/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210531.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 31, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 102
Headlines
1ST CHOICE: Misclassifies Direct Support Staff, Fuller Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Clark Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Faces Bland Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Syverson Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
A & B MILLING: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
A&W CONCENTRATE: Sharpe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
A.R. PRODUCE: Bonilla Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Class Action
ABA NOUB: S.D.N.Y. Approves $42.5K Settlement in Warren FLSA Suit
ABLE INNOVATIONS: Gerena FLSA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to M.D. Fla.
ACTION LOGISTIX: Class Cert. Discovery Completion Due August 2022
AERIES SOFTWARE: Gupta to Must Class Certification Bid by June 14
AFNI INC: Kleinman Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
AIR METHODS: Cowen Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Moot
AIR METHODS: Wagner et al., Partial Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd
AIYA AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALAN KAMEL: Ferris Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
ALFREDO ADAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Defamation
ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Bid Deadline Due March 11, 2022
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Salazar FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sputz Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
ALLY BANK: Hoek Suit Removed to District of Utah
AMAZON.COM INC: PMFN Maintains Monopoly Power, Coster Suit Alleges
AMAZON.COM: Waithaka Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
AMDOCS LIMITED: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 8 Deadline
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Keith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
AMOBEE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kanchanawong Suit Says
AROMA MARKET: Haon Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Action
ASTROTECH CORP: Faces Stein Putative Class Action
ATERIAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
AUDATEX NORTH: Tennessee Court Refuses to Dismiss Clippinger Suit
AURA HOME INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
BAMBOO AVE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in Eastern District of New York
BAMBOO YA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Cabrera Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: Lubin Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $75MM Settlement Over Excessive Fees
BAOBURG INC: Pitsamai FLSA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
BAOBURG INC: Pitsamai Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bids for Summary Judgment Nixed in Antitrust Suit
BAYER CORPORATION: Boulware-Jones Sues Over Harmful Dog Collars
BELLUS HEALTH: Morganti & Co. Discloses Securities Class Action
BENTLEY MANHATTAN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BLAZE REALTY: Foster Seeks Disabled People's Equal Property Access
BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
BLUE CROSS: Claim Your Cash Payment From Class Action Lawsuit
BLUESOURCE LLC: Rivas Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
BOFI HOLDING: Discovery Order Objections in Securities Suit Quashed
BOWMAR NUTRITION: Lozano Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
BRASKEM SA: New Jersey Consolidated Class Action Underway
CABELL HUNTINGTON: Misrepresents Retiree Benefit Plans, Blenko Says
CALIBER HOME: Tannenbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Denhardt Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
CANAAN INC: The Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CAROL SPAHN: Faisal Files Suit in Northern District of California
CELSION CORP: Continues to Defend Spar Putative Class Suit
CENTENE CORPORATION: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Filing Date Nixed
CHEETAH MOBILE: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 6 Deadline
CHOFETZ CHAIM: Gewirtzman Suit Transferred to NY Bankruptcy Court
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Discloses Securities Class Action
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CLEARVIEW AI: Vestrand Files Privacy Class Action in Calif.
CLEVELAND BIOLABS: Bid to Nix Litwin Putative Class Suit Pending
COLLECTION BUREAU: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Klein Says
COMMUNITY BANK: Class Settlement in Thompson Suit Gets Initial OK
COMMUNITY BANK: Thompson Settlement Class Provisionally Certified
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix Suit Against USCF & USO Pending
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Underpays Auto Repair Shop Staff, Gallardo Says
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Sochet Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
CREDIT CORP: Durling Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Suit Seeks Class Certification
CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
CRICKET WIRELESS: Balks at Thomas et al., Class Certification Bid
CULTURAL CARE: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
CULTURAL CARE: Seeks June 9 Deadline to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
CVS HEALTH: Asks Court to Reconsider April 29, 2021 Order
CYCLE26 LLC: Holden Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DAPPER LABS: Faces Friel Suit Over Unregistered Securities
DEEP FOODS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DENISE MASHBURN: Goodman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DESERT RESOURCES: Singer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DESIGNER BRANDS: Must Amend Notice of Removal in Whisman Class Suit
DIAMOND PAINTING: Ruiz Suit Seeks Laborers' Unpaid Wages and OT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Seeks to Certify Class of Transgenders
DJKM LANE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mateo Suit Alleges
DOORDASH INC: Approval of Marko Revised Settlement Pact Pending
DRAGADOS USA: Burmudez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Bid to File Class Certification Due Sept. 30
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 7 Deadline
ECOGUARD PEST: Uribe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Suit Removed to E.D. California
ELECTRIC SOLIDUS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELEPHANT IN A BOX: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ELITE LABOR: Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMPIRE OUTLET: Concrete's Bid for Class Certification Denied
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Bowen Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
ENSITE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Alleges
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: June 17 Deadline to Oppose Class Status Bid
EVANS HOTELS: Counsel to Get $102K in Attorneys' Fees
FACEBOOK INC: Wins Final Approval of Adkins Class Settlement
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing
FIND YOUR TRAINER: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST NATIONAL: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in District of Oregon
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Andre Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt
FLAUM APPETIZING: Perechu, Duran Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal
FORD MOTOR: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Instrument Panel
FORD MOTOR: Mustang Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Wiring Defect
FRONTLINE ASSET: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
GARDENS ALIVE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GARZON & BERNAL: Correa Sues to Seek Unpaid Compensations
GDK GO: Cottrill Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Loreto's Bid for $900K Class Deal Approval Denied
GENERAL MOTORS: 87 Anderton Plaintiffs Dismissed From Duramax Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Two Bellwether Plaintiffs in Duramax Suit Dismissed
GENEX SERVICES: Deal Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Chemicals, Lawson Claims
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini & Kearney Suits Consolidated
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: James Lee Suit Seeks Class Certification
GOYA FOODS: Herrera CMWA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
GREEN PEAK: Bids for Class Certification Filing Due July 29
GRUBHUB INC: Restaurants Fight Settlement in False Ad Suit
GSK CONSUMER: Swetz Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
H & I FITNESS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Ads, Caraboolad Says
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Lawson Suit Over Baby Foods' Toxic Contents
HAIN CELESTIAL: Ojeda Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Contents
HAIR STUDIO: Hartford Dodges Pa. Suit Over Virus Loss Coverage
HAMPTONS WEST: Armand Sues to Recoup Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wage
HANOVER COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HARU HOLDING: Fortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
HEALTH NET: Cunanan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
HELIX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Norwood Suit Says
HENDERSON, NE: June 4 Deadline Extension of Class Cert. Reply OK'd
HENRY ARMENTA: Loses Bid for Summary Ruling in Consent Related Suit
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Sues Over Refusal to Adhere to Requirement
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
HUMANA INC: Segars Files Suit in Western District of Kentucky
HUNT GUILLOT: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Taylor Suit Claims
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Elantra Class Action Lawsuit Reached Settlement
i360 LLC: Tag Files Suit in Southern District of California
IMPERIAL PIZZA: Improperly Pay Restaurant Staff, Hernandez Says
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Underway
INSTAGRAM LLC: Hunley Sues Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
INTEL CORPORATION: Garcia Sues Over Undisclosed CPU Defects
J.R. SIMPLOT: Dutra Files Suit in California Superior Court
JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks June 29 Deadline to Identify Experts
JAN MARINI SKIN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOLO INC: Gallo Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
JUSTFOODFORDOGS LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KALLBERG INDUSTRIES: Ojeda FLSA & PRWPS Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
KANSAS CITY, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Zimmerli Suit
KANSAS HIGHWAY: Shaw, et al Seek Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing
KAY WATERPROOFING: Huertero Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
KENNETT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ojeda Alleges
KENNETT CONSULTING: Ojeda Wage Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
KENTUCKY DERBY: Gambling Losses After Medina Spirit's Failed Test
KEYENCE CORP: Cassidy Sues Over Sales Engineers' Unpaid Wages
KIMPTON HOTEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 18
KIMPTON HOTEL: Sabre's Bid to Quash in Thomas Suit Partly Granted
KROGER COMPANY: Powell Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
LAS BRISAS RESTAURANT: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
LIFEMD INC: Faces Owens and Cho Putative Securities Class Suits
LIFEMD INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
LJNK ENTERPRISES: Aguero Sues Over Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving
LMD & ASSC: Hernandez Labor Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D.S.C.
