treatment at St. David's Emergency Room and who were
charged certain emergency department fees. Mock filed the suit in
state court and St. David's removed the suit to the Court pursuant
to the authority granted in the Class Action Fairness Act.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the Order entered by Judge
Austin.
The appellate case is captioned as Mock v. St. David's Healthcare
Partnership, Case No. 21-50264, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 5, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant St. David's Healthcare Partnership, L.P.,
L.L.P., a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, is represented by:
William Mayer Katz, Jr., Esq.
THOMPSON & KNIGHT, L.L.P.
1722 Routh Street, 1 Arts Plaza
Dallas, TX 75201
E-mail: william.katz@tklaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee Melanie Mock, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Peter F. Bagley, Esq.
BLUMBERG & BAGLEY, L.L.P.
2304 W. Interstate 20
Arlington, TX 78017
Telephone: (817) 277-1500
E-mail: peter@blumbergbagley.com
TRICIDA INC: Fiore and Block & Leviton Get Lead Roles in Pardi Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PARDI, Plaintiff v. TRICIDA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-00076-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, appoints Jeffrey Fiore as the Lead Plaintiff and
his counsel, Block & Leviton LLP, as the Class Counsel.
On March 8, 2021, the Court received six competing motions to serve
as the Lead Plaintiff and the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in the
putative securities class action. Only three motions remain
pending. Specifically, on March 10, 2021, movant Michael Clynes
withdrew his individual motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
On March 22, 2021, movant Geneva Acholonu filed a non-opposition to
the competing motions. Lastly, movant Nancy Wang has abandoned her
motion by failing to file an opposition or reply to the competing
motions.
Thus, the three remaining movants for the Lead Plaintiff and the
Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel are: (1) Jeffrey Fiore represented by
Block & Leviton LLP; (2) Donna Situ represented by Pomerantz LLP;
and (3) Tricida Investor Group represented by Bragar Eagel & Squire
PC and Bernstein Liebhard LLP.
Judge Koh finds that Situ is an atypical plaintiff because she
certifies, under penalty of perjury, that she had sold all her
Tricida securities by July 17, 2020 -- months before Oct. 29, 2020,
the date of the last corrective disclosure alleged in the instant
case. As for the self-styled "Tricida Investor Group," the Judge
finds it as an inadequate Lead Plaintiff because its members have
failed to show that "the group will be able to function cohesively
to monitor counsel and make critical litigation decisions as a
group."
By contrast, Judge Koh finds Fiore is an adequate and typical
plaintiff. Thus, she appoints Jeffrey Fiore as the Lead Plaintiff.
Accordingly, she also denies the remaining motions for appointment
as Lead Plaintiff.
In addition, Fiore proposes Block & Leviton LLP as the Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel. Having reviewed the submissions and having
considered the factors enumerated in Rule 23(g)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Kph appoints Block &
Leviton LLP as the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in the instant case.
To ensure efficiency, the Judge adopts the following protocols.
Other than Block & Leviton, no other law firms will work on this
action for the putative class without prior approval of the Court.
Motions for approval of additional Plaintiffs' counsel will
identify the additional Plaintiffs' counsel and their background,
the specific proposed tasks, and why Block & Leviton cannot perform
these tasks. If attorney's fees are ultimately awarded in the
case, the Court will not award fees for additional Plaintiffs'
counsel whom the Court has not approved. The Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel should seek approval before additional Plaintiffs' counsel
begin work on the case.
Judge Koh further orders that any billers who will seek fees in
this case, including staff, consultants, and experts, will maintain
contemporaneous billing records of all time spent litigating the
case. By "contemporaneous," she means that an individual's time
spent on a particular activity should be recorded no later than
seven days after that activity occurred. Block & Leviton LLP will
review and approve attorney's fees and costs each month and strike
any duplicative or unreasonable fees and costs. Additionally, all
billing will be recorded by task, rather than by block billing, and
only work that has been assigned will be eligible for compensation.
Finally, Block & Leviton will impose and enforce limits on the
number of lawyers assigned to each task.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/f92nx8bc from Leagle.com.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Files Writ of Certiorari Bid in Razak Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., filed with the Supreme
Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
matter styled UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND GEGEN LLC, Petitioners v.
ALI RAZAK, KENAN SABANI, AND KHALDOUN CHERDOUD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No.
20-1414.
Response is due on May 10, 2021.
