/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210507.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, May 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 86
Headlines
3D SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
3M COMPANY: Hart Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
ACADIA PHARMA: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
ACE PROPERTY: Seven LLC Sues Over COVID-19 Insurance Benefits
ACETO CORP: Bonine Appeals Ruling in Mulligan Securities Suit
ALBERTTELLI: Pierre et. al. Sue Over Unfair Collection Practices
AM FRAMING: Zuniga Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
AMDOCS LIMITED: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Merante Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Availability of Digital Purchases
ARKANSAS: Court Denies Burchfields' Bid to Proceed Class Suit
ARTHA WELLNESS: McFate Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Work Discrimination
BANK OZK: Johnson Suit Remanded to State Court of Bibb County
BLOMMER CHOCOLATE: Theadore Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Compelled to Produce Documents in Hurley Suit
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Over COVID-19
BROKER BROTHERS: Faces Renaud FLSA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
CALIFORNIA: Order Striking Class Claims in Townsend vs. CDCR Upheld
CANOO INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 9 Deadline
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 9 Deadline
CJ'S MARKET: Villegas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
COMPONENT HOUSING: Faces Jamts Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Ct.
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smallwood Balks Deceptive Collection Letter
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smith's Sections 1692e & 1692f Claims Nixed
CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Securities Suit Dismissal Upheld in Part
CYTODYN INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 7 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: $1M Class Deal in Williams Wins Prelim. Nod
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 15 Deadline
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Portnoy Law Reminds of June 15 Deadline
GTV MEDIA: Faces Dong Securities Suit Over GTV Offering
HARPER DIRECTORY: Huskey et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
HRK HOLDINGS: Palmetto Residents Sues Over Toxic Wastewater Leak
I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces Vaughan Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Compels Non-Party to Comply With Subpoena
INSIGHT SERVICE: Zelaya Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INTRUSION INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 15 Deadline
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in Mardis Suit
JAMES S. FARRIN: Garey Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in DPPA Suit
JAR TRANSPORTATION: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces Boscaino Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
JUUL LABS: Baker Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Claytor Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Faces Ali Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Faces Casas Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Faces Fox Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Fish Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Goldston Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Lawless Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Lore Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Okla. School District Says
JUUL LABS: Moore Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Okla. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Pierce Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth, School Claims
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Okla.
JUUL LABS: School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Oklahoma
JUUL LABS: Singer Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Targets Youth for E-Cigarette Campaign, School Claims
JUUL LABS: Tarrats Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Tenn. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
JUUL LABS: Truong Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Worden Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
JUUL LABS: Yut Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
KENTUCKY BANCSHARES: Parshall Securities Suit Goes to E.D. Ky.
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
LOS ARRIEROS: Garcia, Juarez Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
MCKENNA MOTOR: Underpays Car Salesmen, Granberry Suit Alleges
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: MSP Recovery Sues Over Opioid Drugs Conspiracy
MDL 2642: Jackson v. Bayer Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
MID-SOUTH MILLING: Underpays Production Workers, Gomez Suit Claims
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: Chason Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
NATIONAL MILK: Judgment & Class Settlement in Edwards Suit Affirmed
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Class & Sub-Classes in Ginzkey Suit Certified
NVIDIA CORP: Derivative Suit Remains Stayed Pending Appeal Ruling
PACE FUNDING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Green Energy Loans
PIAST MEATS: Underpays Meat Butchers, Dabrowski FLSA Suit Alleges
ROCKFORD, IL: Eisenberg Supports Debtors' Scheduling Order Motion
ROMEO POWER: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
ROOT INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
SAN JUDAS COMMUNITY: Rios Seeks Regular, OT Wages Under Labor Code
SANOFI US: Cruz Sues Over Analgesic Patches' Misleading Labels
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Nese Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SEIU LOCAL 521: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hough Suit
SHELTER MUTUAL: Rice Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
SOUTH VALLEY: Faces Cabrera Employment Suit in Calif. State Ct.
ST. LOUIS, MO: 8th Cir. Remands Class Certification Order in Ahmad
SVA HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Order in Rave Suit Affirmed
TESLA INC: Dahlin Sues Over Breach of Solar Roof System Contract
TIEGE HANLEY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Alleges
TRANSUNION: Parker Poe Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
TRUMPET BEHAVIORAL: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNCLE BUCK'S: Jenkins Sues to Recoup Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
URBAN INNOVATIONS: Gagorik et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime & Tips
VARSITY GAY: Gifford Seeks League Managers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
VERTAFORE INC: Masciotra DPPA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to S.D. Tex.
VROOM INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VROOM INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
VULCAN MATERIALS: Challenges Drivers' OT Pay Class Action Lawsuit
W & W ENERGY: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
WAKEMED: Faces Conte ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WALMART INC: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Kochar Says
WARNER CONCEPT: Julian Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
WASHINGTON EDUCATION: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Carey
WINONA PAUP: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Automated Texts
XTO ENERGY: Gamboa Seeks Blue-Collar Oilfield Workers' Unpaid OT
ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Refuses to Replaces Class Action Lead Plaintiff
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l Faces Potential Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes PI Lawsuit
*********
3D SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired 3D
Systems Corporation ("3D Systems" or the "Company") (NYSE: DDD)
securities during the period from May 6, 2020 through March 1,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 8,
2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
3D Systems is a holding company that offers three-dimensional (3D)
printing solutions, including 3D printers, print materials,
software, on demand manufacturing services and digital design
tools.
On March 1, 2021, 3D Systems issued a press release advising
investors that it would delay the filing of its annual report on a
Form 10-K. The Company stated that "the delay in filing is
primarily related to the presentation of cash flows associated with
the divestiture process for its Cimatron and GibbsCam software
businesses." 3D Systems also stated that it had identified "certain
internal control deficiencies" and that, as a result, it would
"report material weaknesses in internal controls in its fiscal 2020
Annual Report on Form 10-K." On March 2, 2021, 3D Systems filed a
NT-10-K with the SEC, stating that their 10- K filing would be
delayed.
On this news, 3D Systems' stock price declined by $7.62 per share,
or more than 19.6%, from closing at $38.79 per share on March 1,
2021 to close at $31.17 per share on March 2, 2021, damaging
investors.
The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 3D Systems lacked proper internal controls over financial
reporting; and (2) as a result, 3D Systems' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
If you acquired 3D Systems securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W.
Elrod of Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
3M COMPANY: Hart Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC., AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA U.S. INC., ARKEMA, INC., BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION, CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORP., CORTEVA, INC., DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC., DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.,
DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC, NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01298-RMG
(D.S.C., April 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are allegedly dangerous
as PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit asserts.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff developed serious medical conditions and
complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing
AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting
activities.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ACADIA PHARMA: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ACAD) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 15,
2020 and April 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 18, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Acadia submitted an sNDA for pimavanserin
to the FDA that suffered from design and statistical problems. The
pimavanserin sNDA did not contain the support for its approval
despite the Company telling investors that it did. As a result, the
FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA as it was submitted. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Acadia, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210422006065/en/ [GN]
ACE PROPERTY: Seven LLC Sues Over COVID-19 Insurance Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEVEN, LLC D/B/A SEVEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00432 (W.D. Wash., March 31, 2021) is a lawsuit
filed to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.
The Defendant issued one or more "all-risk" insurance policies to
Plaintiff (the Policy), which provide broad property and business
interruption coverage.
The Plaintiff's business property includes property owned and/or
leased by Plaintiff and used by Plaintiff and its customers for its
specified business purposes, including for hair care and hair
styling. Access to some or all of this property and Plaintiff's
premises was prohibited by the governmental response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff for "direct physical
loss of or physical damage to" covered property, and its Policy
includes coverages for risks of both "loss of or damage to" covered
property.
Plaintiff Seven owned and operated a salon and hair care business
in Bellevue, King County, Washington, inside Bellevue Square Mall.
Seven provided hair care services to the general public, including
washes, cuts, coloring, hair styling, and related retail products.
Defendant ACE is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in
Pennsylvania. ACE is licensed to write, sell, and issue business
insurance policies in all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan L. Nanfelt, Esq.
Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
Ian S. Birk, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
Gabriel E. Verdugo, Esq.
Nathan Nanfelt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
gverdugo@kellerrohrback.com
nnanfelt@kellerrohrback.com
ACETO CORP: Bonine Appeals Ruling in Mulligan Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Movant Michael Bonine filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled RONALD L. MULLIGAN JR.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. ACETO CORPORATION, SALVATORE GUCCIONE and DOUGLAS
ROTH, the Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-2425, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto common stock
from August 25, 2017 through April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive.
Aceto is an international company engaged in the development,
marketing, sales and distribution of finished dosage form generic
pharmaceuticals, nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical active
ingredients and intermediates, specialty performance chemicals
inclusive of agricultural intermediates and agricultural protection
products.
According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company
failed to implement and enforce proper internal control to identify
the misapplication of cash; the Company would incur large non-cash
intangible asset impairment charges; the Company lacked effective
internal control over financial reporting; the Company's financial
results for the fiscal year 2017 could not be relied upon; the
Company's fiscal 2018 financial guidance was overstated; and, as a
result of the foregoing, Aceto's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Mr. Bonine seeks a review of the Court's Judgment dated August 4,
2020, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case for failure
to state a claim, and Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 16,
2021, denying his motions to alter judgment.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Aceto Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-955, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 15, 2021.[BN]
Movant-Appellant Michael Bonine is represented by:
Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood Avenue
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Telephone: (215) 600-2817
E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
Defendants-Appellees Salvatore Guccione, Douglas Roth, Frances P.
Scally, Rebecca A. Roof, Albert L. Eilender, Walter J. Kaczmarek,
and William C. Kennally, III are represented by:
Eric Seiler, Esq.
FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEILER & ADELMAN LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 833-1103
E-mail: eseiler@fklaw.com
- and -
Kenneth Matthew Abell, Esq.
ABELL ESKEW LANDAU LLP
11 Grace Avenue
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (646) 970-7341
E-mail: kabell@aellaw.com
ALBERTTELLI: Pierre et. al. Sue Over Unfair Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIE J. PIERRE and MARIE D. PIERRE, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JAMES E. ALBERTTELLI PA
d/b/a ALBERTELLI LAW, and U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-60830-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
unfair or unconscionable debt collection practices in violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a foreclosure
lawsuit against the Plaintiffs on November 15, 2013 seeking to
foreclose on their property that fell into default on their
Mortgage beginning in June 2012. After a series of delays in
obtaining a judgment against the Plaintiffs, the court granted the
Defendants motion to reschedule a foreclosure sale of the
Plaintiffs' property in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the Defendants failed to notify the Court that the
Plaintiffs' Mortgage was an FHA-insured single family home loan,
which means the Plaintiffs were protected from eviction and
foreclosure during the pendency of the HUD Moratorium.
Nevertheless, the Defendants auctioned and sold the Plaintiffs'
home on February 2, 2021, and served the Plaintiffs with a writ of
possession and eviction by way of Broward County Sheriff on March
1, 2021. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs vacated their home during the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic without knowledge about the Moratorium,
the suit asserts.
The Defendants violated the law in the process of collecting a
consumer debt by wrongfully asserting the right to evict them from
their home as part of ongoing foreclosure proceedings during the
pendency of the HUD Moratorium, and by communicating with the
Plaintiffs in a manner which indicated that the Defendants were
authorized to evict the Plaintiffs from their home and sell their
home during the pendency of the HUD Moratorium, despite a national
prohibition on evictions during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiffs respectfully request relief, that includes actual
and statutory damages, reasonable costs and attorneys' and expert
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
James E. Alberttelli PA d/b/a Alberttelli Law is a law firm that
collects debt. U.S. Bank Trust National Association is a trustee of
Carisbrook Asset Holding Trust and is tasked with carrying out
functions on its behalf. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Alexander D. Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Hwy., Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
AM FRAMING: Zuniga Seeks Damages for Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Silvevio Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. AM Framing LLC and Arthur M. Belem, as an
individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-08250 (D.N.J., April 5, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in
an amount exceeding US$100,000.00 as well as interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court
deems appropriate.
The Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by the Defendant from
July 2019 to August 2020 except from March to June 2020.
The complaint states that despite working for approximately 50 or
more hours per week throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the
Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff at a rate of time and a half
for all hours the Plaintiff worked over 40 in a workweek, which is
a blatant violation of the overtime provisions in the FLSA, NJWHL
and NJWPL.
AM Framing LLC provides civil construction services mainly aimed
for industrial, commercial and residential works.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov,Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
AMDOCS LIMITED: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Amdocs Limited
for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 8, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Amdocs both overstated its profits and
liquidity while also understating debt. The Company concealed its
considerable level of borrowing. The Company claimed that its North
American business was maintaining a consistent level, but it was
actually deteriorating due in part to the loss of AT&T as a
customer. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Amdocs, investors suffered
damages. [GN]
AMERICAN INSTITUTE: Merante Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ISABELLA SAVINI MERANTE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN
STUDY, INC., Case No. CGC-21-590398, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03234 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime pay, failure to timely pay wages, unlawful
deductions and credits, failure to provide meal breaks,
non-compliant wage statement, and recordkeeping violations.
American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc. is an American travel
and insurance company, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 442-4810
Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
E-mail: brian.berry@ogletree.com
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Availability of Digital Purchases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Mutter at gamerant.com reports that enthusiasts of all
things movies, games, and music are often proud of the collections
they amass, with some record collectors owning thousands of albums
and some gamers owning an equally large amount of video games. As
media has moved into the online realm over the years, many of these
fans have moved to collecting digital downloads instead of physical
discs, but now the question being presented in a lawsuit against
Apple is: Do consumers actually own the digital downloads they
buy?
As far as lawsuits go, this is far from Apple's first rodeo. In
February this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook was instructed to appear in
court for a seven hour long deposition in relation to Epic Games'
recent lawsuit against the tech giant, and every new iPhone release
seems to come with a few consumer lawsuits over battery or repair
issues. This most recent suit, however, is slightly new territory.
The crux of the suit, lead by plaintiff David Andino, is whether
Apple has the right to block a customer's access to media they have
purchased on iTunes or the App Store if their account has been
suspended. Andino's suit argues, "just like Best Buy cannot come
into a person's home to repossess the movie DVD that such person
purchased from it, Defendant should not be able to remove Digital
Content from its customers' Purchased folders." Even though Apple
is being investigated for anti-competitive behavior in the fallout
of the Epic Games lawsuit and was ordered to pay damages in a
recent consumer battery lawsuit, the company appears to be saddling
up once again to see Andino's suit through the hard way in the
legal system.
With the suit moving ahead, Apple has tried to claim that "no
reasonable consumer would believe" content purchased on iTunes
would remain there forever, however U.S. District Court Judge John
Mendez dismissed this claim stating, "In common usage, the term
'buy' means to acquire possession over something." With in-app
purchases at an all time high during the pandemic, now is not a bad
time to decide, in a court of law, whether these purchases are
actually owned by the consumer or not.
Judge Mendez goes on to state that the case would not be dismissed
because, "Reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn't
be revoked." Fellow tech giant Microsoft recently settled a suit
out of court over Xbox controller drift, and it's technically not
too late for Apple to settle out of court as well, though there has
been no word yet on whether the company intends to move in that
direction.
Earlier this month Apple tried to block witnesses in the Epic Games
antitrust trial, so if the digital download case does go to court
Apple will likely have similar moves up its sleeves. Amazon is also
facing a similar lawsuit at the moment, so whichever case is
resolved first may just set the precedent for the other company as
well as all other digital retailers.[GN]
ARKANSAS: Court Denies Burchfields' Bid to Proceed Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRADLEY BURCHFIELD, Plaintiff v. SUPERVISOR JONES, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 6:20-cv-6135 (W.D. Ark.), Judge Susan O.
Hickey of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Hot Springs Division, denied the Plaintiff's Motion to
Proceed Class Action.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation filed Dec. 14,
2020, by the Hon. Barry A. Bryant, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas. Judge Bryant recommends that the
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Class Action be denied. On Dec. 31,
2020, the Plaintiff filed timely objections.
Judge Bryant recommends denial of the Plaintiff's motion because
the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, would be an improper class
representative and class counsel. He analyzes the Defendant's
potential to serve as class representative and class counsel under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and determines that the
Defendant does not satisfy the requirements. Specifically, he
finds that the Defendant, who is not an attorney, cannot adequately
represent the class and does not have the necessary litigation
experience. He also notes that Courts have found that pro se
litigants cannot be permitted to represent others in litigation.
The Defendant filed an objection to Judge Bryant's recommendations.
However, Judge Hickey finds his objection to be wholly lacking in
relevance and coherence. She finds that the Defendant does not
address the arguments put forth by Judge Bryant regarding the
requirements of class representatives and class counsel under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, he makes a series of
conclusory legal statements on topics, such as the
constitutionality of acts by the United States Congress, that have
no bearing on his pending motion. For the majority of his
objection, the Defendant rambles on topics ranging from organized
crime, the Amazon corporation, the Chinese takeover of the United
States of America, and his future hopes for receiving a
prescription for medical marijuana.
For the stated reasons, Judge Hickey adopts the instant Report and
Recommendation in toto. Accordingly, she denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to Proceed Class Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/ecw7xhyt from Leagle.com.
ARTHA WELLNESS: McFate Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Work Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MCFATE and ANDREA BUSH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARTHA WELLNESS SM, LLC,
ARTHA WELLNESS, LLC, ARTHA WELLNESS WEHO, LLC, AAMIR IRSHAD and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV16172 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, the California Public
Policy, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act including failure
to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay wages when employment ends, failure to
pay wages owed every pay period, failure to maintain accurate
records, failure to give rest breaks, failure to give meal breaks,
failure to reimburse for business expenses, discrimination on the
basis of physical disability, failure to prevent discrimination,
wrongful termination, and retaliation.
Plaintiff McFate worked as a non-exempt employee from September
2020 until December 18, 2020.
Plaintiff Bush worked as a non-exempt employee from latter part of
2020 until early December 2020.
Artha Wellness SM, LLC is a wellness services provider based in
California.
Artha Wellness, LLC is a wellness services company based in
California.
Artha Wellness WEHO, LLC is a wellness center based in California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.,
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
BANK OZK: Johnson Suit Remanded to State Court of Bibb County
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALERIE F. JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. BANK OZK, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-44 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.), Judge Marc T.
Treadwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, granted Johnson's motion to remand the
case back to the State Court of Bibb County.
On Feb. 3, 2021, Defendant Bank OZK removed the putative class
action from the Bibb County State Court to the Court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446. The Court allegedly has original
subject matter jurisdiction of the case pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff
Johnson has moved to remand the case back to the State Court of
Bibb County.
Ms. Johnson alleges three types of contract breaches against OZK in
her putative class action lawsuit. First, Johnson alleges that OZK
improperly charged overdraft fees when, in fact, there were
sufficient funds in an account holder's account. Second, she
alleges that OZK improperly charged multiple overdraft fees on
single attempted transactions. For these two claims, Johnson does
not allege that all overdraft fees were improper; rather, she
challenges only the fees assessed when a transaction did not
actually overdraft an account and the fees assessed on successive
attempts to process a single transaction for which there were
insufficient funds. Third, Johnson alleges that OZK improperly
charged balance inquiry fees before cash withdrawals from
out-of-network ATMs.
Ms. Johnson seeks to certify a class consisting of: All Georgia
citizens residing in the state of Georgia who, on or before July
31, 2018, were charged overdraft fees by OZK on items that did not
overdraw their accounts, or who were charged multiple overdraft
fees by [OZK] on the same item from an account held with OZK, or
who were charged ATM Fees by OZK for balance inquires that preceded
a cash withdraw.