MAD SECURITY: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAKANA HAWAIIAN EATERY: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces LEHB Antitrust Suit Over ACTH Drug Monopoly
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Response to Class Status Bid Due June 21
MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCCALLA RAYMER: Franken Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MED-DATA INC: Tokarski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
MEDI-VET ANIMAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MEIJER GREAT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
MELTECH INC: Grove Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers
MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Peltonen Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wisconsin
MIA JEWELS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Richards PLRA Suit Against MDOC
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bar Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MIDLAND CREDIT: Burrell Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gratt Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
MIDLAND CREDIT: Hesse Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
MIDLAND CREDIT: Montfort Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MIDLAND CREDIT: Morcos Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Saada Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
MIKE BROWN: Thompson Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
MONINI NORTH AMERICA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT: Jimenez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MOUNTAIN RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wyoming
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Paradis Putative Class Suit Underway
MUNICO CORPORATION: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL CREDIT: Henry Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
NAYA MEZZE: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
NCAA: Flores Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Goode Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
NCAA: Kirkwood Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes
NCAA: Reis Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Thomassey Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
NEUTROGENA CORP: Serota Slams Toxic Benzene in Sunscreen
NEW YORK STATE DOCCS: Crichlow Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NEW YORK: Ginnery Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Herrejon's Bid to Certify Class Reserved for W.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Inzinga Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEW YORK: Middlebrooks' Bid to Certify Class Reserved for W.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Napper Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Stewart Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Bid to Certify Class in Cole Suit
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Bid to Certify Class in Still Suit
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Jacque-Crews' Bid to Certify Class
NORTH CENTRAL: Compton Suit Wins FLSA Conditional Class Cert.
NORTHWEST CONFECTIONS: Rodriguez-Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super.
NORTHWEST PALLET: Citizens Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Tesetaxel Related Suit Pending
OGDEN CITY AIRPORT: Ogden Regional Files Suit in District of Utah
OLDCASTLE SERVICES: Minor BIPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Illinois
ONE CALL: Galarza FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Texas to S.D. Alabama
OREGON: July 16 Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought
OUTLAW LABORATORY: Skyline Market Seeks to Certify Payment Class
OZONE NETWORKS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
P.F. CHANG'S: Underpays Bartenders and Waiters, Fournier Alleges
PALOMAR HEALTH: Escalona Sues to Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
PARAGON METALS: Roberts FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan
PARKMOBILE LLC: Liable to Customer Info Disclosures, Baker Alleges
PARTS AUTHORITY: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Polanco Says
PATROWICZ HOLDINGS: Derossett Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
PATTERN ENERGY: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Suit
PEACHCAP TAX: Leonard GUSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Drori Suit Over 28% Drop of Stock Price
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PERDUE FOR SENATE: Wreyford TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
PLAZA RESEARCH: Advanced Dermatology Seeks Class Certification
PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Beverly Class Suit in New York
PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit in California Underway
PLUG POWER: Tank Class Action in New York Ongoing
PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jacobs Suit Over Mislabeled Power Chargers
POLONIEX LLC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Oshry Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PORTICO BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
POWER DESIGN: Maciel Sues Over Willful and Systematic Wage Theft
PRA HEALTH: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Kent Alleges
PRIMERICA INC: Padilla PAGA Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Redhair Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
PROSPER LENDING: Bradford Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Texas
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
PSL ASSOCIATES: Agar-Valencia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PURECYCLE TECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
QUALITY PACKAGING: Callender BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
RANDY SMITH: Baqer Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
RAY KLEIN: Court Narrows Claims in Russell et al., Class Suit
RAYMOND JAMES: June 4 Extension of Expert Depositions Sought
REALPAGE INC: Faces Walker Suit Over FCRA Violations
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Oigbokie Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
RESCUE 1 FINANCIAL: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
RESIL HEALTH: Northshore Pharmacy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
REVOLUTION TEA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RICHARD'S RESTAURANT: De Sa Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Kickbacks
RIVER FINANCIAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RM ACQUISITION: Velez Files Suit in Northern District of Illinois
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Class Suit Over Content Deletion Scheme
ROCKFORD SLF: McPherson Files Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
ROMANOFF FLOOR: Court Approves $1.375M FCRA Lawsuit Settlement
ROMEO POWER: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Phillips Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faherty Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Cole Sues Over Defective Acrylic Coating Products
S & D COFFEE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: D&V Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
SARATOGA SPRING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SEAWEED BATH: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SELECT HOME: Dewey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SENTAI HOLDINGS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SERETT METALWORKS: Legacy Seeks to Recover Construction Deposit
SERVICON SYSTEMS: Cooper Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal.