The Defendant seeks a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the
case titled ALI RAZAK; KENAN SABANI; KHALDOUN CHERDOUD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Appellants, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; GEGEN, LLC, Appellees, Case
No. 18-1944. The Third Circuit issued its opinion on March 3, 2020,
and issued an amended opinion and order denying rehearing or
rehearing en banc on November 5, 2020. On March 19, 2020, the Court
issued an order extending the filing deadline for all petitions for
certiorari to 150 days from the date of the lower court's order
denying a timely petition for rehearing.
The question presented is: Whether application of the FLSA's
"economic reality" factors to undisputed facts is a question of
fact that can preclude summary judgment, as the Third, Sixth, and
Seventh Circuits have held, or a question of law for the court to
decide, as the Fifth Circuit has held.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's grant
of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The case is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment on the
question of whether drivers for UberBLACK are employees or
independent contractors within the meaning of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and similar Pennsylvania state laws.
Plaintiffs Razak, Sabani, and Cherdoud are Pennsylvania drivers who
utilize Defendant Uber' ride-sharing mobile phone application. The
Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who provide limousine services, now known as UberBLACK,
through the Defendant's Driver App in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
They bring individual and representative claims against Uber and
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gegen, for violations of the federal
minimum wage and overtime requirements under the FLSA, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.
The Plaintiffs each own and operate independent transportation
companies ("ITCs") Luxe Limousine Services, Inc., Freemo Limo, LLC,
and Milano Limo, Inc., respectively. In order for drivers to
contract to drive for UberBLACK, they must form ITCs. Each ITC, in
turn, enters into a Technology Services Agreement with Uber. The
Technology Services Agreement includes a Software License and
Online Services Agreement that allows UberBLACK drivers to utilize
the technology service Uber provides to generate leads, as well as
outlines the relationship between ITCs and Uber riders, ITCs and
Uber, and ITCs and their drivers. Additionally, it describes driver
requirements, vehicle requirements, financial terms, and contains
an arbitration clause for dispute resolution between ITCs and
Uber.
Uber also requires that drivers sign a Driver Addendum, which is a
legal agreement between the ITC and the for-hire driver, before a
driver can utilize the Driver App. The Driver Addendum allows a
driver to receive lead generation and related services through
Uber's Driver App. The Addendum also outlines driver requirements
(such as maintaining a valid driver's license), insurance
requirements, dispute resolution, and the "Driver's Relationship
with Uber," in which Uber uses clear language to attempt to
establish the parameters of the Driver's working relationship with
Uber.
For UberBLACK, Uber holds a certificate of public convenience from,
and is licensed by, the Philadelphia Parking Authority ("PPA") to
operate a limousine company. Transportation companies and
individual transportation providers who provide Black car services
in Philadelphia are required to hold a PPA certificate of public
convenience or associate with an entity that holds such a
certificate. Additionally, approximately 75% of UberBLACK drivers
use Uber's automobile insurance.
The Plaintiffs claim that they are employees, and sue Uber for
violations of minimum wage and overtime requirements under federal
and state laws. Under the FLSA, employers must pay employees the
applicable minimum wage for each hour worked, and, if an employee
works more than 40 hours in a given week, the employer must pay one
and a half times the regular rate for each hour subsequently
worked. They contend that time spent online on the Uber Driver App
qualifies as compensable time under the FLSA. Principal among the
Plaintiffs' arguments is that Uber controls the access and use of
the Driver App.
The Third Circuit determined that summary judgment was a
mischaracterization, but the proper outcome, as all the factual
disputes were resolved prior to adjudication on the merits.
DialAmerica teaches that where there are questions of fact that
need resolution, these questions must go to a fact-finder. The case
presents such genuine disputes of material facts. Uber submitted a
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to which the Plaintiffs
responded with almost a hundred pages of disputes. For example,
disputed facts include whether Plaintiffs are operating within
Uber's system and under Uber's rules, and whether the Plaintiffs or
their corporations contracted directly with Uber. Although the
District Court states that its decision derived from undisputed
facts, the disputes presented by the parties go to the core of the
DialAmerica factors and present a genuine dispute of material
facts.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees-Petitioners Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.,
are represented by:
Theane Evangelis Kapur, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER, LLP
333 South Grand Ave. 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
UNITED AIRLINES: Flores Appeals Fraud Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patricia Flores filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PATRICIA FLORES, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED
AIRLINES, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06571, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 17, 2021, Judge
Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted United's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's second amended complaint.
