/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 97
Headlines
3D SYSTEMS: Faces Kehoe & Kumar Putative Class Suits
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Arnold Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Yeasky Claims
3M COMPANY: Burbo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Crowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Esposito Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Henrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Novotny Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Stillwagon Sues Due to AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 14
AFFORDABLE AUTO: Reisman Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
AIMES CONSULTING: Mackey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Keryx Amended Complaint Appealed
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Awaits Decision in Class Suit Appeal
ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Action Underway
ALLIED FACILITY: Faces Labor Suit Over Sexual Abuse, Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM: Terpening Sues Over Surreptitious Recordings
ANGI INC: Class Suits Against HomeAdvisor Ongoing
APPLE INC: Norfolk County Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers
APPLE INC: Primary Productions Sues Over Unlawful Monopoly
ASSET MARKETING: Culver Files Suit in District of Minnesota
BAXTER CREDIT: Tacuba Sues Over Failure to Give Written Notice
BELDEN INC: Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits Underway
BIO-SYNTHESIS: Truong Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Purported Class Action Underway
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Putative Class Suit Underway
BRUCK LAW: Kesy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
BUY BUY BABY: Gonzalez Land Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CDPQ COLONIAL: Dickerson Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
CHICAGO TEACHERS: Ocol Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Sues Over Understaffing at Nursing Home
COLLECTION BUREAU: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COMPUTER CREDIT: Neumann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Student Loan Borrowers Get Class Certification
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Boehning Sues Over 29% Drop of Common Stock Price
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CURIOUS ELIXERS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosencrants Hits Share Drop Over Nodax
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Wilkins Sues Over False, Misleading Statements
DAVE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT: Bazzini Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
EAST WEST PARTNERS: Curtin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
EKAS FLOWERS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Roth Hits Share Drop Over Bungled Vax Plant
ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Dias Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Andre Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt
EOS CCA: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
FCA US: Cole Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Destination Fee
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Roeder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway
FOUR SEASONS: Faces Balderen Suit Over WARN Act Violation
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Ellis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
GEICO GENERAL: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Nichols Insurance Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Romoff Sues Over Deceptive, Unfair Destination Fee
GOOGLE LLC: Accused of Unlawful Selling of Personal Information
GOOP INC: Watson Sues Over Defective, Exploding Candles
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Viscardi Files Suit in E.D. New York
HAWK MANAGEMENT: Faces Crawford Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
HF FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
HORIZON OILFIELD: Sala Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HYPERSPRING LLC: Suit Seeks to Certify Straight Time Workers Class
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid for Injunction on Stockholder Vote Nixed
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Continues to Defend Newman Class Suit
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Court Stays Yehudai $20MM Bonus Related Suit
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Dismissal of Jansen Class Suit Under Appeal
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits in Tel Aviv Underway
INTRICON CORP: Mediation in Hoffman Suit Scheduled for May 24
INVENTIST INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JACKSON LABORATORY: Salas-Keen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Delozier Putative Class Suit Dismissed
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
JOHNNY'S SELECTED: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JPMORGAN CHASE: Milo Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
KEYAMOUR LLC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LA GRAN COLOMBIA: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Brown Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched
LANDMARK LEGAL: Parties Directed to Confirm Class Cert. Deadlines
LAUREL M. LEE: Faces Class Suit Over Enactment of SB 90 in Florida
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Bid to Amend Complaint Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
LOANDEPOT INC: Defends Two TCPA Related Putative Class Suits
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Purported Class Suit Closed
LOOMIS ARMORED: Scott Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces FNY Suit Over Electric Vehicle Scam
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Romano Sues Over Exchange Act Violations
LVNV FUNDING: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MADISON SEATING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MEDRISK LLC: Medical & Chiropractic Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
MIRAMED REVENUE: Phillips Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
MORAN FOODS: Greco Files Suit in S.D. New York
MY EYE DR: Murtoff Files TCPA Suit in Northern District of Illinois
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ginzkey Case
NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Baldwin and Dyrssen Putative Class Suits
NAVISTAR INC: Wright Transportation Suit Moved to S.D. Alabama
NEW YORK: Bagley Must File Class Certification Bid by August 20
NEWREZ LLC: Ross Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Account Deduction
NOBLE ENERGY: Underpays Oil Royalties, Boulter Class Suit Claims
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suit Dismissed
OHMNILABS INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OTR CAPITAL: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PACIFIC SPECIALTY: Arquieta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Sotelo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Perez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
POPULAR INC: Camacho Putative Class Suit Closed
POPULAR INC: Continues to Defend Diaz Class Suit
POPULAR INC: Discovery in Soto-Melendez Suit Ongoing
POPULAR INC: Maura Appeals Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Boscaino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Disclosed Info to Third Parties, Powers Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lopez Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
POWERS COLLECTIBLES: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Neumann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
QUINCY L. ALLEN: Garfield Sues Over Abuse of Authority
RANGER ENERGY: Lyle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
RCI HOSPITALITY: Consolidated Putative Class Suit in Texas Underway
REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Marin County
RETAIL SOLUTIONS: Western Agricultural Files Suit in D. of Arizona
RITUAL BEVERAGE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SAPORITO INC: Keeps Restaurant Staff's Tips, Elisi Suit Claims
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Starr Files Suit in California Superior Court
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ellsworth
SCHYLLING INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Bid for Class Certification Pending
SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
SCOTT FRAKES: Gills Directed to File Amended Class Action Complaint
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gaffney Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SIMPLE SKIFF: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
SIX SLICE: Parties Ask Court to Send Corrective Notice to Class
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE: Lauth Sues Over Abuse and Negligence
STEEL FORCE: Raya Files Suit in California Circuit Court
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Discovery in Lowry Class Action Underway
SUTTER VALLEY: Singh Files Suit in California Superior Court
TABLE 46: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
TEGNA INC: Consolidated Massey Suit Over Ad Rates Underway
TILRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Braun Suit Pending
TILRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Kasilingam Putative Class Suit Pending
TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway
TODD A. BRISCO: Grim Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
TOTTINI BROOKLYN: Herrera Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
UNITI GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of Order Nixing Dismissal Bid
UNITY CARE: Cazares Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: Johnson Sues Over Age and Racial Bias
VBI VACCINES: Putative Class Suit Against SciVac Underway
VIATRIS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending
VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchaser Suit Underway
VIATRIS INC: Opioid Related Putative Class Actions Underway
VIATRIS INC: PERS Mississippi Suit Against Mylan Underway
VIMEO HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks in Acaley Suit Ongoing
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Karp Putative Class Suit
WALMART INC: Baby Food Products Contain Heavy Metals, Davis Claims
WATFORD HOLDINGS: Canh Putative Class Action Underway
WELLPET LLC: July 6 Deadline for Renewed Class Status Bid Sought
WOOFTOWN DOG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Pangelinan Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages
XTO ENERGY: Affordable Land Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
*********
3D SYSTEMS: Faces Kehoe & Kumar Putative Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces two
putative stockholder class action lawsuits entitled, Troy Kehoe v.
3D Systems Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-01920-NGG-LB and Kumar
v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., No. 1:21-cv-02383-ENV-LB.
The Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder
class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
The first action is styled Troy Kehoe v. 3D Systems Corporation, et
al., No. 1:21-cv-01920-NGG-LB (E.D.N.Y.).
The complaint, which was filed on April 9, 2021, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and misleading statements and omissions, and that the current and
former executive officers named as defendants are control persons
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between May 6, 2020 and March
1, 2021, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.
The second action is styled Kumar v. 3D Systems Corporation, et
al., No. 1:21-cv-02383-ENV-LB (E.D.N.Y.).
The complaint, which was filed on April 29, 2021, alleges that
defendants violated the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions,
and that the current and former executive officers named as
defendants are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock between May 7, 2020 and March
1, 2021, and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported
class.
The Company believes the claims alleged in the putative securities
class actions are without merit and the Company intends to defend
itself and its current and former officers vigorously.
3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in
Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through
subsidiaries in North America and South America, Europe and the
Middle East and the Asia Pacific region.
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Arnold Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ARNOLD, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor of
the Estate of DENNIS P. ARNOLD, deceased, 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-01459-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Decedent as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Decedent, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications, the
suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Yeasky Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH YEASKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01458-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Plaintiff's exposure to toxic chemicals
from the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and military personnel, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed
to toxic chemicals and developed serious medical conditions and
complications, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
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.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
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.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Burbo Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------
Joseph Burbo, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01323-RMG (D.S.C., May 4,
2021), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Crawford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Crawford, Jr., and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01324-RMG
(D.S.C., May 4, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Crowley Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------
Nickoles Yale Crowley, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01325-RMG
(D.S.C., May 4, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, the complaint asserts.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Esposito Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Salvatore Esposito, and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-RMG
(D.S.C., May 4, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney and prostate cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the complaint says.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Faces Watts Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MELVIN WATTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01457-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and consumers,
including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the
products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate
warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed
serious medical conditions and complications, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
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.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
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.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Henrick Sues Over Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Donald Henrick, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC 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.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01327-RMG
(D.S.C., May 4, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
testicular and bladder cancer as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the complaint asserts.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Novotny Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
TINA SUE NOVOTNY, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of DENNIS HARRISON NOVOTNY, deceased, 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-01460-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from a personal injury sustained by the Decedent as
a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming
foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Decendent, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Decedent was exposed to toxic chemicals
and developed serious medical conditions and complications, the
suit says.
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:
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
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
J. Edward Bell, III, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP, LLC
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Telephone: (843) 546-2408
Facsimile: (843) 546-9604
3M COMPANY: Stillwagon Sues Due to AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN STILLWAGON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC;
KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE &
SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE
NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01456-RMG (D.S.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed 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. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. 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 sustained damage and injury.
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.
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.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
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.
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.
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.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
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.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
ADHEREHEALTH LLC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due August 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HAYWARD, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, v. ADHEREHEALTH, LLC,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00508 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jeffery S.
Frensley entered an order:
1. A 90-day extension of each of the related deadlines,
are as follows:
-- Plaintiff's Expert Witnesses and Expert Reports deadline
is September 2, 2021.
-- Defendant's Expert Witnesses and Expert Reports deadline
is October 2, 2021.
2. A 60-day extension of each of the related deadlines,
are as follows:
-- Expert Report Supporting Class Certification
deadline is July 19, 2021.
-- Motion for Class Certification deadline is
August 14, 2021.
-- Defendant's Expert Report in Opposition to Class
Certification deadline is September 13, 2021.
-- Defendant's Response in Opposition to Class Certification
deadline is September 13, 2021.
-- Reply in Support of Class Certification
deadline is October 9, 2021.
AdhereHealth is a healthcare technology leader in medication
adherence insights and health outcomes.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bJtkXa at no extra charge.[CC]
AFFORDABLE AUTO: Reisman Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Eli Reisman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AFFORDABLE AUTO PROTECTION, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Corporation, d/b/a AAP, Case No. 9:21-cv-80889-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 17, 2021), is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently or willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
The Defendant utilizes prerecorded telemarketing calls and text
message calls to market and advertise the Defendant's business and
services. At no time did the Plaintiff provide the Plaintiff's
cellular number to Defendant through any medium, nor did the
Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited telemarketing
prerecorded calls. The Plaintiff has never signed-up for, has never
inquired about, and has never used, the Defendant's services. The
Plaintiff has never had any form of business relationship with the
Defendant. The Defendant, directly or through other persons,
entities or agents acting on its behalf, conspired to, agreed to,
contributed to, authorized, assisted with, and/or otherwise caused
all of the wrongful acts and omissions, including the dissemination
of the unsolicited calls, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's domicile is in Edison, New Jersey.
The Defendant holds itself out as "one of the nation's leaders in
automotive warranties since 2013."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Phone: 954-524-2820
Facsimile: 954-524-2822
Email: seth@epll.com
- and -
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 786-496-4469
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
AIMES CONSULTING: Mackey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AIMES CONSULTING. The
case is styled as Shawnece Mackey, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIMES CONSULTING, Case No. BCV-21-101040
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May 6, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
AIMES -- https://aimes.info/ -- provides support to individuals
with disabilities as they gain personal independence at home and in
their communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen V. Feghali, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: allen.feghali@moonyanglaw.com
AIR PRODUCTS: CamCara Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as CamCara, Inc. doing business as: AST Waterjet,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01271 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on May 18, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-02264-EGS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. -- https://www.airproducts.com/ --
is an American international corporation whose principal business
is selling gases and chemicals for industrial uses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
One Rodney Square
P.O. BOX 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
- and -
Jessica C. Colombo, Esq.
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
William H. Narwold, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
PO BOX 1792
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Phone: (843) 216-9000
Email: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Victoria Guilfoyle, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1201 Market St.. Ste. 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 425-6404
Email: guilfoyle@blankrome.com
- and -
Bridget Mayer Briggs, Esq.
Heidi Grace Crikelair, Esq.
Stephanie C. Chomentowski, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 569-5664
Fax: (215) 832-0418
Email: bmayer@blankrome.com
hcrikelair@blankrome.com
chomentowski@blankrome.com
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Keryx Amended Complaint Appealed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a notice of appeal has
been filed on the decision of the court in dismissing the second
amended complaint filed in the consolidated suit entitled, In re
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., in in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx and Alpha Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the
Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger Sub would merge with and
into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of ours,
or the Merger. On December 12, 2018, the company completed the
Merger.
In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions, or the Merger
Securities Actions, against Keryx, a former officer and director of
Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J.
Cameron, Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan,
Daniel P. Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current
members of our Board of Directors), and, with respect to the
Rosenblatt action, the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the
disclosures made in connection with the Merger.
Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018). The
fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts
District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (filed October 23, 2018).
On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. On
March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.
On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.
The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3,
2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint.
The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly
false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by our advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.
The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.
The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August
2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.
On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, or the Second Consolidated Complaint. The Second
Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under the
Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same
defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same
relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the
Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged
misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
our advisors.
The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in its entirety with
prejudice on August 10, 2020. Briefing on defendants' motion to
dismiss was completed on September 28, 2020, and the court has not
yet issued a decision.
On April 1, 2021, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Second Consolidated Complaint
in its entirety.
On April 29, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Karth Awaits Decision in Class Suit Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a decision has
not yet been issued in the appeal made by the plaintiffs in Karth
v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and
James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District
Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on
February 27, 2017).
Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.
The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.
By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.
On February 27, 2019, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
On April 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to further amend his
complaint, and also moved for class certification.
The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument on the motions
for judgment on the pleadings and class certification on June 19,
2019.
On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint.
That same day, the Massachusetts District Court entered a final
judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.
On September 24, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on September
15, 2020, and a decision has not yet been issued.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ALLAKOS INC: Kim Securities Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
Allakos Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend
itself against a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.).
On March 10, 2020, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Kim v. Allakos et al., No. 20-cv-01720 (N.D. Cal.) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Robert Alexander, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Mr. Leo
Redmond.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning its Phase 2 clinical
trials of lirentelimab.
The proposed class period is August 5, 2019, through December 17,
2019, inclusive. On August 28, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, adding as defendants Adam Tomasi, the Company's
President and Chief Operating Officer, and Henrik Rasmussen, the
Company's Chief Medical Officer.
Allakos said, "Given the early stage of this litigation matter, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential future loss or a
range of potential future losses and has not recorded a contingent
liability accrual as of March 31, 2021."
Allakos Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company developing
lirentelimab (AK002), formerly known as antolimab, the company's
wholly-owned monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of various mast
cell and eosinophil related diseases. The company is based in
Redwood City, California.
ALLIED FACILITY: Faces Labor Suit Over Sexual Abuse, Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE and JANE ROE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALLIED FACILITY CARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00395 (M.D. Tenn., May 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the
Tennessee Human Rights Act, and the common law of Tennessee.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect its
Hispanic women employees and take appropriate actions to
investigate and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated Hispanic women
employees reported their supervisor, Samuel Perez, for sexual
harassment complaints to the Defendant, but for years the Defendant
failed to terminate him or take other remedial actions to ensure
that the work environment of the Plaintiffs was safe and free from
sexual assault or rape. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to pay
the Plaintiffs and Class members appropriate minimum wages and
overtime pay for all hours worked, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs were hired for cleaning positions at the FedEx Mount
Juliet facility from October 2019 until 2020.
Allied Facility Care, LLC is a facility care company headquartered
in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
teeples@yezbaklaw.com
AMAZON.COM: Terpening Sues Over Surreptitious Recordings
--------------------------------------------------------
David Terpening, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-03739 (N.D. Cal., May 18, 2021),
is brought in violation of the Wiretap Act, the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and the Washington Wiretapping Law with regard to
the Defendant's conduct in surreptitiously recording consumers.
According to the complaint, Amazon represents that its Alexa
Devices work by listening for a specific "wake word" such as
"Alexa" which, once spoken, triggers the Alexa device or service to
listen to users and respond to user commands. What it does not
represent, however, is that a "wake word" does not simply trigger
Alexa Devices to listen to and respond to commands. Rather, when
Alexa hears a "wake word," Amazon initiates a process to create and
permanently store recordings of the interaction, including the
user's voice, commands, and other sounds, and also captures, among
other things, usage data, location data, and other personal
information.
Amazon, thus, has millions, of recorded interactions between users
and its Alexa Devices. Worse, not all those recordings contain
conversations that consumers intend for an Alexa Device to hear. In
fact, because Alexa Devices are trained to start recoding when the
device believes it heard a "wake word," user conversations may be
recorded when the Alexa Device misinterprets the user's speech and
incorrectly identifies a "wake word" that was not said. Thus, Alexa
Devices may be recording conversations regardless of whether the
user intended to interact with Alexa at all.
Amazon misrepresents the extent to which Alexa Devices records user
interactions and how Amazon uses them. Amazon markets Alexa Devices
as only functioning—i.e. listening to and interacting with user
speech—upon the intentional use of "wake words." For example,
Alexa Devices only "light up" or turn on when users address the
Alexa Device with a "wake word" and, similarly, Alexa will only
respond to user commands after the user addresses it with a "wake
word." Amazon's conduct in surreptitiously recording consumers has
violated federal and state wiretapping, privacy, and consumer
protection laws, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and used multiple Alexa Devices since
2016.
Amazon is a multinational technology company providing multiple
technology products and services, including its eponymous
e-commerce marketplace, video-on-demand services and, as pertains
to this action, devices and services which make use of its Alexa
virtual assistant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Caleb Marker, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
Phone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
- and -
Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
80 South 8th Street, Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
Email: michael.laird@zimmreed.com
ANGI INC: Class Suits Against HomeAdvisor Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Angi Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated purported class action suit entitled, In re
HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.
This purported class action pending in Colorado is described in
detail on page 27 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020. Airquip, Inc. et al. v. HomeAdvisor,
Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849 and Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor,
Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, both filed in U.S. District Court in
Colorado and consolidated under the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc.
Litigation.
This lawsuit alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business
engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service
professionals who join its network, including charging them for
substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges.
There have been no material or otherwise noteworthy developments in
this case since the filing of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020.
The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
Angi Inc., formerly ANGI Homeservices, Inc., connects quality home
service professionals with consumers across 500 different
categories, from repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and
landscaping. The company is based in Denver, Colorado.
APPLE INC: Norfolk County Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: APPLE INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02033-YGR (N.D. Calif.), the Lead Plaintiff
Norfolk County Council asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
the publicly traded securities of Apple Inc. during the
period from November 2, 2018 through January 2, 2019,
inclusive (the Class Period), and who suffered damages by
the Defendants' alleged violations of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act;"
2. appointing Norfolk Pension Fund as Class Representative and,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (Robbins Geller)
as Class Counsel.
In April 2019, this action was initially filed by City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System against Apple and the Individual
Defendants. As set out in detail in the operative Revised
Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws, the Defendants made material misrepresentations
and omissions in violation of the federal securities laws between
November 2, 2018 and January 2, 2019, inclusive.
Specifically, in September 2018, with the backdrop of declining
economic conditions is China and a sharp decline in demand for
expensive smartphones in China, Apple launched its most expensive
iPhones ever, the XS and XS Max. In October 2018, Apple launched
yet another iPhone, the XR, a less expensive version designed to
compete with Chinese smartphone manufacturers who were making more
competitively-priced smartphones with similar features.
Demand for all of these phones was reportedly muted due to
weakening economic conditions in China and strong competition. On
November 1, 2018, when Apple reported its 4Q18 financial results
and set expectations for 1Q19, investors were concerned about the
demand impact of worsening economic conditions in China, Apple’s
largest growth market.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 5, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bGnqpK at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff are:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum, Esq.
Jhohn H. George, Esq.
Kenneth J. Black, Esq.
Hadiya K. Deshmukh, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com
kennyb@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Mark Solomon, esq.
Tor Gronborg, esq.
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
Facsimile: 619/231-7423
E-mail: marks@rgrdlaw.com
torg@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 883-7524
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
APPLE INC: Primary Productions Sues Over Unlawful Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
Primary Productions LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-JDL (D.
Me., May 17, 2021), seeks to redress injustices Apple imparts upon
the developer base that the monopoly necessarily relies upon to
exist and is brought herein the anti-competitive business practices
that have become the norm at Apple, and how they have harmed the
Plaintiff, an educational media producer, and countless other class
members that shall be identified in discovery.
According to the complaint, The class action charges Apple with six
Sherman Act causes of action applied to three proposed classes. It
is first to file such a class action representing and protecting
the interests of small developers. It does so by creating a
proposed class for developers of free apps, and a proposed class
for developers who paid a $99 annual tax – the subject of a
recent, groundbreaking Congressional Subcommittee report. No other
class action currently protects these two classes – which counsel
does by asserting that Apple is a monopoly retail buyer of Apps,
and hence underpays developers, even those of free apps, when it
disallows them or suppresses their ranking on the App Store to
favor Apple's own apps or its cronies.