SITIME CORPORATION: Removal Provision "Invalid," Ribiere Suit Says
SKILLZ INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds of July 7, 2021 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SKILLZ INC: The Klein Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SMART FOODS: Aliav Sues Over Deceptive Avocado Oil Labels
SOUTHERN CAROLINA: Haynes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
SPRING HOME: Class of Home Health Care Aide Certified in Cockrell
STATE STREET: Agrees to Pay $2.65MM to Resolve ERISA Related Suit
STERLING BANCORP: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
SUGARWISH INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TASTY RIBBON: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TCGPLAYER INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEAM WASHINGTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hurt Suit Says
TELUS INT'L: 3rd Bid to Stay Meagher Suit Due to Mediation Granted
TESLA INC: Amans Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Solar Roof
TESLA INC: Faces Kim Suit Over Improper Business Practices
TITLEMAX FINANCING: Hyton Suit Transferred to S.D. Georgia
TORONTO, ON: Plastic Surgeon's Licence Suspended Over Online Posts
TOTAL INSURANCE: Middleton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TOUCH OF CLASS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRAFFIC SAFETY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Guthrie Sues Over Misleading Statement
TRAVEL GUARD: Arce Files Suit in District of New Jersey
U.S. BANK: Dunham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Call Center Staff
UATP MANAGEMENT: APFA Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
UMB BANK: Eichman Sues Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees
UMG RECORDINGS: Beach Boys Guitarist Leads Class Action Lawsuit
UNIFIN INC: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: R.B. Files Suit in N.D. New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Fedor Class Suit Partly Granted
USA 1 WIRELESS: Faces Al-Ali Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
V SHRED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VALVE CORPORATION: Colvin Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of June 22 Deadline
VERVENT INC: Aliff Must File Class Certification Bid by July 30
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Shiflett Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
VINOVEST INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VIVINT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VIZ MEDIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Failed to Disclose Water Pump Defect, Zhao Says
WABASH COUNTY, IN: Copeland Renewed Bid for Class Cert. OK'd
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Sharoubim Sues to Seek Compensatory Damages
WALGREENS CO: Court Grants Mau Leave to File Amended Complaint
WALMART INC: Security Checks Didn't Push Workers to Skip Breaks
WASHINGTON PRIME: Slipher Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities
WAWA INC: E.D. Pennsylvania Narrows Claims in Data Security Suit
WELCH FOODS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Oct. 8
WELLS FARGO: Conditional Certification Granted in Droesch Suit
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
WESLEY COLLEGE: Faces D'Antonio Suit Over Asset Transfer to DSU
WEST ROAD: Extension to File Motion for Class Certification Sought
WILD ABOUT MUSIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WOMEN'S CARE: Faces Malcolm Suit Over Disability Discrimination
WOODS COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
X FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Chen Putative Class Suit Pending
X FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
XFIT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
XILINX INC: Nunez Amended Complaint Voluntarily Discontinued
XILINX INC: Stanisci Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
XILINX INC: Stein Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
XTRATYME TECHNOLOGIES: Wolch Files FLSA Suit in D. Minnesota
YOUNGS HEALTHCARE: Osman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
ZEDAN RACING: Federman & Sherwood Files Lawsuit Over Steroid Use
ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Suit Seeks Class Certification
*********
1ST CHOICE: Misclassifies Direct Support Staff, Fuller Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
MONISHA FULLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1ST CHOICE FAMILY SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02771-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 25, 2021) brings
this collective and class action complaint to challenge the
Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Direct Support
Professional (DSP) in November 2020 to perform in-home services to
the Defendant's clients until her employment ended on or about
February 19, 2021.
The Plaintiff alleges that she and other similarly situated DSPs
were improperly classified by the Defendant as independent
contractors. Although they regularly worked 40 or more hours per
workweek, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 per week.
The Defendant should have classified them as non-exempt employees
because they perform an integral part of the Defendant's business,
the suit contends.
On behalf of herself and other similarly situated DSPs, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages from the Defendant for
all unpaid wages, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and disbursements, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
1st Choice Family Services, Inc. provides in-home direct support
services, such as cooking, cleaning, administering medication, and
other similar services, to developmentally disabled individuals.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Tel: (216) 230-2955
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
hans@ohlaborlaw.com
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Clark Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY CLARK, 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-01558-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 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
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 asserts.
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: Faces Bland Suit Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARNELL BLAND, 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-01557-RMG (D.S.C., May 26, 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
3M COMPANY: Faces Syverson Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELWOOD SYVERSON, 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-01527-RMG
(D.S.C., May 21, 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 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 firefighter
trainees, 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.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMOGENE WILKERSON, as Personal
Representative/Administrator/Executor of the Estate of WILLIAM R.
WILKERSON, deceased, 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-01551-RMG
(D.S.C., May 25, 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
which proximately caused his injury and death, 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
- 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
A & B MILLING: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A & B Milling
Company. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. A & B Milling Company, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04683-PAE-DCF (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
A&B is a family-owned agribusiness, was established in 1945 as a
feed, seed and fertilizer store serving local farmers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
A&W CONCENTRATE: Sharpe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LaShawn Sharpe, et al.,
individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. A&W Concentrate Company and Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00768-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs LaShawn
Sharpe and Jim Castoro ask the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for the
following:
1. certifying the following Class:
"All persons who purchased either A&W Root Beer or A&W Cream
Soda in New York between February 7, 2016, and March 1,
2021."
The Class excludes the judge or magistrate assigned to this
case; Defendants; any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest; Defendants’ officers, directors,
legal
representatives, successors, and assigns; and persons who
purchased A&W Root Beer or A&W Cream Soda for the purpose of
resale;
2. appointing LaShawn Sharpe and Jim Castoro as representatives
of the Class; and
3. appointing Sheehan & Associates, P.C. and Reese LLP as Class
Counsel.
A&W Concentrate manufactures and sells alcoholic beverages. The
Company offers beers, wines, spirits, liquor, and other related
products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SB6gmI
at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Sue J. Nam, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
E-mai: mreese@reesellp.com
snam@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
A.R. PRODUCE: Bonilla Suit Seeks Conditional Cert. of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REYNA BONILLA, and other
similarly situated individuals, v. A.R. PRODUCE & TRUCKING
CORPORATION and ANA MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-20290-DPG (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying the case as a representative action and permitting
notification to all similarly situated individuals of the pendency
of this action, and of their statutory right to opt-in to this
action and to become a party to such action.
The Plaintiff contends that all current and former employees, who
are, were or have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
being properly compensated at a rate of time and a half and
employed by the Defendants within the three year period prior to
the filing of this lawsuit, should be provided notification of the
pendency of this action and of their right to opt-into this action,
should they file a notice of consent with the clerk of this court.