On its website, United sells tickets for the air transportation it
provides. After a customer such as the Plaintiff has chosen a
flight but before she has purchased it, United offers the customer
the option to purchase travel insurance.
The Plaintiff, for her part, purchased a travel insurance policy
from United's website on Feb. 23, 2018. She does not say how much
she paid. She later "received an email from the insurance provider
attaching her policy, which did not reference United." The
Plaintiff also alleges that, when United sends a ticket receipt,
the receipt "lists the specific amount charged for 'Trip insurance'
and notes that the charge will be 'Billed separately by Travel
Guard Group, Inc.'" She does not allege that she received such a
receipt from United.
At no point during the Plaintiff's transaction to purchase travel
insurance did United disclose to her that it had a financial
interest in her purchase of travel insurance, but it did.
According to her second amended complaint, United has also
concealed and/or failed to disclose to state regulators the fact
that it receives a commission every time a customer elects to
purchase a travel insurance product through its website.
The Plaintiff alleges that the price of the travel insurance "is
set by the insurer, not United" and is based "solely on overall
ticket price." She alleges that the premium is not affected by the
dates of travel, the routes or the customer's individual
circumstances. She also alleges that because the price of travel
insurance incorporates an illegal and excessive commission paid to
United, customers pay an inflated price.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of Judge Alonso's order dismissing
her second amended complaint.
The appellate case is captioned as Patricia Flores v. UAL, Case No.
21-1593, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
filed on April 6, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript information sheet is due by April 20, 2021; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 17, 2021 for
Patricia Flores. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA FLORES, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 N. Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
E-mail: rewing@koreintillery.com
Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INC. is represented by:
Sondra Hemeryck, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
70 W. Madison Street
Three First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 471-8724
E-mail: Shemeryck@rshc-law.com
VALE SA: Banco Safra Appeal on Dismissal of Class Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Second Circuit denied
the plaintiff's appeal on the order of dismissal in Banco Safra
S.A.—Cayman Islands Branch v. Samarco Mineracao S.A., et al., No.
16 Civ. 8800 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.).
The company is a defendant in an action captioned Banco Safra
S.A.—Cayman Islands Branch v. Samarco Mineracao S.A., et al., No.
16 Civ. 8800 (RMB) (S.D.N.Y.).
The suit was brought as a putative class action on behalf of
holders of bonds issued by Samarco, alleging violations of the U.S.
federal securities laws on the basis of alleged false and
misleading statements or omissions concerning the risks of
operations of Samarco's Fundao dam and the adequacy of the related
programs and procedures.
In June 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the complaint.
In March 2020, the plaintiff filed its opening appeal brief to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and in June 2020
defendants filed a response.
In January 2021, the parties presented oral arguments and in March
2021 the Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's appeal.
Vale S.A. is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in
metals and mining and one of the largest logistics operators in
Brazil.
VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in ADRs Related Putative Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit initiated by the company's holders
of securities—American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs").
Vale is defending itself in a putative class action brought before
a Federal Court in New York and filed by holders of ADRs issued by
Vale.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that the company made false and
misleading statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the
risks of the operations of Dam I in the Corrego de Feijao mine and
the adequacy of the related programs and procedures.
Following the decision of the Court, in May 2020, that denied the
Motion to Dismiss presented by the Company, the Discovery phase has
started and is expected to be concluded by June 2021.
Vale said, "Based on the evaluation of the Company's legal counsel
and given the very preliminary stage, the expectation of loss of
this process is classified as possible. However, considering the
initial stage of this putative class action, it is not possible at
this time to reliably estimate the amount of a potential loss."
Vale S.A. is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in
metals and mining and one of the largest logistics operators in
Brazil.
VALE SA: Discovery Ongoing in Putative Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative securities class action suit entitled, In re: Vale
S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 19 Civ. 526 (RJD) (E.D.N.Y.).
The company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named defendants in putative securities class
action suits, under U.S. federal securities laws, brought before
federal courts in New York by holders of the company's securities.
These complaints were consolidated through an amended complaint
brought by the lead plaintiff in October 2019 before the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The lead plaintiff alleges that we made false and misleading
statements or omitted to make disclosures concerning the risks of
the operations of the Brumadinho dam and the adequacy of the
related programs and procedures. The lead plaintiff has not
specified an amount of alleged damages in the action.