This case centers on a form of censorship imposed by Apple, the
extent of which is largely unknown to the public, but evident to
nearly every small developer who lives under Apple's oppression.
Apple has restricted trade, communication, and free information
exchange, all in violation of the Sherman Act, when it disallowed
Plaintiff's reasonable application, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an edutainment media production company.
Apple operates the App Store, and has exclusive control over iOS
applications and their ability to access that national internet
backbone.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith Mathews, Esq.
ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS OF NEW ENGLAND
PO Box 278
Manchester, NH 03105
Phone: 603-622-8100
Email: keith@aaone.law
ASSET MARKETING: Culver Files Suit in District of Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Marketing
Services, LLC. The case is styled as William Culver, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. Asset Marketing
Services, LLC doing business as: GovMint.com, Case No.
0:21-cv-01237-JRT-HB (D. Minn., May 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud.
Asset Marketing Services -- http://www.amsi-corp.com/-- is a
leading multi-channel direct marketer of high-value collectible
coins.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Christopher P Renz, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
BAXTER CREDIT: Tacuba Sues Over Failure to Give Written Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pattea Tacuba, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. BAXTER CREDIT UNION, doing business as BCU, Case No.
2:21-cv-00618 (E.D. Wis., May 18, 2021), is brought under the Class
Action Fairness Act as a result of the Defendant's failure to send
the Plaintiff a written notification of its acquisition of the
retail installment sales contract ("RISC") as required, and failure
to give written notice to the Plaintiff regarding details of the
loan, including "a statement of the particulars of the retail
installment contract price required under Wis. Stat. Section
218.0142(2) to be stated by the retail seller, in accordance with
the finance company's records respecting the particulars of the
retail installment contract, including the amount of the finance
charge."
According to the complaint, on November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff
visited Auto World, an automobile dealership in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
After browsing the lot, the Plaintiff selected a 2017 Ford Fusion
(the "Vehicle") to purchase. After the Plaintiff selected the
Vehicle for purchase, Auto World began the credit approval and
financing process for the sale of the Vehicle. Auto World presented
the Plaintiff with one financing option, the option to finance the
Vehicle through the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not know, and had
never heard of, the Defendant prior to Auto World presenting it as
her only financing option. The Plaintiff and Auto World entered
into a RISC for the loan of $25,000 or less to purchase the Vehicle
for personal, family, or household purposes. Auto World immediately
assigned or sold its interest in the RISC to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff took possession of the Vehicle on November 17, 2017.
On December 17, 2017, the Plaintiff made the first payment to the
Defendant. The Plaintiff made payments to the Defendant through
October 2020. On February 11, 2021 the Vehicle was repossessed, at
the direction and request of the Defendant. The Defendant was not
approved to conduct business as a credit union in the State of
Wisconsin until February 17, 2021. Prior to filing this Complaint,
the Plaintiff sent notice to the Defendant in accordance with Wis.
Stat. Section 426.110(4). No response, correction, or remedy was
made by the Defendant in connection with the notice from the
Plaintiff, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of Wisconsin.
Baxter Credit Union, doing business as BCU is an Illinois-based
credit union with a principal office located in Vernon Hills,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luke Hudock, Esq.
HUDOCK LAW GROUP, LLC
P.O. Box 83
Muskego, WI 53150
Phone: (414)526-4906
Email: lphudock@law-hlg.com
- and -
Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq.
DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC
330 S. Executive Drive, Suite 109
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone: (414)377-0515
Email: nathan@dela-law.com
- and -
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
GREENE CONSUMER LAW
1954 1st St. #154
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 312-847-6979
Facsimile: 312-847-6978
Email: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com
BELDEN INC: Edke and Mackey Putative Class Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Belden Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended August 4, 2021, that the company continues to defend putative
class action suits initiated by Anand Edke and Kia Mackey,
respectively.
On November 24, 2020, the Company announced a data incident
involving unauthorized access and copying of some current and
former employee data, as well as limited company information
regarding some business partners.
In January 2021, Anand Edke filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Case No. 2021 CH 47.
In February 2021, Kia Mackey filed a separate putative class action
lawsuit against the Company in the U.S District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:21-CV-00149.
The plaintiffs have each asked for injunctive relief, unspecified
damages, and unspecified legal fees.
Belden said, "It is premature to estimate the potential exposure to
the Company associated with the litigation. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuits."
Belden Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a portfolio of
cable, connectivity, and networking products in markets including
industrial, enterprise, broadcast, and consumer electronics. Its
products provide for the transmission of signals for data, sound,
and video applications. The company is based in St. Louis,
Missouri.
BIO-SYNTHESIS: Truong Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Hannah Truong, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIO-SYNTHESIS, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00378 (E.D. Tex.,
May 17, 2021), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was not compensated at
time-and-a-half of her regular rate of for hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA's overtime
provisions. Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendant for
actual and liquidated damages on behalf of herself and the putative
FLSA Collective, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid lab technician at the
Defendant's Lewisville, Texas location from April 29, 2019 through
February 21, 2021.
Bio-Synthesis, Inc. is a biology contract manufacturer of nucleic
acids, peptides and other molecular biology products for the
research, diagnostic and therapeutic industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
DEAN OMAR BRANHAM SHIRLEY, LLP
302 N. Market Street, Suite 300
Dallas, Texas 75202
Phone: (214) 722-5990
Fax: (214) 722-5991
Email: tbranham@dobslegal.com
- and -
Jason T. Brown, Esq.
Lotus Cannon, Esq.
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Pl Suite
400 Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com
nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Martin Purported Class Action Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit entitled,
Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY (U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, filed April 6, 2021).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Brighthouse Life Insurance
Company of NY.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated owners of
universal life insurance policies issued or administered by
defendants and alleges that cost of insurance charges should have
decreased over time due to improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual
annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Newton Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a cost of insurance purported class action suit
entitled, Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company
(U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, filed May 8, 2020).
Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned
life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life
insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a
guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased
by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff
was granted leave to amend the complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual
annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
BRUCK LAW: Kesy Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bruck Law Offices SC.
The case is styled as Matthew Kesy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Bruck Law Offices SC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00619-SCD (E.D. Wis., May 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Bruck Law Offices, S.C. -- https://www.brucklawoffices.com/ -- is a
debt collection law firm who offers a full in-house pre-litigation
collection staff in addition to a full in-house litigation
staff.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
BUY BUY BABY: Gonzalez Land Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Manuel Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc., Case No. 21-006016-CA-01
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on May 6, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-21737-DPG to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
Buy Buy Baby, Inc. -- https://www.buybuybaby.com/ -- is an American
chain of stores that sell clothing, strollers and other items for
use with infants and young children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephanie Peral, Esq.
Mark Allan Salky, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG
333 SE 2nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 579-0860
Fax: (305) 579-0717
Email: perals@gtlaw.com
salkym@gtlaw.com
CDPQ COLONIAL: Dickerson Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDPQ Colonial
Partners, L.P., et al. The case is styled as Ramon Dickerson,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CDPQ Colonial Partners, L.P.; IFM (US) Colonial
Pipeline 2, LLC; KKR-Keats Pipeline Investors, L.P.; Koch Capital
Investments Company, LLC; Shell Midstream Operating LLC; Does 1-100
doing business as: Colonial Pipeline Company; Case No.
1:21-cv-02098-MHC (N.D. Ga., May 18, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The Colonial Pipeline is the largest pipeline system for refined
oil products in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
EVANGELISTA WORLEY LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road, Suite 245a
Atlanta, GA 30350
Phone: (404) 205-8400
Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
CHICAGO TEACHERS: Ocol Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joseph Ocol filed with the Supreme Court of United States
a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled JOSEPH
OCOL, PETITIONER v. CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, ET AL., RESPONDENT,
Case No. 20-1574.
Response is due on June 14, 2021.
Mr. Ocol petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in
the case titled JOSEPH OCOL, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION,
et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1668.
The questions presented are: 1) Should the Court overrule in
Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S.
271 (1984), and hold that the First Amendment prohibits States from
forcing dissident public employees to accept a hostile union as
their exclusive bargaining representative? 2) Does 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 provide a "good-faith defense" to private entities who
violate another's constitutional rights before the courts have
clearly established the illegality of their conduct and, if so,
does this "good-faith defense" allow a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
defendant who takes another person's money or property in violation
of the Constitution -- but in reliance on a statute or court ruling
that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared
unconstitutional -- to keep that money or property when the owner
sues for its return?
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
order dismissing or granting summary judgment to all the Defendants
in the case.
Plaintiff Ocol is a math teacher at Earle STEM Elementary School
and was a member of the Chicago Teachers Union from 2005 through
2016. According to his complaint, in September 2016, he was
expelled from the Union after refusing to participate in a one day
strike on April 1, 2016. He did, however, remain obligated to pay
so-called "fair-share fees" to the Union under the portion of the
Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, 115 ILCS 5/1-5/21,
authorizing unions and public employers to include in their
collective bargaining agreements a fair share clause requiring
employees covered by the agreement who are not members of the
organization to pay the organization a fair share fee for services
rendered.
Mr. Ocol continued paying the required fair-share fees until 2018,
when the Supreme Court in Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S.Ct.
2448 (2018) ("Janus I") overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of
Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), and concluded that extraction of
such fees from non-union members violated those employees' First
Amendment rights. The district court then dismissed the state
defendants on their motion.
The Union Defendants moved for summary judgment, but the parties
agreed to stay consideration of the motion until after the Seventh
Circuit resolved Janus I on remand. In that appeal, the Court
considered and rejected Mark Janus' argument that he was entitled
to a refund for some or all of the fair-share fees he had paid
under protest ("Janus II"). Ocol then conceded defeat on his
Section 1983 claim for a refund of his fair-share payments as well
as his First Amendment challenge to exclusive representation. The
district court, thus, granted the Union Defendants' motion for
summary judgment.
On appeal, Ocol renews his constitutional challenges to his past
payment of fair-share fees to the Chicago Teachers Union and to its
designation as exclusive representative of both union and non-union
members alike under Illinois law. He admits, however, that both
claims are squarely foreclosed by precedent and requests that we
summarily affirm judgment in the Defendants' favor so that Ocol may
appeal to the Supreme Court.
As Ocol recognizes, the Seventh Circuit's holding in Janus II
precludes his argument that he is entitled to a refund of his past
compulsory fair-share payments. The plaintiff in Janus I, who, like
Ocol, had paid fair-share fees under protest to a union designated
as the representative of his employee unit (the Illinois Department
of Healthcare and Family Services), sought recovery of his past
payments. The Court held that a private party acting under color of
state law for Section 1983 purposes was entitled to a good-faith
defense, which applied to the union's collection of fair-share fees
before the Supreme Court's decision. The Court, thus, concluded
that Janus was limited to declaratory and injunctive relief, and a
future free of any association with a public union. As Ocol admits,
the exact same rationale applies to bar his claim for repayment of
past fair-share fees from the Chicago Teachers Union.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner Joseph Ocol is represented by:
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Sues Over Understaffing at Nursing Home
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONYA HOOKER, SYBIL RUMMAGE, DONNA DEAL, KENNETH MICHAEL DEAL and
BETTY DEAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITADEL SALISBURY LLC, SALISBURY TWO NC
PROPCO, LLC, ACCORDIUS HEALTH LLC, THE PORTOPICCOLO GROUP, LLC,
SIMCHA HYMAN and NAFTALI ZANZIPER, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00384 (M.D.N.C., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade
practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent infliction of
severe emotional distress.
The case arises from the Defendants' systematic understaffing at
the Citadel nursing home in Salisbury, North Carolina. The
understaffing is proven by hours data reported to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) by the facility's owners and
required to be accurate, by testimony of the Plaintiffs and of
staff, and by state investigator survey results. The Plaintiffs
paid the facility for services that were to include adequate
staffing or assigned their Medicare and Medicaid benefits to the
facility in return for the promise of those services. As a result
of the Defendants' understaffing, the Plaintiffs did not receive
the services for which they contracted, the suit alleges.
The Citadel Salisbury LLC is a nursing home in Salisbury, North
Carolina.
Salisbury Two NC Propco, LLC is a property owner in Salisbury,
North Carolina.
Accordius Health LLC is a management services provider, with its
principal office located at 440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 240, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
The Portopiccolo Group, LLC is a back-office services provider
based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
John Hughes, Esq.
WALLACE & GRAHAM, P.A.
525 N. Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephone: (704) 633-5244
Facsimile: (704) 633-9434
E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
Jhughes@wallacegraham.com
COLLECTION BUREAU: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Collection Bureau of
the Hudson Valley, Inc. The case is styled as Deedra Johnson,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
consumers v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00924-AJB-MSB (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Collection Bureau Hudson Valley, Inc. -- https://www.cbhv.com/ --
is a collection agency located in Newburgh, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (331) 307-7646
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY: Barnes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comprehensive
Security Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shawn Barnes,
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, on behalf of the
general public, and all aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code
2698 et seq. v. Comprehensive Security Services, Inc., Does 1-10,
Case No. 34-2021-00300090-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., May 4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Comprehensive Security Services, Inc. (CSSI) --
https://www.comprehensivesecurity.net/ -- is a premier disaster
recovery (and relief) contract security provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
GAINES & GAINES
27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
Calabasas, CA 91301
Phone: (818) 703-8985
Fax: (818) 703-8984
Email: ken@gaineslawfirm.com
COMPUTER CREDIT: Neumann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Computer Credit, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Neumann, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Computer Credit, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-02705 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Computer Credit, Inc., alternatively known as CCi --
http://www.encoreexchange.com/-- handles revenue services and
collections for health care organizations and physician groups
around the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
CONDUENT EDUCATION: Student Loan Borrowers Get Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CHERY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CONDUENT EDUCATION
SERVICES, LLC, formerly known as ACS, ACCESS GROUP, INC., and
ACCESS FUNDING 2015-1, LLC, Case No. :18-cv-00075-DNH-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order:
1. granting Chery's motion for class certification on behalf
of:
"student loan borrowers whose right to prepay their Federal
Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) student loans was
thwarted because Conduent failed to provide a Loan
Verification Certificate (LVC) within 10 days of the
borrower's filing of a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan
Application";
2. appointing Chery as representative of the Class; and
3. appointing BES and MKPLLC as co-counsel to the Class.
The Court said, Chery has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that certification of the Class is appropriate. The
Plaintiff has also demonstrated that BES and MKPLLC should be
appointed as co-counsel to the Class.
Chery's amended complaint alleges that ACS, Access Group, and
Access Funding interfered with his right to pre-pay or consolidate
his student loans in accordance with certain guarantees set out in
federal law. The operative complaint asserts six claims: (1) a
violation of New York General Business Law; (2) a breach of
contract; (3) a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; (4) a request for a declaratory judgment; (5)
negligence; and (6) unjust enrichment.
On April 24, 2018, Conduent moved to dismiss Chery's complaint.
That motion was denied. Chery v. Conduent Educ. Servs., LLC, 2019.
Thereafter, the parties engaged in some contested discovery before
the assigned magistrate judge.
On January 15, 2021, Chery moved under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure seeking to certify a class of student loan borrowers
whose right to prepay their Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) student loans was thwarted because Conduent failed to
provide a Loan Verification Certificate (LVC) within ten days of
the borrower's filing of a Federal Direct Consolidation Loan
Application.
Chery is a Virginia resident who took out nine FFELP student loans
while he lived in Queens, New York. ACS, a Delaware company that
maintains an office in Utica, New York, initially serviced
plaintiff's loans. Access Group, a Delaware corporation registered
to do business in New York, owned seven of plaintiff's loans, and
Access Funding, another Delaware company, owned the other two.
Chery's FFELP loans were governed by a Master Promissory Note.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bIpBsO at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Kuehn, Esq.
MOORE KUEHN, PLLC
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
- and -
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
The Defendants are represented by:
John Grugan, Esq.
Daniel C. Fanaselle, Esq.
Elizabeth Seidlin-Bernstein, Esq.
Thomas Burke, Esq.
BALLARD, SPAHR LAW FIRM
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Boehning Sues Over 29% Drop of Common Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JERRETT BOEHNING, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXTLOGIC INC., PIOTR
SZULCZEWSKI, RAJAT BAHRI, BRETT JUST, JULIE BRADLEY, ARI EMANUEL,
JOE LONSDALE, TANZEEN SYED, STEPHANIE TILENIUS, HANS TUNG,
JACQUELINE RESES, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, BofA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE
BANK SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC,
OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., LOOP
CAPITAL MARKETS LLC and R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03671 (N.D. Cal., May 17, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1933.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements about the strength of ContextLogic's
business operations and financial prospects in connection with the
company's initial public stock offering (IPO) on December 16, 2020.
The Defendants overstated ContextLogic's monthly active users
(MAUs) and MAU growth trends in order to attract investors and
artificially inflate the prices of ContextLogic common stock
between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021. When the truth emerged,
the market price of ContextLogic common stock declined $3.36 per
share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021. As a
result of the Plaintiff's and Class members' purchases of
ContextLogic common stock during the Class Period, they suffered
economic loss, the suit alleges.
ContextLogic Inc. is a global commerce provider based in San
Francisco, California.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York, New York.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company
based in New York, New York.
BofA Securities, Inc. is an investment management company based in
New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is an investment management company
based in New York, New York.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an investment management company
based in New York, New York.
UBS Securities LLC is an investment management company based in New
York, New York.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC is an investment management company based
in Toronto, Canada.
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment management
company based in New York, New York.
Cowen and Company, LLC is an investment management company based in
New York, New York.
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. is an investment management company based in
New York, New York.
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company is an investment management company
based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0063
Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
E-mail: FrankJ@johnsonfistel.com
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing Inc. The case is styled as Audrey Washington,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02748 (E.D.N.Y., May
16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. --
https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
CURIOUS ELIXERS: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Curious Elixers LLC.
The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Curious Elixers LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-02772 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Curious Elixirs -- https://curiouselixirs.com/ -- are booze-free
craft cocktails, infused with adaptogens to help consumers
unwind.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Rosencrants Hits Share Drop Over Nodax
----------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Keith Rosencrants, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Danimer Scientific, Inc., Stephen
E. Croskrey, John A. Dowdy, III, John P. Amboian, Richard J.
Hendrix, Christy Basco, Philip Gregory Calhoun, Gregory Hunt, Isao
Noda and Stuart W. Pratt, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02708,
(E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Danimer was formerly known as "Live Oak Acquisition Corp." a
publicly traded special purpose acquisition company. In December
2020, Live Oak consummated a business combination with Meredian
Holdings Group, Inc., doing business as Danimer Scientific, a
performance polymer company specializing in bioplastic replacements
for traditional petrochemical-based plastics.
Since 2020, Danimer has sold polyhydroxyalkanoates commercially
under its proprietary "Nodax" brand name for usage in a wide
variety of plastic applications including water bottles, straws,
and food containers. It has touted Nodax as a 100% biodegradable,
renewable and sustainable plastic.
Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Danimer had deficient
internal controls and, as a result, misrepresented its operations'
size and regulatory compliance and overstated Nodax's
biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills.
On March 22, 2021, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or
12.87%, to close at $43.55 per share. On April 22, 2021, Danimer's
stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per
share on April 22, 2021 and then fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to
close at $22.14 per share.
Rosencrants acquired Danimer securities and suffered damages as a
result of the federal securities law violations and false or
misleading statements or material omissions. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Wilkins Sues Over False, Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis H. Wilkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DANIMER SCIENTIFIC, INC., STEPHEN E.
CROSKREY, RICHARD HENDRIX, JOHN A. DOWDY, III, JOHN P. AMBOIAN,
CHRISTY BASCO, PHILIP GREGORY CALHOUN, GREGORY HUNT, ISAO NODA, and
STUART W. PRATT, Case No. 1:21-cv-00096-LAG (M.D. Ga., May 18,
2021), is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Danimer Scientific, Inc. and/or Live Oak
Acquisition Corp. securities between October 5, 2020 to May 3,
2021, inclusive; and is brought on behalf of the Class for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to the
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements, and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Defendants had
overstated and/or misstated the biodegradability and
environmentally-friendly nature of its Nodax product, particularly
in oceans and landfills; (ii) the Defendants misrepresented the
size of the Company's facilities, the Company's production capacity
and actual production amounts, and the Company's costs; (iii)
Defendants misrepresented the Company's growth, financial results,
and financial projections; (iv) Danimer had deficient internal
controls; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff acquired and held shares of Danimer at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.
Danimer Scientific, Inc. purports to be "a performance polymer
company specializing in developing and producing bioplastic
replacements for traditional petrochemical-based plastics."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Phone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
Email: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617) 398-5600 (phone)
Fax: (617) 507-6020
Email: jeff@blockleviton.com
jake@blockleviton.com
DAVE INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dave Inc. The case is
styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Dave Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02710
(E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Dave -- https://dave.com/ -- is a digital banking service. The
service emphasizes no overdraft fees, and provides loans to
individuals' accounts at their banks for overdraft protection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT: Bazzini Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DEPARTMENT OF
ASSESSMENT. The case is styled as Michelle Bazzini, and all others
similarly petitioners on the annexed schedule A v. DEPARTMENT OF
ASSESSMENT, Case No. 606228/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., May
18, 2021).
The case type is stated as "OTHER."