The complaint in the instant action, filed on January 22, 2020,
alleges that the Plaintiff, as well as other similarly situated
employees, have been damaged as a result of the Defendants failure
to properly compensate the Plaintiff, and such other similarly
situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fHYwY8
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aron Smukler, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
ABA NOUB: S.D.N.Y. Approves $42.5K Settlement in Warren FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
approves the settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled STANLEY
WARREN, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. ABA NOUB, LTD., ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. 21-CV-365 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Stanley Warren brought the action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL) to
recover unpaid overtime premium pay and for the Defendants' alleged
failure to provide proper wage notices pursuant to NYLL.
The parties have now entered into a settlement agreement and seek
Court approval of that settlement pursuant to Cheeks v. Freeport
Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (Joint letter
dated Mar. 24, 2021 at 1, ECF No. 22).
Having reviewed the settlement agreement pursuant to Cheeks and
Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F.Supp.2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), the
Court approves the parties' settlement agreement. The settlement
has been filed on the public docket, for several reasons. First,
the settlement amount of $42,500 is fair and reasonable. The
parties aver that the settlement was the result of vigorous
arm's-length negotiations over several months. Warren created a
damages analysis based on his best recollection of hours worked and
wages paid and arrived at a total of $28,130.36 in unpaid overtime
wages plus an additional $10,000 in notice/wage statement statutory
damages.
Although the settlement does not compensate the Plaintiff for
liquidated damages or penalties, and only partially compensates the
Plaintiff for attorney's fees, the parties submit that the
settlement is fair and reasonable considering the outstanding legal
and factual disputes between the parties and the amount of time it
would take to resolve those disputes in discovery and/or trial.
Second, the proposed attorney's fees are reasonable. The parties
have agreed to settle the action for $42,500, of which the
Plaintiff's counsel will recover $14,749, or approximately 1/3 of
the settlement amount. Moreover,counsel has submitted
contemporaneous time records, which provide a factual basis for the
award.
Third, the release of claims set forth in the agreement is
sufficiently limited in scope. The release applies only to claims
related to or arising out of all claims in the Action or relating
to any and all federal, state, or local wage and hour law claims.
It is, therefore, not the type of overbroad release waiving
practically any possible claim against the Defendants, including
unknown claims found to be impermissible in Cheeks, District Judge
Sidney H. Stein states.
Finally, although the agreement does contain a non-disparagement
clause, this clause is mutual and includes a carve-out for truthful
statements, Judge Stein holds. These types of clauses have been
upheld by courts in this district, the Judge opines, citing Gomez
v. Shine Servs. LLC, 2021 WL 1391782, No. 20-CV-4190, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2021).
The settlement agreement is approved. Because the Plaintiff
initiated the action as a collective and class action but did not
file a motion to certify a collective or class action, and because
the Plaintiff settled the case individually, the Clerk of Court is
directed to amend the caption in this matter as follows and to
close the case: STANLEY WARREN, Plaintiff, v. ABA NOUB, LTD., ET
AL., Defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated May 6, 2021,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/wexxcfws from Leagle.com.
ABLE INNOVATIONS: Gerena FLSA Suit Moved From D.N.J. to M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN GERENA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ABLE INNOVATIONS, INC. d/b/a HELSEL'S
AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-11515, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 6:21-cv-00891-CEM-EJK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated mechanics overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Able Innovations, Inc., doing business as Helsel's Automotive, LLC,
is an auto repair shop in Palm Bay, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
ACTION LOGISTIX: Class Cert. Discovery Completion Due August 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARION HOOD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others, v. ACTION LOGISTIX, LLC, Case No.
4:20-cv-00978-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Rodney W. Sippel
entered a case management order as follows:
1. All motions for joinder of additional parties or amendment
of
pleadings shall be filed no later than September 30, 2021.
2. Disclosure shall proceed in the following manner:
(a) The parties shall make all disclosures required by Rule
26(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P., no later than June 4, 2021.
(b) The parties will be allowed ten (10) depositions per
party as set forth in Rule 30(a)(2)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P., and 35
interrogatories per party as set forth in Rule 33(a),
Fed.R.Civ.P., shall apply.
(c) The parties shall complete all discovery relating to
class certification issues no later than August 15, 2022.
(d) Motions to compel shall be pursued in a diligent and
timely manner, but in no event filed more than eleven (11)
days following the discovery deadline.
3. The Plaintiffs brief in support of class certification must
be filed no later February 28, 2022. Opposition briefs shall
be filed no later than March 29, 2022 and any reply brief may
be filed no later than April 8, 2022.
4. The parties shall confer regarding the need for a class
certification hearing, and whether such a hearing should be
evidentiary, and propose mutually agreeable dates for such a
hearing to the Court no later than April 15, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpYZ88 at no extra charge.[CC]
AERIES SOFTWARE: Gupta to Must Class Certification Bid by June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANURAG GUPTA and by and
through him, D.G. and V.G., his minor children, v. AERIES SOFTWARE,
INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00995-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando M. Olguin entered an order directing the Plaintiffs to
file their motion for class certification and preliminary approval
of settlement no later than June 14, 2021.
The Court having considered the Parties' Stipulation to continue
the May 14, 2021 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for
class certification and motion for preliminary approval of
settlement agreement for a period of 31 days, and good cause
appearing, hereby grants the stipulation.
Aeries develops a student information system that offers online
application and enrollment solutions for educational institutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c11Kor at no extra charge.[CC]
AFNI INC: Kleinman Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed AFNI, INC. The case is styled
as Abraham Kleinman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AFNI, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-11106-MAS-LHG
(D.N.J., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Afni Collections -- https://afni.com/ -- is a debt collection
agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
AIR METHODS: Cowen Plaintiffs' Bid to Certify Class Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LEE SCARLETT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-02723-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson
entered an order:
1. granting Cowen plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment;
2. granting the Dequasie plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment'
3. mooting the Cowen plaintiffs' motion to certify a class;
4. mooting the Dequasie plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.
The Defendants cite to the same Colorado court of appeals case,
Centura Health Corp. v. French, to argue that the lack of a final
price term does not preclude the jury's finding a valid contract
exists. Defendants also similarly contend that price was immaterial
to plaintiffs because they were not concerned with the price at the
time of transport. I incorporate my analysis from Part IV.A.4 and
conclude that Centura Health Corp. is distinguishable, and a
person's unwillingness to put a price on their own life does not
translate to their agreeing to pay whatever amount defendants
charge, says Judge Jackson. The lack of a price term defeats any
potential contracts here. For the above reasons, the Court finds
that no express or implied-in-fact contracts exist between the
parties and grants the Dequasie plaintiffs' motion.