Ms. Johnson argues that the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the case because OZK has not established that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, CAFA's jurisdictional
threshold. Therefore, Johnson argues, the Court should remand the
case back to the State Court of Bibb County.
To establish the jurisdictional amount, OZK has submitted two
affidavits from Cindy Wolfe, the Chief Banking Officer for OZK.
First, Wolfe stated that during the applicable time period, OZK
"assessed more than $5 million in overdraft fees and out-of-network
ATM balance inquiry fees to its customers with accounts maintained
in Georgia." The second affidavit, submitted after Johnson moved
to remand, stated that during the applicable time period, "OZK
assessed over $20 million in overdraft fees to its customers with
accounts maintained in Georgia."
Judge Treadwell finds that OZK has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in the
case is at least $5 million. Wolfe's affidavits -- the only
evidence submitted by OZK -- simply establish the total amount of
overdraft fees assessed during the relevant time period. The
affidavits shed no light on the overdraft fees charged for the
transactions at issue.
The evidence submitted by Johnson, her recent bank statements,
further undercuts OZK's argument that the amount in controversy
includes "a vast majority" of its total assessed overdraft fees.
It appears that Johnson was charged more than 40 overdraft fees
during a 12-month period. However, only four of those overdraft
charges appear to be alleged contract breaches (one possible
overdraft fee assessed when sufficient funds may have been in
Johnson's account and three successive charges on single attempted
transactions).
Accordingly, Judge Treadwell holds that this limited evidence
suggests that most overdraft fees are not in dispute. Of course,
Johnson's experience is far from conclusive, but her experience
demonstrates the risk of assuming anything from Wolfe's
affidavits.
For the foregoing reasons, OZK has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA. Accordingly, Judge Treadwell
granted Johnson's motion to remand and denied as moot OZK's motion
to dismiss.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/sc6a6yps from Leagle.com.
BLOMMER CHOCOLATE: Theadore Employment Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JON THEADORE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLOMMER CHOCOLATE COMPANY and DOES 1
through 20 inclusive, Case No. RG21089219, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on April 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03222 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, failure to
provide paid meal periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to provide paid rest periods or premium compensation in
lieu thereof, waiting time penalties, failure to timely pay wages
during employment, failure to provide legally compliant itemized
wage statements, and unfair competition.
Blommer Chocolate Company is a chocolate manufacturer based in
Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christina T. Tellado, Esq.
Deisy Castro, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 896-2400
Facsimile: (213) 896-2450
E-mail: christina.tellado@hklaw.com
deisy.castro@hklaw.com
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Compelled to Produce Documents in Hurley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN HURLEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA, LLC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-cv-05320-JD
(E.D. Pa.), Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant BMW to produce documents.
Within 14 of the entry of the Order, Defendant BMW will produce to
the Plaintiffs the documents identified in its Bang Class Action
Production Index as: (i) Technical Training Manual for N63 Engine
(3/1/2011) [Begin Bates 1096 -- End Bates 1158]; (ii) Individual
Customer Warranty/Goodwill Records Data (Oil Consumption) [Begin
Bates 10889 -- End Bates 11058]; and (iii) Customer Service Request
Details of Individual Customers (Oil Consumption) [Begin Bates
14099 -- End Bates 18814].
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/fhkmuehf from Leagle.com.
BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY: Suit Seeks Tuition Fee Refunds Over COVID-19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Goloborodsky, writing for The Justice, reports that a Forbes
Magazine article reported staggering data about the price of
university and college tuition in the United States -- the average
cost of a four-year college rose by 497% between 1985 and 2018,
which is more than twice the rate of inflation. While this increase
alone continues to cause a financial burden on tuition-payers, the
economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have worsened this
burden. Most universities that switched to remote learning in
spring 2020 continued to charge the same tuition that was charged
prior to the pandemic, according to the article.
Multiple class-action lawsuits have been filed against universities
in the U.S. regarding their COVID-19 tuition. One of the largest
class-action suits is being represented by Hagens Berman, an
international consumer-rights class-action and plaintiffs
litigation law firm. Their "College Tuition and Fees Payback" case
page states that they represent the rights of tuition-payers and
"seek reimbursement for tuition and fees paid for during the spring
2020 terms and subsequent terms in which COVID-19 caused schools to
provide online courses instead of in-person courses and/or campuses
to close."
Hagens Berman filed lawsuits against Brandeis University, as well
as 18 other U.S. universities. According to the case timeline, the
first complaint was filed against George Washington University on
May 1, 2020, and the other complaints have continued to come in,
filing dates spanning 2020 and 2021.
The lawsuit against Brandeis was filed on May 28, 2020 in the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts. The firm is representing anyone
who paid tuition and fees for the spring 2020 semester when they
were sent home due to the pandemic. In the case document, the
plaintiff is "John Doe, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated."
The Brandeis-specific lawsuit states that students enrolled in the
University with the expectation of a residential and experiential
learning experience, which students argue they did not receive. The
appealing features of a small, liberal arts university were hard to
maintain through remote learning. Steve Berman, managing partner at
the firm, said "students did not enroll at Brandeis to waste their
student loans on cancelled classes and absentee coursework."
regarding the lack of resources available to students. "While
students enrolled and paid Defendant for a comprehensive academic
experience, Defendant instead offers Plaintiff and the Class
Members something far less," the case document stated.
The University has not refunded students for paid student services
fees in spring 2020 and has refused to adjust tuition despite the
changes to students' learning experiences and campus life. The
University's website states that "online education is not less
expensive to provide than in-person learning, and Brandeis has
incurred significant unanticipated expenses around this
transition."
The case is currently active, and Hagens Berman continues to
encourage students from the University and other universities in
the U.S. to join the class-action lawsuit. [GN]
BROKER BROTHERS: Faces Renaud FLSA Class Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
OPEL RENAUD and JENNIFER SCALZO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BROKER BROTHERS LOGISTICS,
INC. and FRANK CAPUTO, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01025 (M.D.
Fla., April 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Broker Brothers Logistics, Inc. is a logistics service provider in
Lutz, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N Orange Ave, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
CALIFORNIA: Order Striking Class Claims in Townsend vs. CDCR Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TREVON TOWNSEND, Plaintiff and Appellant v. STATE OF
CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. F079296
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the Fifth
District affirms the trial court's order granting the motions to
strike class allegations filed by Defendant California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the other Defendants.
The Plaintiff, an inmate who was released from prison two days
late, filed the lawsuit to recover damages for false imprisonment.
His pleading included class action allegations for other inmates
who had their release dates miscalculated.
Defendant CDCR is an agency of the State of California and
responsible for administering the State's prison system, which
includes 34 adult prisons and eight juvenile facilities. CDCR
employees are responsible for calculating the release dates of
inmates held in the custody and control of all prisons in the State
of California. When an inmate arrives at a new institution, an
intake audit is conducted for the purpose of calculating the
inmate's release date. The intake audit should be performed within
30 days of the new institution's receipt of the inmate's file.
Pursuant to section 71010.13 of CDCR's Department Operations
Manual, other audits of an inmate's case records are conducted 60
days prior to a scheduled release date, 10 days prior to a
scheduled release date, and at other times determined by the
Correctional Case Records Manager.
Plaintiff Townsend was convicted and sentenced to two years in
state prison on Aug. 10, 2010. Townsend was incarcerated at Wasco
State Prison Reception Center from Aug. 10, 2010 to Oct. 27, 2010,
when he was transferred to the California Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility at Corcoran State Prison.
In December 2017, Townsend filed the action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory
relief for himself and for a proposed class of inmates who were
retained after their correct release date. The complaint included
the designation "Class Action" in its caption and a separate
heading entitled "Class Action Allegations" as required by
California Rules of Court, rule 3.761. In February 2018, the
action was transferred to and accepted in Kings County Superior
Court.
In May 2018, the Defendants filed a motion to strike class action
allegations in Townsend's complaint. In June 2018, the trial court
granted the motion to strike with leave to amend.
After Townsend filed a first amended complaint, the Defendants
filed another motion to strike the class action allegations from
that pleading. Again, the trial court granted the motion to strike
with leave to amend.
In December 2018, Townsend filed a second amended complaint for
damages ("SAC"), alleging causes of action for false imprisonment
and breach of mandatory public entity duties. The SAC is the
operative pleading for purposes of the appeal. The Defendants
filed a motion to strike its class action allegations. They
supported their motion with a request for judicial notice of Table
A in CDCR's 2016 Outcome Evaluation Report, which lists the total
number of inmates released from CDCR custody annually from fiscal
year 2002-2003 through fiscal year 2013-2014.
Mr. Townsend's opposition to the motion to strike stated he
proposed a class of all persons who were incarcerated in California
state prisons and held in custody beyond their lawful release date
as a result of release date calculation errors. Alternatively, he
proposed subclasses of all persons held in custody beyond their
lawful release date as a result of (1) a credit coding error or (2)
a misapplication of earned credits. Townsend argued that he had
sufficiently alleged and identified a uniform policy or practice
and that questions of law or fact common to the proposed class or
subclasses predominated over individual questions. He also
asserted he was an adequate representative of the proposed class or
subclasses.
The Defendants' reply argued the release date errors alleged in the
SAC arose from a failure to accurately perform basic addition,
subtraction, division and multiplication and these math errors did
not constitute a uniform policy or practice. In the Defendants'
view, the alleged errors necessarily presented individual issues
and, therefore, common issues did not predominate. Defendants also
argued the class allegations were virtually identical to those
stricken in Lopez v. Brown (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1114.
The trial court's tentative ruling stated the court would grant the
request of judicial notice of the 2016 report and would grant the
motion to strike the class allegations in the SAC without leave to
amend. On April 19, 2019, the court heard arguments and then
adopted its tentative ruling. In May 2019, Townsend filed a timely
notice of appeal from the April 19, 2019 order granting the motion
to strike the class allegations in the SAC. An order striking
class allegations is immediately appealable.
On appeal, Townsend argues that he need not identify a specific
policy or practice that caused harm to the members of the proposed
class. Alternatively, he argues the SAC sufficiently alleged a
uniform policy or practice. Townsend contends the class claims
were adequately pleaded and should not have been stricken because
common questions of law and fact predominate, his claims are
typical of the class, and he is an adequate representative.
The Defendants contend the trial court applied the correct legal
standard for disposing of class claims at the pleading stage --
that is, the court determined there was no reasonable possibility
Townsend could plead the requisite community of interest among
class members. They argued there was no uniform policy or practice
that allegedly caused the over-detentions and, consequently,
individual issues predominate. They asserted Lopez v. Brown,
supra, 217 Cal.App.4th 1114 set forth controlling principles that
establish Townsend has no reasonable probability of pleading a
community of interest in the absence of a uniform policy or
practice causing the over-detention.
The Court of Appeals opines that the documents attached to the SAC
and CDCR's worksheet establish that determining whether a putative
class member's release date was properly calculated requires one to
identify the inmate's sentence, credit earning rate, and various
types of credits. This specific information is then used to
compute the inmate's correct release date. The errors that occur
are specific to the circumstances of each inmate. Consequently,
the Court of Appeals concludes the detailed information provided
makes it clear that there is no reasonable probability that
Townsend would be able to demonstrate the existence of a common
practice that results in the miscalculation of release dates.
Stated another way, the errors are deviations from the common
practice of correctly calculating release dates.
The Court of Appeals further opines that the extensive information
provided in exhibits to the SAC shows that individual issues will
predominate when determining whether an inmate's release date was
miscalculated and, as a result, there is no reasonable possibility
Townsend will be able to satisfy the requirement for a predominance
of common issues. The determination of whether a particular inmate
was over-detained requires information specific to that inmate and
the completion of a series of calculations that produce a release
date unique to that individual. Information that is specific to
the individual will predominate when it comes to completing the
calculations necessary to identify the correct release date. As a
result, the Appellate Court concludes that there is no reasonable
possibility that common questions of law or fact will predominate
the resolution of whether a putative class member was
over-detained.
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirms the order
striking the class action allegations. The Respondents will
recover their costs on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/c77cj9zy from Leagle.com.
Kiesel Law, Paul R. Kiesel -- kiesel@kiesel.law -- Steven D. Archer
-- archer@kiesel.law -- Jeffrey A. Koncius -- koncius@kiesel.law --
Melanie Meneses Palmer -- palmer@kiesel.law; Law Offices of Sanford
Jossen and Sanford Jossen for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Monica N. Anderson, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Misha D. Igra -- Misha.Igra@doj.ca.gov
-- and Cassandra J. Shryock -- Cassandra.Shryock@doj.ca.gov --
Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Respondents.
CANOO INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Canoo Inc. (GOEV, GOEVW)
Class Period: 8/18/2020 - 3/29/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 1, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-canoo-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Champignon Brands Inc. ("Champignon" or the
"Company") (OTC: SHRMF) securities between March 27, 2020 and
February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Champignon investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/champignon-brands-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On June 22, 2020, Champignon announced that the Company had "been
selected for continuous disclosure review by the British Columbia
Securities Commission (the "Commission") and "in connection with
the review, the Commission had issued a cease trade order
suspending in the securities of the Company pending the filing of
business acquisition reports."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell 24% to close at $0.500
per share on June 22, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
On September 15, 2020, the Company issued a press release stating,
amongst other things, "the Commission issued a replacement cease
trade order . . . , pending the filing of a revised material change
report . . . in connection with the acquisition by the Company of
AltMed." Champignon further stated that "the acquisition of AltMed
should be treated as a reverse-takeover."
On this news, Champignon's stock price fell 5% to close at $0.271
per share on September 16, 2020, thereby damaging investors.
On February 17, 2021, Champignon announced that it would restate
its financial statements for the three and six month periods ended
March 31, 2020. Specifically, "the Company previously recognized
intangible assets in connection with" certain acquisitions, and
"management determined that . . . the assets do not meet the
definition of intangible assets for the purposes of international
financial reporting standards and as result will be recorded as
transaction costs in the Company's statement of loss and
comprehensive loss." Champignon also stated that "a shareholder and
contracted consultant (the ‘Consultant') of the Company was a
related party with respect to" those acquisitions.
On this news, Champignon's stock price fell 10% to close at $0.687
per share on February 17, 2021, thereby damaging investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Champignon had
undisclosed material weaknesses and insufficient financial
controls; (2) Champignon's previously issued financial statements
were false and unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported
financial statements would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's
acquisitions involved an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result
of the foregoing and subsequent reporting delays and issues, the
British Columbia Securities Commission would suspend Champignon's
stock from trading; (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Champignon securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 9, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210423005069/en/ [GN]
CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Champignon Brands Inc. (OTC: SHRMF)
between March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important June 9, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action commenced by the firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Champignon securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 9, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Champignon had undisclosed
material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2)
Champignon's previously issued financial statements were false and
unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported financial statements
would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's acquisitions involved
an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and
subsequent reporting delays and issues, the British Columbia
Securities Commission would suspend Champignon's from trading; and
(6) as a result, defendants' statements about Champignon's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Champignon class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
CJ'S MARKET: Villegas Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
ELIDIO LEONOR FERNANDO VILLEGAS and CELSO FELIX GALVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CJ'S MARKET INC, CKIM'S FRUIT & VEGETABLE INC, and JEMI LEE KIM and
CHUL JAE KIM, as individuals, Case No. 1:21-cv-02879 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 5, 2021) seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of
state and federal wage and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiff's
employment at CJ'S MARKET INC and CKIM'S FRUIT & VEGETABLE INC.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
liquidated damages in an amount exceeding US$100,000.00. Plaintiffs
also seek interest, attorney's fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.
Plaintiff Villegas was employed by the Defendants as a stocker from
November 2018 to January 2021.
Plaintiff Galvez was employed by the Defendants as a stocker from
March 2008 to January 2020.
CJ'S MARKET INC and CKIM'S FRUIT & VEGETABLE INC are both
headquartered in Bronx, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov,Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
COMPONENT HOUSING: Faces Jamts Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IDA JAMTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMPONENT HOUSING SYSTEMS USA INC.; TONY
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CENTER; TONY BORGES and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV16352 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code including failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay
period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff worked at the marketing department for the Defendants
from May 1, 2020 until December 1, 2020.
Component Housing Systems USA Inc. is a real estate developer in
South Gate, California.
Tony Family Development Center is a non-profit corporation that
focuses on marketing, management, structure of supportive housing
for women, men, veterans, and risk kids in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smallwood Balks Deceptive Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TANASIA SMALLWOOD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING,
INC., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-09590
(D.N.J., April 16, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged use of
abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices in
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has an alleged debt
incurred to T-Mobile, USA primarily for personal, family or
household purposes, specifically telecommunication services. The
Defendant purportedly contracted by T-Mobile, USA to collect the
alleged debt. Subsequently on or about March 20, 2021, the
Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter stating a balance
of $602.65. However, the letter is allegedly deceptive because it
implies that in exchange of 50% of the balance the consumer will
achieve some form of settlement, when in actuality it is unclear
what form of settlement the letter is offering. In addition, the
heading of the letter that stated "Reduced Balance Opportunity" is
misleading because it does not correspond with the statement about
paying half of the balance with a result of the other half of the
balance still remaining, as the option of paying half of the
balance is always available as a means of reducing a balance. The
letter is also deceptive because it implies that the offer is
expiring when the option of paying half of a balance never actually
expires, the suit says.
The Defendant has allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
making false and misleading representation and by failing to
delineate to which listed amount the "adjustment" may be applied.
Due to the deceptive, misleading and false debt collection
practices of the Defendant alleged herein, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals have been damaged. Thus, the
Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action to recover
damages from the Defendant, that includes statutory and actual
damages, litigation costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Smith's Sections 1692e & 1692f Claims Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CALVIN SMITH, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 C 4553 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary
Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part
Convergent's motion under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the
complaint.
Mr. Smith alleges in the putative class action that a collection
letter he received from Convergent violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.
Smith fell behind on his cable bill, and the account went into
default. The cable company hired Convergent to collect the debt.
Convergent mailed Smith a letter dated Aug. 2, 2019 attempting to
collect the $355.58 balance on his account.
The lawsuit targets two aspects of the letter. First, the letter
stated that Smith could "dispute the validity of the debt" "in
writing at PO Box 9004, Renton, WA 98057 within 30 days from
receiving this notice." But the letter did not mention that
Convergent also allowed debtors to submit disputes by mail to its
physical address, by fax, by email, or by completing a form on its
website. Second, the letter stated that, if Smith disputed the
debt, Convergent would "obtain verification of the debt or obtain a
copy of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or
verification." The letter's references to a "judgment" made Smith
think that there might have been a judgment entered against him,
but in fact, as Convergent knew, there was no such judgment.
Convergent moves under Civil Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the
complaint.
Discussion
I. Section 1692g Claim
Judge Feinerman opines that it is likewise plausible that an
unsophisticated consumer might conclude from Convergent's letter
that mail to the P.O. Box is a necessary condition for submitting a
dispute, a message that, if received, would be incorrect -- as
there were several other available methods -- and thereby
overshadow the letter's disclosure in violation of Section
1692g(a)(4) and (b). It would have been unlawful for Convergent to
tell Smith that he could submit his dispute only by mail to the
P.O. Box, because the statute imposes no such limit and Convergent
in fact made available other delivery methods. Granted, the letter
does not use the word "only"; rather, it reads: "If you notify this
office in writing at the P.O. Box this office will obtain
verification of the debt." Technically, the letter does not state
that the P.O. Box is the sole method available to submit a
dispute.