The Department of Assessment -- https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/ --
is responsible for developing fair and equitable assessments for
all residential and commercial properties in Nassau County on an
annual basis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
132 SPRUCE STREET
CEDARHURST, NY 11516
Phone: (516) 569-8100
The Defendant is represented by:
JARED A KASSCHAU
1 WEST ST
MINEOLA, NY 10038
Phone: (516) 571-3056
EAST WEST PARTNERS: Curtin Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis D. Curtin and Eugene J. Zurlo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EAST WEST PARTNERS, INC., EAST
WEST RESORTS, LLC, EAST WEST MANAGEMENT SC, LLC, and GREAT BEACH
VACATIONS, LLC n/k/a W-ACQ. VACATION RENTALS CHI, LLC, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF ONE VENDUE RANGE ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No.
2021CP1002226 (S.C. Ct. of Common Pleas, 9th Judicial Cir.,
Charleston Cty., May 14, 2021), is brought by 2 owners of the
project as a class on behalf of themselves and all other owners
similarly situated seeking damages equal to the amount for the cost
to repair those deficiencies and defects as well as any attendant
loss of use, all proximately caused by the Developer's self-dealing
and breach of its fiduciary duties, and by the Board's purposeful
abdication of its fiduciary duties and breach of its fiduciary
duties.
According to the complaint, One Vendue Range is a 54 unit
condominium project located along Waterfront Park in downtown
Charleston, South Carolina ("Project"). It was developed, for
profit, by an associated and amalgamated group of entities
controlled by developer East West Partners, Inc. A Master Deed was
prepared and filed by East West Partners, Inc. creating a
horizontal property regime and establishing management of the
Association by a board of directors.
In what was far from an arm's length transaction, and close in time
to certificates of occupancy being issued for the Project, the
developer-controlled board entered into a Management Agreement with
a company then known as Great Beach Vacations, LLC. In that
agreement, the Developer delegated all duties of the Board to Great
Beach, to the exclusion of all persons, including the Association
(i.e. Board) and the Owners. Amazingly, Great Beach thereafter
assigned the Management Agreement back to the Developer. The
assignment is signed on both sides of the agreement by the same
person, an employee of the Developer.
From that point forward, and likely for the few years that preceded
the assignment, East West Partners, Inc. was in full control of all
aspects of the project until May 31, 2020, when it unilaterally
terminated its management agreement with the Association. As a
result of the breach of the Developer's and the Board's fiduciary
duties, the Project is riddled with deficiencies and defects to the
common (and other) areas long ignored by the Developer and/or the
Board, which Board by contract had delegated its non-delegable
fiduciary duties. During its long period of continuous control, the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Owners, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs are owners within the One Vendue Range Association.
East West Partners, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jesse A. Kirchner
Christopher P. Deter, Esq.
THURMOND KIRCHNER & TIMBES, P.A.
SC BAR NO.: 74195
15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite 101
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: T: 843-937-8000
Fax: 843-937-4200
Phone: 843-853-5353
Email: jesse@tktlawyers.com
- and -
Michael S. Seekings, Esq.
MICHAEL S. SEEKINGS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.A.
40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400
Charleston, SC 29401
Phone: 843-853-5353
Email: mike@seekingslaw.com
EKAS FLOWERS: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ekas Flowers Inc. The
case is styled as Braulio Thorne, On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Ekas Flowers Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04481 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ekas Flowers Inc. -- http://www.edelweissflorist.com/-- is located
in Brooklyn, New YorK and is part of the Florists Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Roth Hits Share Drop Over Bungled Vax Plant
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan I. Roth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Emergent Biosolutions Inc., Robert G.
Kramer, Richard S. Lindahl and Syed T. Husain, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-01189, (D. Md., May 14, 2021), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops
vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. In
response to the novel strain of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causing
COVID-19 disease pandemic, Emergent signed a series of deals with
Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca worth a combined $876 million to
provide contract development and manufacturing organization
services to produce the companies' COVID-19 vaccine candidates.
Emergent received a further $628 million from the U.S. government
as a part of the Warp Speed Program, for a total of over $1.5
billion in COVID-19 deals.
On April 23, 2020, Emergent first announced that it had entered
into an agreement with Johnson and Johnson to be the U.S.
manufacturing partner for the latter's COVID-19 vaccine candidate
based out of Emergent's manufacturing facility in the Bayview
neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland. Emergent signed a similar
agreement with AstraZeneca mass manufacture COVID-19 vaccines at
its Baltimore facility.
On March 31, 2021, media reports revealed that employees at
Emergent's Baltimore facility had "mixed up" ingredients for the
Johnson & Johnsons and AstraZeneca vaccines, contaminating up to 15
million doses of the Johnson & Johnsons vaccine. Reports further
indicated that the Food and Drug Administration had cited Emergent
for problems such as poorly trained employees, cracked vials and
problems managing mold and other contamination around one of its
facilities. Further, it was revealed that an April 2020 inspection
of Emergent's Baltimore facility had uncovered "a series of quality
control shortcomings" including, among other things, the "failure
to ensure that electronic data generated through testing of drug
ingredients was protected from deletion or manipulation, the
failure to follow proper testing and lab procedures," and
"carelessness in the handling of rejected materials in the plant."
It was subsequently revealed that between October 2020 and January
2021 the company had discarded millions of doses of AstraZeneca
vaccine because of contamination concerns and that a June 2020
report had concluded that Emergent's Baltimore facility lacked
enough trained staff and had a record of problems with quality
control, and as such, was poorly equipped to handle larger scale
projects. On April 19, 2021, the FDA prohibited Emergent from
manufacturing of any new material at its Bayview facility and to
quarantine existing material manufactured at the Bayview facility
pending completion of its inspection and remediation of any
resulting findings. In response to this news, the price of
Emergent's common stock declined $9.77 per share, or more than 12%,
from a close of $77.64 per share on April 16, 2021, to close at
$67.87 per share on April 19, 2021.
In response to this news, shares of Emergent's stock fell $12.45
per share, or over 13%, from a close of $92.91 per share on March
31, 2021, to close at $80.46 per share on April 1, 2021.
Roth acquired Emergent securities and suffered damages as a result
of the federal securities law violations and false or misleading
statements or material omissions, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
John B. Isbister, Esq.
Daniel S. Katz, Esq.
TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP
1 East Pratt Street, Suite 901
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 752-9714
Fax: (410) 727-5460
Email: jisbister@tydings.com
dkatz@tydings.com
- and -
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
Karissa J. Sauder, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
Email: namjed@ktmc.com
rdegnan@ktmc.com
ebarlieb@ktmc.com
ksauder@ktmc.com
ENCHANCED RECOVERY: Dias Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC. The case is styled as Carlos Dias, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company,
LLC doing business as: Enhanced Resource Centers doing business as:
ERC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00484-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., May 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ --
provides debt collection and asset recovery and reporting
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
BAVARO LEGAL, PA
377 N SR 7, Ste. 202
Plantation, FL 33317-2817
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Fax: (954) 581-7685
Email: mbavaro@bavarolegal.com
- and -
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Andre Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Andre, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,
d/b/a ERC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01108-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2021),
is brought for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant commenced communicating
with Plaintiff regarding the Plaintiff's debt by sending collection
letters using a third-party mail processing company. The
Defendant's collection letter to Plaintiff has a return address.
The return address belongs to a third-party company that acts on
Defendant's t behalf to perform mail processing services, including
the preparation, sending, and receiving of correspondence related
to debt collection for Defendant. The Defendant disclosed to the
mail processor information including: Plaintiff's name, address,
and status as a debtor, and that Plaintiff owed Defendant, among
other personal and sensitive information. The Defendant routinely
and intentionally communicates with and discloses to third-parties
information in connection with the collection of debts. Such
communication is forbidden under the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Hernando County,
Florida.
The Defendant is a nationwide debt collection company and
communicates with third parties in connection with thousands of
consumer debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
100 S. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1400
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 229-1118
Fax: (813) 221-6750
Email: kyanes@kmf-law.com
gcentrone@kmf-law.com
- and -
Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
SHRADER LAW, PLLC
612 W. Bay Street
Tampa, FL 33606
Phone: (813) 360-1529
Fax: (813) 336-0832
Email: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
EOS CCA: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOS CCA, et al. The
case is styled as Esther Weber, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EOS CCA, John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:21-cv-03941-KMK (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
EOS CCA -- https://www.eos-cca.com/ -- headquartered in Norwell,
Massachusetts, is a provider of customer care and receivables
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eliyahu R. Babad, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: ebabad@steinsakslegal.com
EXTENDED STAY: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Stay America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend purported class action suits in California.
As of March 31, 2021, six purported class action lawsuits in
California have been filed against the Company.
The complaints allege, among other things, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, wage and hour violations and violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The complaints seek, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuits, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court might find just and proper.
With respect to the Fair Credit Reporting Act violations alleged in
the lawsuits described above, the parties reached a tentative
settlement agreement in May 2019, which is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval, and the Company recorded a
payable and a corresponding insurance receivable for the amount of
the tentative settlement.
The expected resolution of the alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act
violations in the lawsuits did not have, and is not expected to
have, a material adverse impact on the Company's condensed
consolidated financial statements, results of operations or
liquidity.
With respect to the meal and rest period and the wage and hour
violations alleged in the lawsuits described above, excluding the
one lawsuit described below, the parties reached a tentative
settlement agreement in January 2020, which is subject to certain
conditions, including court approval.
During the three months ended December 31, 2019, the Company
incurred a loss and recorded a charge equal to the amount of the
tentative settlement.
The expected resolution of the alleged meal and rest period and
wage and hour violations in the lawsuits did not have, and is not
expected to have, a material adverse impact on the Company's
condensed consolidated financial statements, results of operations
or liquidity.
With respect to one lawsuit, although the Company believes it is
reasonably possible that it may incur losses associated with such
matter, it is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range
of loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution based on the early stage of the
lawsuit, the uncertainty as to the certification of a class or
classes and the size of any certified class, if applicable, and the
lack of resolution of significant factual and legal issues.
However, depending on the amount and timing, an unfavorable
resolution of the lawsuit or a change in the Company's assessment
of the likelihood of loss could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, results
of operations or liquidity in a future period.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and is
prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit.
Extended Stay America, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,
operates, and manages hotels in the United States. The company also
relicenses Extended Stay America brand to third party franchisees.
Extended Stay America, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
FCA US: Cole Sues Over Deceptive and Unfair Destination Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Cole and Kimberly Enright, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC and STELLANTIS N.V., Case
No. 2:21-cv-02473-JMA-AKT (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2021), is brought
concerning the Defendants' deceptive and unfair practice of
misleading consumers into overpaying for their vehicles by
inflating the amount customers must pay for the delivery of their
vehicles (i.e., the "destination fee") when purchasing or leasing a
new vehicle at one of Defendants' authorized dealerships.
According to the complaint, since at least 2015, Defendants have
added the "Destination Charge" to the price of each new Chrysler-,
Dodge-, RAM-, Jeep-, and FIAT-branded vehicle that has been offered
for sale in the United States (the "Class Vehicles"). Unfortunately
for consumers, the amount of Defendants' Destination Charge
increased sharply over the years and currently sits at a whopping
$1,495.00 per Class Vehicle. The Defendants disclose the
Destination Charge, along with other essential pricing information,
on the window sticker of each Class Vehicle, and require that the
specific amount of the "Destination Charge" be passed through to
consumers, who are not allowed to negotiate the amount as part of
the Class Vehicle's overall price. As a result, consumers who
desire to purchase or lease one of Defendants' vehicles are forced
to pay the exorbitant Destination Charge and do so based on the
belief that it is a legitimate charge directly related to the cost
of delivering the Class Vehicle.
Despite the general understanding of the automotive industry and
the reasonable expectations of consumers, however, Defendants
include a significant amount of profit in their Destination Charge
and, in doing so, deceive customers into paying far more than the
actual cost of vehicle delivery when purchasing or leasing one of
the Class Vehicles. In fact, Defendants' Destination Charge has
little correlation to the cost of delivering the Class Vehicles to
their intended destination (i.e., Defendants' dealerships) at all,
and instead, has become a huge profit center for Defendants.
Indeed, the Destination Charge allows Defendants to extract hidden
markups on the sale of the Class Vehicles from unsuspecting
consumers. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
concealment of and failure to disclose the profit that is included
in the Destination Charge, Plaintiffs overpaid for their Class
Vehicles, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the one of the Class Vehicle on one of
Defendants' authorized dealers.
FCA designs, engineers, manufacturers and sells vehicles under the
Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, RAM, and Fiat brands.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: alperstein@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th St. NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Roeder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Mystique Roeder, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Firstsource
Advantage, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02744 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Firstsource Advantage -- http://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/-- is
a leading global collections service provider and has been
delivering results in the collections arena since 1995.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the residents
of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood.
In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in
San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco
Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an
independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing
and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco
Shipyard, Lennar and the Company as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech
fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation
efforts.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have
requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from
undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco
Shipyard.
Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San
Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San
Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and
the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at
The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them
before they purchased their homes.
They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not
including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco
Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain
declaratory relief.
All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and
indemnification rights against third parties, including related
parties, with respect to these claims. Given the preliminary nature
of these claims, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these
matters.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point
Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use
communities in California, the United States. The company operates
through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and
Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding
Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in
May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is
headquartered in Irvine, California.
FOUR SEASONS: Faces Balderen Suit Over WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Aletta Van Balderen, Dagoberto Turcios, Shirley Brown, Rosario
Miranda, Natali Arias, and Luz Rojas, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. FOUR SEASONS MIAMI EMPLOYMENT
INC., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-21842-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 17, 2021), is brought over the Defendant's failure to
provide the Plaintiffs with the 60 day notice required under the
WARN Act.
According to the complaint, the Four Seasons has always feared
unionization. Its primary strategy to prevent unionization has been
to pretend as though the organization provides employees what a
union would otherwise deliver. For example, the Four Seasons has
historically created the illusion of job protection. It has also
boasted about its policy of no-fault separation severance (the
"Severance Policy") for its workers. When it came time for the Four
Seasons to reciprocate and care for its workers the way they cared
for the Four Seasons, the organization created a scheme to deprive
thousands of employees of their hard-earned benefits.
Specifically, the Four Seasons has kept a multitude of workers on a
perpetual furlough—despite having no intention of recalling the
workers, many of whom have had their positions permanently
eliminated in order to force its employees to resign from the
organization. Such "resignations" are then categorized as a
"voluntary separation" by the employee -- thereby stripping the
employees from the money they are entitled to under the Severance
Policy (the "Severance Siphoning Scheme"). The Severance Siphoning
Scheme, however, did not account for two major issues. First, the
Four Seasons overlooked a provision of the WARN Act indicating that
a furlough lasting more than 6 months is considered an employment
loss as a matter of law. The Plaintiffs have now been on furlough
for approximately 14 months -- more than double the 6-month
threshold set by the WARN Act. These employees have long been
entitled to the 60-day employment loss notice required by the WARN
Act. The Four Season's failure to provide this statutory notice
entitles thousands of furloughed workers to 60 days of payment.
This lawsuit is being brought on behalf of such workers.
Secondly, the Four Seasons has always hid behind its arbitration
policy. It is how the Four Seasons keeps its questionable
employment practices as private as possible. It is what allows the
Four Seasons to publicly pretend to be a champion of employee
rights while simultaneously marginalizing its workers in its
chamber of secrecy, arbitration. To make matters worse, the Four
Seasons has traditionally robbed workers of the power and
reassurance that comes with collective grievances. Instead, the
Four Seasons actively seeks to force employees to fend for
themselves, without the support of their similarly situated
co-workers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Four Seasons in Miami-Dade
County.
The Four Seasons conducts business in Miami-Dade County and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Freddy Perera, Esq.
Bayardo E. Alemán, Esq.
Valerie Barnhart, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
Alexandra C. Hayes, Esq.
PERERA BARNHART ALEMAN
12401 Orange Drive, Suite 123
Davie, FL 33330
Phone: 786.485.5232
Email: freddy@pba-law.com
bayardo@pba-law.com
valerie@pba-law.com
brody@pba-law.com
alex@pba-law.com
FROST-ARNETT COMPANY: Ellis Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost-Arnett Company.
The case is styled as Yolanda Ellis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Frost-Arnett Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-02702 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Frost-Arnett -- https://www.frost-arnett.com/ -- offer a proven
strategy and a comprehensive menu of Accounts Receivable Management
services will help strengthen cash flow, maximize reimbursement and
reduce A/R write-offs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
GEICO GENERAL: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Nichols Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY filed an appeal from a
court ruling in MERLE NICHOLS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
automobile insurance company, Case No. 2:18-cv-01253-RAJ, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order:
1. denying the Defendant's motions for summary judgment;
2. granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class of:
"All insured, as defined within GEICO's Automobile Policy,
and all third-party beneficiaries of such coverage, under
any
GEICO insurance policy effective in the state of Washington
between July 24, 2012 and the present, for whom GEICO
limited
or terminated benefits, or denied coverage based, even in
part, upon its determination that its insured or beneficiary
had reached "maximum medical improvement" or that such
benefits were not "essential in achieving maximum medical
improvement for bodily injury;" and
3. adopting the parties' joint statements.
On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff Merle Nichols was injured in an
automobile accident. He then sought personal injury protection
(PIP) coverage from Defendant GEICO, which insured the vehicle that
injured him. GEICO initially paid some benefits.
The Defendant now seeks a review of the May 13 Order entered by
Judge Jones.
The appellate case is captioned as Merle Nichols v. Geico General
Insurance Company, Case No. 21-80049, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 13, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:
Joshua Grabel, Esq.
Jamie L. Halavais, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
2415 E. Camelback Road, Suite 500
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (480) 284-7883
E-mail: josh.grabel@huschblackwell.com
jamie.halavais@huschblackwell.com
- and -
Michael Thomas Raupp, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 983-8324
E-mail: michael.raupp@huschblackwell.com
- and -
L. Clay Selby, Esq.
LEDGER SQUARE LAW, P.S.
710 Market Street
Tacoma, WA 98402
Telephone: (253) 327-1900
E-mail: clay@ledgersquarelaw.com
Plaintiff-Respondent MERLE NICHOLS, Individually and on Behalf of
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Randall Johnson, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF R. JOHNSON
P.O. Box 15881
Seattle, WA 98115
Telephone: (206) 890-0616
E-mail: rcjj.law@gmail.com
- and -
Mark A. Trivett, Esq.
Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC
19929 Ballinger Way NE
Shoreline, WA 98155
Telephone: (206) 621-6566
E-mail: mtrivett@badgleymullins.com
dturner@badgleymullins.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Romoff Sues Over Deceptive, Unfair Destination Fee
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Romoff and Joe Siciliano, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-00938-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 17, 2021), is brought
concerning GM's deceptive and unfair practice of misleading
consumers into overpaying for its vehicles by inflating the amount
customers must pay for the delivery of their vehicles (i.e., the
"destination fee") when purchasing or leasing a new vehicle at one
of GM's authorized dealerships.
According to the complaint, a vehicle's destination fee is
generally understood in the automotive industry to reflect the
manufacturer's average cost of delivering one of its vehicles to a
dealership. That destination fee is charged to the dealer and
passed on to the purchaser or lessee of that vehicle. Consumers
similarly have the expectation that they are covering an automotive
manufacturer's cost for the delivery of the manufacturer's vehicles
when paying the "destination fee" as part of their new vehicle
lease or purchase. The same is true for the destination fee at
issue, which GM refers to as the vehicle's "Destination Charge." GM
has added the Destination Charge to the price of each new
Chevrolet-, Cadillac-, Buick-, and GMC--branded vehicle that has
been offered for sale in the United States (the "Class Vehicles").
Unfortunately for consumers, the amount of GM's Destination Charge
increased sharply over the years and currently reaches as high as a
whopping $1,695.00 for many of the Class Vehicles.
Despite the general understanding of the automotive industry and
the reasonable expectations of consumers, however, GM includes a
significant amount of profit in its Destination Charge and, in
doing so, deceives customers into paying far more than the actual
cost of vehicle delivery when purchasing or leasing one of the
Class Vehicles. In fact, GM's Destination Charge has little
correlation to the cost of delivering the Class Vehicles to their
intended destination (i.e., GM's dealerships) at all, and instead,
has become a huge profit center for Defendant. Indeed, the
Destination Charge allows GM to extract hidden markups on the sale
of the Class Vehicles from unsuspecting consumers.
As a direct and proximate result of GM's concealment of and failure
to disclose the profit that is included in the Destination Charge,
Plaintiffs overpaid for their Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs have
purchased and leased Class Vehicles that they would not otherwise
have purchased or leased, or would have paid less for, had they
known that GM's Destination Charge was not a legitimate charge
related to the cost of delivery the Class Vehicles to its dealers
at the point of sale. Plaintiffs have consequently suffered
ascertainable losses and actual damages as a result of GM's
unlawful conduct, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Class Vehicles from the
Defendant's authorized dealers.
GM designs, engineers, manufactures and sells vehicles under the
Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (619) 525-4300
Email: alperstein@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
GOOGLE LLC: Accused of Unlawful Selling of Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvatore Toronto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-03725 (N.D. Cal., May 18,
2021), is brought on behalf all Google account holders in the
United States whose personal information was sold or shared by
Google without their consent, and asserts claims for breach of
contract, violations of statutory and common law, and equitable
claims against Google for compensatory damages, unjust enrichment,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, and all other remedies
permitted by law.
The complaint alleges that since at least 2009, Google has misled
consumers into believing that it does not sell their personal
information, but then done exactly that, earning billions of
dollars in advertising revenue in the process. Google has continued
to do so even after paying hundreds of millions of dollars in
settlements to federal, state, and E.U. regulators, as part of
which it promised to stop its unlawful practices.