This is a putative class action brought on behalf of patients,
their legal custodians, or the estates of deceased patients, who
allege that they were charged exorbitant fees by defendants for
medical transport by helicopter.
Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC provide
helicopter transport to individuals that are suffering from
emergency medical conditions. Both entities are incorporated in
Delaware.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yDBYAq at no extra charge.[CC]
AIR METHODS: Wagner et al., Partial Bid for Summary Judgment OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOM WAGNER, MATTHEW
DeBROSSE, JOHN GLAZIER, JAMES HOWE, KEVIN MOFFITT, LAURA WALKER,
SUSAN BRZEZINSKI, DANIELLE NOWISKI, GENE STALSBERG, KRISTEN GRADO,
GEORGE RAMEY, NIKOLAS REPETA, and STEPHANIE PAULEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-RBJ (D.
Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson entered an order that:
1. The Plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment is
granted as to the Illinois plaintiffs' claims. It is denied
as to the New Mexico and Michigan plaintiffs' claims.
2. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to
the New Mexico and Michigan plaintiffs' claims. It is denied
as to the Illinois plaintiffs' claims.
The Court said, "Despite its odd position on the issue, AMC
undoubtedly falls under the section 408.420 employer exception. It
is subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and thus it is
also subject to the MWOWA only because Michigan's minimum wage is
higher than the federal one. Michigan's overtime protections in
section 408.414a do not apply to AMC. To the extent Michigan
plaintiffs seek compensation for unpaid overtime in Michigan, they
must do so under the FLSA.
The FLSA sleep time rule would apply to those claims, however, and
the Court has already found above that AMC has met the sleep time
rule requirements. The Defendant's motion for summary judgment is
therefore granted as to the Michigan plaintiffs' claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3c0u8XQ at no extra charge.[CC]
AIYA AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aiya America, Inc.
The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Aiya America, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04682 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aiya -- https://aiya-america.com/ -- is the key supplier to the
world's largest beverage and confectionery manufacturers, as well
as world class cafe chains and food service companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ALAN KAMEL: Ferris Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alan Kamel. The case
is styled as Patrick Ferris, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ALAN KAMEL doing business as: LAW
OFFICE OF ALAN KAMEL, Case No. 2:21-cv-11154-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., May
12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Alan Monte Kamel -- https://www.lawyer.com/alan-kamel.html -- is an
attorney in Elizabeth, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yosef Steinmetz, Esq.
17 SYLVAN STREET, SUITE 102B
RUTHERFORD, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
ALFREDO ADAM: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Defamation
----------------------------------------------------------------
lchilltopnews.org reports that Alfredo Adam You might hit a wall on
your way to the Federal Council of Tlalpan, where it looks like you
will soon face a class-action lawsuit.
Announce it Diana GoldenFormer partner of the party's candidate
Progressive social networks (RSP), Who applied to the program
Chisme is not like "The perpetrator will soon be accountable to the
law for everybody It hurts.
It was a civil lawsuit, and now there's another one in a group, but
since it's just getting prepared, I can't say anything. We are not
going to stay like that, the people who were affected. He has to
pay sooner or later, and if not, life will pay him for it, "he
said.
Alfredo Adam must apologize publicly
Regarding the lawsuit she won against him for defamation on a TV
show, she announced that the actor should pay her 20,000 pesos and
Make a public apology.
However, Alfredo Refusal To receive notification from the
authorities and comply with the judge's ruling, so his legal
problems are now so exacerbated that It can be recovered.
"(The lawsuit) hit him. He has his possessions in the name of the
eldest daughter so that he does not give anything to the children
of Mary Baz, and I do not know what the judge and the lawyer will
do, but they have to deliver (notice) to him and he said," Now that
if he did not pay the money and did not make a public apology
within 15 years Or 20 days, a ban will be imposed. "
READ Scarlett Johansson ends up smearing her with a sticky green
liquid in the middle of an emotional speech
"I don't have anything to do with him anymore. (I'm just) waiting
for him to do the right thing, and now that he's a candidate
standing up for women from men like him, you coward."[GN]
ALLIANCE COAL: Class Certification Bid Deadline Due March 11, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY BRANSON, DANIEL
CUNNINGHAM, and ALTON JOSEPH NEWBERRY on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly-Situated, v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, ALLIANCE
RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCES OPERATING PARTNERS,
L.P., WEBSTER COUNTY COAL, LLC, WARRIOR COAL, LLC, and RIVER VIEW
COAL, LLC, Case No. 4:19-cv-00155-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon.
Judge Brent Brennesthul entered an amended scheduling order:
-- DISCOVERY DEADLINE: All fact and expert discovery shall be
completed 2 by June 10, 2022.
-- EXPERT DISCLOSURES: The identity of any person who may be
used atto provide expert testimony, and the reports from any
expert who is retained or specially employed under Rule
26(a)
(2) are due:
From Plaintiffs by: March 10, 2022.
From Defendant by: May 10, 2022.
The parties shall be under a continuing duty to supplement
their discovery responses whenever reasonably appropriate and
generally in conformity with the requirements of FRCP 26(e).
-- OTHER ITEMS:
The Plaintiffs request a pretrial conference. The Defendants
propose the final pre-trial conference take place 45 days
before trial. The Defendants propose the final pre-trial The
last date for the parties to seek leave of court to join
additional parties shall be 30 days after the conclusion of
the opt-in period.
The last date for the Parties to seek leave of court to
amend
their pleadings is December 10, 2021.
The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
certification under Rule 23 by March 11, 2022.
The Defendants shall file their opposition to their motion
for class certification by May 11, 2022, and Plaintiffs
shall
file their reply brief by June 10, 2022.
The last date for filing dispositive motions and Daubert
motions shall be 30 days after the Court rules on class
certification under Rule 23 or 60 days after the close of
discovery, whichever is later.
-- TRIAL: The case should be ready for jury trial by Fall of
2022 or Winter of 2022-2023, and at this time trial is
expected to take approximately 14 days.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGxw2b at no extra charge.[CC]
ALLIED UNIVERSAL: Salazar FCRA Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JORGE SALAZAR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL JANITORIAL SERVICES, LLC;
ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES; ALLIED UNIVERSAL; UNIVERSAL
BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC; UNIVERSAL SERVICES OF AMERICA, LP; and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. RG21094608, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03853-LB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the California Civil Code, and the California
Business and Professions Code.