The Judge holds that a logician's or grammarian's reading is not
the standard, however -- the question is whether "a significant
fraction of the population" could potentially read the letter to
(incorrectly) limit the method of submitting a dispute. Hence, the
overshadowing claim cannot be dismissed at this stage.
II. Section 1692e and 1692f Claims
In Ruth v. Triumph P'ships, 577 F.3d 790, 799-800 (7th Cir. 2009),
Section 1692e prohibits a debt collector from using "any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt," 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e. As the
Seventh Circuit explained in Ruth, statements alleged to be false
or misleading under Section 1692e fall into three categories.
The first category consists of statements that are "plainly, on
their face, not misleading or deceptive." The second category
consists of statements that "are not plainly misleading or
deceptive but might possibly mislead or deceive the unsophisticated
consumer." The third category consists of statements that are "so
clearly confusing on their faces that a court may award summary
judgment to the plaintiff on that basis."
Judge Feinerman holds that Smith's claims based on use of the
phrase "this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain
a copy of a judgment" fall into the first category, making
dismissal appropriate based on the letter's text alone. Even an
unsophisticated consumer "is capable of making basic logical
deductions and inferences." The basic inference from the text is
that Convergent would obtain either verification of the debt or a
copy of a judgment, depending on which circumstance obtained. That
is how ordinary English speakers, sophisticated or not, use the
word "or." Also significant is the use of the phrase "a judgment,"
as opposed to "the judgment." No formal education is needed to
understand that the indefinite article "a" leaves unaddressed
whether or not a judgment exists. As a result, the letter is
neither misleading nor unfair as a matter of law.
Conclusion
Judge Feinerman granted Convergent's motion to dismiss as to the
Sections 1692e and 1692f claims. The dismissal of those claims is
with prejudice, as the Judge can discern no amendment that would
cure the flaw those claims. The Judge denied the motion as to the
Section 1692g claim. Convergent will answer the surviving portions
of the operative complaint by May 18, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/dj3ey85s from
Leagle.com.
CREDIT SUISSE: Set Capital Securities Suit Dismissal Upheld in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SET CAPITAL LLC, STEFAN JAGER, NIKOLAY DROZHZHINOV,
ALEKSANDR GAMBURG, ACM, LTD., Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants, RAJAN
CHAHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, SHAOLEI QIU, GLENN EISENBERG, Plaintiffs v. CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, DAVID R. MATHERS, TIDJANE THIAM, CREDIT SUISSE AG, CREDIT
SUISSE INTERNATIONAL, JANUS HENDERSON GROUP PLC, JANUS INDEX &
CALCULATION SERVICES LLC, JANUS DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, DBA JANUS
HENDERSON DISTRIBUTORS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-3466-cv
(2d Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms
in part and vacates in part the district court's order dismissing
the complaint for failure to plead a strong inference of scienter.
The Lead Plaintiffs-Appellants brought the securities class action
lawsuit against Credit Suisse. Set Capital principally alleges
that, on Feb. 5, 2018, Credit Suisse, Janus, and the Individual
Defendants executed a complex fraud to collapse the market for
VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short Term Exchange Traded Notes
(XIV Notes), earning hundreds of millions of dollars in profit at
their investors' expense.
The appeal stems from the Feb. 5, 2018 collapse of the market for
certain investment vehicles called XIV Notes. XIV Notes were a
derivative financial product that increased in value when the
market was calm and decreased in value when the market was
volatile. The notes were issued by Credit Suisse and priced based
on the inverse of a volatility index called the S&P 500 VIX
Short-Term Futures Index.
The case concerns Set Capital's allegation that, after observing
prior episodes of market volatility, Credit Suisse discerned an
ability to depress prices for XIV Notes by purchasing VIX futures
contracts on days when volatility spiked. In essence, Set Capital
claims that Credit Suisse used this knowledge as part of a scheme
to sell millions of XIV Notes before engineering a near-total
collapse in their price through just 15 minutes of its own trading.
Set Capital further alleges that Janus, although not directly
involved in the manipulative scheme, exacerbated the damage by
failing to publish accurate prices for XIV Notes during the window
of time when the value of those notes collapsed. The complaint
alleges that the scheme cost investors $1.8 billion while at the
same time allowing Credit Suisse to realize more than $475 million
in gains.
After several plaintiffs sued Credit Suisse and Janus following the
collapse of the XIV Notes, the actions were consolidated and Set
Capital, one of the lead plaintiffs, filed a class action
complaint. The complaint principally asserts three theories of
primary liability under Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
First, Set Capital claims that Credit Suisse and the Individual
Defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the market in
violation of Section 10(b) by issuing millions of XIV Notes in
January and February 2018 knowing or recklessly disregarding that
their own hedging activity would trigger a liquidity squeeze in VIX
futures contracts, destroy the value of XIV Notes, and allow Credit
Suisse to accelerate the notes' redemption at a substantial loss to
investors while locking in a profit for its own account. Second,
it claims that Credit Suisse and Janus made a material misstatement
or omission in violation of Sections 9(a) and 10(b) by failing to
correct the Flatline Value during afterhours trading on February 5.
Third, Set Capital claims that the Offering Documents issued by
Credit Suisse and Janus contained material misstatements or
omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 11 by repeatedly
warning of "risks" they knew were certain to occur. In addition,
Set Capital claims that Credit Suisse and Janus are secondarily
liable as "control persons" of Credit Suisse International (CSI)
and JIC under Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
Credit Suisse, Janus, and the Individual Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on Nov. 2, 2018. On Aug. 16, 2019, the
magistrate judge (Netburn, J.) recommended dismissal of all claims
on the basis that Set Capital failed to plead a primary violation
of Section 10(b), which overlaps in substance with the elements of
Sections 9(a) and 11. Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded
that Set Capital failed to allege an actionable misstatement or
omission in the Offering Documents and that, although Set Capital
sufficiently alleged acts of market manipulation and a
misrepresentation in the Flatline Value, the complaint failed to
support a strong inference of scienter. Because in the magistrate
judge's view the complaint failed to allege a primary violation,
the magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of Set Capital's
secondary claims under Sections 15 and 20(a). On September 25, the
district court issued an order adopting the recommendations of the
magistrate judge in full and dismissing the action with prejudice.
The appeal followed.
In the appeal, Set Capital argues that the district court erred by
dismissing its market manipulation and Flatline Value claims for
failure to plead a strong inference of scienter. It also argues
that the district court erred when it concluded that the complaint
does not allege actionable misstatements or omissions in the
Offering Documents.
The Second Circuit concludes that the allegations of scienter are
at least as compelling as the competing inferences urged by Credit
Suisse.
First, the Second Circuit agrees with Credit Suisse that neither
the SEC investigation nor the magnitude of the alleged fraud
independently raises a compelling inference of manipulative intent;
it views these facts principally as supporting culpable inferences
drawn from stronger allegations discussed earlier. It disagrees,
however, with Credit Suisse's renewed assertion that its hedging
made it economically impossible for the bank to profit. Accepting
the facts alleged in the complaint as true, even Credit Suisse's
own quarterly report on April 25, 2018 acknowledged that it
profited substantially from "higher levels of volatility which
benefited its derivatives business." Thus, while not independently
sufficient, these facts add circumstantial evidence of conscious
misbehavior or recklessness and bolster the inference of
manipulative intent.
Second, the Appellate Court concludes that the complaint plausibly
alleges both motive and opportunity to commit a manipulative act,
as well as strong circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior
or recklessness. Taken together, it finds that these allegations
are "cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of
nonfraudulent intent." It therefore vacates and remands to the
district court to reinstate the manipulative scheme claims.
Because the Court remands as to the primary violation, Set
Capital's secondary "control person" claims under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act are reinstated as well.
Third, the Appellate Court holds, as the district court found, that
the complaint fails to plausibly plead that CSI and JIC knowingly
or recklessly failed to correct the Flatline Value. First and
foremost, CSI was under no obligation to calculate or monitor the
intraday indicative value. Next, the complaint does not set forth
facts raising a strong inference that JIC knew that the intraday
indicative value had flatlined. Finally, the Offering Documents do
not support a finding of scienter. The Court therefore affirms the
district court's dismissal of these claims.
Lastly, the Second Circuit has already concluded that the complaint
alleges a strong inference of scienter with respect to the
manipulative scheme. Because the Offering Documents misrepresented
Credit Suisse's knowledge and its intent to engage in manipulative
acts, it concludes that the complaint pleads actionable
misrepresentations or omissions that must be reinstated and
therefore remands these claims to the district court. Moreover,
because it remands as to the primary violations, Set Capital's
secondary "control person" claims under Section 15 of the
Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act are reinstated
as well.
To summarize its Opinion, the Second Circuit will vacate that the
dismissals of the market manipulation claim, the actionable
misstatements and omissions claims, and the related "control
person" claims. It will affirm the dismissal of the Flatline Value
claims. Its decision to reinstate the foregoing claims is based on
what it determines to be plausible allegations by Set Capital in
the complaint. The Second Circuit expresses no view nor prediction
as to how the proof of these claims may unfold but simply hold that
these claims cannot be dismissed at this stage of the litigation.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacates the judgment dismissing the
claims pertaining to the manipulative scheme, the alleged
misstatements or omissions in the offering documents, and the
corresponding liability of control persons. It therefore remands
those claims for further proceedings. It affirms the judgment
dismissing the claims for failure to correct the Flatline Value,
while vacating the district court's denial of leave to amend those
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7fr9ksdp from Leagle.com.
MICHAEL EISENKRAFT -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- (Laura H.
Posner -- lposner@cohenmilstein.com -- Carol V. Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- and Eric S. Berelovich, on the brief),
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, in New York City, for
Appellants Set Capital LLC, Stefan Jager, Nikolay Drozhzhinov,
Aleksandr Gamburg, and ACM, Ltd.
HERBERT SCOTT WASHER (David G. Januszewski --
djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Nola B. Heller -- nheller@cahill.com --
Peter J. Linken, on the brief), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, in New
York City, for Appellees Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG,
Credit Suisse International, Tidjane Thiam, and David R. Mathers.
JASON M. HALPER -- jason.halper@cwt.com -- (Jared J. Stanisci --
jared.stanisci@cwt.com -- Gillian Groarke Burns --
gillian.burns@cwt.com -- Tianyin Luo -- nunu.luo@cwt.com -- Victor
M. Bieger -- victor.bieger@cwt.com -- on the brief), Cadwalader,
Wickersham & Taft LLP, in New York City, for Appellees Janus
Henderson Group PLC, Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, and
Janus Distributors, LLC.
CYTODYN INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded company. Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
CytoDyn, Inc. (OTC: CYDY)
Class Period: March 27, 2020 – March 9, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements touting Leronlimab as a potential treatment
for COVID-19 to pump up the CytoDyn's stock price while executives
aggressively sold their shares. The complaint also alleges that
CytoDyn engaged in a wrongful scheme whereby Iliad and other Fife
entities operated as an unregistered securities dealer for
CytoDyn.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: EBON)
("Ebang") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Ebang
securities between June 26, 2020 and April 5, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Ebang securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 7,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/ebang-international-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=ebang
Ebang is a leading application-specific integrated circuit chip
design company and a leading manufacturer of Bitcoin mining
machines.
According to the complaint, on April 6, 2021, before the market
opened, Hindenburg Research published a report alleging, among
other things, that Ebang was directing proceeds from its initial
public offering last year into a "series of opaque deals with
insiders and questionable counterparties." The report also noted
that Ebang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange had failed due to widespread media coverage of a sales
inflation scheme with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending
platform that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655
million "vanish[ing] into thin air." Following this news, Ebang's
share price fell $0.82, or approximately 13%, to close at $5.53 per
share on April 6, 2021.
Then, on April 6, 2021, after the market closed, Ebang issued a
statement stating that, though it believed the report "contain[ed]
many errors, unsupported speculations and inaccurate
interpretations of events," the "Board, together with its Audit
Committee, intends to further review and examine the allegations
and misinformation therein and will take whatever necessary and
appropriate actions may be required to protect the interest of its
shareholders." The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $0.38, or 7%, to close at $5.03 per share on
April 8, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the proceeds
from Ebang's public offerings had been directed to low yield, long
term bonds to an underwriter and to related parties rather than
used to develop Ebang's operations; (2) Ebang's sales were
declining, and Ebang had inflated reported sales, including through
the sale of defective units; (3) Ebang's attempts to go public in
Hong Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling investor
funds and inflated sales figures; (4) Ebang's purported
cryptocurrency exchange was merely the purchase of an
out-of-the-box crypto exchange; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Ebang's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Ebang investors may, no later than June 7, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (EBS)
Class Period: 7/6/2020 - 3/31/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 18, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-emergent-biosolutions-inc-securities-litigation-1
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland against Emergent
BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) ("Emergent") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired Emergent common stock between July 6, 2020
and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Emergent
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than June 18,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/emergent-biosolutions-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=emergent.
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops
vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases.
The Class Period commences on July 6, 2020, when Emergent issued a
press release announcing that it had signed a five-year agreement
for large-scale drug substance manufacturing for Johnson &
Johnson's ("J&J") lead COVID-19 vaccine candidate. Under the
agreement, valued at $480 million for the first two years, Emergent
would begin manufacturing J&J's COVID-19 vaccine in 2021 at
Emergent's manufacturing facility in Baltimore. In announcing the
agreement, Emergent's President and Chief Executive Officer, Robert
G. Kramer Sr., highlighted Emergent's "manufacturing strength to
address the COVID-19 pandemic." Emergent's Senior Vice President,
Syed T. Husain, added that Emergent had "the expertise and
capabilities to meet the long-term needs of [its] customers and
provide ongoing commercial manufacturing to benefit patients."
Shortly thereafter, on July 27, 2020, Emergent issued a press
release announcing another deal with AstraZeneca to provide
services to support production of its COVID-19 vaccine candidate.
This deal, valued at approximately $174 million, also contracted
Emergent to produce drug substance manufacturing services at its
Baltimore facility, beginning in 2020, at a large scale for
commercial supply.
The truth about Emergent was revealed on March 31, 2021 after the
close of markets, when The New York Times published an article
reporting on the accidental contamination of COVID-19 vaccines
developed by J&J and AstraZeneca at the Emergent manufacturing
plant in Baltimore. The New York Times article stated that in late
February 2021, employees at Emergent's Baltimore manufacturing
plant inconceivably "mixed up" ingredients of the two different
COVID-19 vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses of J&J's
vaccine and forcing regulators to delay authorization of the
plant's production lines. Further, The New York Times article noted
that Emergent's massive vaccine lot contamination went undiscovered
for days until J&J's quality control checks uncovered it, raising
questions about Emergent's failed training and supervision of its
employees during the production process. Following this news,
Emergent's stock price dropped from a close of $92.91 on March 31,
2021, down to a close of $80.46 on April 1, 2021, a drop of over
13%. As more facts unfolded in the media, Emergent's stock price
continued to decline, closing at $78.62 on April 5, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant
had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for
massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks
and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string
of U.S. Food and Drug Administration citations; (iii) Emergent
previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of
COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated
from manufacturing standards; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' public statements about Emergent's
ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines
at its Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS) between July 6,
2020 through March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 18,
2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Emergent BioSolutions securities during
the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Emergent BioSolutions class action, go
to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2081.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 18, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent BioSolution's
Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing
the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) these longstanding
contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent
BioSolution's facility led to a string of FDA citations; (3) the
Company previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of
doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant
deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' public statements about Emergent
BioSolution's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple
COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
To join the Emergent BioSolutions class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2081.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
EQUITABLE ACCEPTANCE: $1M Class Deal in Williams Wins Prelim. Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VANESSA WILLIAMS and KORY TURNER, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EQUITABLE
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, SLF CENTER, LLC, INTEGRA STUDENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, JEFFREY D. HENN, and TERESA HENN, Defendants, Case No.
18-CV-07537 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
the Named Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
Stipulation of Settlement as to All Claims Against All Defendants,
dated Feb. 18, 2021.
Judge Buchwald provisionally finds that the class meets the
requirements set forth in Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). She
provisionally certifies under both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
23(b)(3), for settlement purposes only, pending a Fairness Hearing
and further order of the Court, a class consisting of All
individuals who obtained a Credit Plan from EAC to finance student
loan assistance services.
For the purposes of the proposed settlement, the Judge approves
Vanessa Williams and Kory Turner as the Named Plaintiffs and class
representatives; and appoints the New York Legal Assistance Group
and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP as the Class Counsel.
The Judge preliminarily approves the proposed settlement as set
forth in the Settlement Agreement as being sufficiently fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and finds that it is the
result of intensive, arms'-length negotiations between experienced
attorneys familiar with the legal and factual issues of the case.
Specifically, Judge Buchwald finds, among other things, that:
(a) The payment of a Settlement Amount of $1 million is
provisionally found to be fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(b) The anticipated payment to the Class Counsel of
attorneys' fees and expenses in the approximate amount of $162,500
is provisionally found to be fair and reasonable, considering the
work performed by the Class Counsel in litigating the Action and
that at least 75% of the settlement fund will be distributed
directly to the Class Members;
(c) The Defendants are to contribute $500,000, the first half
of the Settlement Amount, to the Class Settlement Account through
the Class Administrator within 10 business days of the Court's
entry of the Order;
(d) The Defendants are to contribute $500,000, the second
half of the Settlement Amount, to the Class Settlement Account
through the Class Administrator no later than 10 business days
preceding the Fairness Hearing;
(e) The Defendants are to contribute a sum equal to twice the
gross amount of any payment made by a Class Member to EAC after
Feb. 12, 2021 that was not timely returned by EAC to the Class
Member, and will contribute this amount to the Class Settlement
Account through the Class Administrator on the later of 10 days
preceding Fairness Hearing or within 10 days of incurring the
payment obligation; and
(h) The Service Award payments of $3,000 to each Named
Plaintiff to account for their roles in litigating the Action are
provisionally found to be fair, reasonable and adequate.
The Judge appoints Atticus Administration, LLC to serve as the
Class Administrator, and approves the payment of all Administration
Expenses from the Class Settlement Account. She also approves the
form and content of the Individual Notices. No later than 60 days
prior to the Objection, Exclusion, and Claim Submission Deadline,
the Class Administrator will distribute the Individual Notices to
all the potential Class Members. The Class Administrator will
cause a website to be established and post a copy of the Individual
Notice on the website by no later than the date on which the
Individual Notices begin to be sent out.
The Judge expressly authorizes the following methods of notice: The
Class Administrator will distribute the Individual Notice to all
Class Members by email, linking to an electronic Claim Form (for
Compensation Class Members only); for each Compensation Class
Member who has not submitted a Claim Form, a reminder email will be
sent no less than 45 days before the Objection, Exclusion, and
Claim Submission Deadline; a text message reminder will then be
sent to some or all Compensation Class Members who have not
submitted Claim Forms; and, finally, a post card notice will be
sent by first-class-mail not later than 21 days prior to the
Objection, Exclusion, and Claim Submission Deadline, to any Class
Member for whom the email notice is returned as undeliverable, as
well as to any Compensation Class Member who did not open either of
the notice emails sent.
A Class Member who wishes to object must submit to the Class
Administrator a written statement of reasons, including any legal
support or evidentiary support, for his or her objection,
postmarked or electronically submitted no later than the Objection,
Exclusion, and Claim Submission Deadline. The Objection,
Exclusion, and Claim Submission Deadline will be July 13, 2021 (21
days before the scheduled date of the Fairness Hearing.)