Contrary to Google's promise that it will protect its users'
privacy, Google in fact sells and shares Google Account Holders'
sensitive personal information to millions of companies through its
Real-Time Bidding ("RTB") system. RTB is the process by which the
digital ads one sees every day are placed. For each ad, an auction
takes place milliseconds before it is shown in an app or browser.
The hundreds of participants in these auctions receive sensitive
information about the potential recipient of the ad—device
identifiers and cookies, location data, IP addresses, and unique
demographic and biometric information such as age and gender.
Hundreds of potential bidders receive this information, even though
only one -- the auction winner -- will use it to deliver an
advertisement. "Bidstream Data" is the term Google uses to refer to
the information it collects about auction participants. Bidstream
Data includes users' location, web browsing choices, and other
data, which are then sold by data brokers to businesses, hedge
funds, political campaigns, and even to the government without
court orders, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey and is a Google Account
Holder who uses the Internet.
Google is a limited liability company headquartered in Mountain
View, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne B. Beste, Esq.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone: (858) 914-2001
Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
Email: abeste@bottinilaw.com
fbottini@bottinilaw.com
achang@bottinilaw.com
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com
GOOP INC: Watson Sues Over Defective, Exploding Candles
-------------------------------------------------------
Colby Watson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOOP, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-04113 (C.D. Cal., May 17,
2021), is brought relating to the marketing and selling of certain
defective candles sold by the Defendant that have latent and
inherent defects.
The complaint alleges that the candles "explode," or suffer
catastrophic failure during the candle's normal usage because of a
design defect and/or manufacturing flaw. The subject holds the
unique name of "This Smells Like My Vagina." On January 14, 2021,
the Plaintiff purchased the candle online from the Defendant's
website. The candles continue to be sold on the Goop's website
despite the Company's knowledge of its tendency to explode and
possibly cause injuries and/or property damage.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas who purchased the
candles from the Defendant.
Goop, Inc. was in the business of distributing, marketing,
promoting, and selling the candle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Green, Esq.
James Robert Noblin, Esq.
Emrah M. Sumer, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
4500 East Pacific Coast Highway
Long Beach, CA 90804
Phone: (562) 391-2487
Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Viscardi Files Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Government Employees
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Viscardi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Government Employees Insurance Company doing business as: GEICO,
GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No.
2:21-cv-02540-KAM-JMW (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
The Government Employees Insurance Company --
https://www.geico.com/information/federal/ -- is an American auto
insurance company with headquarters in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Eric Stiner, Esq.
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
ADHOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
HAWK MANAGEMENT: Faces Crawford Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN J. CRAWFORD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWK MANAGEMENT, L.P., HWC LLC, HAWK
OPPORTUNITY FUND L.P., PHILLY RESIDENTIAL ACQUISITION LP, PHILLY
RESIDENTIAL GP LLC, GREEN HOMES REAL ESTATE, LP, GREEN HOMES
MANAGEMENT, LLC, MIPA PARTNERS LLC, HAWK VESTA I LLC, HAWK VESTA
III LLC, DAVIS S. CALLAN, and RICHARD S. WILLIAMS, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02232 (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Pennsylvania common law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated employees appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from November 2017.
Hawk Management, L.P. is a property management services firm, with
a principal place of business located at 159 North State Street,
Newtown, Pennsylvania.
HWC LLC is a limited liability company, with a principal place of
business located at 159 North State Street, Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Hawk Opportunity Fund L.P. is a limited partnership company, with a
principal place of business located at 159 North State Street,
Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Philly Residential Acquisition LP is a limited partnership company,
with a principal place of business located at 159 North State
Street, Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Philly Residential GP LLC is a property management services firm,
with a principal place of business located at 159 North State
Street, Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Green Homes Real Estate, LP is a real estate company, with a
principal place of business located at 159 North State Street,
Newtown, Pennsylvania.
Green Homes Management, LLC is a property management services firm,
with a principal place of business located at 159 North State
Street, Newtown, Pennsylvania.
MiPa Partners LLC is a limited liability company, with a principal
place of business located at 159 North State Street, Newtown,
Pennsylvania.
Hawk Vesta I LLC is a limited liability company, with a principal
place of business located at 159 North State Street, Newtown,
Pennsylvania.
Hawk Vesta III LLC is a limited liability company, with a principal
place of business located at 159 North State Street, Newtown,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ian M. Bryson, Esq.
DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
1835 Market Street, Suite 2950
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 391-4790
E-mail: ian@dereksmithlaw.com
HF FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HF Foods Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the amended securities fraud complaint, is pending.
Beginning on March 29, 2020, two putative class actions and two
derivative actions were filed against the company, its directors,
and/or certain of its officers alleging violation of securities
laws or breach of fiduciary duties in connection with allegations
that the company failed to disclose in public statements that the
Company engaged in certain related party transactions, that
insiders and related parties were enriching themselves by misusing
shareholder funds, and that the Company masked the true number of
free-floating shares.
These cases seek unspecified damages and other forms of relief.
The company intends to continue to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.
These cases now are all pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
A motion to dismiss the amended securities fraud complaint was
filed on January 19, 2021, which is pending.
The derivative actions are stayed pending the outcome of that
motion to dismiss.
In addition, the events alleged in the lawsuits became the subject
of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, with
which we are cooperating.
HF Foods said, "There have been no changes to the status of these
proceedings as described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020."
HF Foods Group Inc. markets and distributes fresh produces, frozen
and dry food, and non-food products to primarily Asian restaurants
and other foodservice customers throughout the Southeast, Pacific
and Mountain West regions region of the United States. The company
is based in City of Industry, California.
HORIZON OILFIELD: Sala Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Sala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HORIZON OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-00110-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., May 14, 2021), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act seeking
damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven day workweek while working for Defendant paid on
a day rate basis.
The Plaintiff worked a minimum of 84 hours each week. the Plaintiff
regularly worked 12-hour shifts every day for two weeks, and then
Plaintiff had two weeks off. The Plaintiff was occasionally
required to work up to 5 hours more than his 12-hour shift in order
to unload hydrovac trucks that delivered after midnight. However,
the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime premium pay when
he worked more than forty hours in a given workweek, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from November 12, 2020
through February 26, 2021.
The Defendant delivers comprehensive oilfield wastewater disposal
and gathering solutions for E&P Companies and for trucking
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 621-2277
Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
Email: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
HYPERSPRING LLC: Suit Seeks to Certify Straight Time Workers Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned MATTHEW WALDECKER
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. HYPERSPRING, LLC
d/b/a GSE HYPERSPRING, Case No. 2:20-cv-01948-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. granting conditional certification of and authorizing notice
to be sent to:
"All current or former employees of HyperSpring who were paid
"straight time for overtime" at any time during the past
three years ("Straight Time Workers");
2. approving the Notice and Consent forms attached to
Plaintiff's Motion;
3. authorizing Class Counsel to send notice to the Straight Time
Workers via mail, email, and text message, along with an
identical reminder notice;
4. authorizing Class Counsel to contact certain Straight Time
Workers by telephone if their mailed or emailed Notice
packets are returned as undeliverable;
5. authorizing a sixty-day notice period for the Straight Time
Workers to join the case; and
6. directing Hyperspring to produce the contact information for
each of the Straight Time Workers within 10 days of the
Court's order in a usable electronic format.
Hyperspring provides business consulting services. The Company
offers training instructors, plant operations and engineering,
procedure writing, corrective action management, and work
management services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 5, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SctgIt at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Bid for Injunction on Stockholder Vote Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for a
preliminary injunction filed in Dean Drulias v. Joseph Levin et
al., No. 650504/202, to stop the IAC stockholder vote on the
Spin-off from taking place as scheduled, has been denied.
On January 22, 2021, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in New York state court against IAC and the members of IAC's board
of directors. Dean Drulias v. Joseph Levin et al., No. 650504/2021
(Supreme Court, New York County).
The gravamen of the complaint is that IAC's proposed Spin-off is
being driven by IAC's controlling shareholder, Chairman and Senior
Executive, Barry Diller, allegedly in order to: (i) generate
additional cash for IAC to invest in the gaming industry, (ii)
decrease IAC's stock price to facilitate additional share purchases
by Mr. Diller and (iii) generate additional cash for Mr. Diller
without diluting his controlling interest in IAC.
The complaint asserts claims under Delaware law against IAC's board
of directors for breach of fiduciary duty on account of its
approval of the Spin-off and against IAC and its board of directors
for their respective failures to include certain allegedly material
information in the Company's proxy materials related to the
proposed transaction.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, as well as an
order requiring the Company to include additional disclosures in
the proxy materials related to the proposed transaction.
On March 22, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion.
On April 13, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
April 15, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction to stop the IAC stockholder vote on the Spin-off from
taking place as scheduled; the defendants opposed the motion. On
April 23, 2021, the court issued a decision and order denying the
motion.
IAC believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit
and will defend vigorously against them.
IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Continues to Defend Newman Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
IAC/InterActiveCorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a shareholder class action suit entitled, David Newman v.
IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 2020-0505 (Delaware Chancery
Court).
On June 24, 2020, a shareholder class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in Delaware state court against then IAC/InterActiveCorp
(now Match Group, Inc.), then IAC Holdings, Inc. (now
IAC/InterActiveCorp), IAC's Chairman and Senior Executive, Barry
Diller, former Match Group (as a nominal defendant only), and the
ten members of former Match Group's Board of Directors at the time
of the MTCH Separation, challenging, on behalf of a putative class
of then Match Group public shareholders, the agreed-upon terms of
the MTCH Separation.
David Newman v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al., No. 2020-0505 (Delaware
Chancery Court).
The gravamen of the complaint is that the terms of the MTCH
Separation are unfair to former Match Group and unduly beneficial
to IAC as a result of undue influence by IAC and Mr. Diller over
the then Match Group directors who unanimously approved the
transaction.
The complaint asserts direct and derivative claims for: (i) breach
of fiduciary duty against IAC and Mr. Diller as former controlling
shareholders of Match Group, (ii) breach of fiduciary duty against
the Match Group directors who unanimously approved the MTCH
Separation, (iii) breach of contract (i.e., a provision of former
Match Group's charter), (iv) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and (v) tortious interference with contract
against IAC. The complaint seeks various declarations and damages
in an unspecified amount.
On September 24, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.
On January 8, 2021, instead of responding to the motions to
dismiss, the plaintiff, joined by another plaintiff, Boilermakers
National Annuity Trust, filed an amended complaint.
In addition, on January 7, 2021, another complaint challenging the
MTCH Separation was filed against substantially the same defendants
in the same court.
Construction Industry & Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern
Nevada Plan A v. IAC/InterActiveCorp et al. (Delaware Chancery
Court).
The two cases have been consolidated under the caption In re Match
Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 2020-0505.
On March 15, 2021, the court issued an order appointing
Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust for Southern
Nevada Plan A as lead plaintiff in the litigation and directing it
to file a consolidated complaint by April 14, 2021, and on that
date the lead plaintiff filed the consolidated complaint.
IAC believes that the allegations in this litigation are without
merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
IAC/InterActiveCorp, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
media and Internet company in the United States and
internationally. It operates through Match Group, ANGI
Homeservices, Video, Applications, and Publishing segments.
IAC/InterActiveCorp was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Court Stays Yehudai $20MM Bonus Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that
the proceedings in the putative class action suit related to the US
$20 million bonus paid to Ori Yehudai, is stayed.
On March 11, 2020, an IFF shareholder filed a motion to approve a
class action in Israel against, among others, Frutarom, Yehudai,
and Frutarom's former board of directors, alleging that former
minority shareholders of Frutarom were harmed as a result of the US
$20 million bonus paid to Yehudai.
The parties to this motion agreed to attempt to resolve the dispute
through mediation to take place regarding the aforesaid claim
against Yehudai, which as noted is still ongoing, during which the
proceedings relating to this motion are stayed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Dismissal of Jansen Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that
the lead plaintiffs in the putative securities class action suit
filed by Marc Jansen, filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the District Court's
order of dismissal of all the claims against the company.
On August 12, 2019, Marc Jansen filed a putative securities class
action against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its then-CFO, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuit was filed after IFF disclosed that preliminary results
of investigations indicated that Frutarom businesses operating
principally in Russia and Ukraine had made improper payments to
representatives of customers.
On December 26, 2019, the Court appointed a group of six investment
funds as lead plaintiffs and Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel.
On March 16, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which added Frutarom and certain former officers of Frutarom as
defendants.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
concerning IFF's acquisition of Frutarom, the integration of the
two companies, and the companies' financial reporting and results.
The amended complaint asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and under the
Israeli Securities Act-1968, against all defendants, and under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
individual defendants, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF securities on the
New York Stock Exchange between May 7, 2018 and August 12, 2019 and
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IFF
securities on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October 9, 2018
and August 12, 2019.
The amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, costs, and expenses. IFF, its officers, and Frutarom filed
a motion to dismiss the case on June 26, 2020.
On March 30, 2021, the court dismissed all of the claims against
IFF, its officers and Frutarom.
On April 28, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTERNATIONAL FLAVORS: Securities Class Suits in Tel Aviv Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. (IFF) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that
the company continues to defend putative securities class action
suits in Tel Aviv District Court, Israel.
Two motions to approve securities class actions were filed in the
Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, in August 2019, similarly
alleging, among other things, false and misleading statements
largely in connection with IFF's acquisition of Frutarom and the
above-mentioned improper payments.
One motion ("Borg") asserts claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws against IFF, its Chairman and CEO, and its former
CFO. On November 8, 2020, IFF and its officers filed their response
to the Borg motion.
On April 20, 2021, Mr. Borg filed a motion to stay the proceeding
pending an appellate decision in the U.S. proceeding.
The other motion ("Oman") (following an initial amendment) asserted
claims under the Israeli Securities Act-1968 against IFF, its
Chairman and CEO, and its former CFO, and against Frutarom and
certain former Frutarom officers and directors, as well as claims
under the Israeli Companies Act-1999 against certain former
Frutarom officers and directors.
On October 4, 2020, the Oman plaintiff filed a motion to remove IFF
and its officers from the motion and to add factual allegations
from the US amended complaint.
Responses to the motion to amend the Oman motion were filed during
November 2020. The court granted the motion to amend the Oman
motion on February 17, 2021.
New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., together
with its subsidiaries, engages in the creation and manufacture of
flavor and fragrance products in the United States and
internationally.
INTRICON CORP: Mediation in Hoffman Suit Scheduled for May 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intricon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that mediation is scheduled
for May 24, 2021 in the putative class action suit initiated by
Mark Hoffman.
On October 9, 2019, plaintiff Hoffman filed a putative class action
lawsuit against defendant Hearing Help Express, Inc. (HHE), a
subsidiary of the Company, in the Federal District Court for the
Western District of Washington based on specific provisions of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
HHE's investigation revealed third-party lead generator Triangular
Media Corp. provided Hoffman's information to HHE only after he
participated in Triangular's interactive telephonic screening
process.
Hoffman claims he did not provide the requisite prior express
written consent for autodialed telemarketing calls regarding
hearing aids to be placed to his cellphone. He also claims he did
not provide the requisite permission for telemarketing calls to his
number registered on the Do-Not-Call (DNC) registry.
Since the initial complaint was filed, Hoffman has amended his
complaint several times to add additional parties, including
Triangular, Triangular's alleged owner, an alleged entity related
to Triangular called LeadCreations.Com, LLC, Intricon, Inc., and
Intricon Corporation.
With respect to HHE, Hoffman seeks to certify a class of certain
automated outbound telemarketing calls HHE allegedly made without
prior consent, or to those numbers on the DNC registry, in the last
four years.
Hoffman also seeks to hold the Company vicariously liable for all
of the calls HHE made without prior consent.
The potential exposure under the TCPA is $500 per call, or $1,500
per call if the violation is deemed willful or knowing. The parties
were engaged in discovery. However, the case was stayed pending the
United States Supreme Court's ruling in another TCPA case –
Duguid v. Facebook, No. 19-51 (argued Dec. 8, 2020) given the
impact the Duguid opinion could have on this case. A ruling by the
United States Supreme Court was issued on April 1, 2021 in favor of
Facebook.
Following the ruling, the parties agreed to continue the stay of
the case and attend a private mediation to see if a resolution can
be reached.
Mediation is scheduled for May 24, 2021.
Intricon said, "The Company believes that HHE has strong legal and
factual defenses in this proceeding. HHE and the Company intend to
continue defending themselves vigorously in the pending lawsuit.
While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this
matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of
operations."
Intricon Corporation (together with its subsidiaries is an
international company and joint development manufacturer ("JDM") of
micromedical components, sub-assemblies and final devices. The
Company serves as a JDM partner to leading medical device original
equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") by designing, developing,
engineering, manufacturing, packaging and distributing micromedical
products for high growth markets, such as diabetes, peripheral
vascular, interventional pulmonology, electrophysiology and hearing
healthcare. The company is based in Arden Hills, Minnesota.
INVENTIST INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inventist, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Inventist, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04393 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Inventist, Inc. -- https://inventist.com/ -- aspire to solve
everyday problems by making the world a little bit weirder, a whole
lot simpler, and infinitely more fun.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
JACKSON LABORATORY: Salas-Keen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Jackson
Laboratory, et al. The case is styled as Heather Salas-Keen, on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
The Jackson Laboratory, Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2021-00300105-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
The Jackson Laboratory -- https://www.jax.org/ -- is an
independent, nonprofit biomedical research institution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
JACOBS ENGINEERING: Delozier Putative Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended April 2, 2021, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Margie Delozier, has been dismissed.
On December 22, 2008, a coal fly ash pond at the Kingston Power
Plant of the Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was breached,
releasing fly ash waste into the Emory River and surrounding
community.
In February 2009, TVA awarded a contract to the Company to provide
project management services associated with the clean-up. All
remediation and dredging were completed in August 2013 by other
contractors under direct contracts with TVA.
The Company did not perform the remediation, and its scope was
limited to program management services. Certain employees of the
contractors performing the cleanup work on the project filed
lawsuits against the Company beginning in August 2013, alleging
they were injured due to the Company's failure to protect the
plaintiffs from exposure to fly ash, and asserting related personal
injuries.
The primary case, Greg Adkisson, et al. v. Jacobs Engineering Group
Inc., case No. 3:13-CV-505-TAV-HBG, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, consists of 10
consolidated cases.
This case and the related cases involve several hundred plaintiffs
that were employees of the contractors that completed the
remediation and dredging work. The cases are at various stages of
litigation, and several of the cases are currently stayed pending
resolution of other cases.
Additionally, in May 2019, Roane County and the cities of Kingston
and Harriman filed a claim against TVA and the Company alleging
that they misled the public about risks associated with the
released fly ash.
In October 2020, the Court granted Jacobs and TVA's motion to
dismiss the Roane County litigation and closed the case.
In addition, in November 2019, a resident of Roane County, Margie
Delozier, filed a putative class action against TVA and the Company
alleging they failed to adequately warn local residents about risks
associated with the released fly ash. The Company and TVA filed
separate motions to dismiss the Delozier case in April 2020.
In February 2021, the Court granted dismissal of the Delozier
Complaint with prejudice, with the exception of Plaintiffs'
nuisance cause of action. The Court has granted Plaintiffs' leave
to file an amended Complaint.
In February 2020, the Company learned that the district attorney in
Roane County recommended that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
investigate issues pertaining to clean up worker safety at
Kingston, with that investigation still pending. There has been no
finding of liability against the Company or that any of the alleged
illnesses are the result of exposure to fly ash in any of the above
matters.
Jacobs Engineering said, "The Company disputes the claims asserted
in all of the above matters and is vigorously defending these
claims. The Company does not expect the resolution of these matters
to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."
Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., is a
global provider of technical, professional, and scientific
services, including engineering, architecture, construction,
operations and maintenance.
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Jones Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Damiah Jones, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers v. Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01221 (D. Minn., May 14,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC -- https://www.myjcap.com/ --
provides financial services. The Company offers payment rewards,
bankruptcy claims, and debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. D. Haas, Esq.
J. D. HAAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1120 E. 80th St., Suite 200
Bloomington, MN 55420
Phone: (952) 345-1025
Email: jdhaas@jdhaas.com
JOHNNY'S SELECTED: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnny's Selected
Seeds. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Johnny's Selected
Seeds, Case No. 1:21-cv-02727 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Johnny's -- https://www.johnnyseeds.com/ -- is committed to helping
growers and gardeners succeed with superior seeds, tools and
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 229-2249
Fax: (212) 229-2246
Email: jazeller@zellerlegal.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: Milo Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Joanne Milo filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in his lawsuit styled JOANNE MILO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No.
19-cv-7303, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Brooklyn).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 17, 2020, the
lawsuit arises out of the Defendant's improper denial of incentive
payments or mortgage reductions in connection with mortgage
modification pursuant to the Home Affordable Modification Program.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members were entitled to certain incentive payments pursuant to
HAMP ("HAMP Incentive Payments"), but did not receive such HAMP
Incentive Payments because Chase erroneously concluded they were
not eligible for HAMP Incentive Payments based on a consolidation
or modification loan date after January 1, 2009, that was not the
operative origination date, rather than using the operative
origination date prior to January 1, 2009, when the earliest loan
that was consolidated or modified was first taken out.
The HAMP Incentive Payments are one of the key features of HAMP,
rewarding homeowners who enter into HAMP Modifications (and who
meet certain eligibility criteria) with up to $10,000 in mortgage
reductions (up to $1,000 per year for the first five years and a
$5,000 one-time payment at the end of year six) over the first six
years after a HAMP modification.