In May 2020, the company's motion to dismiss was denied by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The proceeding is now in the discovery phase.
Vale said, "Given the preliminary status of the actions, it is not
possible at this time to determine a range of outcomes or to make
reliable estimates of the potential exposure. We will vigorously
contest these claims."
Vale S.A. is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in
metals and mining and one of the largest logistics operators in
Brazil.
VALE SA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Samarco Bondholders Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vale S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the order
of dismissal in the putative class action suit initiated by the
holders of securities issued by Samarco Mineracao S.A., is
pending.
In March 2017, the holders of securities issued by Samarco
Mineraçao S.A. filed a potential collective action in the New York
Federal Court against Samarco, Vale, BHP Billiton Limited, BHP
Billiton PLC and BHP Brasil Ltda. based on U.S. Federal Securities
laws, which was dismissed without prejudice, in June 2019.
In December 2019 the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the NY
Court of Appeals.
In January 2021, it was held a hearing before the Second Circuit of
the New York State Court of Appeals.
Vale said, "A ruling on the case is now expected to be issued, with
no term for it to occur. Based on the assessment of the Company's
legal consultants, Vale has good arguments to oppose the appeal.
Therefore, the expectation of loss of this case is classified as
possible. However, considering the phase of the potential class
action, it is not possible at this time to reliably estimate the
amount of an eventual loss."
Vale S.A. is a Brazilian multinational corporation engaged in
metals and mining and one of the largest logistics operators in
Brazil.
VELODYNE LIDAR: Faces Nick Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL E. NICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. VELODYNE LIDAR, INC. f/k/a GRAF INDUSTRIAL CORP., ANAND
GOPALAN, ANDREW HAMER, JAMES A. GRAF, MICHAEL DEE, OC OPPORTUNITIES
FUND II, L.P., OWL CREEK ASSET MANAGEMENT, L.P. and GRAF
ACQUISITION LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01950 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2021)
is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Velodyne securities between July 2, 2020 and March
17, 2021, inclusive (the Class Period), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Velodyne began as Graf Industrial Corp. a blank check company
formed by defendant Graf. A blank check company is sometimes
referred to as a special purpose acquisition vehicle, or "SPAC,"
and does not initially have any operations or business of its own.
Rather, it raises money from investors in an initial public
offering and then uses the proceeds from the offering to acquire a
business or operational assets, usually from a private company that
does not publicly report financial or operating results. As a
result, investors in blank check companies rely on the skill,
transparency and honesty of the blank check company's sponsor to
spend the offering proceeds to acquire a fundamentally sound target
company that offers attractive risk-adjusted returns for investors,
the suit says.
On October 16, 2018, Graf Industrial completed its initial public
offering, selling 24.4 million ownership units (including a partial
over-allotment) to investors for gross 28 proceeds of $244 million
(the "IPO"). Each unit consisted of one share of common stock and
one redeemable warrant. The IPO was sponsored by defendant Graf
Acquisition, a strategic advisory firm owned and controlled by
defendants Graf, Dee, Owl Creek and other Company insiders.
On March 17, 2021, Velodyne filed its annual report with the SEC on
Form 10-K. In the annual report, Velodyne revealed that the Company
was suffering from multiple material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting, including weaknesses related to:
(a) Velodyne's processes and controls over tracking and reporting
whistleblower complaints and litigation matters; and (b) Velodyne's
failure to adequately review revenue schedules associated with
non-standard revenue arrangements, which resulted in misstatements
of revenue and deferred revenue for the three months ended December
31, 2020.
Also on March 17, 2021, Velodyne filed a current report with the
SEC on Form 11 8-K. The Form 8-K revealed that the Company's former
COO, Thomas Tewell, had resigned on 12 March 14, 2021.
On this news, the price of Velodyne stock and warrants fell 13% and
17%, respectively, over three trading days.
The Defendants' materially false and misleading statements during
the Class Period about Velodyne's business and operational trends
and results, were made willfully and with reckless disregard for
the truth, causing Velodyne securities to trade at artificially
inflated prices, added the suit.
Plaintiff Nick purchased Velodyne securities during the Class
Period and has been damaged thereby.
Velodyne is a purveyor of lidar solutions for autonomous vehicles,
driver assistance, delivery, robotics, navigation, mapping and
other uses. Velodyne common stock and warrants trade on the Nasdaq
under ticker symbols "VLDR" and "VLDRW," respectively. Prior to the
Merger Velodyne stock, warrants and ownership units traded under
the symbols "GRAF," "GRAFW" and "GRAFU," respectively. The Company
is headquartered in San Jose, California. The Individual Defendants
are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
David C. Walton, Esq.
Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: swilliams@rgrdlaw.com
bcochran@rgrdlaw.com
srudman@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: frankj@johnsonfistel.com
VIDA LONGEVITY: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Fund Internal Processes
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY O'HERN, SEMYON RODKIN, and DOMINIC CARDINALE, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VIDA LONGEVITY
FUND, LP, VIDA MANAGEMENT I, LLC, VIDA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC,
VIDA CAPITAL, INC., VIDA CAPITAL, LLC and JEFFREY R. SERRA, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00402-UNA (D. Del., March 19, 2021) is a class action
under the Texas Securities Act (TSA) on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired investments in limited
partnership interests in Vida Longevity, a Texas-based limited
partnership, from the beginning of 2017 until the present (the
Class Period), and suffered losses and damages in connection with
their respective transactions in the Fund's limited partnership
interests during the Class Period.
Vida Longevity is an open-ended investment fund that raises money
from investors and invests that money in life settlements. Life
settlements are financial transactions that involve the purchase of
life insurance policies at a discount to their face value for
investment purposes. The Fund states that it looks to acquire
longevity and longevity-backed assets and then hold them to term or
sell them to interested parties on the secondary or tertiary
market. Since its inception on April 1, 2010, the Fund has raised
over $1.8 billion.
The Fund purportedly achieved that targeted rate of return from its
inception through 2017. Then, in 2018, the Fund's performance began
to substantially deteriorate to the extent that in 2020, the Fund
posted a negative return of approximately 12.5% resulting in
substantial investor losses.
The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Defendants violated the
Texas Securities Act by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose
the serious weaknesses in the Fund's internal processes and
procedures in the offering materials including the PPM through
which investments in the Fund were offered and sold to investors.
In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the TSA
by failing to disclose material conflicts of interest regarding the
Fund's founder, Defendant Jeffrey R. Serra.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the omitted information was
material to investors and should have been provided to investors
prior to making a decision as to whether to invest in the Fund. The
Defendants misrepresentations and/or failure to disclose such
material information caused substantial harm to Plaintiffs and
members of the Proposed Class.
The Plaintiffs invested substantial amount of money in the Fund
during the Class Period and suffered significant losses and damages
in connection with those transactions.
Vida Longevity Fund, LP is a Delaware limited partnership formed on
February 1, 2010 for the purpose of acquiring and managing a
portfolio of life settlement assets for investment purposes.
Vida Management is a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal offices located at 835 W. 6 th Street, Suite 1400,
Austin, Texas. Vida Management I, LLC is the sole General Partner
of the Fund. The General Partner administers the day-to-day
activities of the Fund's operations and manages the Fund's
investment and business activities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1340
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
E-mail: nweinberger@labaton.com
- and -
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
23250 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 100
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (484) 342-0700
E-mail: rosca@lawgsp.com
- and -
Mark Goldman, Esq.
Paul Scarlato, Esq.
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
Eight Tower Bridge, 161 Washington St
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (484) 342-0700
E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com
scarlato@lawgsp.com
VIKING YACHT: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Yacht Company.
The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Viking Yacht Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-01938 (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Viking Yachts -- https://www.vikingyachts.com/ -- is a premiere
yacht manufacturer of quality convertible yachts, open yachts and
motor yachts ranging from 37 to 92 fee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Segal, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C.
1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Phone: (516) 415-0100
Email: msegal@segallegal.com
VRAI & ORO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vrai & Oro, LLC. The
case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Vrai & Oro, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-01913 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vrai & Oro -- https://www.vrai.com/ -- offers modern engagement
rings and everyday fine jewelry made from sustainably grown, lab
created diamonds and solid gold.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
SHALOM LAW, PLLC
105-13 Metropolitan Avenue
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (718) 971-9474
Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com
WALGREEN CO: Garcia Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., WALGREEN EASTERN CO.,
INC., Case No. GD-21-02250, was removed from the Allegheny County
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on April 9, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00457-MJH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Walgreen Company, d/b/a Walgreens -- https://www.walgreens.com/ --
is an American company that operates as the second-largest pharmacy
store chain in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin W. Tucker, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Phone: (412) 877-5220
Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James L. Rockney, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 288-4046
Email: jrockney@reedsmith.com
WATERMARK CONTRACTORS: Picorelli Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON PICORELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WATERMARK CONTRACTORS INC., KEVIN MAHER, and HUGH
HARRIS, Case No. 7:21-cv-02433 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2021) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, earned but unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to
Plaintiff and hourly employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants operate a construction and construction management
business, which performs construction and related services on
multifamily and residential projects, commercial and industrial
construction projects, specialty healthcare construction projects.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff and all other members of the
proposed class.