The Class Administrator will promptly send a copy of each objection
it receives to the Defendants' Counsel and the Class Counsel by
email and in no event later than 10 business days before the
scheduled date of the Fairness Hearing. A Class Member who wishes
to be excluded from the Class must send to the Class Administrator
a request for exclusion postmarked or electronically submitted no
later than the Objection, Exclusion, and Claim Submission
Deadline.
The Class Administrator will promptly send a copy of each request
for exclusion it receives to the Defendants' Counsel and the Class
Counsel by email and in no event later than 10 business days before
the scheduled date of the Fairness Hearing. Any Class Member
seeking a distribution from the Class Settlement Account must send
or electronically submit a Claim Form to the Class Administrator
postmarked no later than the Objection, Exclusion, and Claim
Submission Deadline. The Class Counsel reserves the right to allow
any Class Member who submit a Claim Form after the Objection,
Exclusion, and Claim Submission Deadline to receive a distribution
from the Class Settlement Account.
A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing will be held on Aug. 3, 2021,
at 11:30 a.m. Any Class Member who wishes to speak at the Fairness
Hearing for any other reason must notify the Class Administrator at
least seven days before the Fairness Hearing with an explanation of
what the Class Member wishes to say. Any Class Member may listen
to the Fairness Hearing without signing up in advance. The Court
will make dial-in information for the Fairness Hearing available
via ECF no later than 24 hours before the Fairness Hearing. The
Class Counsel will post this information on the settlement website
and provide it to the Class Administrator.
Papers in support of a motion for entry of the Final Approval Order
and the petition for attorneys' fees will be filed with the Court
by July 2, 2021. Any responses to objections to the proposed
Settlement Agreement or the petition for attorney's fees, and any
further papers in support of the motion for entry of the Final
Approval Order or the petition for attorneys' fees, will be filed
with the Court by July 27, 2021.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4x4tttxm from Leagle.com.
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
June 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class
action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Franklin Wireless Corp. ("Franklin" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: FKWL) securities between September 17, 2020 and April 8,
2021 inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Franklin investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Franklin purports to be a leading provider of intelligent wireless
solutions such as mobile hotspots, routers, trackers, and other
devices.
On April 1, 2021, Franklin stated that it "ha[d] been notified of
reports of battery issues in some of its wireless hotspot device."
It also stated that the Company was "working with its battery and
device manufacturing partners and carrier customer to determine the
cause and extent of the problem."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.35, or 1.65%, to
close at $20.77 per share on April 5, 2021, the next trading
session, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On April 8, 2021, media reported that Verizon Wireless is recalling
certain hotspot devices. According to CNBC, Verizon "is recalling
2.5 million hotspot devices after discovering that the lithium ion
battery can overheat, creating a fire and burning hazard."
Moreover, the "recall impacts Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspots
imported by Franklin Wireless Corp and sold between April 2017 and
March 2021."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.82, or 14%, to
close at $17.33 per share on April 8, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
On April 9, 2021, Franklin stated that its customer Verizon
Wireless "has issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot
devices imported by Franklin." The Company stated that "[a]t this
time, fewer than 20 report of trouble have been received with over
2 million devices in [sic] sold over the last three and a half
years."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.07, or nearly 23%,
to close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Franklin's hotspot devices suffered from
battery issues, including overheating, thereby presenting a fire
hazard; (2) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that the
Company's customers would recall Franklin's devices; (3) that, as a
result, Franklin would suffer reputational harm; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Franklin securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 15,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Portnoy Law Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Franklin Wireless Corp. (NASDAQ: FKWL)
investors that acquired shares between September 17, 2020 and April
8, 2021. Investors have until June 15, 2021 to seek an active role
in this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that on April 1, 2021, Franklin
stated that it "ha[d] been notified of reports of battery issues in
some of its wireless hotspot device" and that it was "working with
its battery and device manufacturing partners and carrier customer
to determine the cause and extent of the problem." Then, on April
8, it was reported in the media that Verizon Wireless "is recalling
2.5 million hotspot devices after discovering that the lithium ion
battery can overheat, creating a fire and burning hazard." The
"recall impacts Ellipsis Jetpack mobile hotspots imported by
Franklin Wireless Corp and sold between April 2017 and March 2021."
The stock price fell 14% on this news, to close at $17.33 per share
on April 8. 2021. Franklin announced the next day that Verizon "has
issued a voluntary recall of its Jetpack Hotspot devices imported
by Franklin." Franklin's stock price fell nearly 23% on this news,
to close at $13.26 per share on April 9, 2021.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
GTV MEDIA: Faces Dong Securities Suit Over GTV Offering
-------------------------------------------------------
ZHENGJUN DONG, WEN LIN, KAIXIN HONG and CHENGLONG WANG,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA GROUP INC., and WENGUI GUO,
Case No. 652190/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., April 1, 2021) is
class action brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise invested in securities of the Defendant GTV in the
offering (GTV Offering) conducted by the Defendants between April
1, 2020 and the present pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.
Commencing in early April 2020, the Defendant Guo began soliciting
investors to purchase securities issued or to be issued by
Defendant GTV (GTV Securities). Investors were sent various
investment documents, including an information memorandum, a
subscription agreement, and wire information for the bank to which
investment funds were to be transmitted.
After being solicited by Defendant Guo, Plaintiffs and other
members of the Class wired their investment funds to various
entities and bank accounts designated by Defendants. The GTV
Securities in which the Plaintiffs and the Class invested were
neither registered as required under the Securities Act, nor
subject to any exemption from registration, the suit says.
The Defendants, as persons who sold the GTV Securities or offered
or solicited the purchases of the GTV Securities, allegedly
violated the Securities Act and are liable to Plaintiffs and the
Class for rescission of their purchases, or for damages.
Plaintiff Dong is an individual who invested via several
transactions in early May 2020 by wiring funds to a receiving
account held by Defendant SMG that was designated by the Defendant
Guo. The Plaintiff received shares of GTV stock in return for his
investment. The Plaintiff Wen Lin is an individual who invested by
wiring funds to Defendant SMG in late April 2020.
Plaintiff Kaixin Hong is an individual who invested by wiring funds
directly to the Defendants GTV and SMG in the first half of May
2020. The Plaintiff Chenglong Wang is an individual who invested by
wiring funds to one of the Defendants' designated entities in late
April 2020.
GTV is the brainchild of Defendant Guo, a self-described political
dissident from China with a large number of social media followers
in the U.S. Guo conceived GTV to be a Tik-Tok like video streaming
social media platform for user-generated political content. Over
the course of 2019 and early 2020, Defendants developed GTV's video
broadcast platform and website (the GTV Platform).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hung G. Ta, Esq.
JooYun Kim, Esq.
Natalia D. Williams, Esq.
HGT LAW
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (646) 453-7288
Facsimile: (646) 453-7289
E-mail: hta@hgtlaw.com
jooyun@hgtlaw.com
natalia@hgtlaw.com
- and -
Angus F. Ni, Esq.
AFN LAW PLLC
41 Madison Ave, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (646) 453-7294
E-mail: Angus@afnlegal.com
HARPER DIRECTORY: Huskey et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN HUSKEY and JEFF TATTERSHALL, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HARPER DIRECTORY
DISTRIBUTION GROUP, LLC, SEAN HARPER and SUZANNE HARPER,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00309 (E.D. Tex., April
17, 2021) challenges the Defendants' unlawful pay practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiff Huskey performed his duties as a regional
supervisor, while Plaintiff Tattershall worked as a supervisor.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked long
hours and consistently worked more than 40 hours per week. However,
the Defendants did not pay them overtime premiums at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for any hours
they worked over 40 per workweek. In addition, the Defendants
allegedly failed to implement a mechanism to track the actual
amount of hours the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
non-exempt employees worked each week.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action for
themselves and other similarly situated non-exempt employees
seeking to recover all unpaid back wages from the Defendants, as
well as liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses,
attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as may be necessary and/or appropriate.
Harper Directory Distribution Group, LLC is in the business of
distributing publications door to door throughout the U.S. The
Individual Defendants exercised managerial responsibilities and
substantial control over the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
700 West Summit Drive
Wimberley, TX 78676
Tel: (512) 782-0567
Fax: (512) 782-0605
E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com
HRK HOLDINGS: Palmetto Residents Sues Over Toxic Wastewater Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
mysuncoast.com reports that some Manatee County residents who live
near the Piney Point leak location are now joining a class-action
lawsuit against the landowners, HRK Holdings.
Last month, Forrest Williams and his neighbors were forced to
evacuate after a leak occurred at the former phosphate plant in
Palmetto.
The leak released millions of gallons of toxic wastewater in the
area.
Williams said he is now worried about his family's health. He says
he felt joining this lawsuit was necessary to make sure those
responsible are held accountable.
"How would I be a good father and husband if I didn't stand up and
fight for my family?" Williams said.
Williams also said he is trying to sell his home and is worried
this will hurt the property value.
There are a few law firms in Florida helping residents participate
in the class-action lawsuit. The law firms say to qualify,
residents need to have been evacuated and suffered some sort of
personal damage. [GN]
I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces Vaughan Suit Over Misleading Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS VAUGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-09603 (D.N.J., April 16, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
using an abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff on or about January 28, 2021 in an attempt to
collect an alleged debt that was incurred to Sprint by the
Plaintiff primarily for telecommunication services. Purportedly,
Sprint contracted with the Defendant to collect the alleged debt.
The Plaintiff claims that the letter deceived and misled him
because it uses the language of "settlement", when in reality it is
failed to clarify what settlement is being offered.
The Defendant has allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e by
making false and misleading representation and by failing to
delineate to which listed amount the "adjustment" may be applied.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff has been damaged. Thus, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and
actual damages, litigations costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court may deem just and proper.
I.C. System, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500 ext. 107
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Compels Non-Party to Comply With Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as AHMAD ODEH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-mc-80105-SK, Defendant
Immunomedics, Inc. filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on May 3, 2021 to compel
non-party Wells Capital Management Incorporated to comply with the
subpoena duly served on it.
Wells Capital Management has refused to obey a validly issued
non-party subpoena in connection with an action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The subpoena's
requests for documents appropriately targets information relevant
to the claims or defenses in the pending action.
Immunomedics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in
Morris Plains, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dawn Ceizler, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAWN CEIZLER
165 Lennon Lane, Suite 101
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Telephone: (925) 932-8225
Facsimile: (925) 226-4849
E-mail: dc@ceizler.com
INSIGHT SERVICE: Zelaya Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ERIC ZELAYA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. INSIGHT SERVICE GROUP, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, Case No. CACE-21-006841 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct., April 5,
2021) seeks to recover all unpaid wages that the Defendant owes to
the Plaintiff and a putative class of employees during the five
years preceding the filing of the complaint.
The complaint states that during the past four years, the Defendant
has employed hundreds of field investigators and special
investigation unit investigators in Florida. The Defendant employs
and contracts with these individuals to perform surveillance work
but has breached its employment agreements with Field Investigators
by failing to pay these individuals at their agreed upon rates for
each hour worked. Defendant has likewise committed violations of
the Florida Minimum Wage Act and Florida Constitution by failing to
compensate SIU Investigators at least the state minimum wage in
each of the 5 years preceding the filing of this lawsuit, asserts
the complaint.
The Plaintiff, and members of each putative class, worked for the
Defendant throughout Florida, including but not limited to the
Seminole, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County areas.
Insight Service Group, Inc. provides detective, guard, and armored
car services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Melissa Scott, Esq.
Jake Blumstein, Esq.
USA Employment Lawyers -- Jordan Richards, PLLC
805 E. Broward Blvd. Suite 301
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Melissa@jordanrichardspllc.com
Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Joshua H Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
Eggnatz Pascucci
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: jeggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
INTRUSION INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
June 15, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Intrusion Inc.
("Intrusion" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: INTZ) securities between
January 13, 2021 and April 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Intrusion investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Intrusion develops, sells, and supports products that purport to
protect entities from cyberattacks by combining advanced threat
intelligence with real-time artificial intelligence. It offers
three products: Shield, a cybersecurity solution packaged as a
comprehensive, real-time AI-based Security-as-a-Service; TraceCop,
a big data tool with IP intelligence, including reputation
information on known good and known bad active IP addresses; and
Savant, a network monitoring solution that identifies suspicious
traffic in real-time.
On April 14, 2021, White Diamond Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Intrusion's product, Shield,
"has no patents, certifications, or insurance, which are all
essential for selling cybersecurity products" and that "Shield is
based on open-source data already available to the public." Thus,
the report stated that "Shield is a repackaging of pre-existing
technology rather than an innovative offering." Moreover, the
report alleged that the claims that Shield "stopp[ed] a total of
77,539,801 cyberthreats from 805,110 uniquely malicious entities .
. . in the 90-day beta program" were "outlandish," leading White
Diamond to question "[h]ow have these companies been able to
function so far, as they've been attacked many times per minute by
ransomware, malware, data theft, phishing and DDoS attacks?"
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.50, or over 16%, to
close at $23.75 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $3.22, or
14%, over the next trading session to close at $20.53 per share on
April 15, 2021.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Intrusion's Shield product was merely a
repackaging of existing technology in the Company's portfolio; (2)
that Shield lacked the patents, certifications, and insurance
critical to the sale of cybersecurity products; (3) that the
Company had overstated the efficacy of Shield's purported ability
to protect against cyberattacks; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Intrusion's Shield was reasonably unlikely to generate
significant revenue; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intrusion securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 15,
2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
JACKSON HEWITT: Court Denies Bid to Certify Classes in Mardis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WANDA MARDIS, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JACKSON HEWITT TAX
SERVICE INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-2115
(D.N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey:
(i) granted the Defendants' motion to deny class
certification; and
(ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
without prejudice.
The putative class action alleges that the Defendants paid the
Plaintiffs less than they should have. The Plaintiffs, tax
preparers, assert that the Defendants' promotional program of
providing customers with gift cards resulted in lower commissions
for them, in violation of their contractual rights. They also
allege that the Defendants were unjustly enriched and violated
multiple state wage and hour laws.
The Defendants provide tax preparation services to customers under
the tradename "Jackson Hewitt." Tax Services of America, Inc.
("TSA") is a subsidiary of Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc.
("JHTSI") and/or Jackson Hewitt Inc. ("JHI"), and operates
approximately 20% of locations operating under the name of "Jackson
Hewitt." The remaining locations are franchisees that are "closely
supervised and controlled by JHTSI and/or JHI." The Named
Plaintiffs claim that they were previously, or are currently,
employed by Jackson Hewitt as tax preparers. The Plaintiffs worked
at both TSA and franchisee locations.
In the TAC, the Plaintiffs alleged that all tax preparers have
compensation plans based, in part, on the individual revenues they
generate during a tax season. Now, however, the Plaintiffs concede
that not all tax preparers were entitled to receive a commission,
that some commissions were not based on revenues, and other tax
preparers might not have even had an employment contract. They
indicate that these tax preparers would not be members of their
proposed classes. For those tax preparers who were entitled to
receive incentive pay based on revenue, the Plaintiffs allege that
JHI and JHTSI deducted the value of prepaid gift cards that were
provided to customers through a gift card promotion from their
revenues when calculating their commissions. The Plaintiffs
contend that this improper practice caused them to receive lower
commission payments.
The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this matter on
April 15, 2016. On Oct. 4, 2017, they were instructed to file the
TAC, which they filed on Nov. 15, 2017. In the TAC, the Plaintiffs
assert the following claims against either JHTSI, JHI, TSA, and
multiple franchisees ("Franchisee Defendants"): (1) breach of
contract (Count One); (2) unjust enrichment (Count Two); and (3)
violations of multiple state wage and hour laws (Counts Three
through Twelve).
JHTSI; JHI; and the Franchisee Defendants Lemaire-McCumsey Group,
Inc.; KE Farmer Enterprises, LLC; Taylor Tax & Accounting; and Wing
Financial Services, LLC filed motions to dismiss the TAC. On Dec.
26, 2019, the Court granted the Franchisee Defendants' motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On July 9, 2020, the Defendants filed their motion to deny class
certification and the Plaintiffs filed their cross-motion to
certify a class.
Through their cross-motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the
following classes:
1. A nationwide class of persons employed as tax preparers by
TSA from the 2013-2014 tax season until the 2016-2017 tax
season whose pay was lowered by the JH Defendants'
Promotion (for Plaintiffs' breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims);
2. A nationwide class of persons employed as tax preparers by
franchisees from the 2013-2014 tax season until the
2016-2017 tax season whose pay was lowered by the JH
Defendants' Promotion (for Plaintiffs' breach of contract
and unjust enrichment claims); and
3. Ten state subclasses of people jointly employed by JHI and
the franchisees in the states of New Jersey, New York,
Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, California,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Washington
whose pay was lowered by the JH Defendants' Promotion (for
Plaintiffs' state law wage and hour claims).
Judge Vazquez opines that the Plaintiffs satisfies the Rule 23(a)
requirements for the nationwide TSA class. He also finds that the
Plaintiffs fail to establish predominance for the TSA nationwide
class and to establish that common issue predominate for their
unjust enrichment claim. Consequently, the Plaintiffs do not meet
their burden of establishing predominance for the breach of
contract and unjust enrichment claims. And, because the Plaintiffs
do not meet their burden as to predominance, the Judge need not
address superiority or ascertainability, and he will not certify
the nationwide TSA tax preparers class.
For these reasons, and for good cause shown, Judge Vazquez granted
the Defendants' motion to deny class certification and denied the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion for class certification without prejudice.
An appropriate Order accompanies the Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3uvnupvw from Leagle.com.
JAMES S. FARRIN: Garey Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in DPPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs WILLIAM PARKER GAREY, et al, filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM PARKER GAREY,
et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00542-LCB-LPA, in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina at Greensboro.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the putative
class action was filed against various lawyers and law firms for
alleged violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994
("DPPA"). The Initial Complaint was filed in May 2016, and amended
in August 2016. The Second Amended Complaint was filed in October
2019.
The "Fox Defendants" contended that the differences between the
First and Second Complaints are material and moved to dismiss this
complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that (1) merely obtaining public
information is not sufficient to establish an Article III
injury-in-fact; (2) Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover
liquidated damages because they have not suffered "actual damages";
and (3) injunctive relief is unavailable in the case.
The Fox Defendants refer collectively to James S. Farrin, P.C.
d/b/a Law Offices of James Scott Farrin; James S. Farrin; Marcari,
Russotto, Spencer & Balaban, P.C.; Donald W. Marcari; Riddle &
Brantley, L.L.P.; Sean A. Cole; Wallace Pierce Law, PLLC; Jared
Pierce; Van Laningham & Associates, PLLC d/b/a Bradley Law Group;
R. Bradley Van Laningham; Lanier Law Group, P.A.; Lisa Lanier;
Crumley Roberts, LLP; Chris Roberts; Hardison & Cochran, PLLC;
Benjamin T. Cochran; Hardee & Hardee LLP; Charles Hardee; G. Wayne
Hardee; and Katherine E. Andrews-Lanier.
Upon review, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs have plausibly
alleged sufficient facts to establish standing to sue under the
DPPA to withstand both a facial and factual challenge and may be
entitled to liquidated damages. However, the Court also concluded
that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege sufficient
facts to support standing for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the Fox Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint for lack of standing under Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6) was granted as to the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim
for injunctive relief and denied as to whether Plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged Article III standing and the availability of
liquidated damages, the Court ruled.
The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated January 22, 2021 and Court's Judgment dated March
24, 2021, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motions
to strike while granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment;
and the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 24, 2021,
denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Revise Order on Summary Judgment
Motions.