Chase, however, erroneously interpreted language found in versions
of The Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of
Non-GSE Mortgages, ("MHA Handbook") to deny HAMP Incentive Payments
to individuals whose HAMP modification modified a loan that had
been consolidated or modified after January 1, 2009, but where the
first lien originated before January 1, 2009 by virtue of the first
mortgage that was part of the consolidation or modification being
entered into before January 1, 2009, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Judgment dated
April 12, 2021, and the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 9,
2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Milo v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Case No. 21-1238, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on May 10, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Joanne Milo is represented by:
Joseph Nicholas Kravec, Jr., Esq.
STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Forbes Avenue, Allegheny Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-8400
E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com
Defendant-Appellee JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by:
Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-7138
E-mail: apavel@omm.com
KEYAMOUR LLC: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keyamour LLC. The
case is styled as Braulio Thorne, On Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Keyamour LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04480 (S.D.N.Y., May 18, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Keyamour -- https://keyamour.com/ -- is a fine collection of
antique, rare and vintage jewels.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
LA GRAN COLOMBIA: Faces Garcia Suit Over Unpaid Compensations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LA GRAN COLOMBIA BAKERY INC. (D/B/A LA NUEVA COLOMBIA),
LA GRAN COLOMBIA BAKERY & PIZZERIA, INC. (D/B/A LA NUEVA COLOMBIA),
and ALEX CASTRO,, Case No. 1:21-cv-02714 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021),
is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y.
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate record-keeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed
to pay the Plaintiff's wages on a timely basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress, bartender and food
preparer at the restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian Restaurant,
located in East Elmhurst, New York under the name "La Nueva
Colombia."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Brown Seeks Extension of Class Cert. Briefing Sched
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JAMALLA BROWN, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. LAKEVIEW
LOAN SERVICING, LLC, and LOANCARE, LLC, Case No.
3:20-cv-00280-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff submits a Consent
Motion to extend the briefing schedule and enlarge the applicable
work limits on the Reply in support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.
The Defendants LoanCare LLC and Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC filed
their opposition to the Motion on April 30, 2021. The opposition is
just under the word limit at about 8,900 words.
In light of the fact that Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes,
one of which is nationwide, Plaintiff respectfully requests
additional time to prepare her reply and an enlargement of the word
limit to ensure the issues are fully addressed. The Plaintiff
submits that she will be better able to present her arguments to
the Court if the current word limit for reply –- 3,000 words --
is enlarged by 2,000 words.
Lakeview is a mortgage loan servicer.
A copy the Plaintiff's motion dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33ZuCJl at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
ksimplicio@tzlegal.com
- and -
Victor S. Woods, Esq.
James L. Kauffman, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304)342-1110
E-mail: vwoods@baileyglasser.com
jkauffman@baileyglasser.com
- and -
W. Stacy Miller II, Esq.
MILLER LAW GROUP, PLLC
PO Box 6340
Raleigh, NC 27628
Telephone: (919) 348-4361
Facsimile: (919) 729-2953
E-mail: Stacy@MillerLawGroupNC.com
- and -
Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW
LEWENZ LLP
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33322
Telephone: (954) 595-6060
Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Gleason, Esq.
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-4310
E-mail: mgleason@hahnlaw.com
- and -
Joshua D. Davey, Esq.
Jacob R. Franchek, Esq.
TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
301 S. College St., 34th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 916-1503
E-mail: joshua.davey@troutman.com
jacob.franchek@troutman.com
- and -
Steven A. Goldfarb, Esq.
Erica L. Calderas, Esq.
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP
4200 Public Square, Suite 2800
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0150
E-mail: sag@hahnlaw.com
elc@hahnlaw.com
LANDMARK LEGAL: Parties Directed to Confirm Class Cert. Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Perrong v. Landmark Legal
LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00775 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G.
Byron entered an endorsed order directing the parties to confer
regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification
and to advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case
management report.
The deadlines should include a deadline for:
(1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and
defendant;
(2) discovery - class action;
(3) motion for class certification;
(4) response to motion for class certification; and
(5) reply to motion for class certification.
The suit involves restrictions of use of telephone equipment.
Landmark Legal (formerly ISN Legal) is a Newcastle lawyer and
family wealth firm.[CC]
LAUREL M. LEE: Faces Class Suit Over Enactment of SB 90 in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORIDA RISING TOGETHER, FAITH IN FLORIDA, UNIDOSUS, EQUAL GROUND
EDUCATION FUND, HISPANIC FEDERATION, and PODER LATINX, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
LAUREL M. LEE, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State
of Florida, and PENNY OGG, in her official capacity as Supervisor
of Elections for Highlands County, Florida, SHIRLEY GREEN KNIGHT,
in her official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections for Gadsden
County, Florida, MARY JANE ARRINGTON, in her official capacity as
Supervisor of Elections for Osceola County, Florida, and CRAIG
LATIMER, in his official capacity as the Supervisor of Elections
for Hillsborough County, Florida, on behalf of themselves and all
those similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00201-AW-MJF
(N.D. Fla., May 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; the
Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and First Amendments; and freedom of
speech/expression and unconstitutional overbreadth and vagueness.
The case arises from the Defendants' role in the enactment of
Senate Bill (SB) 90, which contains a series of measures that
prohibit or restrict access to the ballot and voting mechanisms by
Black, Latino, and disabled voters. Specifically, the SB 90 makes
voting more burdensome for Black, Latino, and disabled voters due
to secure drop box restriction, voter registration disclaimer,
vote-by-mail application restriction, and line warming restriction.
The changes impose by SB 90 will drastically impair the ability of
organizations, including the Plaintiffs, to register new voters, in
particular Black and Latino voters, the suit says.
Florida Rising Together is an organization with a mission to
increase the voting and political power of marginalized and
excluded constituencies, with its principal office located in
Miami, Florida.
Faith in Florida is an organization with a mission to build a
powerful, multicultural, nonpartisan network of over 800
congregation community organizations in Florida that address
systemic racial and economic issues.
UnidosUS is a Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in
Florida.
Equal Ground Education Fund is an organization with a mission to
register, educate, and increase engagement among Black voters in
Florida.
Hispanic Federation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, community
organizing, and advocacy organization in Florida.
Poder Latinx is a social justice, organizing, and civic engagement
organization. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kira Romero-Craft, Esq.
Miranda Galindo, Esq.
LATINOJUSTICE, PRLDEF
523 W Colonial Dr.
Orlando, FL 32804
Telephone: (321) 418-6354
E-mail: Kromero@latinojustice.org
Mgalindo@latinojustice.org
- and –
Brenda Wright, Esq.
Stuart Naifeh, Esq.
DEMOS
80 Broad St., 4th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 633-1405
E-mail: bwright@demos.org
snaifeh@demos.org
- and –
Judith Browne Dianis, Esq.
Gilda R. Daniels, Esq.
Jorge Vasquez, Esq.
Sabrina Khan, Esq.
Esperanza Segarra, Esq.
Sharion Scott, Esq.
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 728-9557
E-mail: Jbrowne@advancementproject.org
Gdaniels@advancementproject.org
Jvasquez@advancementproject.org
Skhan@advancementproject.org
Esegarra@advancementproject.org
Sscott@advancementproject.org
- and –
John A. Freedman, Esq.
Jeremy C. Karpatkin, Esq.
Elisabeth S. Theodore, Esq.
Sam I. Ferenc, Esq.
ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5000
E-mail: John.Freedman@arnoldporter.com
Jeremy.Karpatkin@arnoldporter.com
Elisabeth.Theodore@arnoldporter.com
Sam.Ferenc@arnoldporter.com
- and –
Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
3000 El Camino Road
Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
Telephone: (650) 319-4500
E-mail: Jeffrey.Miller@arnoldporter.com
- and –
Aaron Stiefel, Esq.
ARNOLD AND PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019-9710
Telephone: (212) 836-8000
E-mail: Aaron.Stiefel@arnoldporter.com
LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania
entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation.
In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.
In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.
Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).
Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent
classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master
File No. 2:17-cv-04150.
In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.
Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).
Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2017.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the
company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated
by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated
Wealth Management, LTD.
TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.
Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of
insurance than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions
that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages
on behalf of all such policyholders.
Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Bid to Amend Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL ) said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint styled
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, remains pending.
Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.
On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.
In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint, which the company had opposed.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10,
2021, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that The
Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a
class action suit entitled, Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company
of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company.
Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, No.
1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY
on August 12, 2016.
Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.
On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and
denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim
against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an
order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with
respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a
defendant in the case.
In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the
1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna, and of the parties' rights
and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged
in the defense of this case.
On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary
judgment.
The court has not yet set a trial date, and we continue to
vigorously defend this action.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National
Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
LOANDEPOT INC: Defends Two TCPA Related Putative Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
LoanDepot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the Company continues
to defend
two putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class
actions.
The Company currently is defending two putative Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") class actions. The Company denies the
allegations in these cases and is vigorously defending both
matters.
In one matter, one of three claims is now defunct because of a
recent Supreme Court ruling addressing the same issue pled in this
matter.
The Company intends to file dispositive motions to dismiss the
remaining claims, which, if granted, would result in a finding of
no liability and dismissal of the action.
The Company is also engaged in discussions to settle the remaining
claims on an individual basis.
In the second matter, the Company intends to file a motion to
defeat class certification and also is engaged in settlement
negotiations.
LoanDepot said, "Given the lawsuits are at the early stages and not
yet at the class certification stage, the Company is unable to
estimate a range of possible loss with any degree of reasonable
certainty."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
LoanDepot, Inc. a customer-centric, technology-empowered
residential mortgage platform with a widely recognized consumer
brand. The company is based in Foothill Ranch, California.
LOGICBIO THERAPEUTICS: Afinowicz Purported Class Suit Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court handling the
purported shareholder class action, John R. Afinowicz v. LogicBio
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 2:20-cv-03009, has marked the case
as closed.
On March 18, 2020, a purported shareholder class action, John R.
Afinowicz v. LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No.
2:20-cv-03009, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the Company's Investigation New Drug submission for LB-001 in the
Company's public disclosures, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from December 3, 2018
through February 10, 2020. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.
On May 13, 2020, the defendants moved to transfer the action from
the District of New Jersey to the District of Massachusetts, and on
May 18, 2020, shareholder John R. Afinowicz moved for appointment
as lead plaintiff.
The Court granted Defendants' motion to transfer on June 2, 2020,
and the case was transferred to the District of Massachusetts (No.
1:20-cv-11158) on June 18, 2020.
On February 18, 2021, the court entered an order allowing the
parties' joint stipulation regarding deadlines associated with a
motion to dismiss an amended complaint which is to be filed,
subject to the case being trial ready, by March 1, 2022.
On April 5, 2021, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
against all defendants as to all claims without prejudice, and the
Court has marked the case as closed.
LogicBio Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company.
The Company develops therapeutic gene therapy vectors for the
treatment of genetic and infectious diseases. LogicBio
Therapeutics
serves patients in the State of Massachusetts. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.
LOOMIS ARMORED: Scott Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DASHAY P. SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00297934, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 17, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00896-JAM-AC 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 wages, failure to provide meal and
rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay wages on termination, unfair business practices, and
disability discrimination.
Loomis Armored US, LLC is a provider of armored vehicle services,
with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
JoAnna L. Brooks, Esq.
Michael W. Nelson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
Treat Towers
1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
E-mail: jbrooks@littler.com
mwnelson@littler.com
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Faces FNY Suit Over Electric Vehicle Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------
FNY Managed Accounts LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORP., STEPHEN S. BURNS,
RICH SCHMIDT, JULIO RODRIGUEZ, SHANE BROWN and DAR.R.EN POST, Case
No. 4:21-cv-01021 (N.D. Ohio, May 14, 2021), is brought for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against electric
vehicle ("EV") company Lordstown Motors Corp., formerly known as
DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. and certain senior executives of the
Company on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all persons
or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown
securities from August 3, 2020 through March 24, 2021, inclusive,
and were damaged thereby.
This case arises from an admitted fraudulent scheme, considered one
of the "biggest electric vehicle scams in history," in which
fledgling shell entity Lordstown -- with no assets, business
operations or products -- and its senior executives issued shares
of the Company to the investing public via a sham merger
transaction, purportedly to develop EVs. In selling the sham
transaction, the Defendants portrayed Lordstown as a "top-tier
electric truck company" that was "uniquely positioned to be a
leader in the industry" through the immediate roll-out and scaling
of production of its "revolutionary" flagship product, the
Endurance EV, for which Lordstown had purportedly received more
than "27,000 pre-orders representing over $1.4 billion of potential
revenue." Following the merger, the Defendants doubled down on
these representations, stating in December 2020 that the Company
had "50,000 preorders already well in advance of what we thought we
would have." By the end of December, Lordstown claimed it had
received "80,000 non-binding reservations for the Endurance to
date" and in January the Company claimed it had received 100,000
Endurance pre-pre-orders which was "unprecedented in automotive
history."
Plaintiff FNY Managed Accounts LLC purchased shares of Lordstown
common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.
Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of
developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted
for sale to fleet customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
William K. Flynn, Esq.
STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
150 East 4th Street, #4
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: (513) 629-9472
- and -
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
Frost Bank Tower
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 710-5960
- and -
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, New York 10169
Phone: (212) 894-7200
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Romano Sues Over Exchange Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Romano, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LORDSTOWN MOTORS CORPORATION, STEPHEN S. BURNS, DAVID
T. HAMAMOTO, MARK A. WALSH, ANDREW C. RICHARDSON, STEVEN R. HASH,
and JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, Case No. 4:21-cv-00994 (N.D. Ohio, May 13,
2021), is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased DiamondPeak or Lordstown common stock between August 3,
2020 and March 24, 2021, inclusive and were damaged thereby; and/or
purchased and held DiamondPeak common stock as of September 21,
2020, and had the right to vote on the merger between DiamondPeak
and Lordstown pursuant to the Proxy Statement dated October 8, 2020
and were damaged thereby; and alleging that the Defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, DiamondPeak, which had no commercial
operations of its own, went public in its February 2019 initial
public offering ("IPO") raising more than $250 million, with its
shares trading on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol
"DPHC." With time running out on its two-year window to complete a
business combination, DiamondPeak identified its acquisition target
by Fall 2020: Lordstown. On October 8, 2020, DiamondPeak and
Lordstown Motors issued the Proxy Statement soliciting
shareholders' approval for the Merger, which was filed with the SEC
on Schedule 14A. The Proxy Statement repeated Defendants' claims
that Lordstown had significant demand for its vehicles and already
had received 38,000 pre-orders, and that these pre-orders came
primarily from fleet purchasers. In addition, the Proxy Statement
touted Lordstown's ability to meet its lofty commercial production
and sales milestones. Defendants disseminated the Proxy Statement
to DiamondPeak shareholders on October 8, 2020, and recommended
they approve the Merger at an anticipated shareholder vote on
October 22, 2020. The Merger was approved by a majority of
DiamondPeak shareholders based on the representations in the Proxy
Statement and closed on October 23, 2020. In truth, Defendants
statements were materially false and misleading and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Lordstown and its business,
operations, and prospects, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased DiamondPeak and Lordstown common stock
during the Class Period.
DiamondPeak is a special purpose acquisition company -- also known
as a "blank check" company --formed for the sole purpose of
acquiring an existing business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
CLIMACO WILCOX PECA & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public Square, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: (216) 621-8484
Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
Email: sdsimp@climacolaw.com
- and -
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Phone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
- and -
David R. Kaplan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
12750 High Bluff Drive, Suite 475
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: (858) 997-0860
Facsimile: (858) 369-0096
Email: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com
LVNV FUNDING: Ford Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LVNV Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Eric R. Ford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-02704 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
LVNV Funding LLC -- https://www.lvnvfunding.com/ -- is a company
that buys charged-off accounts from companies like credit card
issuers and personal loan lenders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
MADISON SEATING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Madison Seating, LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Madison Seating, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02762 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Madison Seating, LLC -- https://www.madisonseating.com/ -- is
located in Brooklyn, New York and is part of the Furniture Stores
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Phone: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
MEDRISK LLC: Medical & Chiropractic Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MEDRISK, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc.,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. MEDRISK, LLC, MEDRISK MANAGEMENT LLC, MEDRISK
HOLDINGS, LLC, MEDRISK IPA, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02194 (E.D. Pa.,
May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
MedRisk -- https://www.medrisknet.com/ -- is the largest specialty
managed care organization in the workers' compensation industry
that is dedicated to physical rehabilitation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brett M. Freeman, Esq.
SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC
216 N. Blakely St.
Dunmore, PA 18512
Phone: (570) 341-9000
Fax: (570) 504-2769
Email: ecf@bankruptcypa.com
MIRAMED REVENUE: Phillips Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miramed Revenue
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Stephen C. Phillips,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Miramed Revenue Group, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02614 (N.D. Ill., May
14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
MiraMed Revenue Group -- https://miramedrg.com/ -- is an
experienced and successful healthcare collection agency that has
been providing third-party collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
MORAN FOODS: Greco Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moran Foods, LLC. The
case is styled as Leah Greco, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Moran Foods, LLC, Case No.
5:21-cv-00562-FJS-ATB (S.D.N.Y., May 15, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Moran Foods, LLC doing business as Save-A-Lot, Ltd. --
https://savealot.com/ -- is an American discount supermarket chain
store headquartered in Earth City, Missouri, in Greater St.
Louis.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: (516) 260-7080
Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com
MY EYE DR: Murtoff Files TCPA Suit in Northern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against My Eye Dr.
Optometrists, LLC. The case is styled as Jennifer Murtoff, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. My Eye Dr.
Optometrists, LLC, Capital Vision Services, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02607 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
MyEyeDr. -- https://www.myeyedr.com/ -- is a local optometry
offices and eye care centers provide prescription glasses and
frames, contact lenses and eye exams with eye doctors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ginzkey Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant National Securities Corporation filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled 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.
2:18-cv-01773-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 7, 2021, Judge
Ricardo S. Martinez of 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.
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 Defendant now seeks a review of the Class Certification Order
entered by Judge Martinez.
The appellate case is captioned as James Ginzkey, et al. v.
National Securities Corp., Case No. 21-80048, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 12, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, a Washington
Corporation, is represented by:
Douglas W. Greene, Esq.
James Morrison, Esq.
BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
999 3rd Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 566-7090
E-mail: dgreene@bakerlaw.com
Plaintiffs-Respondents JAMES GINZKEY, RICHARD FITZGERALD, CHARLES
CERF, and BARRY DONNER, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Joseph Wojciechowski, Esq.
STOLTMANN LAW OFFICES
233 S. Wacker, 84th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 332-4200
E-mail: joe@stoltlaw.com
NATIONAL WESTERN: Faces Baldwin and Dyrssen Putative Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Western Life Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company is
facing two proposed class actions entitled, Mildred Baldwin, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated vs. National
Western Life Insurance Company, Missouri Circuit Court for the 18th
Judicial Circuit (Pettis County) filed February 16, 2021, and
Douglas Dyrssen Sr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. National Western Life Insurance Company and
National Western Life Group, Inc., United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California filed March 8, 2021.
In the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2020, the
Company reported that it experienced a data event in which an
intruder accessed and exfiltrated certain data from the Company's
network.
As a result of this event, the Company is aware of two proposed
class actions filed against the Company, Mildred Baldwin, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated vs. National Western Life
Insurance Company, Missouri Circuit Court for the 18th Judicial
Circuit (Pettis County) filed February 16, 2021, and Douglas
Dyrssen Sr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. National Western Life Insurance Company and National
Western Life Group, Inc., United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California filed March 8, 2021.
The actions are seeking an undetermined amount of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, declaratory and other
equitable relief, and enjoinment.
National Western said, "As the Company has been notified only
recently of these lawsuits, it is in the process of analyzing the
merits of these various allegations. At this time, no prediction
can be made as to the likelihood or amount of any recovery against
the Company. It is possible other actions may be filed against the
Company due to the data event."
National Western Life Group, Inc. provides life insurance products
for the savings and protection needs of policyholders and annuity
contracts for the asset accumulation and retirement needs of
contract holders. The company is based in Austin, Texas.
NAVISTAR INC: Wright Transportation Suit Moved to S.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Wright Transportation, Inc., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No.
1:14-cv-07805 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on May 14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00236-TFM-M to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.
Navistar -- https://www.navistar.com/navistar/ -- operates as the
owner of International brand of trucks and diesel engines.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marvin Alan Miller, Esq.
Lori Ann Fanning, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 332-3400
- and -
Warren Monroe Armstrong, Esq.
MILLER WEISBROD LLP
11551 Forest Central Drive, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75243
Phone: (214) 987-0005
The Defendant is represented by:
Jacob L. Ramsey, Esq.
Jeffrey S Patterson
Tyler Geren Stuart
Drew M. Thomas
HARTLINE BARGER, LLP
8750 N. Central Expy., Suite 1600
Dallas, TX 75231
Phone: (214) 346-3779
- and -
Garrett Stuart Long
James Friedland
Robin M. Hulshizer
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (312) 876-7700
NEW YORK: Bagley Must File Class Certification Bid by August 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned Bagley et al v. The New York
State Department of Health, Case No. 1:15-cv-04845 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered a scheduling order that:
1. By August 20, 2021, the plaintiff must file their fully
briefed motion for class certification;
2. By August 13, 2021 the parties shall file their fully briefed
Daubert motions; and
3. Counsel shall follow J. Block's motion rules, specifically
section 2(D) when filing their motions.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
The New York State Department of Health is the department of the
New York state government responsible for public health.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Ross Sues Over Unauthorized Bank Account Deduction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEWREZ LLC DBA SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING and DOES
1-20, Case No. 2:21-cv-02247 (E.D. Pa., May 17, 2021), is brought
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendants debiting the Plaintiff's bank accounts on a recurring
basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the
Plaintiff's accounts, thereby violating the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.