The Defendants have engaged in an alleged illegal and improper wage
practices that have deprived Plaintiff and Hourly Employees of
millions of dollars in wages and overtime compensation. These
practices include requiring Hourly Employees to regularly work in
excess of 40 hours per week without providing overtime compensation
as required by applicable federal and state law, the suit says.
The Plaintiff performed construction work, including labor,
demolition, and other construction related services for Defendants
from 2008 through the summer of 2020. During his employment, the
Plaintiff was paid $40.00 per hour regardless of how many hours he
worked. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and all other Hourly
Employees.
Watermark is an innovative, commercial construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
WELTMAN WEINBERG: Chuluunbat Seeks 7th Cir. Review in FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Unensaikhan Chuluunbat filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Unensaikhan Chuluunbat v.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Company, Case No. 1:20-cv-02697, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act regarding consumer credit and is assigned to Judge Robert W.
Gettleman.
The appellate case is captioned as Unensaikhan Chuluunbat v.
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Company, Case No. 21-1584, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 5, 2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Unensaikhan
Chuluunbat last April 9, 2021;
-- Transcript information sheet is due by April 19, 2021; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before May 17, 2021 for
Unensaikhan Chuluunbat. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant UNENSAIKHAN CHULUUNBAT, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Mario Kris Kasalo, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF M. KRIS KASALO, LTD.
20 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 726-6160
E-mail: mario.kasalo@kasalolaw.com
Defendant-Appellee WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS COMPANY, LPA is
represented by:
David M. Schultz, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
151 N. Franklin Street
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-3527
E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
YAMHILL COUNTY, OR: Summary Judgment Bids in Eastwood Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOY EASTWOOD, on behalf of Minor M.E., individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. YAMHILL COUNTY, TIM SVENSON, personally, JESSICA BEACH,
PERSONALLY, and SCOTT PAASCH, personally, Defendants v. CORRECT
CARE SOLUTIONS, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-293-YY (D.
Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment and the Third-Party Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.
Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued Findings and Recommendation
in the case on Feb. 8, 2021. Judge You recommended that the Court
grants the Defendants' and the Third-Party Defendant's motions for
summary judgment.
The Plaintiff did not object to a number of Judge You's findings
and recommendations, which the Court reviews for clear error.
These are as follows: granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's
strip search, class action, injunctive, and declaratory relief
claims; dismissal of the claims against the individual Defendants;
exclusion of portions of the Plaintiff's declaration where he
impermissibly makes a medical diagnosis; exclusion of portions of
the declaration of Joy Eastwood where he impermissibly makes a
medical diagnosis; exclusion of portions of the declaration of
Floyd Eastwood where he testifies to facts about which he has no
personal knowledge and impermissibly makes a medical diagnosis;
exclusion of the declaration of Fernando Fuentes, who was not
disclosed as a witness during discovery; and the Third-Party
Defendant, brought into the case by the Defendants on the basis of
contribution and indemnity, is not liable if the Defendants are not
liable.
The Plaintiff timely objects to part of Judge You's findings and
recommendation. He argues that Judge You ignored the correct legal
standard and applied the incorrect legal standard when evaluating
the conditions that the Plaintiff alleges he suffered while in
custody at a juvenile detention facility. The Plaintiff argues
that for claims by a non-convicted detainee brought under the
Fourteenth Amendment, Judge You should have relied on the
"conditions of confinement" standard, rather than the "failure to
protect" standard. The Defendants and the Third-Party Defendants
responded to the Plaintiff's objections.
The Plaintiff argues that his claims should have been analyzed to
determine whether the conditions of his confinement amounted to
punishment, by asking whether (1) the actions taken caused the
Plaintiff to suffer some harm or disability, (2) the purpose of the
governmental action was to punish the Plaintiff, and (3) the
alleged actions had a legitimate penological objective. He cites
only Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020, 1029 (9th Cir. 2004), to
support this contention. Because this standard only requires "some
harm," the Plaintiff argues that Judge You's application of the
"serious harm" standard was in error.