The appellate case is captioned as William Garey v. James S.
Farrin, P.C., Case No. 21-1478, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM PARKER GAREY, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated; AARON KENT CRUTHIS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated; JUSTIN BRENT BLAKESLEE;
ADILAH HANEEFAH-KHADI MCNEIL; CHARLOTTE MOFFAT CLEVENGER; and
BELINDA LEE STEINMETZ are represented by:
Robert Peel Holmes, IV, Esq.
J. David Stradley, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612-0000
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
E-mail: rob@whiteandstradley.com
stradley@whiteandstradley.com
Defendants-Appellees JAMES S. FARRIN, P.C., d/b/a Law Offices of
James Scott Farrin; MARCARI, RUSSOTTO, SPENCER & BALABAN, P.C.;
RIDDLE & BRANTLEY, L.L.P.; WALLACE PIERCE, PLLC; R. BRADLEY VAN
LANINGHAM, d/b/a Bradley Law Group; LANIER LAW GROUP, P.A.; JAMES
S. FARRIN; DONALD WILLIAM MARCARI; SEAN A. COLE; JARED PIERCE; VAN
LANINGHAM AND ASSOCIATES; LISA LANIER; CHRIS ROBERTS; CRUMLEY
ROBERTS, LLP; HARDISON & COCHRAN, PLLC; BENJAMIN T. COCHRAN; TED A.
GREVE & ASSOCIATES, PA; TED A. GREVE; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A.
DEMAYO; MICHAEL A. DEMAYO; HARDEE & HARDEE, LLP; CHARLES HARDEEG.
WAYNE HARDEE, 202 E. Arlington Blvd Greenville, NC 27858; and
KATHERINE E. ANDREWS-LANIER are represented by:
Matthew Nis Leerberg, Esq.
Bradley M. Risinger, Esq.
Troy Dean Shelton, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Whitley, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
434 Fayetteville Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 755-8759
E-mail: mleerberg@foxrothschild.com
brad.risinger@smithmoorelaw.com
tshelton@foxrothschild.com
jwhitley@foxrothschild.com
JAR TRANSPORTATION: Rojas Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Rojas, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JAR TRANSPORTATION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
RAYMOND PAUL JUNE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND DOES 120, INCLUSIVE, Case No.
21STCV15613 (Cal. Super., April 26, 2021) is a class action for
recovery of damages, statutory penalties, and restitution, and to
address employers' violations of California's wage and hour laws.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated various provisions
of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders. Defendants implemented policies and practices that led to
wage and hour violations resulting from Defendants': (a) failure to
accurately pay all wages due, including minimum and overtime wages;
(b) failure to provide compliant meal periods and failure to pay an
additional hour of pay in lieu of providing compliant meal periods;
(c) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and (d)
failure to pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from
Defendants' employ. As a result, Plaintiff seeks damages, statutory
penalties, and restitution on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals.
Plaintiff Joaquin Rojas was jointly employed by Defendants as a
nonexempt employee working as a delivery driver from approximately
April 2020 to January 2021.
JAR Transportation Inc., is a California corporation that contracts
with defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. to make and pick
up deliveries on behalf of FedEx in Los Angeles County and other
locations in California.
Defendant Raymond Paul June is a natural person residing in the
State of California and is, and at all relevant times has been, the
owner, director, officer, employee, and/or managing agent of JAR,
and had direct control and power over the working conditions and
the violations at issue in this Complaint and at all relevant times
was acting on behalf of JAR. June devised and implemented the
policies at issue in the complaint and "caused" these violations to
occur, the complaint relates.
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
contracts with delivery service providers such as JAR to provide
package delivery and pick up services in Los Angeles County and
throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
Samuel Almon, Esq.
MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES APLC
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
Phone: (310) 312-0299
Fax: (310) 312-0296
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces Boscaino Suit Over Unfair Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN BOSCAINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02423 (E.D.N.Y., April 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent a collection letter
to the Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt to Webbank through debt
collector Forster & Garbus, LLP without obtaining prior consent
from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff never consented to the
Defendant's communication with Forster & Garbus concerning the
alleged debt or concerning the Plaintiff's personal and/or
confidential information. Moreover, the Defendant did not
accurately set forth the actual amount of the alleged debt and the
name of the entity that actually owns the debt since the Plaintiff
did not owe money to Webbank or the Defendant, added the suit.
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC is a debt collector based in St.
Cloud, Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite CL18
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 210-7272
Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
JUUL LABS: Baker Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Spyncer Baker, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02255 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants' production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
According to the complaint, seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management
Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth,
intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine
addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits,
the suit says.
Based on the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Claytor Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Claytor, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02258 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole
new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that
common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a
product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the
stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early
investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz
Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Ali Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHURJO ALI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02274 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' production, promotion, distribution,
and marketing of e-cigarette products, including JUUL.
According to the complaint, Ali began using JUUL's products in
September 2018 after seeing advertisements at gas stations and
hearing about JUUL from friends. Ali also frequently saw promotions
for JUUL on social media from both JUUL and people in hissocial
network. JUUL was popular among Ali's friends and classmates, which
made JUUL appear to be cool and safe, the suit says.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 26 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Casas Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Casas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02257 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
According to the complaint, seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management
Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth,
intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine
addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits,
the suit says.
Based on the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Faces Fox Suit Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Fox, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ
VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02249 (N.D. Calif., March 31, 2021) arises
from the Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and
marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole
new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that
common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a
product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the
stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early
investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz
Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACEMONT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03156 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit says.
Gracemont Public Schools is a public school district located at 417
E. McCall Street in Gracemont, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Fish Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clark Fish, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02262 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
According to the complaint, seizing on the decline in cigarette
consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes,
Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce
nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant
supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need
to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again,
without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help
from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas
Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management
Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth,
intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine
addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits,
the suit says.
Based on the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Goldston Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlee Goldston, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02264 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Lawless Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Lawless, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02250 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole
new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that
common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a
product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the
stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early
investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz
Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Lore Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thane Lore, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02268 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Okla. School District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CADDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-03148 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Caddo Public Schools is a public school district located at 600
South McPherren Avenue in Caddo, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Moore Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
------------------------------------------------------------
D'Angelo Moore, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02271-WHO (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Okla. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BEGGS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-03150 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit says.
Beggs Public Schools is a public school district located at 1201
West 9th in Beggs, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Pierce Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Pierce, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC, ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY, JAMES MONSEES, ADAM BOWEN, NICHOLAS PRITZKER, HOYOUNG HUH,
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02251 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth, School Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINCOLN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03188-WHO (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, says the suit.
Lincoln Public Schools is a public school district located at 5905
O Street in Lincoln, Nebraska.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARMEL CLAY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-03147 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit asserts.
Carmel Clay Schools is a public school district located on East
Main Street in Carmel, Indiana.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
Eric D. Barton, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
ebarton@wcllp.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIETTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03154 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Marietta Public Schools is a public school district located at 408
Indian Way in Marietta, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
COMANCHE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03158 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Comanche Public Schools is a public school district located at 1030
Ash Avenue in Comanche, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Singer Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Singer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02275 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Targets Youth for E-Cigarette Campaign, School Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03171 (N.D. Cal., April 29,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit alleges.
Washington County Public School District is a public school
district located at 10435 Downsville Pike in Hagerstown, Maryland.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Tarrats Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tarrats, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02278 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Tenn. School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ETOWAH CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03163 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, the suit says.
Etowah City Elementary School District is a unified school district
located at 858 8th Street in Etowah, Tennessee.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CORUNNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03161 (N.D. Cal., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in these
tactics to maintain dominance in the cigarette industry: (1)
product design to maximize cigarette addiction, (2) mass deception,
(3) targeting youth market. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendants enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis, says the suit.
Corunna Public Schools is a public school district located on North
Shiawassee Street in Corunna, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Truong Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Truong, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02252 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Wilhelm Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janece Wilhelm, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02263 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Worden Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Worden, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02253 (N.D. Calif., March 31,
2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion,
distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
JUUL LABS: Yut Sues Over Marketing of E-Cigarette Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Yut, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY;
JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ
VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02254 (N.D. Calif., March 31, 2021) arises
from the Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and
marketing of e-cigarette products.
Seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax
regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and
investors in their company allegedly sought to introduce nicotine
to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To
achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create
and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without
any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their
early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker,
Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (the "Management Defendants"), they
succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of
adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of
course, earning billions of dollars in profits, the suit says.
According to the most recent scientific literature, JUUL products
allegedly cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries,
cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and
advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers,
believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up
only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who
switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary
problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due
to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays
than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked,
ensuring long-term survival of the nicotine industry because, today
just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children.
JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and
distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories.
Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI
in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold,
marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name
PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world's largest producers and
marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling
combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is
the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the
principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest
selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
James W. Lampkin II, Esq.
Sydney Everett, Esq.
BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com
Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com
KENTUCKY BANCSHARES: Parshall Securities Suit Goes to E.D. Ky.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL PARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KENTUCKY BANCSHARES, INC., B. PROCTOR
CAUDILL, JR., LOUIS PRICHARD, EDWIN S. SAUNIER, HENRY HINKLE, JACK
W. OMOHUNDRO, TED MCCLAIN, ROBERT G. THOMPSON, WOODFORD VAN METER,
MARY MCDOWELL HOSKINS, SHANNON B. ARVIN, STOCK YARDS BANCORP, INC.,
and H. MEYER MERGER SUBSIDIARY, INC., Case No. 21-CI-00109, was
removed from the Bourbon Circuit Court for the Commonwealth of
Kentucky to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky on April 28, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00108-DCR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by filing a materially incomplete
and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and disseminating it to Kentucky
Bancshares' stockholders.
Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. is a locally-owned community bank in
Paris, Kentucky.
Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Louisville, Kentucky.
H. Meyer Merger Subsidiary, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Stock Yards Bancorp, Inc. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cory J. Skolnick, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
400 West Market Street, 32nd Floor
Louisville, KY 40202-3363
Telephone: (502) 589-5400
Facsimile: (502) 581-1087
E-mail: cskolnick@fbtlaw.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded company. Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE)
Class Period: August 3, 2020 - March 24, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's
purported pre-orders were non-binding; (2) many of the would-be
customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to
make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand for
Lordstown's Endurance; (3) Lordstown is not and has not been "on
track" to commence production of the Endurance in September 2021;
(4) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting
into flames within 10 minutes; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
LOS ARRIEROS: Garcia, Juarez Sue Over Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA GARCIA and ROBERTO JUAREZ aka MAURICIO, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. LOS ARRIEROS LLC (D/B/A LOS
ARRIEROS), JOSE SANCHEZ, and CARLOS SANCHEZ, Case 1:21-cv-02274
(E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2021) is brought against the Defendants for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor
Law (NYLL), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R.
& REGS., including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as
a waitress and a delivery worker. However, they were required to
spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped
duties, including but not limited to preparing juices, cleaning the
bathroom, cleaning tables, cleaning the dining area, bringing up
inventory, prepping food, cutting meat and vegetables, stocking
food, and supplying orders. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants also failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.
Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising
Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as
a waitress and a delivery worker instead of non-tipped employees.
This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum
wage rate and enabled them to pay them at the tip-credit rate
(which they still failed to do), the complaint asserts.
Plaintiff Laura Garcia resides in Queens County, New York. Garcia
was employed by Defendants at Los Arrieros from approximately 2010
until April 2021.
Plaintiff Roberto Juarez aka Mauricio resides in Queens County, New
York. Juarez aka Mauricio was employed by Defendants at Los
Arrieros from approximately 2006 until December 15, 2020.
Los Arrieros LLC is a domestic corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York.
Defendant Jose Sanchez is sued individually in his capacity as
owner, officer and/or agent of Defendant Corporation. Sanchez
possesses operational control over Defendant Corporation, an
ownership interest in Defendant Corporation, and controls
significant functions of Defendant Corporation. He determines the
wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants, including
Plaintiffs, establishes the schedules of the employees, maintains
employee records, and has the authority to hire and fire
employees.
Defendant Carlos Sanchez is sued individually in his capacity as a
manager of Defendant Corporation. Sanchez possesses operational
control over Defendant Corporation and controls significant
functions of Defendant Corporation. He determines the wages and
compensation of the employees of Defendants, including Plaintiffs,
establishes the schedules of the employees, maintains employee
records, and has the authority to hire and fire employees.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
MCKENNA MOTOR: Underpays Car Salesmen, Granberry Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TREMAYNE GRANBERRY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKENNA MOTOR COMPANY, INC. DBA
MCKENNA BMW and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
21STCV16185 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 29, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to compensate for all hours
worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
pay wages when employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay
period, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest
breaks, failure to give meal breaks, and failure to reimburse for
business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a car salesman on
or around December 19, 2019 until on or around January 20, 2021.
McKenna Motor Company, Inc., doing business as McKenna BMW, is a
car dealer located in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harout Messrelian, Esq.,
MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 484-6531
Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: MSP Recovery Sues Over Opioid Drugs Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
SERIES 17-04-631, LLC, a series of MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC,
v. MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-10553 (D. Mass., March 31, 2021) is a class action
complaint against McKinsey regarding its pivotal role in
orchestrating a conspiracy to proliferate the worst drug epidemic
in the history of the U.S.
The opioid drug epidemic has claimed hundreds of thousands of
victims throughout the United States. Over prescription of opioids
continues to ravage the lives of many, contributing to one of the
largest public health epidemics in the country’s history. This
epidemic, engineered by McKinsey and its opioid manufacturer
co-conspirators, has resulted in grim economic consequences --
forcing private and government-funded health plans, including the
Plaintiff's Assignor, to foot the bill for both unnecessary opioid
prescriptions and the inevitable expenses relating to the treatment
of opioid addiction, the suit says.
This action seeks relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), state consumer protection statutes, and
common law, arising from the lucrative fraudulent scheme contrived
and implemented by McKinsey and its opioid manufacturer
co-conspirators to cause healthcare providers in the U.S. to over
prescribe opioid drugs to an unsuspecting public.
McKinsey is a multinational consulting firm. Despite the widely
publicized opioid epidemic sweeping the United States, and the
injuries and deaths associated therewith, McKinsey conspired with
opioid manufacturers to increase the distribution of the highly
addictive drugs -- with no apparent regard for the consequences,
societal or otherwise.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Rivera, Esq.
Robert Strongarone, Esq.
MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
2701 S. Le Jeune Rd, 10th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 614-2222
E-mail: arivera@msprecoverylawfirm.com
serve@msprecoverylawfirm.com
rstrongarone@msprecoverylawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
Anna K. Higgins, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
2225 Energy Center
1100 Poydras St.
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 355-0086
E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
tturner@pbclawfirm.com
ahiggins@pbclawfirm.com
MDL 2642: Jackson v. Bayer Suit Transferred to D. Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------
In "In Re: Fluoroquinolone Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
2642, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case docketed as
Jackson v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., C.A.
No. 6:20-02219 (M.D. Fla.) to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota and assigns it to Judge John R. Tunheim for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiff Kenneth L. Jackson acknowledges that, like the actions in
MDL No. 2642, his complaint alleges that as a result of using
fluoroquinolone antibiotics, he suffers from irreversible
peripheral neuropathy and that the warnings provided by Defendants
concerning that risk were inadequate. Jackson specifically alleges
that he used Cipro and Levaquin, two of the three drugs at issue in
the MDL. Jackson opposed the transfer, arguing principally that his
action involves additional unique injuries that have not been
addressed in the MDL, in particular, aortic aneurysm and permanent
heart damage.
The panel held, however, that despite the fact that the Jackson
complaint makes the same allegations about the risk of peripheral
neuropathy as the actions in the MDL, including defendants' alleged
decades-long knowledge of the risk and the regulatory history, the
assertion of additional unrelated injuries does not prevent
transfer.
Defendants are pharmaceutical companies, Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Corporation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Johnson & Johnson and
McKesson Corporation.
A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2021 Transfer Order is
available at https://bit.ly/3hagi8G
MID-SOUTH MILLING: Underpays Production Workers, Gomez Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRISTIN GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MID-SOUTH MILLING COMPANY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02081-PKH (W.D. Ark., April 16, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Production Worker from March 2019 to March 2021 to operate
equipment for the Defendant such as skid steer and a forklift.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to include the
bonuses that were paid to him and other similarly Production
Workers in their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay.
In addition, the Defendant rounded off their hours worked by 15
minutes increment which resulted in hours worked that went
unrecorded and uncompensated. As a result, despite regularly
working in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with
the Defendant, the Defendant allegedly failed to properly pay them
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rat of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid
regular wages and overtime premiums from the Defendant, as well as
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
Mid-South Milling Company, Inc. produces animal feed. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: colby@sanforlawfirm.com
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: Chason Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES CHASON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIZZA, LLC and ZAN
R. HALL, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00536-RDP (N.D. Ala., April
16, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged willful violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery driver
from approximately April 2019 to August 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated delivery
drivers were required by the Defendants to maintain and pay for
safe, legally-operable, and insured automobiles when delivering
pizzas and other food items. As a result, they have incurred
expenses while performing their duties for the primary benefit of
the Defendants. However, the Defendants allegedly employed a flawed
reimbursement policy which reimburses delivery drivers on a
per-mile basis that equates to rates substantially below the IRS
business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' systematic failure to
adequately reimburse automobile expenses constitutes a "kickback"
to the Defendants because its delivery drivers' hourly wages are
not paid free and clear of all outstanding obligations to the
Defendants, thereby failing to comply the federal minimum wage
requirements.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated delivery drivers
against the Defendants seeking for actual damages for their unpaid
wages; liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
compensation; pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory
rate; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; and
other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
Mountain Valley Pizza, LLC operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores. Zan R. Hall is an owner, officer, and director of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Hughes, Esq.
HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
2121 14th Street
Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
Tel: (205) 523-0463
Fax: (205) 344-6188
E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com
NATIONAL MILK: Judgment & Class Settlement in Edwards Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
CHRISTOPHER ANDREWS, Objector-Appellant v. NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, AKA Cooperatives Working Together, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-16459 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's
judgment and order approving a class action settlement.
Objector-Appellant Andrews appeals pro se from the district court's
judgment and order approving a class action settlement.
The Ninth Circuit finds that the district court properly found that
the Plaintiffs' class notice satisfied Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and due process because, among other things, the
Plaintiffs' expert opined that at least 75% of the class received
notice. As for Andrews' assertion that a Spanish version of the
notice was required, Andrews does not have standing to make this
argument.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in awarding
each named Plaintiff an incentive payment of $5,000. Contrary to
Andrews' argument, the disparity between the incentive payment and
the payment to the class members is, on its own, insufficient to
create a conflict of interest. The Ninth Circuit further notes
that, in the case, the named Plaintiffs were required to
participate in multiple rounds of discovery and to sit for
depositions.
The Ninth Circuit rejects as without merit Andrews' arguments that
the district court violated his due process and First Amendment
rights when it restricted the scope of his oral argument. It also
rejects as unsupported by the record Andrews' argument that the
district court abused its discretion in overruling Andrews'
objections regarding the public availability of the expert reports
produced for the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2a8rrexa from Leagle.com.
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Class & Sub-Classes in Ginzkey Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD FITZGERALD, CHARLES CERF, BARRY
DONNER, and on behalf of the class members described below,
Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. C18-1773RSM (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.
Defendant NSC is a registered securities broker-dealer
headquartered in Seattle. Plaintiffs Ginzkey, Fitzgerald, Cerf,
and Donner used NSC's services to purchase investments in a company
called Beamreach that produced solar panels for residential and
commercial use. The Plaintiffs allege that Beamreach failed to
conduct proper due diligence as required by rules set forth by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA").