According to the complaint, prior to September of 2019, the
Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant, whereby the
Defendant would deduct funds from Plaintiff's account on a
reoccurring basis to pay for her mortgage. Despite the Plaintiff
being automatically changed by the Defendant, and despite making
timely payments, the Plaintiff was charged a $35.00 late fee
multiple times on a reoccurring basis, without the Plaintiff's
consent or authorization. The Defendant's automatic withdrawals
caused an overdraft on the Plaintiff's bank account, causing her
actual injury in the forms of additional fees.
The Plaintiff never provided Defendant with any authorization to
deduct these additional sums of money on a regular recurring basis
from the Plaintiff's banking account. Nor did the Plaintiff owe
said fees, as she was making timely payments on her loan. The
Defendants continue to deduct this monthly sum from the Plaintiff
for several months without the Plaintiff's authorization. Further,
the Defendants did not provide to the Plaintiff, nor did the
Plaintiff execute, any written or electronic writing memorializing
or authorizing these recurring or automatic payments. The Plaintiff
alleges such activity to be in violation of the EFTA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Los Angeles County in
the state of California.
The Defendants was a Delaware limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, and
was engaged in the business of providing Mortgage loan
financing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: 866-633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
NOBLE ENERGY: Underpays Oil Royalties, Boulter Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE BOULTER, BOULTER, LLC, RALPH NIX PRODUCE, INC., and BARCLAY
FARMS, LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., and KERR-MCGEE OIL &
GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01346-NYW (D. Colo.,
May 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach
of contract and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of underpaying
royalties owed to the Plaintiffs for over six years. The Defendants
are allegedly deducting transportation charges and other costs in
their calculation and payment of royalties to the Plaintiffs on oil
sales, which are not permitted under the Noble Class oil royalty
provision and the Kerr-McGee Subclass I oil royalty provision. As a
result of the Defendants' breach of their contractual obligations,
the Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained substantial
damages, the suit added.
Ralph Nix Produce, Inc. is an agricultural firm, with its principal
place of business located in Colorado.
Boulter LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal
place of business located Kansas.
Barclay Farms LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business located in Colorado.
Noble Energy, Inc. is an independent oil and natural gas
exploration and production company, with its principal place of
business located in Texas.
Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore, LP is an energy company, with its
principal place of business located in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy Burrows, Esq.
BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
5201 Johnson Dr., Ste. 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
E-mail: george@bartonburrows.com
stacy@bartonburrows.com
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Anadarko Acquisition Related Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Occidental Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class
action suit entitled, In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
On August 8, 2019, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 9, 2019, Occidental acquired all of the outstanding
shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, through a transaction in
which a wholly-owned subsidiary of Occidental merged with and into
Anadarko.
On May 26, 2020, a putative securities class action captioned City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System, et al. v.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 651994/2020 (City of
Sterling), was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on alleged misstatements
in the Securities Act filings, including the registration statement
filed in connection with the acquisition of Anadarko and
Occidental's related issuance of common stock and debt securities
offerings that took place in August 2019. The lawsuit was filed
against Occidental, certain current and former officers and
directors and certain underwriters of the debt securities offerings
and sought damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees
and expenses.
Two additional putative class actions were filed in the same court
(together with City of Sterling, the State Cases) and the State
Cases were consolidated into In re Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 651830/2020.
On March 4, 2021, the court granted Occidental's motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, Occidental Petroleum
Corporation is engaged in the oil and gas exploration and
production.
OHMNILABS INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ohmnilabs, Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Ohmnilabs, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04394 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
OhmniLabs -- https://ohmnilabs.com/ -- is reinventing traditional
robotics development and redefining telepresence for healthcare,
education, senior care and work.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
OTR CAPITAL: Jackson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Forrest Jackson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. OTR CAPITAL, LLC, and FRITZ OWENS, Case No.
1:21-cv-02059-MLB (N.D. Ga., May 14, 2021), is brought for unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff frequently works more than 40 hours per workweek. For
example, the Plaintiff Forrest worked approximately 60 hours per
week. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated
the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff 1.5 times their regular
hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per workweek, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Business Development
Representative.
OTR Capital is an enterprise engaged in commerce or the production
of goods for commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Travis Foust, Esq.
Dustin L. Crawford, Esq.
PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-873-8000
Fax: 404-873-8050
Email: tfoust@pcwlawfirm.com
dcrawford@pcwlawfirm.com
PACIFIC SPECIALTY: Arquieta Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pacific Specialty
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Josh Arquieta, on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pacific Specialty
Insurance Company, Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00300041-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Pacific Specialty -- https://www.pacificspecialty.com/ -- has been
a leading provider of property and powersports insurance,
protecting millions of people across the country, for over 20
years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING: Sotelo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performance
Contracting Group, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jorge Sotelo,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Performance Contracting Group, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC21591426 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 4,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Performance Contracting Group, Inc. --
https://www.performancecontracting.com/ -- offers quality services
and products to the industrial, commercial and non-residential
markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446
Phone: 310-888-7771
Fax: 310-888-0109
Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Perez Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial
Services LLC. The case is styled as Renelle Perez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Phoenix Financial Services
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-21722-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Phoenix Financial -- https://www.phoenixfinancialsvcs.com/ -- is a
debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Davidson, Esq.
Alex Kruzyk, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Phone: (561) 826-5477
Fax: (561) 961-5684
Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
akruzyk@gdrlawfirm.com
- and -
Matthew David Bavaro, Esq.
LOAN LAWYERS
3201 Griffin Road, Suite 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Phone: (954) 523-4357
Email: matthew@fight13.com
POPULAR INC: Bid to Dismiss Golden Putative Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
filed in
the putative class action suit entitled, Golden v. Popular, Inc.,
is pending.
Popular has been also named as a defendant on a putative class
action complaint captioned Golden v. Popular, Inc. filed in March
2020 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract, violation of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of New
York consumer protection law due to Popular's purported practice of
charging OD Fees on transactions that, under plaintiffs' theory, do
not overdraw the account.
Plaintiff describes Popular's purported practice of charging OD
Fees as "Authorize Positive, Purportedly Settle Negative
Transactions" and states that Popular assesses OD Fees over
authorized transactions for which sufficient funds are held for
settlement.
In August 2020, Popular filed a Motion to Dismiss on several
grounds, including failure to state a claim against Popular, Inc.
and improper venue.
In October 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York and, on that same date, filed an identical complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands against
Popular, Inc., Popular Bank and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
(BPPR).
In November 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
against Popular, Inc. and Popular Bank following a Motion to
Dismiss filed on behalf of such entities which argued failure to
state a claim and lack of minimum contacts of such parties with the
U.S.V.I. district court jurisdiction.
BPPR, the only defendant remaining in the case, was served with
process in November 2020 and filed a Motion to Dismiss in January
2021. Plaintiff opposed the Motion to Dismiss in February 2021 and
BPPR replied in March 2021.
The Motion to Dismiss is now fully briefed and pending resolution.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Camacho Putative Class Suit Closed
-----------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit entitled, Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., is now closed.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in a
putative class action captioned Lilliam Gonzalez Camacho, et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al., filed before the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of
mortgage-holders who have allegedly been subjected to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.
Plaintiffs maintain that when they sought to reduce their loan
payments, defendants failed to provide them with such reduced loan
payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss mitigation
processes while filing foreclosure claims against them in parallel
(or dual tracking).
Plaintiffs assert that such actions violate the Home Affordable
Modification Program, the Home Affordable Refinance Program and
other federally sponsored loan modification programs, as well as
the Puerto Rico Mortgage Debtor Assistance Act and the Truth in
Lending Act.
For the alleged violations stated above, plaintiffs request that
all defendants (over 20, including all local banks) be held jointly
and severally liable in an amount no less than $400 million. BPPR
filed a motion to dismiss in August 2017, as did most
co-defendants, and, in March 2018, the District Court dismissed the
complaint in its entirety. After being denied reconsideration by
the District Court, in August 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
In July 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing the complaint.
In September 2020, the Appellants filed a petition for rehearing
and for rehearing en banc, which was denied in December 2020.
Proceedings before the First Circuit Court of Appeals concluded,
and Plaintiffs did not seek certiorari review before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
This matter is now closed.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Continues to Defend Diaz Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Perez Diaz v. Popular,
Inc., et al.
Popular, Inc., Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) and Popular
Insurance, LLC have been named defendants in a class action
complaint captioned Perez Diaz v. Popular, Inc., et al, filed
before the Court of First Instance, Arecibo Part.
The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief on behalf of the class against the Popular
Defendants, as well as Antilles Insurance Company and MAPFRE-PRAICO
Insurance Company (the "Defendant Insurance Companies").
Plaintiffs allege that the Popular Defendants have been unjustly
enriched by failing to reimburse them for commissions paid by the
Defendant Insurance Companies to the insurance agent and/or
mortgagee for policy years when no claims were filed against their
hazard insurance policies.
They demand the reimbursement to the purported "class" of an
estimated $400 million plus legal interest, for the "good
experience" commissions allegedly paid by the Defendant Insurance
Companies during the relevant time period, as well as injunctive
relief seeking to enjoin the Defendant Insurance Companies from
paying commissions to the insurance agent/mortgagee and ordering
them to pay those fees directly to the insured.
A motion for dismissal on the merits filed by the Defendant
Insurance Companies was denied with a right to replead following
limited targeted discovery.
Each of the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico
Supreme Court denied the Popular Defendants' request to review the
lower court's denial of the motion to dismiss.
In December 2017, plaintiffs amended the complaint, and, in January
2018, defendants filed an answer thereto.
Separately, in October 2017, the Court entered an order whereby it
broadly certified the class, after which the Popular Defendants
filed a certiorari petition before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals
in relation to the class certification, which the Court declined to
entertain. In November 2018 and in January 2019, plaintiffs filed
voluntary dismissal petitions against MAPFRE-PRAICO Insurance
Company and Antilles Insurance Company, respectively, leaving the
Popular Defendants as the sole remaining defendants in the action.
In April 2019, the Court amended the class definition to limit it
to individual homeowners whose residential units were subject to a
mortgage from BPPR who, in turn, obtained risk insurance policies
with Antilles Insurance or MAPFRE Insurance through Popular
Insurance from 2002 to 2015, and who did not make insurance claims
against said policies during their effective term. The Court
approved in September 2020 the notice to the class, which is yet to
be published.
The Popular Defendants expect to file a Motion for Summary Judgment
requesting the dismissal of the action by May 7, 2021, which is the
current deadline for the filing of dispositive motions.
This deadline, and current deadlines for the Pre-Trial and Trial
hearings, may be extended if the Court allows an additional expert
witness recently disclosed by Plaintiffs and opposed by the Popular
Defendants.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Discovery in Soto-Melendez Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the putative class action suit entitled, Soto-Melendez v. Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico.
In February 2020, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) was served
with a putative class action complaint captioned Soto-Melendez v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, filed before the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment due to BPPR's
purported practice of (a) assessing more than one insufficient
funds fee ("NSF Fees") on the same "item" or transaction and (b)
charging both NSF Fees and overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on the same
item or transaction, and is filed on behalf of all persons who
during the applicable statute of limitations period were charged
NSF Fees and/or OD Fees pursuant to these purported practices.
In April 2020, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss the case.
On April 21, 2021, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part BPPR's motion to dismiss; the unjust enrichment
claim was dismissed, whereas the breach of contract and covenant of
good faith and fair dealing claims survived the motion.
Discovery is ongoing.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
POPULAR INC: Maura Appeals Dismissal of Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the appeal in the
putative class action suit entitled, Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., is pending.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) has been named a defendant in
another putative class action captioned Yiries Josef Saad Maura v.
Banco Popular, et al., filed by the same counsel who filed the
Gonzalez Camacho action, on behalf of residential customers of the
defendant banks who have allegedly been subject to illegal
foreclosures and/or loan modifications through their mortgage
servicers.
As in Gonzalez Camacho, plaintiffs contend that when they sought to
reduce their loan payments, defendants failed to provide them with
such reduced loan payments, instead subjecting them to lengthy loss
mitigation processes while filing foreclosure claims against them
in parallel, all in violation of Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and other
consumer-protection laws and regulations.
Plaintiffs did not include a specific amount of damages in their
complaint.
After waiving service of process, BPPR filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the same grounds as those asserted in the
González Camacho action (as did most co-defendants, separately).
BPPR further filed a motion to oppose class certification, which
the Court granted in September 2018.
In April 2019, the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting
BPPR's and several other defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration in April
2019, which Popular timely opposed.
In September 2019, the Court issued an Amended Opinion and Order
dismissing plaintiffs' claims against all defendants, denying the
reconsideration requests and other pending motions, and issuing
final judgment.
In October 2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the Court's Amended Opinion and Order, which was denied in December
2019.
In January 2020, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Plaintiffs filed their appeal brief in July 2020, Appellees filed
their brief in September 2020, and Appellants filed their reply
brief in January 2021.
The appeal is now fully briefed and pending resolution.
Popular, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides various retail,
mortgage, and commercial banking products and services. Popular,
Inc. was founded in 1893 and is headquartered in Hato Rey, Puerto
Rico.
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Boscaino Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Steven Boscaino,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-02699
(E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Disclosed Info to Third Parties, Powers Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Powers, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated consumers v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01083-SDM-AAS (M.D. Fla., May 5, 2021), is brought
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
The complaint alleges that the Defendant routinely and
intentionally communicates and discloses to third-parties
information in connection with the collection of debts. Such
communication is forbidden under the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Hillsborough
County, Florida.
The Defendant is one of the largest debt collection companies in
the world and communicates with third parties in connection with
hundreds of thousands of consumer debts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
100 S. Ashley Dr., Ste. 1400
Tampa, FL. 33602
Phone: (813) 229-1118
Fax: (813) 221-6750
Email: kyanes@kmf-law.com
gcentrone@kmf-law.com
- and -
Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
SHRADER LAW, PLLC
612 W. Bay Street
Tampa, Florida 33606
Phone: (813) 360-1529
Fax: (813) 336-0832
Email: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com
- and -
Kaelyn Steinkraus Diamond, Esq.
ZIEGLER DIAMOND LAW
2561 Nursery Rd., Ste. A
Clearwater, FL 33764
Phone: (727) 538-4188
Fax: (727) 362-4778
Email: kaelyn@attorneydebtfighters.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Lopez Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Welquis Lopez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00472 (W.D. Tex., May
14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and
collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
POWERS COLLECTIBLES: Sosa Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Powers Collectibles,
LLC. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Powers Collectibles, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04388 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Powers Collectibles LLC -- https://powerssportsmemorabilia.com/ --
specializes in unique authentic sports and celebrity autographs, at
affordable prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Neumann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Neumann, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02737 (E.D.N.Y., May 15,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ --
provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Kenneth Washington, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02749 (E.D.N.Y., May 16,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ --
provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
QUINCY L. ALLEN: Garfield Sues Over Abuse of Authority
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garfield, derivatively on behalf of THE ODP CORPORATION and
individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of THE ODP CORPORATION v. QUINCY L. ALLEN, KRISTIN A.
CAMPBELL, MARCUS B. DUNLOP, CYNTHIA T. JAMISON, FRANCESCA RUIZ DE
LUZURIAGA, V. JAMES MARINO, SHASHANK SAMANT, WENDY L. SCHOPPERT,
GERRY P. SMITH, DAVID M. SZYMANSKI, NIGEL TRAVIS, and JOSEPH S.
VASSALLUZZO, Defendants; THE ODP CORPORATION, Nominal Defendant;
Case No. 2021-0420 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 13, 2021), arises from
the company Board's abuse of the authority entrusted to it under
the Company's stockholder-approved 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan.
According to the complaint, in 2019, the Board adopted and the
Company's stockholders approved the 2019 Plan. Subject to certain
specified conditions and limitations, the 2019 Plan authorized the
Board to grant up to 34,000,000 shares of ODP common stock as
equity awards to the Company's officers, employees, non-employee
directors, and consultants. In order to curb excessive
compensation, the 2019 Plan imposed "annual limits" on the amount
of equity awards that could be granted to an individual participant
during a fiscal year. With respect to an award of Performance
Shares – pursuant to which the recipient receives shares of ODP
common stock upon the achievement of performance goals – the 2019
Plan provided that the "number of shares of [ODP common stock]
subject to Awards of Performance Shares" granted in a fiscal year
to an individual participant shall not exceed 3,500,000. When the
Board sought stockholder approval of the 2019 Plan, the Board
referred to this limit as (a) a "material term" of the 2019 Plan,
(b) "consistent with the interests" of ODP's stockholders, and (c)
a "sound corporate governance practice."
In March 2020, the Board's Compensation & Talent Committee granted
Performance Share awards to Smith under the 2019 Plan pursuant to
which he could earn various amounts of ODP common stock upon the
achievement of performance goals during a three-year performance
period. Pursuant to these awards, Smith would receive 1,183,470
shares if the threshold goals established by the Committee were
achieved, 2,366,929 shares if the target goals established by the
Company were achieved, and up to 4,733,840 shares – worth
approximately $9.6 million at the time – if the maximum goals
established by the Committee were achieved. In granting the awards
to Smith, the Committee exceeded the 2019 Plan's 3,500,000 - share
cap by 1,233,840 shares. By providing Smith with grants of
Performance Shares in violation of the 2019 Plan's express terms,
the Committee unjustly enriched Smith and exceeded the scope of
authority that ODP's stockholders have granted to the Board,
asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff has continuously owned shares of ODP common stock
since June 2016.
ODP describes itself as a "leading provider of business services
and supplies, products and digital workplace technology solutions
to small, medium and enterprise businesses, through an integrated
business-to-business (B2B) distribution platform, which includes
world-class supply chain and distribution operations, dedicated
sales professionals and technicians, online presence, and
approximately 1,100 stores".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
FARNAN LLP
919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 777-0300
Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
- and -
Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 725-1000
RANGER ENERGY: Lyle Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Lyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANGER ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, and BRAVO WIRELINE, LLC,
Case No. 7:21-cv-00089 (W.D. Tex., May 14, 2021), is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff lawful
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff
1.5x their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per
week. The Defendants knew of or should have been aware of previous
litigation and enforcement actions relating to wage and hour
violations involving the misclassification of positions very
similar to Operators and Lead Operators. The Defendants knew, or
showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid the
Plaintiff and other Operators and Lead Operators violated the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Lead Operator
from March of 2018 until March of 2021.
The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas
industry throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
RCI HOSPITALITY: Consolidated Putative Class Suit in Texas Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.
In May and June 2019, three putative securities class action
complaints were filed against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
based on alleged materially false and misleading statements made in
the Company's SEC filings and disclosures as they relate to various
alleged transactions by the Company and management.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees.
These lawsuits are Hoffman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et
al. (filed May 21, 2019, naming the Company and Eric Langan); Gu v.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed May 28, 2019, naming
the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall (who is no longer an
officer of the Company)); and Grossman v. RCI Hospitality Holdings,
Inc., et al. (filed June 28, 2019, naming the Company, Eric Langan,
and Phil Marshall).
The plaintiffs in all three cases moved to consolidate the
purported class actions. On January 10, 2020 an order consolidating
the Hoffman, Grossman, and Gu cases was entered by the Court.
The consolidated case is styled In re RCI Hospitality Holdings,
Inc., No. 4:19-cv-01841.
On February 24, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint, continuing to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In addition to naming the Company, Eric Langan, and Phil Marshall,
the amended complaint also adds director Nourdean Anakar and former
director Steven Jenkins as defendants.
On April 24, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. On March 31, 2021, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
On April 14, 2021, defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses, denying liability as to all claims.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action.
This action is in its preliminary phase, and a potential loss
cannot yet be estimated.
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates night clubs offering adult entertainment, restaurants, and
bar operations in Texas and other locations in the United States.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, also owns and operates media
and websites related to their operations. The company is based in
Houston, Texas.
REALREAL INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Marin County
------------------------------------------------------------
The RealReal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the Marin
County.
On September 10, 2019, a purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, its officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the
Superior Court of the State of California in the County of San
Mateo.
Three additional purported class actions, also alleging claims
arising from the IPO were subsequently filed in Marin County and
San Francisco County Superior Courts.
The San Mateo case was voluntarily dismissed, refiled in Marin
County Superior Court and consolidated with the cases there.
On January 10, 2020, the Marin County plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the San Francisco
Superior Court case have filed a request for dismissal.
Separately an additional purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 25, 2019. On February 12, 2020, a lead
plaintiff was appointed in the federal action and an Amended
Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 31, 2020.
Defendants' filed a demurrer and motion to strike in the state
court action on March 13, 2020 and filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in favor of the federal action on May 1, 2020. On
August 4, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the
state court action and deferred ruling on the demurrer and motion
to strike pending the outcome of the federal court action.
A motion to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Complaint in the
federal court action was filed on May 15, 2020.
On March 31, 2021, the court entered an order on the motion to
dismiss, dismissing the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims and
some of the claims alleged under the Securities Act of 1933. The
court provided plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend the
complaint and, on April 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in federal court.