The Plaintiff did not raise this purported "conditions of
confinement" standard in his response to the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment. This argument was therefore not before Judge
You, and has been raised for the first time in the Plaintiff's
Objection. It is within the Court's discretion whether to accept a
new argument submitted with objections.
Judge Simon chooses to exercise his discretion and considers this
argument.
The Defendants argue that Judge You applied the proper "objective
deliberate indifference" standard for a Fourteenth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim.
Judge Simon agrees with the Defendants that Judge You applied the
correct legal standard by relying on the Castro v. County. of Los
Angeles framework for objective deliberate indifference. The
Plaintiff does not object to Judge You's finding and recommendation
that if the objective deliberate indifference standard is applied,
the Plaintiff's claims, taken as true, do not state a
constitutional violation.
The Plaintiff ambiguously objects that there are genuine issues of
fact but identifies no genuine issues of fact that preclude summary
judgment. He restates factual allegations, emphasizing that it has
not been established that the alleged conditions had a legitimate
penological purpose.
But when the correct standard is used, this argument is irrelevant,
Judge Simon holds. Judge You found that when the facts were viewed
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, there was still no
fact demonstrating a risk of serious harm. The Plaintiff has not
objected to this finding. A genuine issue of material fact exists
when a material fact must be resolved to decide the ultimate legal
question. As Judge You found, that is not the case.
Judge Simon has reviewed these findings and recommendations for
clear error on the face of the record. Having found no such error,
he adopts these findings and recommendation. He grants the
Defendants' and the Third-Party Defendant's Motions for Summary
Judgment.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 2, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdwzz9xc from Leagle.com.
ZIM INTEGRATED: Petitioner's Appeal in Suit vs Israel Unit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services 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 appeal
on the putative class action suit against a company subsidiary in
Israel, is pending.
During 2016, the Company's wholly-owned agency in Israel, along
with other third-party shipping agencies, was served with an
application to approve the filing of a class action with the
Central District Court.
The petitioner alleged, among other things, that the agency has, in
breach of the Port Regulations, charged its customers for services
rendered with higher rates than permitted, as well as charged for
services which are not included in the list of services detailed in
the aforesaid regulations.
During the second half of 2019, this application was rejected by
the court, followed by an appeal filed with the Israeli Supreme
Court on this ruling.
ZIM Integrated said, "Management, based on legal advice, believes
it is more likely than not that the appeal of the petitioner will
be dismissed."
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. is a global, asset-light
container liner shipping company with leadership positions in niche
markets where the company had distinct competitive advantages that
allows it to maximize its market position and profitability.
Founded in Israel in 1945, the company is one of the oldest
shipping liners, with over 75 years of experience, providing
customers with innovative seaborne transportation and logistics
services with a reputation for industry leading transit times,
schedule reliability and service excellence.
ZIM INTEGRATED: Putative Class Suit in Israel Underway
------------------------------------------------------
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services 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 company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in the Central
District Court of Israel.
During 2017, the Company was served, together with another
defendant, with an application to the Central District Court to
approve the filing of class action in Israel, related to alleged
breaches of competition laws in respect of carriage of vehicles
form South East Asia to Israel.
The applicants estimated the total damage caused to the class of
plaintiffs at a total of NIS 403 million (approximately US$ 125
million) based on an expert opinion attached to the application,
although it may not necessarily be correct and/or relevant to the
Company.
ZIM Integrated said, "Management, based on legal advice, believes
that it has good defense arguments for dismissing the application
of the claim to be approved as a class action and it is more likely
than not that such application will be dismissed."
ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. is a global, asset-light
container liner shipping company with leadership positions in niche
markets where the company had distinct competitive advantages that
allows it to maximize its market position and profitability.
Founded in Israel in 1945, the company is one of the oldest
shipping liners, with over 75 years of experience, providing
customers with innovative seaborne transportation and logistics
services with a reputation for industry-leading transit times,
schedule reliability and service excellence.
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Salamon Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is styled as Sarah Salamon, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zwicker & Associates,
P.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-01951 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Zwicker & Associates, P.C. -- https://www.zwickerpc.com/ -- is a
law firm whose primary business function is debt collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
680 Central Avenue
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6500
Email: tamirsalant@gmail.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***