As NSC understood it, Beamreach purported to be a high efficiency
solar panel manufacturer based out of California that was looking
to raise funds to continue its development of high yield solar
panels. Beamreach was looking to raise money from "anybody and
anyone that would invest." It enlisted NSC as a placement agent to
help it raise additional capital by introducing prospective
investors to the company.
NSC is required to follow FINRA rules. Under FINRA's suitability
rule, NSC was required to have a reasonable basis to conclude the
investment at issue is suitable for at least some investors, and
NSC was required to conduct reasonable due diligence to provide it
with an understanding of the risks and rewards associated with
recommending a security. NSC has adopted and implemented this
FINRA rule into its internal policies and procedures.
Pursuant to FINRA Rule 2111.05(a), NSC is required to perform
reasonable due diligence on a private placement prior to offering
it for sale to its customers. FINRA Rule 2111.02 explicitly states
that a broker-dealer cannot disclaim any responsibilities under the
suitability rule.
Of great interest to the litigation, but not necessarily the
Motion, the Plaintiffs have detailed many "red flags," they allege
NSC should have noticed about Beamreach.
As outlined in the Complaint, in February 2015, NSC began acting as
a placement agent for Breamreach's Series D securities offering.
The securities purchased by the Plaintiffs and the Class Members in
the Series D round consisted of preferred stock, beginning in
February 2015 ("Series D Offering"). A secondary offering in June
2016, the Series D-1 preferred stock round, was initially an equity
offering ("Series D-1 Offering") then was switched to a 9%
convertible promissory note offering a 300% "principal step up" in
the event of an acquisition, in November 2016 ("Series D-2
Offering"). NSC acted as both the primary placement agent and
exclusive broker/dealer for the Beamreach Offerings. The total
capital raised by NSC in the Beamreach Offerings was approximately
$34.5 million. In the case of the Beamreach Series D round, in
which the Plaintiffs participated, NSC earned a fee of 10% cash and
10% warrants for its role as placement agent. The brokers selling
Beamreach to NSC clients earned an allocation of the placement
agent fee.
The Beamreach Offerings were only made to "a limited group of
sophisticated `accredited investors' within the meaning of Rule
501(a) under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, in a private
placement designed to be exempt from registration under the
Securities Act, and other applicable securities laws." "Accredited
investors" are defined by law as investors whose individual net
worth, or joint net worth with that person's spouse, exceeds $1
million or they have an annual income exceeding $200,000 in each of
the two most recent years or joint income with their spouse during
those years in excess of $300,000.
The Series D and D-1 Offerings were presented to investors through
private placement memoranda ("PPMs"). The Series D-2 Offering was
presented as a supplement to the Series D-1 Offering PPM
("Beamreach PPMs"). In each PPM, NSC made warnings to investors
about the high-risk nature of investing in Beamreach.
The Plaintiffs allege they relied on NSC's "approval of the
Beamreach Offerings for sale" to make their investments in
Beamreach. On Nov. 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ginzkey invested $89,214.75
in the Series D2 Offering. On April 30, 2015, Plaintiff Fitzgerald
invested $175,000 in the Series D offering; on Oct. 28, 2016,
Fitzgerald invested $12,745 in the Series D-2 offering. On Feb. 9,
2016, Plaintiff Cerf invested $52,479 in the Series D offering. On
April 10, 2015, Plaintiff Donner invested $149,940 in the Series D
offering; on Oct. 20, 2016, Donner invested another $100,459 in the
Series D-1 offering.
On Feb. 9, 2017, Beamreach filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy citing a
"catastrophic cash flow situation" and "loans due." The
Plaintiffs' investments resulted in a total loss.
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on Dec. 10, 2018,
asserting claims of negligence and unjust enrichment.
They request certification of the Class and Sub-Classes as
follows:
a. Beamreach Class: All persons who invested in Beamreach
Offerings through the Defendant, at any time between Feb. 6, 2015
and Feb. 9, 2017 inclusive.
b. Series D Sub-Class: All persons who invested in Beamreach
Series D through the Defendant, at any time between Feb. 6, 2015
and Dec. 31, 2016 inclusive.
c. Series D-1 Sub-Class: All persons who invested in Beamreach
Series D- through the Defendant, at any time between June 1, 2016
and Feb. 9, 2017 inclusive.
d. Series D-2 Sub-Class: All persons who invested in Beamreach
Series D-1 through the Defendant, at any time between Oct. 1, 2016
and Feb. 9, 2017 inclusive.
A. Rule 23(a)
Judge Martinez finds that (i) it would be highly impracticable and
cost prohibitive to join all of these investors in a single action;
(ii) there is an important common question with a common answer
even if there are other more individualized questions and answers
to be addressed later; (iii) the injury is nearly identical for the
members of the proposed class, even if different members invested
different amounts, and that NSC's course of conduct at issue
occurred prior to any kind of customer-specific analysis of risk
tolerance; and (iv) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.
B. Rule 23(b)(3)
Judge Martinez has already found that there is an important common
question here with a common answer. Given everything presented by
the parties, he further finds that this question of due diligence
prior to approval for sale predominates over any questions
affecting individual brokers or investors. The litigation has also
proceeded in the Court for many years, and NSC has failed to
demonstrate any specific problems to trying the action. The
requirements of Rule 23 are met. In addition to meeting the
requirements of Rule 23, a class must be ascertainable before it
can be certified. The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that the
class can be easily ascertained from NSC's books and records.
Conclusion
Having considered the briefing from the parties and the remainder
of the record, Judge Martinez granted the Plaintiffs Motion for
Class Certification. The Class and Subclasses, as described in the
Plaintiffs' brief, are certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
Excluded from the Class or Subclasses are the Defendant and any of
its officers, directors, employees, agents, parents, affiliates or
subsidiaries. Also excluded is any entity related to or affiliated
with Beamreach, and any judicial officers presiding over this
matter and their immediate family members.
Plaintiffs Ginzkey, Fitzgerald, Cerf, and Donner are designated and
appointed as the representatives for the Class and the Subclasses.
Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C. and Law Offices of Joshua B. Kons, LLC
are appointed as the counsel for the Class and Subclasses.
No later than 30 days from the date of the Order, the Plaintiffs
will submit to the Defendant's counsel the proposed Notice forms
and the Plan for disseminating Notice to the Class and Subclasses.
The Counsel will then confer as to the proposed Notice and Plan.
The parties will submit an agreed Notice and Plan to the Court. If
the parties are not in agreement, each will submit their proposed
Notice and Plan to the court for decision.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3fx8xxnr from Leagle.com.
NVIDIA CORP: Derivative Suit Remains Stayed Pending Appeal Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order holding
that the case, In re: NVIDIA CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED DERIVATIVE
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No.
4:19-cv-00341-HSG, Related Case No. 4:18-cv-07669-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
will remain stayed pending final resolution of the appeal in the
Consolidated Class Action.
The stipulation is entered into by and among the Parties, by and
through their respective attorneys of record.
On March 27, 2020, the Court entered an Order staying the Action
until the entry of any order on a motion to dismiss an amended
complaint filed in the Consolidated Class Action or until the
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action indicate their
intention not to file an amended complaint.
On May 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Class Action
filed an amended complaint.
On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Class Action, with prejudice.
On March 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the
Consolidated Class Action.
The Parties believe that the result of the forthcoming appeal could
have bearing on the Action. They therefore wish to continue the
stay in the Action pending resolution of the appeal in the
Consolidated Class Action.
In the interest of judicial economy and the efficient
administration of justice, the counsel for the Parties in the
Action agree to continue to stay the Action during the pendency of
an appeal in the Consolidated Class Action.
Accordingly, the Parties stipulated and agreed that:
1. The Action will remain stayed pending final resolution of
the appeal of the Consolidated Class Action, including any
petitions for rehearing at the Ninth Circuit.
2. The Defendants will promptly notify the Plaintiffs if a
related derivative action is not stayed for a similar or longer
duration than the stay of the Action.
3. In the event that any discovery is provided or produced by
any of the Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action or any other
related shareholder derivative action purportedly brought or
threatened to be brought on behalf of NVIDIA arising from similar
facts as the instant action, whether filed in the Court or in
another court, the Defendants will at or about the same time notice
the Plaintiffs and provide copies of that discovery to the
Plaintiffs in the Action, provided that the parties have executed
and the Court has entered a protective order.
4. Upon final resolution of the appeal of the Consolidated
Class Action, including any petitions for rehearing at the Ninth
Circuit, then, within 14 days following a decision referenced, the
Parties will meet and confer regarding a further case schedule.
5. The Defendants will notice the Plaintiffs regarding and
permit the Plaintiffs to participate in any mediation or settlement
efforts in the Consolidated Class Action or any threatened or filed
related derivative actions. NVIDIA will invite the Plaintiffs to
participate in any such mediation or formal settlement meetings.
Notification to the Plaintiffs of the setting of such mediation(s)
or meeting(s) will be reasonable to permit attendance.
6. The Stipulation is without prejudice to the Parties
agreeing, subject to Court approval, to a further extension of time
regarding any of the deadlines established if the circumstances
warrant.
7. Either side may file a motion to lift the stay so long as
the party gives 30 days' notice to the other side prior to filing
such a motion.
8. The Parties reserve all other rights.
Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation, Judge Gilliam so ordered.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4k385shz from Leagle.com.
PACE FUNDING: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Green Energy Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susie Steimle, writing for KPIX 5, reports that as Project Home
previously uncovered, a green energy program that targets
low-income homeowners continues to leave a trail of financial
hardships and foreclosures in its wake. Now, KPIX 5 has gotten an
exclusive interview with the state agency tasked to oversee the
troubled program.
"Definitely I think we have seen some predatory behavior," said
Maria Luisa Cesar, a commissioner with the Department of Financial
Protection and Innovation, the agency tasked to oversee
California's so-called PACE program, which stands for Property
Assessed Clean Energy. "We've seen the program mis-characterized as
a free government program, which it's not, we've seen instances
where documents have been forged where contractors have been paid
without doing any of the work. We've also seen companies utilize
these deceptive practices and target immigrant non-English speaking
communities."
Gloria Sanchez is one example. In a class-action lawsuit, she
claims she was hammered with calls and text messages from a PACE
solicitor called Garantia Solar. She says the salesperson told her
a program created by former president Obama required homeowners to
have solar panels installed on their property by 2020. And she
could do it, for no money down and just $800 dollars more a year on
her property taxes.
"Practically the panels would be free," said Sanchez.
But when she went to refinance her home came a shock: A tax lien on
her property for almost $13,000 placed by a company called Pace
Funding Group had to be paid off first. Not only that, she says the
panels don't seem to be working and her PG&E bill has not gone
down.
"On my PG&E bill I don't see savings," said Sanchez.
Sanchez signed her loan in 2018 after a new law went into effect
that requires PACE program administrators like Pace Funding Group
to get confirmation over the phone that the homeowner understands
the terms of the contract and can afford to repay it. Since then,
even more consumer protections have been enacted. But critics say
it's still not enough.
"One of the big problems with these PACE loans is that they're
really targeted at people who are house rich, but cash poor," said
Jaramillo, an attorney with Housing and Economic Rights Advocates,
a non-profit that helps low-income Californians with financial
problems.
He says complaints about PACE loans come all the time.
"We're still seeing people who get lured into these PACE loans
whose property taxes just skyrocket and become unaffordable to
them. So the standard being used to assess ability to repay, if
it's being used at all, is really not protecting the consumer in
many cases." said Jaramillo.
He is co-counsel in Sanchez's class-action lawsuit that accuses
multiple players involved of fraud and negligence.
"I think there's been an absolute failure of these program
administrators to ensure that their paid solicitors and agents are
complying with the law," said Jaramillo.
He says one of the biggest problems continues to be the electronic
signing process for the financing contract.
"The electronic signature system is just too easy for the
contractor sales person to manipulate and either forge the consent
of the homeowner, or pressure them into signing documents that
either they can't understand because it's on a little cell phone
screen, or it's not in the language that they understand," said
Jaramillo.
Sanchez says that is what happened to her.
"They were in Los Angeles and they told me but we can do it by
signing on the phone. That is how I fell in the trap, by signing
over the phone," said Sanchez.
We reached out to Pace Funding Group, the program administrator
based in Los Gatos that put the tax lien on Sanchez's home. The
company sent a response which can be seen here in its entirety.
Garantia, the solicitor that talked Sanchez into signing the PACE
loan, did not have a contractor's license at the time as required
by law. It appears to no longer be in business.
Sanchez's contractor Complete Solar based in San Ramon, also did
not return our calls.
The company is licensed but we discovered it's currently under
disciplinary order for false, misleading and deceptive advertising.
Yet Complete Solar is still an approved PACE contractor with DFPI.
"I think we have some work to do in continuing to get resources out
to community members so that they understand what their rights are
and how institutions like the California DFPI can offer some
protection and some redress, said DFPI's Maria Luisa Cesar.
The agency received 370 PACE related complaints since it took on
oversight role in 2019, 78 of them specifically regarding the Pace
Funding group. But so far DFPI has only taken administrative action
three times, involving other companies.
We asked DFPI's Cesar: "The big overarching question for so many
homeowners is, should they feel confident that this program has the
correct oversight and is operating as it says it is?" Her response:
"So I think that's a great question. I think the reality is that in
any industry, you're going to have bad actors. And we are trying
to, as a state financial regulator, root out those bad actors as
quickly as possible."
Sanchez's class-action complaint alleges Spanish-speaking
homeowners are purposefully being targeted for PACE loans with high
pressure sales and fraudulent tactics. According to the complaint
the owners of Garantia, the solicitor in Sanchez's case, are still
promoting the loans under a new name, Greenday Finance.
If you have complaint about a PACE loan, DFPI wants you to file a
report with them at docqnet.dfpi.ca.gov/complaint-pace/
To file complaints with the Contractors State License Board, visit
cslb.ca.gov/Consumers/Filing_A_Complaint/File_A_Complaint.aspx
[GN]
PIAST MEATS: Underpays Meat Butchers, Dabrowski FLSA Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIROSLAW DABROWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIAST MEATS & PROVISIONS, INC.,
PASSAIC STREET PIAST CORP., MARIA RYBAK, MARIA RYBAK as the
Executrix of the Estate of HENRYK RYBAK, and MARCIN RYBAK,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-10565 (D.N.J., May 1, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law by failing
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a full-time butcher and meat
cutter from October 25, 2018 through March 6, 2021.
Piast Meats & Provisions, Inc. is an owner and operator of Piast
Meats & Provisions, a Polish market in northern New Jersey.
Passaic Street Piast Corp. is an owner and operator of Piast Meats
& Provisions, a Polish market in northern New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
40 Wall Street, Suite 2833
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 267-2101
ROCKFORD, IL: Eisenberg Supports Debtors' Scheduling Order Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as MALLINCKRODT PLC, et
al. v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, Case No. 21-50428-JTD, Randall S.
Eisenberg filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware a declaration in support of the Debtors' motion for
scheduling order and objections to claims on May 1, 2021.
Randall S. Eisenberg is a managing director at AlixPartners LLP,
the restructuring consultant and financial advisor of Mallinckrodt
plc and its affiliated debtors.
The unsubstantiated claims objection seeks disallowance of (a) all
proofs of claim submitted by Acthar litigation claimants against
the Debtors that are not Defendants in the underlying prepetition
litigations; and (b) 46 proofs of claim aggregating in excess of
800,000 individual claims and asserting with no basis, that such
claimants may hold Acthar-related claims against the relevant
Debtors. The scheduling motion seeks an order scheduling litigation
of and hearing on the dischargeability adversary proceeding summary
judgment motion, on timing consistent with the claims objections
and certain other Acthar-related proceedings.
Mallinckrodt plc is a manufacturer of specialty pharmaceutical
products and diagnostic imaging agents, headquartered in Ireland.
[BN]
ROMEO POWER: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Romeo Power, Inc. (RMO) f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp. (RMG)
Class Period: 10/5/2020 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 15, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-romeo-power-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.[GN]
ROOT INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded company. Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Root, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROOT)
Class Period: October 28, 2020 – March 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 18, 2021
The complaint filed alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Root would foreseeably
fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years
following the IPO; (2) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably
require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (3)
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 (4) as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
SAN JUDAS COMMUNITY: Rios Seeks Regular, OT Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA RIOS, as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, v. SAN JUDAS COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21STCV12514 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2021) seeks
relief against the Defendant for its failure to pay all wages due,
including regular and overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide
rest periods or premium compensation in lieu thereof, and failure
to keep accurate payroll records under the Private Attorneys'
General Act, Labor Code.
This lawsuit arises out of an ongoing wrongful scheme by the
Defendant to deny its employees the benefits due under California's
wage and hour laws for work performed in California. The Defendant
wrongfully refused to pay the Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
regular wages, overtime compensation, business expense
reimbursements, and other statutory benefits mandated by
California, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in or around
October 2016 through February 13, 2020. She was employed by
Defendant as a Phlebotomist, where her job duties included drawing
blood, administering injections, taking patient vital signs,
cleaning and maintaining examination rooms, and assisting
physicians with patient care.
San Judas Community Health Center provides comprehensive Primary
Medical Care, Women's and Children's health care, and Care
Coordination.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law. net
awilson@mahoney-law.net
SANOFI US: Cruz Sues Over Analgesic Patches' Misleading Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SANOFI US CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02351 (N.D. Ill., May 1, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its external
analgesic patches under the Aspercreme brand. The Defendant's
product contains 4 percent lidocaine and is marketed as compliant
with the Food and Drug Administration regulations for Category I
products, based on the numerous claims with respect to the
product's functions. However, the product does not comply with the
Tentative Final Monography for External Analgesic Drug Products for
Over-the-Counter Human Use (TFM) requirements for Category I
ingredients and has not undergone review for products with Category
III ingredients. Moreover, the Defendant used misleading claims on
the product including max strength and fast acting, up to 12 hours
of use, and numb or completely block pain. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions, the product
was sold at a higher price than it would have in absence of the
misconduct.
Sanofi US Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical company,
with a principal place of business in Bridgewater, Somerset County,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd. Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
SCENARIO COCKRAM: Nese Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERICA NESE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCENARIO COCKRAM USA, INC. and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01190581-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 29, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-03631 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain
payroll records, wages not timely paid upon termination or
resignation, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business
practices.
Scenario Cockram USA, Inc. is a construction company with its
principal place of business in Florida. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq.
Heather E. Horn, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com
Heather.Horn@lewisbrisbois.com
SEIU LOCAL 521: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Hough Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
district court's summary judgment in the case, WILLIAM HOUGH,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. SEIU LOCAL 521, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
19-15792 (9th Cir.).
Mr. Hough appeals from the district court's summary judgment in his
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 putative class action alleging a First
Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also known
as fair share fees) paid to SEIU Local 521.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court properly granted
summary judgment because a public sector union can, as a matter of
law, invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective
monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it
collected prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council
31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018). It does not consider matters not
specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening
brief.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/tnr3cvar from Leagle.com.
SHELTER MUTUAL: Rice Insurance Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TAHARA RICE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHELTER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case
No. 21BA-CV00984, was removed from the Circuit Court of Boone
County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri on April 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-04093-WJE to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract by
denying claims for COVID-19 loss of income and extra expense
coverage under its business insurance policy.
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company is a mutual insurance company,
headquartered in Columbia, Missouri. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert T. Adams, Esq.