The state court complaint, and the Second Amended Complaint in
federal court each allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933
on behalf of a purported class of shareholders who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant to or traceable to the registration
statement for the Company's IPO.
The federal complaint also alleges claims under the Exchange Act on
behalf of a purported class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's stock from June 27, 2019 through November 20, 2019. The
complaints seek, among other things, damages and interest,
rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 10, 2020 and December 7, 2020, purported shareholders
filed putative derivative actions in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. The derivative complaints
allege factual allegations largely tracking the above referenced
lawsuits. The two derivative cases have been consolidated and the
consolidated case has been stayed.
RealReal said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend
against the litigation described above, the cases are at a very
early stage and there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense. For this same reason, the Company cannot
currently estimate the loss or the range of possible losses it may
experience in connection with this litigation."
The RealReal, Inc. owns and operates a members-only consignment
marketplace for luxury goods. The Company specializes in curating
and authenticating a full range of previously owned luxury products
such as clothing, shoes, accessories, and jewelry that are sold on
consignment. The RealReal markets its products and services
throughout the United States. The company is based in San
Francisco, California.
RETAIL SOLUTIONS: Western Agricultural Files Suit in D. of Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bryan Macaraig and
Retail Solutions LLC. The case is styled as Western Agricultural
Insurance Company, an Iowa company v. Bryan Macaraig and Retail
Solutions LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Case No.
2:21-cv-00866-ESW (D. Ariz., May 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.
Retail Solutions -- https://www.retail-solutionsllc.com/ -- is a
'boutique' merchandising company established in 2009 and located in
sunny Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Michael Callahan, Esq.
Josh Michael Snell, Esq.
Ryan John McCarthy, Esq.
JONES SKELTON & HOCULI PLC
40 N Central Ave., Ste. 2700
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: (602) 263-7392
Email: ccallahan@jshfirm.com
jsnell@jshfirm.com
rmccarthy@jshfirm.com
RITUAL BEVERAGE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ritual Beverage
Company LLC. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Ritual
Beverage Company LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02770 (E.D.N.Y., May 17,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ritual -- https://www.ritualzeroproof.com/ -- offers non-alcoholic
beverages create no- and low-alcohol cocktails and mocktails
without carbs, calories or alcohol.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SAPORITO INC: Keeps Restaurant Staff's Tips, Elisi Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESPHERA ELISI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAPORITO, INC. and GIOVANNI D'AGOSTINO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00609 (E.D. Va., May 17, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by unlawfully retaining employees' tips.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cashier and food
runner at Tony's New York Pizza restaurant located at 13087 Fair
Lake Boulevard, Fairfax, Virginia from February 16, 2021.
Saporito, Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the
name Tony's New York Pizza located at 13087 Fair Lake Boulevard,
Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540A Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-1661
E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com
- and –
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
SCHELL & KAMPETER: Starr Files Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schell & Kampeter,
Inc. The case is styled as Ethan Starr, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004585 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., May
17, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Schell & Kampeter, Inc., doing business as Diamond Pet Foods, Inc.
-- https://diamondpetcompany.com/ -- manufactures and markets
animal food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vladimir J. Kozina, Esq.
MAYALL HURLEY PC
2453 Grand Canal Blvd.
Stockton, CA 95207
Phone: 209-477-3833
Fax: 209-473-4818
Email: vjkozina@mayallaw.com
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Ellsworth
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Schneider National Carriers, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Jarrell Ellsworth v.
Schneider National Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-01699-SB-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Riverside.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on September 3, 2020, the
lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 21, 2020.
The complaint is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
The Defendant is now seeking a review of the Court's Order dated
April 26, 2021, denying its motion to compel arbitration.
The appellate case is captioned as Jarrell Ellsworth v. Schneider
National Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-55492, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on May 13,
2021.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant Schneider National Carriers, Inc. Mediation
Questionnaire was due on May 20, 2021;
-- Transcript shall be ordered by June 14, 2021;
-- Transcript is due on July 12, 2021;
-- Appellant Schneider National Carriers, Inc. opening brief is
due on August 23, 2021;
-- Appellee Jarrell Ellsworth answering brief is due on
September 20, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendant-Appellant SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. is
represented by:
Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq.
Amy E. Beverlin, Esq.
Matthew Kane, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 956-3419
E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com
mkane@mcguirewoods.com
Plaintiff-Appellee JARRELL ELLSWORTH, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Alexandria Kachadoorian, Esq.
Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
COUNSELONE, PC
9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 277-9945
E-mail: alexandria@counselonegroup.com
justin@counselonegroup.com
SCHYLLING INC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schylling Inc. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Schylling Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04395
(S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Schylling Inc. -- https://schylling.com/ -- manufactures toys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SCIPLAY CORP: Class Status Bid in NY Consolidated Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for class
certification in the consolidated putative class action suit in New
York, is pending.
On or about October 14, 2019, the Police Retirement System of St.
Louis filed a putative class action complaint in New York state
court against SciPlay, certain of its executives and directors, and
SciPlay's underwriters with respect to its initial public offering
(the "PRS Action").
The complaint was amended on November 18, 2019. The plaintiff seeks
to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired Class
A common stock of SciPlay pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement filed and issued in connection with
SciPlay's initial public offering, which commenced on or about May
3, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages of at
least $146.0 million, and the award of the plaintiff's and the
class's reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action.
On or about December 9, 2019, Hongwei Li filed a putative class
action complaint in New York state court asserting substantively
similar causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 and
substantially similar factual allegations as those alleged in the
PRS Action (the "Li Action").
On December 18, 2019, the New York state court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the PRS Action and the Li Action into a single
lawsuit.
On December 23, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action. On August 28, 2020, the court issued an oral
ruling granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss.
On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
motion to certify the putative class. That motion is not yet
fully-briefed.
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Fife Bid for Class Certification Pending
------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the plaintiff's motion
to certify the putative class and for a preliminary injunction in
the Sheryl Fife initiated suit, is pending.
On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff, Sheryl Fife, filed a putative class
action complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corporation, against SGC
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing SGC's online social casino games, including but not
limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish Casino.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and injunctive and/or declaratory
relief.
On July 2, 2018, SGC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied on December
18, 2018. SGC filed its answer to the putative class action
complaint on January 18, 2019.
On August 24, 2020, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend her complaint and to substitute a new plaintiff,
Donna Reed, for the initial plaintiff, and re-captioned the matter
Reed v. Scientific Games Corporation.
On August 25, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
against SGC, asserting the same claims, and seeking the same
relief, as the complaint filed by Sheryl Fife. On September 8,
2020, SGC filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's
claims and to dismiss the action, or, in the alternative, to
transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, and that motion is fully-briefed and pending
before the trial court.
On April 9, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
putative class and for a preliminary injunction.
SciPlay said, "Although the case was brought against Scientific
Games, pursuant to the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would
expect to cover or contribute to any damage awards due to the
matter arising as a result of our business."
SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss."
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCIPLAY CORP: Good Putative Class Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit initiated by John Good, remains stayed.
On or about November 4, 2019, plaintiff John Good filed a putative
class action complaint in Nevada state court against SciPlay,
certain of its executives and directors, SGC, and SciPlay's
underwriters with respect to SciPlay's initial public offering.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons who
purchased Class A common stock of SciPlay in or traceable to
SciPlay's initial public offering that it completed on or about May
7, 2019.
The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 77, and seeks
certification of the putative class; compensatory damages, and the
award of the plaintiff's and the class's reasonable costs and
expenses incurred in the action.
On February 27, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that, among other things, stayed the lawsuit pending entry of an
order resolving the motion to dismiss that was pending in the
SciPlay initial public offering (IPO) matter in New York state
court.
On September 29, 2020, the trial court entered a stipulated order
that extended the stay pending a ruling on class certification in
the SciPlay IPO matter in New York state court.
SciPlay said, "Based on our assessment under ASC 410 and ASC 450
and consideration of the two SciPlay IPO matters above, we
determined that both loss and insurance proceeds loss recovery,
which we believe is recoverable under our insurance policy, are
deemed probable and reasonably estimable. As a result, we recorded
approximately $8.0 million in Accrued liabilities and Prepaid
expenses and other current assets as of March 31, 2021, with no
material impact on our statement of income for the three month
period ended March 31, 2021."
SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.
SCOTT FRAKES: Gills Directed to File Amended Class Action Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GILLS v. SCOTT R.
FRAKES and PETE RICKETTS, in their official and individual
capacities, Case No. 4:21-cv-03004-RGK-PRSE (D. Neb.), the Hon.
Judge Richard G. Kopf entered an order that:
1. On the court's own motion, Plaintiff shall have 30 days in
which to file an amended complaint.
2. Failure to file an amended complaint within 30 days will
result in the court dismissing the case without prejudice,
and without further notice to Plaintiff.
3. the Complaint and any new allegations. Failure to consolidate
all claims into one document may result in the abandonment of
claims. Plaintiff is warned that an amended complaint will
supersede, not supplement, his prior pleadings.
4. The court reserves the right to conduct further review of
Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915(e) and
1915A in the event he files an amended complaint.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set the following pro
se case management deadline: June 4, 2021, check for amended
complaint.
6. The Plaintiff's motion to supplement the complaint is
denied.
7. The Plaintiff's motion to certify class and to appoint
counsel is denied without prejudice to reassertion.
The Court said, "Gills has filed a motion to supplement his
Complaint, but his supplemental allegations do not correct the
deficiencies noted above. They instead are argumentative, and have
no place in a pleading. The motion therefore will be denied. Gills
has also filed a motion for class certification, and for
appointment of counsel to represent the class. This motion will
also be denied because, among other reasons, Gills' Complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted."
The Plaintiff Gills, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed his pro se Complaint on January
14, 2021, and subsequently was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Now that the required initial partial filing fee has been
paid, the court conducts an initial review of Gills' Complaint to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
Gills alleges he was hospitalized and placed on a ventilator in
September 2020 after contracting COVID-19. Gills alleges he nearly
died, but does not allege that he continues to have any physical
problems. Gills claims the Defendants, Scott R. Frakes (Director of
the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services) and Pete Ricketts
(Governor of the State of Nebraska) conspired to violate his civil
rights, and he seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated May 5, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fbAd61 at no
extra charge.[CC]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Gaffney Seeks Initial Approval of Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned THERESA GAFFNEY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC., Case No. 3:18-cv-12233-BRM-ZNQ (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminary
approval of the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement, on behalf of
the following class:
"All consumers with properties in New Jersey who were 30 or
more
days past due on their mortgage loans when SPS began servicing
their loans, and to whom SPS sent monthly mortgage statements
from July 31, 2017 through December 31, 2019, after a
foreclosure judgment was entered with respect to their loans,
and where the note rate in the monthly statements was in excess
of the then-applicable post-judgment interest rate under New
Jersey R. 4:42-11."
Select Portfolio is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as
Fairbanks Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 5, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v4OZRr at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 695-3282
Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Washington Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIMM Associates, Inc.
The case is styled as Kaileigh Washington, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMM Associates, Inc.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02750 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- are Accounts
Receivable Management Specialists working with creditors to recover
outstanding consumer credit accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Barshay, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 210-7272
Fax: (516) 706-5055
Email: dbarshay@brlfirm.com
SIMPLE SKIFF: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simple Skiff
Beverages, LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, Individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Simple
Skiff Beverages, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03984-JGK (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Simple Skiff Beverages doing business as Ohza --
https://ohzamimosas.com/ -- is a premium, ready-to-drink mimosa
that uses quality sparkling wine and juice.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Discovery Ongoing in Illinois Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is
ongoing in the consolidated putative class action suit before the
Northern District of Illinois court.
The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the
industry.
On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.
The consolidated action alleges that the Company and thirteen other
broadcasters conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on
broadcast television stations throughout the United States and
engaged in unlawful information sharing, in violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged. The Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
November 6, 2020.
Since then, the Plaintiffs have served the Defendants with written
discovery requests, and the Court has set a pretrial schedule
requiring discovery to be completed by July 1, 2022, and briefing
on class certification to be completed by November 14, 2022.
The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against all such claims.
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. operates as a television
broadcasting company in the United States. It owns or provides
various programming, operating, sales, and other non-programming
operating services to television stations. The company was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
SIX SLICE: Parties Ask Court to Send Corrective Notice to Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned William Bailey, On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. Six Slice Acquisitions,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00432-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Parties
agree to the following stipulations and seek the Court's approval
to send a targeted corrective notice to specific identified members
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective.
Joint Stipulations Regarding Defendant Six Slice Acquisitions,
LLC's Arbitration Agreements & Corrective Notice
On November 30, 2020, the Court granted conditional certification
of an FLSA collective action with respect to the delivery drivers
who worked at three of Defendants' Marco's stores.
The notice period for the delivery drivers at those three stores
ran from December 21, 2020, to February 19, 2021. During that
period, certain delivery drivers eligible to join this litigation
were presented with arbitration agreements pursuant to changes in
Defendants' employment policies. The arbitration agreements did not
mention the present lawsuit.
A copy of the Parties motion dated May 5, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eZyC2R at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
Riley Edward Kane, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE: Lauth Sues Over Abuse and Negligence
--------------------------------------------------------
Abbey M. Lauth, as Personal Representative of the Estate of SUSAN
M. KAUFMAN, Deceased v. SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK, LLC,
Florida Limited Liability Company; SOLARIS HEALTHCARE PROPERTIES,
LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company; SOLARIS HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company; SOLARlS
MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Florida Limited Liability Company; SO
LARIS ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC, Florida Limited Liability
Company; SOLARIS EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Florida Limited Liability
Company; SOLARIS CLINICAL CONSUL TING, LLC, Florida Limited
Liability Company; SOLARIS REHAB, LLC, Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. CACE-21-009023 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., May 4, 2021), is brought as a result of the
Defendants' abuse, neglect, negligence and/or violations of her
statutory resident's rights.
According to the complaint, decedent Kaufman, a 75-year-old
paraplegic, suffered a mild stroke with left-sided weakness and
after a three-day stay at Northwest Medical Center. She was
thereafter discharged in stable condition to Defendant, Solaris
Coconut Creek. The purpose of her admission to Solaris Coconut
Creek was for post-hospital rehabilitation, therapy, and assistance
for her to return to her home.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants knew, or should have
known, of Kaufman's current and past medical conditions and the
care that she required when they represented to the Plaintiff that
they could adequately care for her needs at Solaris Coconut Creek.
The Defendant made affirmative representations to decedent and/or
Plaintiff that the appropriate level of care would be provided when
they knew, or should have known, that because of budget limitations
on the amount of staffing and other operating issues affecting the
care of residents at the facility, that residents of Solaris
Coconut Creek, including Kaufman, would not get the adequate and
appropriate care needed.
Kaufman died as a direct and proximate result of such abuse,
neglect, negligence and/or violations of his resident's rights,
says the complaint.
Abbey M. Lauth is the daughter and the court appointed legal
representative of the ESTATE of SUSAN M. KAUFMAN, Deceased.
SOLARIS HEALTHCARE COCONUT CREEK, LLC was licensed as a nursing
home by the State of Florida under Chapter 400, Florida
Statutes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Susser, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GARY E. SUSSER, P.A.
2755 S. Federal Highway, Suite 13
Boynton Beach, FL 33445
Phone: 561-735-4636
Fax: 561-735-3964
Eservice: courtdocs@susserlaw.com
Secondary: lydia@susserlaw.com
STEEL FORCE: Raya Files Suit in California Circuit Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steel Force Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Antonio Alvarado Raya, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Steel Force Inc., Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00300052-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Cir. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 4,
2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil - Unlimited."
Steel Force, Inc. is located in El Dorado Hills, California and is
part of the Steel Service Centers & Other Metal Wholesalers
Industry..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Heather Davis, Esq.
PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
237 California St.
El Segundo, CA 90245-4310
Phone: 424-290-3095
Fax: 866-264-7880
Email: heather@protectionlawgroup.com
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Discovery in Lowry Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Surgalign Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by Patricia Lowry.
On June 8, 2020, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors,
with the assistance of independent legal and forensic accounting
advisors, conducted an internal investigation of matters relating
to the Company's revenue recognition practices for certain
contractual arrangements, primarily with customers of the Company's
formerly-owned OEM Businesses, including the accounting treatment,
financial reporting and internal controls related to such
arrangements.
There is currently ongoing stockholder litigation related to the
Company's Investigation. A class action complaint was filed by
Patricia Lowry, a purported shareholder of the Company, against the
Company, and certain current and former officers of the Company, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 23, 2020 asserting claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and demanding a jury
trial.
The court appointed a different shareholder as Lead Plaintiff and
she filed an amended complaint on August 31, 2020.
On October 15, 2020, the Company and the other-named defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In April 2021, the court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The case will now move to the discovery phase.
Surgalign Holdings, Inc. is a global medical technology company
advancing the science of spine care, focused on delivering
innovative solutions that drive superior clinical and economic
outcomes.
SUTTER VALLEY: Singh Files Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sutter Valley
Hospitals, et al. The case is styled as Roniel Singh, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Sutter
Valley Hospitals, Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00300086-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 4, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Sutter Medical Center -- https://www.sutterhealth.org/smcs -- is a
not-for-profit hospital, part of the Sutter Health network,
providing health care services to patients in Sacramento.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
TABLE 46: Rodriguez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Yamileth Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TABLE 46 LLC d/b/a GYROLICIOUS GREEK GRILL and STEVEN
KRAM, Case No. 2:21-cv-02760 (E.D.N.Y., May 17, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Labor
Law and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order, with
regard to the Defendants' failure to pay overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations to Plaintiff who
worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and the Defendants' failure
to provide the Plaintiff with a wage notice and paystubs as
required by NYLL.
The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of failing to
pay overtime compensation required by federal and New York State
law and regulations to the Plaintiff who worked in excess of 40
hours per week. The Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of failing to properly pay their employees. The Defendants
have maintained a policy and practice of failing to provide the
Plaintiff with proper wage notices and paystubs, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dishwasher, cook, and
prep-cook from October 2017 until the Defendants terminated her on
October 8, 2018.
The Defendants operate a Greek-themed restaurant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 571-0700
Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
TEGNA INC: Consolidated Massey Suit Over Ad Rates Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated putative class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey &
Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al.
Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action
lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the
Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a
class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States
who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local
television provided by the defendants.
The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek
monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest, as well as
injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct.
These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc.
et. al., filed on July 30, 2018.
At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints.
Although the company was named as a defendant in sixteen of the
original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a
defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into
consent decrees with the DOJ in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought
leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA
and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding.
The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed
the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019.
On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to
dismiss the matter. On November 6, 2020, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.
Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims
asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously against them."
Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company.
The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing
services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States
markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services
to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT)
local advertising network, Premion.
TILRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Braun Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No.
2020-0137-KSJM, is pending.
On February 27, 2020, Tilray stockholders Deborah Braun and Nader
Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the
Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No.
2020-0137-KSJM.
On March 2, 2020, Tilray stockholders Catherine Bouvier, James
Hawkins, and Stephanie Hawkins filed a class action and derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Bouvier v.
Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0154-KSJM.
The two complaints, nearly identical, were filed by the same group
of counsel, and name Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue,
Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC
(as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as defendants and Tilray
as a nominal defendant.
On March 4, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating the two cases and designating the complaint in the
Braun/Noorian action as the operative complaint.
The operative complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution (the Privateer
Defendants) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their alleged
capacities as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against
Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray
in connection with the Downstream Merger.
The operative complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the
Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream
Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach
breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the
Downstream Merger.
Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer
Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings without
providing a corresponding benefit to Tilray and its minority
stockholders and that the Downstream Merger unfairly transferred
and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's control over Tilray.
On July 17, 2020, the stockholder plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint asserting substantially similar claims. On August 14,
2020, Tilray and all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On October 14, 2020, in light of the Plaintiffs' statement that
certain actions may have mooted some of their claims related to the
alleged unfair extension of control over Tilray, the Court entered
an order adjourning the planned November 4, 2020 hearing and
removing the pending deadlines for briefing on the motions to
dismiss. The hearing was rescheduled to February 5, 2021.
On February 5, 2021, the Court held a hearing on those Motions and
reserved judgment.
On December 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims that the Downstream Merger improperly
perpetuated or extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh's alleged control
as moot in light of the automatic conversion of Tilray's Class 1
common stock to Class 2 common stock.
The parties have not yet agreed to a schedule on the briefing for
that motion, but, at the February 5, 2021 hearing, the Plaintiffs
agreed that their perpetuation of control claims are moot and
stated that they intend to move for a fee award in connection with
those claims.
The defendants believe the claims in this case are without merit,
and intend to defend this case vigorously, but there are no
assurances as to its outcome.
Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
TILRAY INC: Bid to Dismiss Kasilingam Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
putative class action suit initiated by Ganesh Kasilingam, is
pending.
On May 4, 2020, a lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Ganesh Kasilingam
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, against Tilray, Inc., Brendan Kennedy and Mark Castaneda,
on behalf of himself and a putative class, seeking to recover
damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 .
The complaint alleges that Tilray and the individual defendants
overstated the anticipated advantages of the Company's revenue
sharing agreement with Authentic Brands Group ("ABG"), announced on
January 15, 2019, and that the plaintiff suffered losses when
Tilray's stock price dropped after Tilray recognized an impairment
with respect to the ABG deal on March 2, 2020.
On August 6, 2020 the court entered an order appointing Saul Kassin
as Lead Plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Lead Counsel.
Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 5, 2020.