Allied Universal Janitorial Services, LLC is a provider of
janitorial services based in California.
Allied Universal Security Services is an American provider of
security systems and services; janitorial services; and staffing,
headquartered in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Allied Universal is an American provider of security systems and
services; janitorial services; and staffing, headquartered in
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.
Universal Building Maintenance, LLC is a building cleaning and
maintenance services company based in California.
Universal Services of America, LP is a provider of janitorial and
security services, headquartered in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq.
Jason P. Brown, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20037-1701
Telephone: (202) 955-1500
Facsimile: (202) 778-2201
E-mail: rquackenboss@hunton.com
brownj@hunton.com
- and –
J. Drei Munar, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
50 California Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 975-3700
Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
E-mail: jdreimunar@hunton.com
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sputz Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LEI SPUTZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04663 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant contacted him via written
correspondence in an attempt to collect an alleged debt that she
has purportedly incurred to U.S. Bank National Association. Rather
than preparing and mailing a collection letter on its own, the
Defendant allegedly sent information regarding the Plaintiff and
the alleged debt to a commercial mail house disclosing the
Plaintiff's status as debtor, how much she owed, and other highly
personal pieces of information. The Plaintiff has never consented
the Defendant to disclose personal and confidential information.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful and abusive
collection practices, the Plaintiff was harmed by having his
privacy invaded, and his private and protected information shared
and disseminated with unauthorized parties. Thus, the Plaintiff
brings this class action complaint, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals whose information was
unlawfully shared by the Defendant to its mail house, seeking for
statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Alltran Financial, LP is a debt collector. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Tel: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
ALLY BANK: Hoek Suit Removed to District of Utah
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Frits Van Der Hoek, an individual and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Ally Bank, Better Mortgage, Case
No. 210902163 was removed from the 3rd District Court, Salt Lake
County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on May
24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00320-DBB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Ally Financial Inc. (NYSE: ALLY) -- https://www.ally.com/ -- is a
leading digital financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Trevor C. Lang, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC
10 EXCHANGE PL STE 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 456-7655
Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
tlang@mohtrial.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
Annika L. Jones, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
15 W South Temple, Ste., 1200
Gateway Tower West
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 257-1900
Email: asorenson@swlaw.com
aljones@swlaw.com
AMAZON.COM INC: PMFN Maintains Monopoly Power, Coster Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH DE COSTER, NEMANJA KRSTIC, JOHN MARIANE, OSAHON OJEAGA,
and EMMA ZABALLOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00693 (W.D. Wash., May 26, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged acquisition of
monopoly power in the U.S. ecommerce platform market through
anticompetitive conduct. The Defendant imposed and enforced
platform most favored nation (PMFN) clauses in its third-party
seller contracts, thereby causing supracompetitive prices for all
products sold in the U.S. ecommerce platform market. In the absence
of the PMFN, Amazon would not be able to maintain supracompetitive
commissions, and instead competition would drive commissions to
cost. These supracompetitive commissions affect both sellers and
consumers that use the Amazon Marketplace, the suit alleges.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an online retail firm with its principal
headquarters in Seattle, Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alicia Cobb, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 905-7000
E-mail: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
- and –
Steig D. Olson, Esq.
David D. LeRay, Esq.
Nic V. Siebert, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
E-mail: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
- and –
Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
AMAZON.COM: Waithaka Seeks to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD WAITHAKA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01320-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a
class of:
"all individuals who have worked as Amazon Flex delivery
drivers
in Massachusetts at any time since August 23, 2014."
This case is brought on behalf of Amazon Flex drivers who have
performed delivery services in Massachusetts for the Defendants
Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc. The Plaintiff Bernard
Waithaka has alleged that he and other Amazon Flex delivery drivers
are employees under Mass. Gen. L. c. 149, section 148B, not
independent contractors as Amazon has classified them.
As a result of their misclassification, these drivers have been
forced to bear expenses necessary to perform their jobs, such as
gas and car maintenance and phone data plans, and have not been
paid minimum wage for all hours work, due to the fact that drivers
must bear their own expenses and often work beyond their scheduled
shift to complete their deliveries, without additional
compensation.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, and
cloud computing.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yEuSM9
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
hlichten@llrlaw.com
apagano@llrlaw.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104-1729
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
Facsimile: (206) 682-0401
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
AMDOCS LIMITED: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Amdocs
Limited ("Amdocs" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:DOX) between December
13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Amdocs securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than June 8, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
Amdocs investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.
Background on the Amdocs Securities Class Litigation
Amdocs, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri, provides software
and services to communications, cable and satellite, entertainment,
and media industry service providers worldwide. The complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and
liquidity but understated its debts; (2) Amdocs concealed its large
borrowing by "window-dressing" its balance sheets, which included
paying down debts before the end of each quarter to show a
debt-free balance sheet and then re-borrowing those debts; (3)
although Amdocs reported that its results showed the stability of
its North American business, that business was declining annually,
due in part to the loss of AT&T as a customer; (4) many reputable
auditors resigned and were subsequently replaced by
"scandal-plagued or tiny shops"; and (5) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On March 31, 2021, before the open of the market, Jehoshaphat
Research released a report detailing several instances of
misconduct by Amdocs. Specifically, the report revealed the extent
of the Company's overstated financials, according to a former
American DOX executive who stated that, "[t]he US business was
declining at a rate of [around] 7% annually...but then we would see
the company [publish results that] say North America is stable…We
would send [our quarterly numbers] to Israel…and somehow
everything all comes out as favorable…every quarter [from
2016-on], that came as a big surprise." Amdocs also
"window-dressed" its balance sheets to conceal the large amount of
money it was borrowing each quarter. In reality, Amdocs was losing
the critical business of its customer AT&T and there was a
concerning pattern of the resignation of multiple auditors, only
later to be replaced by "scandal-plagued or tiny shops." On this
news, Amdocs's share price fell $9.19 per share, or 11.58%, from
its closing price of $79.34 on March 30, 2021, to close at $70.15
per share on March 31, 2021.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility. [GN]
AMERICAN INSURANCE: Keith Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Insurance
Organization. The case is styled as June Keith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Insurance
Organization, Case No. 1:21-cv-01083-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., May 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
American Insurance Organization (AIO) -- https://aiosales.com/ --
is one of the largest and most successful health insurance
marketing organizations (IMO) in the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley G. Kirk, Esq.