Douglas S. Beck, Esq.
Holly Pauling Smith, Esq.
Sarah Lynn Baltzell, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
2555 Grand Boulevard
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Telephone: (816) 474-6550
Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
E-mail: rtadams@shb.com
dbeck@shb.com
hpsmith@shb.com
slynn@shb.com
- and –
William Northrip, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
111 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-7700
Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
E-mail: wnorthrip@shb.com
- and –
R. Ryan Deligans, Esq.
DURBIN LARIMORE & BIALICK
920 N. Harvey
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-9584
Facsimile: (405) 235-0551
E-mail: rdeligans@dlb.net
SOUTH VALLEY: Faces Cabrera Employment Suit in Calif. State Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against South Valley Almond
Company, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as CABRERA v. SOUTH
VALLEY ALMOND COMPANY, Case No. BCV-21-100733 (Cal. Super, Kern
Cty., April 1, 2021).
The suit arises from employment-related issues.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David R. Lampe. A case
management conference will be held on Oct. 4, 2021.
The Defendants include South Valley Almond Company, LLC, A
California Limited Liability Company and Agreserves, INC., A Utah
Corporation.
South Valley produces almonds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
ST. LOUIS, MO: 8th Cir. Remands Class Certification Order in Ahmad
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Maleeha S. Ahmad, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. City
of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 19-2062,
19-2221 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit remands the district court's order:
(i) granting certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class; and
(ii) denying the City's motion to dismiss and to dissolve the
preliminary injunction.
In September 2017, following the acquittal of a former St. Louis
police officer for the on-duty shooting of a black man, St. Louis
police dealt with several days of extensive street protests. The
initial protests were peaceful; police made no arrests and did not
use force or chemical agents. After dark on September 15, a group
attempted to seize a highway on-ramp. Turned back by police
outfitted with riot gear, they migrated to the area where police
civil disobedience teams were about to leave in public transit
buses. Some protesters locked arms to prevent the buses from
leaving and were maced when they refused to obey orders to move.
Others were maced when they approached police lines and failed to
obey commands to "move back." Officers declared that certain
gatherings were unlawful assemblies and issued dispersal orders. A
large crowd threw objects at the mayor's house; security summoned
police who deployed tear gas and pepper balls to disperse the
group.
On the evening of September 17, rioters wearing masks and goggles
roamed downtown St. Louis, smashing windows and engaging in other
vandalism. Some were arrested. During the chaos, a group of
officers the City admits "went rogue" seized and beat a protester
who in fact was an undercover detective and destroyed the phone he
was using to record police conduct. Text messages between abusive
officers revealed a plan to beat protesters and suggested that if
they had beaten a real protester rather than an undercover
detective, they would not be in any trouble. Elsewhere that
evening, when rioters harassed police, the commander ordered
arrests. Awaiting reinforcements, police declared the crowd an
unlawful assembly and issued repeated orders to disperse, in-person
and via public address. An hour later, police arrested and maced
approximately 125 people.
These incidents gave rise to the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs, now
three in number, are a protester who allegedly was maced, a person
whose cell phone was seized and searched as he filmed arrests, and
an observer who was allegedly exposed to chemical agents and
arrested on September 17. The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint for Prospective Relief and a motion for a preliminary
injunction on Sept. 28, 2017.
The Amended Complaint alleged that the City (i) violated the First
Amendment by retaliating against the Plaintiffs for engaging in
protected expressive activity; (ii) violated the Fourth Amendment
because its custom, practice, and failure to train and supervise
caused unlawful seizures and the use of excessive force by police
officers; and (iii) violated the Fourteenth Amendment when officers
failed to warn before deploying chemical agents, failed to provide
opportunities to disperse, and arbitrarily enforced two ordinances
of the St. Louis Code. For relief, the Plaintiffs urged the court
to "issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
and permanent injunction requiring the City of St. Louis to declare
protests 'unlawful assemblies' and to order protestors 'to
disperse' in a constitutional manner and otherwise limit police
activities at protests as required by the Constitution."
The district court held a three-day evidentiary hearing at which
eighteen witnesses testified in support of the motion for
preliminary injunction. On Nov. 15, 2017, the court granted the
injunction set forth in the Appendix to the Opinion. At the same
time, the court referred the case to mediation, setting a
compliance report deadline of Feb. 15, 2018. The City did not
timely appeal the preliminary injunction, which was an appealable
interlocutory order. The mediation was extended.
On Feb. 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Motion To Certify
Class. On March 29, the City filed a motion to dissolve the
preliminary injunction and dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
"for lack of equitable jurisdiction." On May 6, the mediator filed
a Compliance Report stating that the parties "participated in good
faith but did not achieve a settlement." On May 7, the district
court entered an order granting certification of a Rule 23(b)(2)
class. On May 15, 2019, the court denied the City's motion to
dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary injunction. The City
timely appealed both orders. The Eighth Circuit granted permission
to appeal the class certification order, and consolidated the two
appeals.
I. Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction
The City appeals the denial of its motion to dissolve the
preliminary injunction. It City based its motion to dissolve on
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b)(5)
permits a party to obtain relief from a judgment or order if
"applying it prospectively is no longer equitable."
In reviewing preliminary injunctions, the Eighth Circuit has long
recognized "that justice would be served by proceeding to trial
with all due haste in order to secure a ruling on the merits of the
claim raised." That was true when the preliminary injunction
issued in November 2017 and is even more true today. The Eighth
Circuit opines that the City has not shown changed circumstances
warranting immediate dissolution. However, when discovery is
complete or largely complete, as in the case, it agrees with the
Second Circuit "that the important questions raised should not be
left unanswered any longer than necessary," and it therefore
conditions maintenance of the preliminary injunction upon the
completion of a trial on the merits of the Plaintiffs' request for
a permanent injunction within six months.
Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirms the denial of the City's
motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and remands with
directions to vacate and dissolve the injunction no later than Oct.
31, 2021, if it has not been replaced with a final order either
granting a permanent injunction or denying injunctive relief.
II. Class Certification
The City appeals the district court's order granting certification
of a class under Rule 23(b)(2).
The court defined the class as: Persons who will in the future
participate in or observe non-violent public demonstrations and/or
who record such public demonstrations and/or police activities at
the public demonstrations for the exercise of constitutional rights
of free speech and assembly in the City of St. Louis.
The Eighth Circuit opines that the class certification was granted
prematurely. Given the individualized inquiries the Plaintiffs'
disparate claims require, the massive class action certified
neither promotes the efficiency and economy underlying class
actions nor pays sufficient heed to the federalism and separation
of powers principles emphasized in Rizzo v. Goode, Lewis v. Casey,
and other cases. Moreover, the premature grant of class
certification has seriously delayed the prompt trial on the merits
of plaintiffs' claims for permanent injunctive relief that the
mandatory nature of the preliminary injunction requires.
Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit vacates the class certification
order without prejudice to the Plaintiffs renewing their request
after a final order has been entered on their claim for permanent
injunctive relief, at which point the district court can better
assess whether a Rule 23(b)(2) class is appropriate and necessary
to afford proper equitable relief. The remedy must of course be
limited to the inadequacy that produced the injury in fact that the
Plaintiff has established. It is no less true with respect to
class actions than with respect to other suits.
Conclusion
For the forgoing reasons, Eighth Circuit modifies the orders of the
district court and remands the case for further proceedings not
inconsistent with its Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/beh8ycrr from Leagle.com.
SVA HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Order in Rave Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY RAVE, Plaintiff-Respondent v. SVA HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Appeal No. 2019AP2236 (Wis.
App.), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I, affirmed the
circuit court's order certifying a class and appointing Plaintiff
Rave as the class representative.
In 2013, Rave was injured in a car crash. He retained Welcenbach
Law Offices, S.C. to handle a personal injury claim on his behalf.
Rave authorized his attorneys to obtain his health care records by
signing a HIPAA release form. Welcenbach subsequently requested
certified copies of Rave's complete medical billing records from
Wisconsin Radiology Specialists. SVA responded to the request and,
as set forth in SVA's responses to Rave's requests for admission,
invoiced Welcenbach "$20.35, which included a $15 charge, plus
$0.35 for one page, and $5 for certified records," which Welcenbach
paid.
In 2018, Rave filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that SVA
improperly charged Welcenbach "certification" and "retrieval" fees
under WIS. STAT. Section 146.83(3f)(b)4. and 5. for copies of his
medical bills. Rave also made a claim for unjust enrichment. He
sought statutory damages under the health care records penalty
provision found at WIS. STAT. Section 146.84(1). Rave made his
claims on behalf of himself and on behalf of a purported class of
similarly situated individuals.
Mr. Rave subsequently sought to certify a class that included him
"and thousands of other Wisconsin citizens similarly situated who
were wrongfully charged basic, retrieval, processing and/or
certification fees by SVA." The proposed class (which includes a
number of exceptions) consists of all persons in Wisconsin who were
a patient of a health care provider or a person authorized in
writing by a patient of a health care provider to obtain the
patient's medical records and were charged a retrieval and/or a
certification fee by SVA, directly or indirectly, in violation of
WIS. STAT. Section 146.83(3f)(b)4.-5., between July 1, 2011 and the
date of trial.
The circuit court found that Rave met his burden of satisfying the
fundamental requirements set forth in WIS. STAT. Section 803.08.
SVA appeals that determination.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the circuit court properly
exercised its discretion when it granted Rave's motion for class
certification.
SVA contends that it has unique defenses that preclude the circuit
court's determinations as to typicality and adequacy.
Specifically, SVA contends: (1) the statute of limitations bars
Rave's claim against it; and (2) "Rave knew, or had constructive
knowledge, that payment of a certification and retrieval fee was
allegedly illegal at the time of payment yet he paid it anyway and
wrongfully created a cause of action for himself." It, therefore,
challenges Rave's standing to bring a claim against it -- and
asserts that if Rave has no valid claims, he cannot be a class
representative. According to SVA, the circuit court erroneously
exercised its discretion when it granted class certification
without considering its defenses.
The Court of Appeals opines that the circuit court properly
concluded that Rave satisfied the prerequisites for class
certification. Although SVA sought to distinguish it, the Court of
Appeals's decision in Harwood v. Wheaton Franciscan Servs., 2019 WI
App 53, Paragraph 41, 388 Wis.2d 546, 933 N.W.2d 654 guides its
analysis. In that case, Wheaton Franciscan argued -- among other
things -- that Harwood did not satisfy the typicality and adequacy
requirements for reasons that included Harwood's interests being
adverse to the class and a related lack of evidence.
The Court highlighted Harwood's allegation that she was charged $28
in fees that were not allowed under WIS. STAT. Section
146.83(3f)(b)4. and 5., and noted that she supplied invoices that
supported her allegation. It explained that the plaintiff
additionally alleged that others were charged these fees despite
the statute's prohibition, and she has provided evidence of at
least 42 such charges." From this, the circuit court and the Court
of Appeals concluded that the prerequisites were satisfied. The
straightforward analysis applied in Harwood is also appropriate in
the case. The circuit court employed a similar rationale and
reasonably determined that Rave met the typicality and adequacy
requirements under WIS. STAT. Section 803.08(1).
Next, the Court of Appeals considers whether the circuit court
properly determined "that the questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy." It holds that the circuit court properly concluded
that Rave satisfied the predominance and superiority requirements
of WIS. STAT. Section 803.08(2)(c).
SVA asserts that the circuit court "completely failed to address"
the issues it raised concerning superiority and predominance. In
its 11-page written decision, the circuit court pointed out that in
deciding the motion, it has considered SVA's lengthy and
comprehensive submissions, including its supplemental briefing, and
later, reiterated that after thoroughly considering the parties'
submissions, it concludes that Rave and the class counsel have met
the requirements for class certification.
To the extent that the circuit court did not expressly address each
issue that SVA raised, it implicitly deemed them unpersuasive.
That determination is supported by the record. The circuit court
applied the correct law to the facts of record and reached a
reasonable decision when it certified the class in the matter.
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Its
Opinion will not be published.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y8rwytbp from Leagle.com.
TESLA INC: Dahlin Sues Over Breach of Solar Roof System Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP DAHLIN and MARY ARNDTSEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02020 (E.D. Pa., April 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of contract and violations of the
Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to honor its contracts
under the agreed upon price of solar roof system installation with
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated consumers. The
Plaintiffs entered into a solar roof system contract with the
Defendant on September 17, 2020 for a total contract price of
$46,919.20. However, in April 2021, the Defendant notified the
Plaintiffs that they need to sign a new agreement and unilaterally
increased the price to be charged to the Plaintiffs to $78,352.66,
thereby breaching its first executed contract, the suit alleges.
Tesla, Inc. is a manufacturer, installer, and seller of traditional
rooftop solar panels, with its headquarters and principal place of
business located at 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
LeVAN MUHIC STAPLETON LLC
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 561-1500
E-mail: pmuhic@levanmuhic.com
- and –
Gary Lynch, Esq.
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
jmcgraw@carlsonlynch.com
TIEGE HANLEY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TIEGE HANLEY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-03351-ALC (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2021) brings this class
action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human
Rights Law.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's website, www.tiege.com,
has multiple access barriers which he encountered during his visits
on multiple occasions, the last occurring in March 2021, to make a
purchase. The website allegedly lacked of a variety of features and
accommodations which effectively barred him from being able to
determine what specific products were offered for sale, thereby
denying him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
individual.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide him
and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the
Website. The Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people.
On behalf of himself and other similarly situated visually-impaired
individuals, the Plaintiff brings this complaint requesting the
Court to grant them a preliminary and permanent injunction
requiring the Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its
Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the
ADA. The Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages with all
applicable statutory and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, litigation costs and expenses together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees, and other relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Tiege Hanley, LLC is a men's skincare company that owns and
operates the website. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
TRANSUNION: Parker Poe Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Carey, Esq., and Sarah Hutchins, Esq., of Parker Poe, in an
article for Bloomberg Law, report that the Supreme Court heard oral
arguments March 30 in TransUnion v. Ramirez. Parker Poe attorneys
Steve Carey and Sara Hutchins explain how the justices' ruling will
be critical for the business community. Even if the court limits
the size of the class, it may do so in a way that broadens
plaintiffs' ability to claim an injury and certify a class, and
could open the door to more data breach class actions.
Manufacturers, tech companies, and the broader business community
may be set to receive a mixed result from the U.S. Supreme Court on
how tough it is to get a class action lawsuit dismissed at an early
stage. While directly addressing class action standing to bring
suit, this pending decision may give broader indication of the
court's position on plaintiffs' ability to show they have been
sufficiently injured.
At issue in TransUnion v. Ramirez is whether a named plaintiff, who
suffered unique injuries after being incorrectly placed on a
terrorism-related watchlist -- and then sued alleging violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act -- should have been allowed to
represent a class that included people who may have suffered no
actual injury at all.
If that were permitted, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned in an
amicus brief it would provide a "road map to transform what should
be an individualized dispute between a uniquely sympathetic
plaintiff and a defendant into a multimillion-dollar class action."
Businesses, in turn, "will find themselves mired in massive
lawsuits over alleged technical statutory violations that have not
caused actual harm to the vast majority of the class."
While it was not the kind of oral argument that provides a clear
sense of where the justices are going, their questions on March 30
suggest the business community may avoid the sprawling liability
that some had forecast. There appear to be enough votes to narrow
the class.
But businesses are not certain to walk away with all they had hoped
for. The court seemed inclined to recognize a right to standing for
a statutory violation that many believed was foreclosed by a key
ruling five years ago.
Takeaways From Oral Argument
That 2016 ruling was Spokeo v. Robins, which came up more than 40
times during oral argument. In Spokeo, Justice Samuel Alito wrote
for a 6-3 majority that "a bare procedural violation" is not enough
for a plaintiff to have standing—the person must have actually
been harmed.
Based on that opinion (and the intervening changes to the court's
composition), many observers thought the court would continue
raising the bar for standing -- perhaps by holding that Spokeo
extended past the named plaintiff to apply to absent class members
as well; and that the intangible harm from the mere disclosure of
information, without more, would not be a sufficient injury for
standing.
On the first point, the bar may be as high as projected. Namely, a
majority of the justices seem inclined to substantially narrow the
size of this class: paring it down to the 1,900 or so people whose
inclusion on the terrorism-related list was actually disclosed to a
third party, as opposed to the certified class of 8,000 or so whose
incorrectly listed names merely could have been disclosed.
But the bar may stop there, as several justices questioned why
disclosure itself was not a sufficient injury in this context. Even
Alito raised the idea of a "psychological injury" here, commenting
at one point, "You know, Spokeo's discussion of harm is quite
clipped and it's potentially subject to different
interpretations."
It also remains unclear where the court will land on another other
issue -- how "typical" a named plaintiff must be relative to the
rest of the class. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and
Stephen Breyer seemed to take the position that typicality is all
about the claim -- in this case, the general issue of mistakenly
being put on the same list—rather than a more narrow requirement
of similar harm resulting from that claim.
"I just see this as a trial error," Sotomayor said of how
TransUnion handled that aspect of the case.
It was not as clear where the court's conservative majority stands
on that. They may embrace a more rigorous definition of typicality.
But they may agree that unique injury suffered by the named
plaintiff is a matter that can be resolved at trial.
Impact on Business Litigation and Data Privacy
In all, the Supreme Court seems unlikely to issue a ruling that
fulfills the worst-case scenario the business community warned
about. At the very least, the justices seem inclined to
substantially narrow the class to those whose names were actually
disclosed. That narrowing would itself be significant, as
businesses would avoid liability for internal mistakes that never
see the light of day.
But if a mistake does leave the company, the justices appear to be
inclined to say that disclosure gives class members standing, and,
perhaps, that they can be represented by a uniquely harmed named
plaintiff.
From there, the class action is off to the races -- a result
businesses still fear, as, in some ways, businesses already have
lost once a class is certified and discovery begins. Expenses build
from there, as does the pressure to settle.
It also remains to be seen what type of incorrect disclosure gives
rise to an injury. There is, of course, a wide gap between being
incorrectly linked to terrorism and getting your ZIP code wrong, as
was the case in Spokeo. It may prove difficult for the court to
provide a bright-line rule allowing businesses to distinguish
between those extremes.
Such a murky ruling could raise unique concerns for tech companies,
as some of the country's largest ones warned in their own amicus
brief. "The volume and type of communications and interactions that
amici's technologies facilitate," they wrote, "make amici
especially susceptible to abusive, no-injury class action
litigation similar to the matter before the Court."
The implications could extend to data privacy and security more
generally as well. For example, traditionally, affected parties in
a data breach often struggle to establish standing because their
injury can be so speculative.
But there have been a few lower court rulings recently that took a
more expansive approach to what could be included as an injury. If
the Supreme Court softens on that as well, it might open the door
to more data breach class actions.
For all the reasons above, the justices' ruling in TransUnion will
be critical for the business community. Even if the court limits
the size of the class in this case, it may do so in a way that
broadens plaintiffs' ability to claim an injury and certify a
class. That, as the Chamber warned in its brief, would "ratchet up
the coercive settlement pressure of future class actions." [GN]
TRUMPET BEHAVIORAL: Johnson Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JASMINE JOHNSON, JADE KHODARFISHER, and BRITTNIE
BORUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TRUMPET BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC; QUALITY BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG21093211, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on April 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-03221 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid,
non-complaint wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unfair business practices.
Trumpet Behavioral Health, LLC is a national autism treatment
provider doing business in California.