The Amended Complaint asserts the same Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
claims against the same defendants on largely the same theory, and
includes new allegations that the Company's reported inventory,
cost of sales, and gross margins in its financial reports during
the class period were false and misleading because Tilray
improperly recorded unsellable "trim" as inventory and understated
the cost of sales for its products.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
its entirety on December 4, 2020. Plaintiff's opposition to the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed on January 25, 2021, and
the defendants' reply was filed on February 24, 2021. The Motion to
Dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the court.
Tilray said, "The Company and the individual defendants believe the
claims are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against
them, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome."
Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
TILRAY INC: Langevin Putative Class Suit in Canada Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
purported class action suit initiated by Lisa Langevin.
On June 16, 2020, Lisa Langevin commenced a purported class action
in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, on her behalf and on behalf
of a proposed class of all medicinal and recreational users in
Canada of the defendants' cannabis products who consumed the
products before their expiry date.
She alleges that the defendants, including Tilray, marketed
medicinal and recreational cannabis products in circumstances where
the defendants misrepresented the amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol
(THC) or Cannabidiol (CBD) in their respective products.
As a result of the defendants' alleged mislabeling of the cannabis
products it is claimed that the plaintiff and proposed class
members did not receive and consume the product that they believed
that they had purchased and that this caused them loss, risk of
injury and actual injury.
Ms. Langevin claims that on February 13, 2020 she purchased Canaca
– TenUp manufactured and distributed by Tilray. She had it tested
and allegedly found that it only contained 43% of the claimed
amount of THC.
The Statement of Claim seeks $500,000,000 in damages and
restitution and $5,000,000 in punitive damages plus interest and
costs collectively from the defendants.
On July 20, 2020 Plaintiff filed an Amended Amended Statement of
Claim, and on December 4, 2020 the Plaintiff delivered a Third
Amended Statement of Claim.
Tilray said, "We plan to vigorously defend against this action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and
distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is
focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and
distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based
in Nanaimo, British Columbia.
TODD A. BRISCO: Grim Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Todd A. Brisco and
Associates. The case is styled as Deidre Grim, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Todd A. Brisco and
Associates, A Professional Corporation, Case No.
8:21-cv-00826-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Todd A. Brisco & Associates -- https://briscoassociates.com/ -- is
a full-service law firm that represents owners and managers of
commercial and residential rental property throughout the entire
State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER, APC
4605 Lankershim Boulevard Suite 535
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Phone: (323) 940-1700
Fax: (323) 328-8095
Email: tom@mblawapc.com
nick@mblawapc.com
TOTTINI BROOKLYN: Herrera Seeks Overtime Pay, Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimena Rosales-Herrera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tottini Brooklyn LLC, Faigy
Michael and Meyer Weinreb, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02730 (E.D.
N.Y., May 14, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants own, operate, or control a children's clothing store,
located at 1307 49th St., Brooklyn under the name " Tottini" where
Herrera was employed as a general assistant. She claims to have
generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime pay
for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied
spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. She also
claims to have never received wage statements. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Tel: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
Email: michael@faillacelaw.com
UNITI GROUP: Seeks Reconsideration of Order Nixing Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uniti Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that defendants' motion for
reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, for certification of an appeal of the decision to
the Eighth Circuit, is pending.
Beginning on October 25, 2019, several purported shareholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas against the Company and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws, based
on claims similar to those asserted in the SLF Action.
On March 12, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas consolidated the Shareholder Actions and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel in the consolidated cases under the
caption In re Uniti Group Inc. Securities Litigation.
On May 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the consolidated Shareholder Actions.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks to represent investors who
acquired the Company's securities between April 20, 2015 and
February 15, 2019. The Shareholder Actions assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, alleging that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements by allegedly failing to disclose,
among other things, the risk that the Spin-Off and entry into the
Master Lease violated certain debt covenants of Windstream and/or
the risk that the Master Lease purportedly could be recharacterized
as a financing instead of a "true lease."
The Shareholder Actions seek class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees and other relief.
On July 10, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. On April 1, 2021, the court issued an order
denying Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On April 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order or, in the alternative, for certification of an appeal of
the decision to the Eighth Circuit.
Plaintiffs formally opposed this motion on April 29, 2021.
Uniti said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously, and,
because it is still in its preliminary stages, we have not yet
determined what effect this lawsuit will have, if any, on our
financial position or results of operations. We have evaluated this
matter under the guidance provided by ASC 450, and as of the date
of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, we consider a loss not to be
probable and are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of
loss; therefore, we have not recorded any liabilities associated
with these claims in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet."
Uniti Group Inc. operates as a real estate investment trust. The
Company provides wireless infrastructure solutions for
communications industry. Uniti Group serves customers in the
United
States and Latin America. The company is based in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
UNITY CARE: Cazares Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER CAZARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNITY CARE GROUP, INC. and
DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV382016 (Cal.
Super., Santa Clara Cty., May 17, 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 pay
overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure
to pay all wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition.
Ms. Cazares was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
in California.
The Unity Care Group, Inc. is a non-profit health care organization
headquartered in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Jaurigue, Esq.
Sean Shahabi, Esq.
JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
300 W. Glenoaks Blvd., Suite 300
Glendale, CA 91202
Telephone: (818) 630-7280
Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
sean@jlglawyers.com
- and –
Maximilian Lee, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MAXIMILIAN LEE
631 S. Olive St., Suite 820
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 769-6529
Facsimile: (213) 769-6529
E-mail: m.lee@maxleelaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI: Johnson Sues Over Age and Racial Bias
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina B. Johnson, on behalf of herself, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons v. UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI AND
CLAY JONES, Individually and in His Capacity as Director of Human
Resources Case No. 4:21-cv-00062-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., May 14,
2021), seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well
as monetary damages, to redress UOM's unlawful employment
practices, including unlawful discrimination, against the Plaintiff
in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant has been engaging in
deplorable discrimination that has remained largely off the record.
Unbeknownst to the world at large, not only is the UOM student
population overwhelmingly white, the UOM workforce and employees
are also overwhelmingly white. In furtherance of its lack of
diversity goals, UOM's discriminatory practices, UOM has created
and knowingly perpetuated a workplace rife with racial disparities.
Unfortunately, UOM's leadership and staff has systematically become
increasingly younger and whiter. In addition, there are notable and
sharp disparities in wages for minority and female employees, as
compared to white, male employees at UOM.
The Plaintiff personally experienced age, gender and race
discrimination and was retaliated against, when she complained
about such obvious and blatant racial discrimination in the UOM
workforce and in the Human Resource Department. The workplace at
UOM has become an environment rife with discrimination based on
age, race, gender and retaliation, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed in UOM's Department of Human Resources.
The University Of Mississippi is widely touted as the premiere
university in Mississippi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hon. Ellis Turnage, Esq.
TURNAGE LAW OFFICE
108 North Pearman Avenue
Post Office Box 216
Cleveland, MS 38732
Phone: (662)843-2811
Fax: (662)843-6133
Email: eturnage@etlawms.com
VBI VACCINES: Putative Class Suit Against SciVac Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that SciVac Ltd. continues
to defend a putative class action suit in Israel.
On September 13, 2018, two civil claims were brought in the
District Court of the central district in Israel naming our
subsidiary SciVac as a defendant.
In one claim, two minors, through their parents, allege, among
other things: defects in certain batches of the company's 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine discovered in July 2015; that the
company's 3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine was approved for use
in children and infants in Israel without sufficient evidence
establishing its safety; that SciVac failed to provide accurate
information about our 3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine to
consumers; and that each child suffered side effects from the
vaccine.
The claim was filed together with a motion seeking approval of a
class action on behalf of 428,000 children vaccinated with our
3-antigen prophylactic HBV vaccine in Israel from April 2011 and
seeking damages in a total amount of NIS 1,879,500,000 (not in
thousands) ($563,737).
The second claim is a civil action brought by two minors and their
parents against SciVac and the Israel Ministry of Health alleging,
among other things, that SciVac marketed an experimental,
defective, hazardous or harmful vaccine; that our 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine was marketed in Israel without sufficient
evidence establishing its safety; and that our 3-antigen
prophylactic HBV vaccine was produced and marketed in Israel
without approval of a western regulatory body. The claim seeks
damages for past and future losses and expenses as well as punitive
damages.
SciVac believes these matters to be without merit and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.
The District Court has accepted SciVac's motion to suspend reaching
a decision on the approval of the class action pending the
determination of liability under the civil action. Preliminary
hearings for the trial of the civil action began on January 15,
2020, with subsequent preliminary hearings held on May 13, 2020 and
December 3, 2020 to discuss document disclosure. The next
preliminary hearing is scheduled to be held on September 13, 2021.
VBI Vaccines Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops and sells
vaccines to address unmet needs in infectious disease and
immuno-oncology in Israel and internationally. The company was
formerly known as SciVac Therapeutics Inc. and changed its name to
VBI Vaccines Inc. in May 2016. The company is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
VIATRIS INC: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the motion for summary judgments as to
the remaining claims in the consolidated indirect purchaser class
actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector, is pending.
The Company has been named as a defendant in putative indirect
purchaser class actions relating to the pricing and/or marketing of
the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as common
law claims.
Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.
A former Mylan N.V. officer and other non-Viatris affiliated
companies are also defendants in some of the class actions.
Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
These lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts and
have either been dismissed or transferred into a MDL in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and have been
consolidated.
The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies to 17
states and a RICO class.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claims
asserted by plaintiffs is pending.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: Continues to Defend EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit related to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
Beginning in March 2020, the Company, together with other
non-Viatris affiliated companies, were named as defendants in
putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts with
certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the
exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination
of pricing constraints in violation of The Racketeer Influenced
and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and federal antitrust law. These
actions have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Direct Purchaser Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend
a putative direct purchaser class suit related to EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.
On February 14, 2020, the Company, together with other non-Viatris
affiliated companies, were named as defendants in a putative direct
purchaser class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the
EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
The plaintiff in this case asserts federal antitrust claims which
are based on allegations that are similar to those in the putative
indirect purchaser class actions discussed above.
On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
that is substantially similar to the allegations in the amended
complaint.
Plaintiffs' seek monetary damages, declaratory relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: Opioid Related Putative Class Actions Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend putative
class action suits related to opioid.
The Company, along with other manufacturers, distributors,
pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, and individual healthcare
providers is a defendant in more than 1,000 cases in the United
States and Canada filed by various plaintiffs, including counties,
cities and other local governmental entities, asserting civil
claims related to sales, marketing and/or distribution practices
with respect to prescription opioid products.
In addition, lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions
including on behalf of children with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
due to alleged exposure to opioids.
The lawsuits generally seek equitable relief and monetary damages
(including punitive and/or exemplary damages) based on a variety of
legal theories, including various statutory and/or common law
claims, such as negligence, public nuisance and unjust enrichment.
The vast majority of these lawsuits have been consolidated in an
MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of
Ohio.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIATRIS INC: PERS Mississippi Suit Against Mylan Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Viatris Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2021, that Mylan N.V. continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by the Public Employees
Retirement System of Mississippi.
On June 26, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed by
the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, which was
subsequently amended on November 13, 2020, against Mylan N.V.,
certain of Mylan N.V.'s former directors and officers, and an
officer and director of the Company in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of certain
purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made false or
misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact,
in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with
disclosures relating to the Morgantown manufacturing plant and
inspections at the plant by the Food and Drug Administration.
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Mylan
N.V. securities between February 16, 2016 and May 7, 2019.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as the plaintiff's
fees and costs.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Viatris Inc. is a global healthcare company formed in November 2020
through the combination of Mylan and the Upjohn Business whose
mission is to empower people worldwide to live healthier at every
stage of life. The company is based in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
VIMEO HOLDINGS: Settlement Talks in Acaley Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Vimeo Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that settlement discussions
is ongoing in the putative class action suit entitled, Bradley
Acaley v. Vimeo, Inc., No. 19 Civ. 7164 (N.D. Ill.).
On September 9, 2019, Acaley filed, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated individuals, a putative class action complaint
against Vimeo in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
Vimeo thereafter removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, where it is now pending.
In his complaint, plaintiff asserts that Vimeo's Magisto mobile
application collected facial biometric information in a manner that
violated his rights under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA).
Vimeo moved to compel arbitration of the case. On June 1, 2020, the
district court denied Vimeo's motion. On June 18, 2020, Vimeo filed
an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On
June 23, 2020, the district court administratively closed the case
pending appeal.
Briefing in the appeal has been stayed to permit the parties to
engage in settlement discussions mediated through the Seventh
Circuit's mediation program.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
monetary damages.
It is Vimeo's position that the Magisto app does not violate BIPA.
Vimeo believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without
merit and will defend vigorously against them.
Vimeo Holdings, Inc. is the world's leading all-in-one video
software solution, providing the full breadth of video tools
through a software-as-a-service model. Vimeo's comprehensive and
cloud-based tools empower its users to create, collaborate and
communicate with video on a single, turnkey platform. The company
is based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend against a cost of insurance (COI) litigation entitled,
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of
Denver (D. Colo. Case No. 1:18-cv-01897), in Colorado.
Cost of insurance litigation includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of
Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018), a putative
class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to
rely upon the policyholders' expected future mortality experience
to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality
experience improved, the policy language required the Company to
decrease the cost of insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYAGER THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Karp Putative Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Karp v. Voyager
Therapeutics, Inc. et al.
On January 22, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, captioned Karp v. Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-00381.
The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of stockholders who
purchased its common stock between June 1, 2017 and November 9,
2020.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Huntington's Program and
the Company's investigational new drug application for VY-HTT01.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees and costs.
On April 19, 2021, the court appointed the lead plaintiff for the
action, and on April 30, 2021, the action was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (where it has
been assigned case number 1:21-cv-10727).
The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and believes it
has a valid defense against these claims and, therefore, intends to
vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit.
Voyager Therapeutics, Inc. a clinical-stage gene therapy company
focused on developing life-changing treatments for patients
suffering from severe neurological diseases. The company is based
in Cambridge Massachusetts.
WALMART INC: Baby Food Products Contain Heavy Metals, Davis Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHA DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-03674 (N.D.
Cal., May 17, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
unjust enrichment and violations of the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California's False Advertising Law, and various state consumer
protection laws.
The case arises from the Defendant's marketing and representation
of baby food products under the brand Parent's Choice as safe for
young children's consumption. However, contrary to the
representation, the products contain contaminants, including heavy
metals, that pose serious risks to children's health and
well-being. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated consumers purchased a product of different and
substantially lesser value than what the Defendant represented.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
E-mail: mpearson@pswlaw.com
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
- and –
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Daniel K. Asiedu, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
dasiedu@pswlaw.com
- and –
Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY
316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
E-mail: btimmons@levinlaw.com
- and –
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: arado@milberg.com
byagman@milberg.com
- and –
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW P.C.
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: gcoleman@gregcolemanlaw.com
rsoffin@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 West Morgan Street
P.O. Box 12638
Raleigh, NC 27605
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
harper@whitfieldbryson.com
WATFORD HOLDINGS: Canh Putative Class Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Watford Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative shareholder class action captioned Canh v.
Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
On October 9, 2020, the company announced that it had entered into
(i) an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) and Merger Sub pursuant to which, among other things, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Watford Holdings, with Watford
Holdings surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACGL, and (ii) a
Voting and Support Agreement (or the Arch Voting Agreement) with
ARL and Gulf Reinsurance Ltd., each a subsidiary of ACGL, pursuant
to which, among other things, ARL and Gulf Reinsurance Ltd. agreed
to vote all of the Company's common shares and preference shares
owned by them in favor of the Merger and to not transfer any such
shares, subject to the conditions set forth in the Arch Voting
Agreement.
On November 2, 2020, the company announced that it had entered into
an amendment to the merger agreement with ACGL and Merger Sub to
amend certain terms of the original merger agreement. ACGL assigned
its interests and obligations in connection with this acquisition
to HoldCo, a newly formed entity of which ACGL will own
approximately 40%, and funds managed by Warburg Pincus LLC and
Kelso & Company will each own approximately 30%.
Two lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County.
The first action was filed on January 20, 2021, captioned Canh v.
Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No. 650415/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.).
The second action was filed on January 25, 2021, captioned
Ciccotelli v. Watford Holdings Ltd., et al., No.650544/2021 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct.).
Both lawsuits name the company and its directors as defendants.
The Canh Action is a putative shareholder class action. The
plaintiff claims to be a shareholder of the company. He asserts
that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger by, among other things, (i) agreeing to
the merger and allegedly failing to obtain maximum value for the
company in connection therewith; and (ii) allegedly failing to
disclose certain purportedly material information relating to the
Merger.
The plaintiff alleges that the company aided and abetted the
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: (i) an injunction barring
the Merger and ordering the company's directors to obtain an
un-specified different transaction "in the best interest" of the
company and the company's shareholders; (ii) rescission or
rescissory damages in the event the Merger is consummated; (iii) a
declaration that the directors have breached their fiduciary
duties; (iv) an order directing us and our directors to account for
damages; and (v) costs and fees in connection with the lawsuit.
The Ciccotelli Action is brought solely on behalf of the named
plaintiff, who claims to be a shareholder of the company. The
plaintiff asserts that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose certain
purportedly material information relating to the Merger.
The plaintiff alleges that the company aided and abetted the
directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: (i) a preliminary and
permanent injunction barring the Merger and directing the
defendants to disseminate additional information relating to the
Merger; (ii) rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
Merger is consummated; (iii) a declaration that the directors have
breached their fiduciary duties; and (iv) costs and fees in
connection with the lawsuit.
Watford said, "Other potential plaintiffs may also file additional
lawsuits challenging the Merger. The outcome of Canh Action, the
Ciccotelli Action, and any additional future litigation is
uncertain. Such litigation, if not resolved, could prevent or delay
completion of the Merger and result in substantial costs to us,
including any costs associated with the indemnification of
directors and officers. One of the conditions to the closing of the
Merger is the absence of any law, injunction or order by any
governmental entity enjoining or otherwise prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger. Therefore, if a plaintiff were
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the consummation
of the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may
prevent the Merger from being completed, or from being completed
within the expected timeframe. The defense or settlement of any
lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the Merger is
completed may adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."
Watford Holdings Ltd. is a global property and casualty, or P&C,
insurance and reinsurance company with approximately $1.2 billion
in capital as of March 31, 2021, comprised of $172.8 million of
senior notes, $52.4 million of contingently redeemable preference
shares and $977.0 million of common shareholders' equity. Through
operations in Bermuda, the United States and Europe, the company
writes insurance and reinsurance on a worldwide basis. The
company's objective is to deliver attractive returns to
shareholders by combining disciplined underwriting with superior
investment management.
WELLPET LLC: July 6 Deadline for Renewed Class Status Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ZEIGER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
WELLPET LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-04056-WHO
(N.D. Calif.), the Parties agreed and stipulated that:
1. The Plaintiff's amended damages reports and renewed class
certification motion shall be due on or before July 6, 2021.
2. The Defendant's rebuttal reports and opposition to
Plaintiff's amended damages reports and renewed class
certification motion shall be due on or before August 31,
2021.
3. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his renewed class
certification motion shall be due on September 27, 2021.
A copy of th Parties' stipulation dated May 5, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fv4SKi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
rkshelquist@locklaw.com
The Defendant is represented by
Amir Nassihi, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P..
One Montgomery, Suite 2700
San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391-0291
E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
WOOFTOWN DOG: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wooftown Dog Co. Inc.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Wooftown Dog Co. Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-03937-GHW (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wooftown Dog Co. -- https://wooftown.com/ -- offers healthy food,
pet essentials and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Pangelinan Sues Over Failure to Pay Earned Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Pangelinan, individually and on behalf of all aggrieved
employees v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.; and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV18452 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., May 17, 2021), seeks to recover civil penalties with regard
to the Defendants failure to pay the Plaintiff all their earned
wages.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and alleges that the
Defendants have maintained a consistent policy of failing to pay
the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for all hours worked,
including minimum, regular and overtime wages, by requiring
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to work off-the-clock at
the beginning and end of their shifts. Also, the Defendants
conducted uncompensated COVID-19 health screenings of the Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees. As a result, the Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all their earned
wages engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations
under the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt hourly
employee.
Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of the state of Delaware.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Annaliz Loera, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Phone: (213) 444-1973
Facsimile: (213) 457-3092
Email: Jon@lebelaw.com
Annaliz@lebelaw.com
XTO ENERGY: Affordable Land Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Affordable Land Developing Inc., Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. XTO Energy Inc.,
Case No. 15CV-21-00074 was removed from the Conway County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas on May 17, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00419-KGB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
XTO Energy Inc. -- https://www.xtoenergy.com/ -- is an American
energy company, principally operating in North America,
specializing in the drilling and production of unconventional oil
and natural gas assets, typically from shale rock through a process
known as hydraulic fracturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kent R. Walker, Esq.
WALKER LAW FIRM
3131 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
North Little Rock, AR 72116
Phone: (501) 372-1242
Fax: (501) 372-1177
Email: kent@walkerlawfirm.us
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth Linan Tiblets, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: (817) 347-5037
Fax: (817) 347-5299
Email: elizabeth.tiblets@klgates.com
- and -
Kynda Almefty, Esq.
HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
1401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 190
Little Rock, AR 72201
Phone: (501) 850-0015
Fax: (501) 372-3617
Email: kalmefty@hardinlaw.com
- and -
Robert M. Honea, Esq.
HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC
Post Office Box 10127
Fort Smith, AR 72903-0127
Phone: (479) 452-2200
Email: honea@hardinlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***