BRADLEY G. KIRK
1910 Madison Avenue, Ste. #112
Memphis, TN 38104
Phone: (901) 206-6163
Email: bgkirklaw@gmail.com
AMOBEE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Kanchanawong Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEI KANCHANAWONG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMOBEE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04409 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kanchanawong was employed by the Defendant as desktop
support staff.
Amobee, Inc. provides mobile advertising solutions. The Company
inserts interactive advertisements into various mobile
entertainment and communication channels such as videos, music,
messages, and games. Amobee serves mobile operators, publishers,
developers, and agencies worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Spasojevich, Esq.
Imran Ansari, Esq.
AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
546 5th Avenue
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 486-0011
E-mail: ls@aidalalaw.com
AROMA MARKET: Haon Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZOILA HAON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. AROMA MARKET AND
CATERING, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation, AROMA BOCA, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, MEIR YALOZ, individually and GIL RIBAK,
individually, Case No. 0:21-cv-60354-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
A. granting conditional certification of the action as a
Collective Action under section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, with the proposed Putative Class defined as
follows:
"All non-exempt hourly paid employees, including but not
limited to: Deli Personnel, sushi counter, Cashiers,
Stockers, Baggers, Kitchen staff and Cleaning personnel, who
worked for the Defendants at any location during the relevant
limitations period who were not paid for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek; who were not paid full and proper
overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek
and who were automatically deducted a 30 minute
automatic meal break(s), although you did not actually take
these breaks;"
B. appointing the Plaintiff as the representative of the
Collective Action with authority to appear at any
mediation/settlement conference on behalf of and to bind the
Collective;
C. appointing the Plaintiff's Counsel, as Class Counsel.
D. expediting production by the Defendants, within 10 days from
the entry of an Order from the Court to format and produce,
on an expedited basis, a list electronically in an Excel
spreadsheet, of each such person listed alphabetically, and
with each person’s last known home address, telephone
number,
date(s) of employment with and email addresses -- who worked
as a non-exempt hourly paid employee for Defendants, at one
or both of Defendants South Florida locations, and at any
time between February 15, 2019 through the present, in a
separate field corresponding with each name to facilitate the
preparation and sending of notice;
E. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel/Class Administrator to
send a Court-Approved Notice by email, and by U.S. Mail to
all such persons about their rights to opt into this
collective action by filing a Consent to Join Lawsuit;
F. permitting class members the option to sign their consent to
join forms electronically; and
G. allowing a 90 day Opt-in period for Putative Class Members
to join the case, as well as a Reminder Notice.
The Defendants own and operate two Grocery markets and Catering
stores, with locations in Cooper City, Florida, and Boca Raton,
Florida. Both companies and locations allegedly engaged in the same
unlawful practices during the same periods in time.
The Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and the putative class were
employed by the Defendants during the relevant limitations' period,
suit says.
A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RTJfvp
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
Andres Kroboth, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
10368 W. State Road, Suite 103
Davie, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
andres@floridaovertimelawyer.com
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") announces that on May 14,
2021, it filed a securities class action lawsuit, captioned
Plymouth County Retirement Association v. Array Technologies, Inc.,
No. 21-cv-2396 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action"), on behalf of its client
the Plymouth County Retirement Association ("PCRA") against Array
Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the "Company") and other related
parties (collectively, "Defendants").
The Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Array securities between
October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
who were damaged thereby. The Exchange Act claims are brought
against Array and certain of the Company's officers.
Separately, the Action asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Array common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's October 2020 initial public offering, the Company's
December 2020 secondary public offering, or the Company's March
2021 secondary public offering (collectively, the "Offerings"), and
were damaged thereby.
In connection with the Offerings, Array filed registration
statements and prospectuses with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Offering Materials"). The Securities Act claims
are brought against Array, investment banks that acted as
underwriters on the Offerings, and Company directors and officers
who signed the Offering Materials. ATI Investment Parent, LLC, an
Array shareholder who sold substantial amounts of Array stock
through the Offerings is also named as a defendant in connection
with the Securities Act claims.
Array is an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based manufacturer of
ground-mounting systems used in solar energy projects. The
Company's principal products are commonly referred to as
"trackers." Trackers are designed to move solar panels throughout
the day to maintain an optimal orientation to the sun, which
significantly increases their energy production.
With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Action alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading
statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose
that, dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain
commodities such as steel was in the process of more than doubling,
and that Array was facing increasing freight costs. As a result of
the foregoing, the Company's positive statements about its business
and operations lacked a reasonable basis.
Similarly, with respect to the Securities Act claims, the Action
alleges that the Offering Materials contained false and misleading
statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose
that, prior to the Offerings, increases in commodity and freight
costs had been negatively impacting the Company's business and
operations.
On May 11, 2021, just months after the Offerings, the truth about
these mounting costs and their negative impact on the Company's
profits was revealed. On that date, Array reported first quarter
2021 results that missed profit analysts' expectations and withdrew
its full-year 2021 outlook citing increases in steel and freight
costs. Analysts immediately cut their ratings on Array stock citing
concerns about the Company's shrinking profit margins. For example,
in a Barclays report,
analysts downgraded Array stock from "Overweight" to "Underweight"
noting concerns about volumes, margins, and earnings power. On this
news, Array's stock priced dropped $11.49 per share, or 46.1
percent, to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021.
If you: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Array securities during
the Class Period and were damaged thereby, or (2) purchased or
otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
any of the Offerings and were damaged thereby, you are a member of
the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York no later than July 13,
2021. The Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for
absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as
Lead Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Action. If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in the Action.
If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David J. Schwartz,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow at (800) 321-0476, or via email at
dschwartz@labaton.com.
PCRA is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of
the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally
with combined assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow has been recognized for its excellence by the
courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked in leading industry
publications. Offices are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE,
and Washington, D.C. More information about Labaton Sucharow is
available at www.labaton.com. You can view a copy of the complaint
here. [GN]
ASTROTECH CORP: Faces Stein Putative Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Astrotech Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company faces a
class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Stein v. Pickens, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS.
On April 15, 2021, a putative stockholder of the Company commenced
a class action and derivative lawsuit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, Stein v. Pickens, et al., C.A. No. 2021-0322-JRS, in
which it is alleged, among other things, that the Company
improperly included broker non-votes in the tabulation of votes
counted in favor to approve an amendment to the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation and, thus the 2020 Certificate
Amendment was defective.
The Company investigated these allegations and disputes them.