Quality Behavioral Outcomes, LLC is a healthcare services provider
doing business in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
Julie A. Gladstone, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com
julie.gladstone@ogletree.com
UNCLE BUCK'S: Jenkins Sues to Recoup Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MALIKA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE COUNTRY ROCK CABARET, LLC dba UNCLE BUCK'S BOOBIE
BUNGALOW, an Alabama Limited Liability Company; CHARLES WESTLUND,
JR., an individual; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-00585-LCB (N.D. Ala., April 26,
2021) is a collective action to recover the unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wage owed to Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, current and
former, of Defendants.
The complaint alleges that Defendants evaded the mandatory minimum
wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
illegally absconded with Plaintiff's tips, and demanded illegal
kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees." These causes of
action arise from Defendants' willful actions while Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants in the three-year period prior to the filing
of the Complaint. During her time being employed by Defendants,
Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as
part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," asserts the
complaint.
Plaintiff worked at Defendants' principal place of business located
at 6404 University Drive NW, Hunstville, Alabama 35806.
The FLSA Class Members are all current and former exotic dancers
who worked at Defendants' club Uncle Buck's located at 6404
University Drive NW, Hunstville, Alabama 35806, at any time
starting three years before this Complaint was filed, up to the
present.
Defendant The Country Rock Cabaret dba Uncle Buck's Boobie Bungalow
is an Alabama Limited Liability Company with its principal address
located at 6404 University Drive NW, Hunstville, Alabama 35806.
Defendant Charles Westlund, Jr. is the owner of Uncle Buck's.
Westlund exerted operational and management control over Uncle
Buck's, including day to day management. He was, and is, frequently
present at, owned, directed, controlled and managed the operations
at Uncle Buck's. He also controlled the nature, pay structure, and
employment relationship of Plaintiff and the FLSA Class
Members.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason P. Tortorici, Esq.
SCHILLECI & TORTORICI, P.C.
100 Centerview Drive, Suite 205
Birmingham, AL 35233
Telephone: (205) 978-4211
E-mail: jpt@schillecitortoricilaw.com
- and -
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310-) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
URBAN INNOVATIONS: Gagorik et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime & Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUKE GAGORIK, AUDRIANA HUGHES, BRYANNA CARCEDO, ANDREW JARVIS, TION
EDMONDS, and CRYSTAL MCKOY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. URBAN INNOVATIONS LLC d/b/a THE
CIRCUIT ARCADE BAR, RVA 2, LLC d/b/a SLINGSHOT SOCIAL GAME CLUB,
ROBERT LUPICA, and INGRID LUPICA, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00255-MHL (E.D. Va. April 16, 2021) bring this complaint as
a collective action against the Defendants for their alleged
willful and intentional violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants willfully and
intentionally retained tips paid by customers to them and other
similarly situated employees. Allegedly, the Defendant required
them to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week, but the
Defendants denied them overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked
over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime from the Defendants,
as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees and litigations costs, and other relief as the
Court may deem appropriate.
The Corporate Defendants operate an entertainment venue, bar and
eatery. The Individual Defendants are managers of the Corporate
Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aaron D. Siegrist, Esq.
Benjamin D. Johnson, Esq.
PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC
313 East Broad St., Suite 72
Richmond, VA 23219
Tel: (804) 413-4021
Fax: (757) 257-0387
E-mail: asiegrist@piercemccoy.com
bjohnson@piercemccoy.com
- and –
Joshua L. Jewett, Esq.
PIERCE MCCOY, PLLC
101 West Main St., Suite 101
Norfolk, VA 23510
Tel: (757) 286-2903
Fax: (757) 257-0387
E-mail: jjewett@piercemccoy.com
VARSITY GAY: Gifford Seeks League Managers' Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG GIFFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VARSITY GAY LEAGUE, LLC, and WILLIAM
HACKNER, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00877-M (N.D. Tex., April 16,
2021) alleges the Defendants of willful and intentional violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff ha worked for the Defendants from August 2020 until
January 2021 as a "Co-General Manager of Dallas."
The Plaintiff claims that he routinely performed "off the clock"
work during his employment with the Defendants. However, the
Defendant did not compensate him at the applicable minimum rate for
all the hours he worked, which included work in excess of 40 hours
per workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid him slightly more than
$80.00 throughout his employment despite spending many hours
performing various tasks for the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated League Managers
against the Defendant seeking to recover actual damages in the
amount of unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages in an equal
amount of unpaid minimum wages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and all other relief to which
they may be justly entitled.
Varsity Gay League, LLC is a national Queer+ for-profit
recreational sports league, founded in 2007. William Hackner is the
owner of VGL and exercised day-to-day control of operations,
including the supervision and payment of employees. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elisaveta Dolghih, Esq.
Jamie R. Wilson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2000
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: (214) 722-7108
Fax: (214) 722-7111
E-mail: Leiza.Dolghih@lewisbrisbois.com
Jamie.Wilson@lewisbrisbois.com
VERTAFORE INC: Masciotra DPPA Suit Moved From D. Colo. to S.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CONNER MASCIOTRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VERTAFORE, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-03603, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on April 30, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-01446 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act by failing to
safeguard and protect the private and confidential information of
Texas drivers, including the Plaintiff, following an alleged data
breach between March 11, 2020 and August 1, 2020.
Vertafore, Inc. is a software company based in Denver, Colorado.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Christian Levis, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: afiorilla@lowey.com
clevis@lowey.com
- and –
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
VROOM INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded company. Investors have until the
deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM)
Class Period: June 9, 2020 – March 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 21, 2021
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to
control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the
demand for its products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail
channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) that, as a
result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely
to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
VROOM INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased
Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom") (NASDAQ: VRM) between June 9, 2020 and March
3, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/vroom-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=15093&wire=5
Allegations against VRM include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to control and
scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the demand for
its products; (2) as a result, the Company was forced to discount
aged inventory to move through its retail channels or liquidated in
its wholesale channels; (3) as a result, the ecommerce gross profit
per unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you suffered a loss in Vroom you have until May 21, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
VULCAN MATERIALS: Challenges Drivers' OT Pay Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that construction material companies tried to chuck
a collective action claiming they cheated drivers of overtime pay
by misclassifying them as independent contractors, saying the
workers signed away their right to collective litigation in their
contracts. Vulcan Materials Co. and Southeast Division Logistics
LLC, an affiliated business, said the putative collective leader,
Derrick Bailey, could only sue them on an individual basis since he
waived his right to bring either a collective or class action in
his agreement with Southeast Division Logistics. [GN]
W & W ENERGY: Aguirre Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. W & W ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-00406 (D.N.M., April 30, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated laborers overtime wage
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Aguirre was employed as a tool pusher by the Defendant at job
sites near and around Carlsbad, New Mexico from approximately
December 2017 through June 2019.
W & W Energy Services, Inc. is a provider of production and
infrastructure services to oil producers in the Permian Basin
region of the southwest United States, with its office located at
4205 Ferguson Rd., Carlsbad, New Mexico. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard (Rex) J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
- and –
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
WAKEMED: Faces Conte ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH CONTE, JOANNE TOUCHBERRY, TEKISHA L. NICHOLSON, TOBY
BELIVEAU, ALEXANDER CARLISLE, and EARLENE N. HUNTER, Individually
and on Behalf of the WakeMed 403(b) Plan and All Others Similarly
Situated v. WAKEMED, Case No. 5:21-cv-00190-D (E.D.N.C., April 26,
2021) is brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for breach of
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty with respect to the
WakeMed Retirement Savings Plan (Plan) to the detriment of the Plan
and its participants and beneficiaries.
According to the complaint, the Plan is a defined contribution plan
under Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and is offered to
employees of WakeMed and WakeMed Physician Practices. To meet their
fiduciary obligations, the Plan's fiduciaries are required to
establish and maintain a prudent process when selecting and
monitoring the Plan's investment options and establishing and
evaluating Plan expenses. Defendant, however, breached its
fiduciary duties by engaging in a flawed and imprudent process and
failed to act in the best interest of Plan participants.
The Plan has a large pool of assets totaling more than $715
million, as of December 31, 2018. Large contribution plans, like
the Plan, have significant bargaining power to demand low-cost
investment management services. Instead of using the Plan's
bargaining power to benefit participants and beneficiaries,
Defendant engaged in a flawed process by offering and retaining
high-cost and poor-performing investments compared to available
alternatives and allowed unreasonable and unnecessary expenses to
be charged to participants for administration of the Plan, the
complaint asserts.
Plaintiff Sarah Conte resides in Chapel Hill, North Carolina and
was a participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff Conte
invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this action.
Plaintiff Joanne Touchberry resides in Wake Forest, North Carolina
and was a participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff
Touchberry invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this
action.
Plaintiff Tekisha L. Nicholson resides in Wendell, North Carolina
and was a participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff
Nicholson invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this
action.
Plaintiff Toby Beliveau resides in Cary, North Carolina and was a
participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff Beliveau
invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this action.
Plaintiff Alexander Carlisle resides in Franklinton, North Carolina
and was a participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff
Carlisle invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this
action.
Plaintiff Earlene N. Hunter resides in Nashville, North Carolina
and was a participant in the Plan. As a participant, plaintiff
Hunter invested in the mutual funds which are at issue in this
action.
Defendant WakeMed, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, describes
itself as a not-for-profit health care system and that its 941-bed
system comprises a network of facilities throughout the Triangle
area including three full-service hospitals, seven emergency
departments, a dedicated Children's Hospital and Rehabilitation
Hospital, more than 80 physician offices and Wake County's only
Level I Trauma Center. WakeMed has more than 9,700 employees, 1,300
affiliated physicians and 525 employed physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Ste. 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: 336/333-9899
Fax: 336/333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and -
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
Sarah E. Delaney, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: 631/367-7100 631
Fax: 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com
sdelaney@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: 610/890-0200
Fax:717/233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
gabriellek@capozziadler.com
- and -
Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
2933 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717/233-4101
Fax: 717/233-4103
E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
WALMART INC: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Kochar Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHIPRA KOCHAR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WALMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-02343-JSC (N.D. Calif.,
March 31, 2021) is a class action lawsuit resulting of the
Defendant's negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of
misrepresenting and failing to fully disclose the presence of
dangerous substances in its baby foods.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class Members
were induced to purchase the Defendant's baby foods, which are not
healthy for consumption by babies as advertised. The Plaintiff and
the Class Members were induced to feed their babies dangerous foods
containing toxic heavy metals, such a lead, arsenic, cadmium, and
mercury, and the full extent of the harm caused to their babies is
not yet known.
The Plaintiff contends that she purchased the Defendant's baby
foods reasonably believing that such baby foods are safe,
nutritious, and free from harmful toxins, contaminants, and
chemicals.
Based in Bentonville, Arizona, the Defendant formulates, develops,
manufactures, labels, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells
baby foods under the name "Parent's Choice" throughout the State of
California, as well as the United States more broadly.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Cinela Aziz, Esq.
Jessica Behmanesh, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
cinela@wilshirelawfirm.com
jbehmanesh@wilshirelawfirm.com
WARNER CONCEPT: Julian Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN CARLOS TORRES JULIAN, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the class, v. WARNER CONCEPT CONSULTING, INC.,
d/b/a WARNER, WARNER CONSTRUCTION CONSULTING, LLC, and CHIA PING
CHANG a.k.a CHARLES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01824 (E.D.N.Y., April 5,
2021) seeks to recover, among others, unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages due to time-shaving, and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.
Plaintiff TORRES worked as a construction helper for the Defendants
from August 2020 to February 2021. During this period, the
Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, however,
Plaintiff was not compensated his overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 as Defendants paid Plaintiff at a straight daily rate.
Similarly, FLSA collective Plaintiffs and Class members also worked
similar hours that regularly exceeded 40 hours per week and were
similarly paid at a straight daily rate.
The complaint further states that in the same period, Defendants
had a policy of not giving employees a meal break. Plaintiff TORRES
did not have an opportunity to take a meal break and was required
to work continuously. As a result, Plaintiff TORRES suffered from
two and half hours of time-shaving per workweek. During weeks in
which Plaintiff’s work hours exceeded 40 hours per week, such
time-shaved hours were overtime hours. Similarly, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and Class members were not permitted to take a free and
clear break, adds the complaint.
The Defendants collectively operates glass and window installing
companies in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 W. 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
WASHINGTON EDUCATION: Ninth Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Carey
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's summary judgment in the case, JUSTIN CAREY, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee, and JAY ROBERT INSLEE, in his official capacity
of Governor of the State of Washington; DAVID SCHUMACHER, in his
official capacity as Director of Washington State Office of
Financial Management, Defendants, Case No. 19-35290 (9th Cir.).
Justin Carey, JoBeth Deibel, David Gaston, Roger Kinney, and Keith
Sanborn appeal from the district court's summary judgment in their
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 putative class action alleging a First
Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also known
as fair share fees) paid to Washington Education Association.
The Ninth Circuit holds that the district court properly granted
summary judgment because a public sector union can, as a matter of
law, invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective
monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it
collected prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v.
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council
31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018). It does not consider matters not
specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening
brief.
A full-text copy of the Court's April 27, 2021 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/74njz45p from Leagle.com.
WINONA PAUP: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Automated Texts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that as you have seen
me emphasize over and over again in the last 10 days, DNC claims
and claims related to pre-recorded calls are now the new TCPA risk.
Claims related to targeted text platforms are now going to be much
rarer following Facebook.
For instance in new suit filed on April 7 in federal court in
Minnesota, a Plaintiff sued a realtor for sending unsolicited
automated texts. Rather than sue challenging ATDS usage -- as would
have occurred prior to Facebook -- the suit alleges solely claims
for DNC violations and for pre-recorded calls. This is true
although the Plaintiff alleges receiving multiple template texts to
her phone.
Notably the suit is filed solely against an individual realtor and
not the brokerage the realtor is a part of. (Unclear to me why that
is -- perhaps to allow discovery without the broker's involvement?)
And even though the suit targets only a single human being, it is
still pleaded as a class action and seeks to recover for every
illegal call she made for the last four years.
A copy of complaint is available at
https://tcpaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Schultz-complaint.pdf
The case is styled Schultz v. Paup, Case No. 0:21-cv-00942 (D.
Minn.).
It's a dangerous (TCPA) world out there folks. Scrub the DNC!!!!
[GN]
XTO ENERGY: Gamboa Seeks Blue-Collar Oilfield Workers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID GAMBOA, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00387
(W.D. Tex., April 16, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Inspector from
approximately January 2019 through May 2020.
According to the complaint, although the Defendant is well aware
that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated blue-collar
oilfield workers are not exempt from overtime, the Defendant
misclassified them as independent contractors. Despite they
routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant
allegedly did not pay them an additional overtime premium at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages
from the Defendant, as well as liquidated damages equal in amount
to the unpaid compensation, litigation costs and expenses,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
XTO Energy, Inc. is an international natural gas and oil producer
operating throughout five divisions in the U.S., Western Canada,
and South America. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
William R. Liles, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: wliles@mybackwages.com
mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@myackwages.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 844-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
ZOOM VIDEO: Judge Refuses to Replaces Class Action Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in an brief order
on April 12 refusing to reconsider his selection of a Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd client to lead a securities class action
against the video conferencing company Zoom, U.S. District Judge
James Donato of San Francisco gently chided the shareholder firm
Pomerantz for suggesting that he had engaged in "judicial
off-roading into the wilderness" when he picked a lead plaintiff.
Donato explained that he selected the individual investor Adam Butt
to lead the case based on Butt's losses after several alleged
partial disclosures of Zoom's susceptibility to computer hackers in
2019 and 2020. In its motion for reconsideration, Pomerantz had
argued that the judge should instead have looked at investors'
alleged losses only after the final corrective disclosure. If he
had used that methodology, Pomerantz said, Donato would have
concluded that its client, investor Tony Pham, had the largest
losses.
But Donato said in the April 12 order that neither the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act nor precedent from the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals specifies an accounting procedure for
trial judges evaluating alleged losses by prospective lead
plaintiffs. The PSLRA, Donato said, says only that losses are to be
"the determination of the court," and the 9th Circuit, in 2002's In
re Cavanaugh (306 F.3d 726) confirmed that trial judges have broad
discretion as long as they use accounting methods that are
"rational and consistently applied."
The judge said it was Pomerantz that was proposing an irrational
procedure for calculating losses by lead plaintiff candidates.
Pomerantz's client, Donato said, sold his Zoom shares at the end of
2019 – months before the final alleged corrective disclosure in
April 2020. Yet the firm sought to calculate investor losses only
after the final disclosure.
Shareholder class actions, Donato said, are intended only to
compensate investors for losses attributable to the defendant's
fraud. Pomerantz's client, he explained was no longer affected by
the alleged fraud after he sold his shares in 2019 -- so, according
to Donato, his losses should not be evaluated based on Zoom's share
price after the final alleged corrective disclosures in early
2020.
"Estimating his final loss based on additional drops in the share
price occurring long after the disclosure would essentially give
him exactly the kind of 'insurance' against general market
conditions that the PSLRA was designed to foreclose," the judge
wrote.
Pomerantz partner Jeremy Lieberman did not respond to an email
request for comment. Zoom counsel Patrick Gibbs of Cooley did not
respond to a query on the lead plaintiff or the underlying class
action. Zoom has not yet responded to shareholders' allegations in
a court filing.
Lead counsel Danielle Myers of Robbins Geller said via email,
"Robbins Geller is pleased with the Court's recognition that it did
not err in appointing our client as lead plaintiff, and we look
forward to prosecuting shareholders' claims against defendants."
Robbins Geller filed a consolidated amended complaint in December.
In January, with the lead plaintiffs dispute then unresolved, the
judge suspended Zoom's deadline to respond.
The case is Drieu v. Zoom Video Communications Inc, No.
3:20-CV-02353 in the Northern District of California.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News,
under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence
and freedom from bias. [GN]
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reading Int'l Faces Potential Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reading International, Inc.'s certain subsidiaries have, from time
to time, been named in and may in the future be named in various
actions brought under applicable environmental laws, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Certain of our subsidiaries were historically
involved in railroad operations, coal mining, and manufacturing.
Also, certain of these subsidiaries appear in the chain-of-title of
properties that may suffer from pollution. Also, we are in the real
estate development business and may encounter from time to time
environmental conditions at properties that we have acquired for
development and which will need to be addressed in the future as
part of the development process. These environmental conditions can
increase the cost of such projects and adversely affect the value
and potential for profit of such projects. We do not currently
believe that our exposure under applicable environmental laws is
material in amount.
"From time to time, there are claims brought against us relating to
the exposure of former employees to asbestos and/or coal dust.
These are generally covered by an insurance settlement reached in
September 1990 with our insurance providers. However, this
insurance settlement does not cover litigation by people who were
not employees of our historic railroad operations and who may claim
direct or second-hand exposure to asbestos, coal dust and/or other
chemicals or elements now recognized as potentially causing cancer
in humans. Our known exposure to these types of claims, asserted or
probable of being asserted, is not material."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3xzTEfC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Williams Industrial Assumes PI Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Williams Industrial Services Group Inc. has assumed defense
responsibility in asbestos personal injury lawsuit subject to a
reservation of rights and objection to the claim for
indemnification, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Williams Industrial Services states, "The acquiror of certain
assets from a former operating unit of the Company has been named
as a defendant in an asbestos personal injury lawsuit and has
submitted a claim for indemnification and tendered defense of the
matter to the Company. Neither the Company nor its predecessors
ever mined, manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber,
the material that allegedly caused the injury underlying this
action."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3aNsCYm
*********
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 ***