Astrotech Corporation is an Austin, Texas-based commercial
aerospace company. The Company currently owns, operates and
maintains spacecraft processing facilities; prepares and processes
scientific research in microgravity; and develops and manufactures
chemical sensor equipment.
ATERIAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ATER) from December 1, 2020 through May 3, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Aterian securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Aterian Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (2)
the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments
for flawed assets from questionable sources; (3) Aterian's proposed
artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks
customer interest; (4) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or
artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On May 4, 2021, Culper Research published a scathing report,
entitled "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to
You." The research report accused the company of associating and
having ties to convicted criminals, overhyping its AIMEE platform,
and using "garbage" acquisitions to conceal its "ill-conceived core
business." Culper Research also stated that "Aterian has been
largely unsuccessful in convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for
its AIMEE AI platform, and at least 5 former employees and a former
customer have expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy."
On this news, Aterian's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
approximately 24% over the next two trading days to close at $15.72
per share on May 5, 2021, damaging investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Aterian securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/aterianinc-ater-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-399/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) f/k/a Mohawk Group
Holdings (MWK) investors with significant losses to submit your
losses now. A securities fraud class action is pending and certain
investors may have valuable claims.
Class Period: Dec. 1, 2020 – May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/ATER
Contact An Attorney Now: ATER@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) Securities Fraud Class Action:
The complaint alleges that Aterian falsely touted its core
business, recent acquisitions, and the functionality of AIMEE –
the company's purported artificial intelligence platform that
allows users to manage products on online marketplaces.
In reality, (1) Aterian's organic growth is plummeting, (2) its
self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from
questionable sources, (3) its AIMEE is flawed and lacks customer
interest, and (4) it uses rebates and pays for artificial reviews
to pump up product offerings.
The truth emerged on May 4, 2021, when analyst Culper Research
published a scathing report entitled "Aterian (ATER): Bought from
Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to You." Among other things, Culper
accuses the company of having ties to convicted criminals,
overhyping its AIMEE platform, and using "garbage acquisitions" to
conceal its "ill-conceived core business."
This news drove the price of Aterian shares crashing sharply lower
on May 4, 2021.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Aterian misled
investors about its acquisitions and the AIMEE platform," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are an Aterian investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Aterian should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ATER@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
ATERIAN INC: The Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Aterian, Inc.
("Aterian" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ATER) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 12, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/aterian-inc/#case-form to
participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Aterian suffered from a steep decline in
organic growth. The Company's recent acquisitions were flawed
assets that it overpaid for. Customer interest in the Company's AI
software was low. The Company used rebate programs and paid reviews
to bolster their product offerings. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Aterian, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
AUDATEX NORTH: Tennessee Court Refuses to Dismiss Clippinger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit captioned ESSICA CLIPPINGER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AUDATEX NORTH AMERICA,
INC., d/b/a AUDAEXPLORE, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 2:20-cv-02501-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.).
Plaintiff Jessica Clippinger sues Defendant Audatex North America,
Inc., d/b/a AudaExplore, for inducement of breach of contract and
tortious interference with the performance of a contract. She also
seeks a declaratory judgment. The Defendant now moves to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).
Background
The lawsuit is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated. She alleges these facts
in her complaint. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. sells
automobile insurance providing coverage for property damage to an
insured's vehicle. She has an insurance contract with State Farm.
The contract requires State Farm to cover the total loss of her
vehicle. State Farm may cover that loss by replacing the vehicle or
giving the Plaintiff the "actual cash value" of the vehicle. State
Farm contracts with Defendant here to help it determine "actual
cash value."
The Plaintiff owned a 2017 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT 2WD 4-door
passenger van. She had a wreck and the insurance adjuster
considered it a total loss. So she submitted a claim for the total
loss of her vehicle, and State Farm provided a total loss valuation
for her claim.
Meanwhile, the Defendant is a data analysis company that provides
valuation reports and claims automation software to insurers,
including State Farm. And Defendant provides State Farm with
vehicle valuation reports that assess the actual cash value of a
total loss vehicle. So when State Farm provided a total loss
valuation for the Plaintiff's claim on her van, it relied on the
Defendant's market valuation report to determine how much to pay
the Plaintiff for her vehicle.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant purposely and wrongfully
lowers the true market value of an insured's car by subtracting
amounts without a proper basis. The Complaint alleges that the
Defendant wrongfully, intentionally, and willfully interferes with
State Farm's contractual duties to provide its insureds the actual
cash value of their loss vehicles by providing State Farm with
valuation reports that uniformly employ improper, unreasonable, and
unexplained adjustments to reduce the value of comparable vehicles
specified in the valuation reports. And it does so by applying a
"Typical Negotiation Adjustment" to lower unfairly the vehicle's
market value.
In its valuation reports, the Defendant gives State Farm itemized
internet sales prices for vehicles comparable to the loss vehicle.
But rather than using the actual price data for the comparable
vehicles, the Defendant applies a downward adjustment for typical
negotiation costs. On average, the Defendant applies an 8.5%
downward adjustment. But, according to the Plaintiff, the Defendant
gives "no credible data or explanation to support" any negotiation
adjustment, much less one at 8.5%. The Plaintiff also alleges that
the Defendant "buries" the adjustment within the valuation report
and even fails to show the dollar amount of the deduction. What is
more, this typical negotiation adjustment goes against the used car
industry's market pricing. And for unexplained reasons, the
Defendant does not apply this typical negotiation adjustment when
valuing total losses for State Farm in California. Nor do the
Defendant's competitors typically apply this adjustment.
In effect, the Plaintiff claims that State Farm--relying on the
Defendant's market valuation report--pays its insureds less than
the fair market cash value of their loss vehicles. As a result, the
Defendant helped State Farm reduce the amount it paid out to its
policy holders by 8.7%. And so, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant's practice of undervaluing total loss vehicles by
applying an unexplained Typical Negotiation Adjustment induces a
breach of the contract between State Farm and its insureds, and
intentionally interferes with State Farm's contractual relations
with its insureds.
The Defendant now argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
because she does not allege that Audatex (i) specifically intended
to induce State Farm to breach its contract with Clippinger, (ii)
acted maliciously, or (iii) proximately caused a breach of that
contract. The Defendant also argues that the Court should dismiss
the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim because she fails to
assert a justiciable controversy. This is because the Plaintiff
seeks a declaration about the duties of Tennessee insurers, which
would not affect any rights or obligations between her and
Audatex.
Analysis
The Plaintiff alleges state law claims for inducement of breach of
contract and tortious interference with the performance of a
contract.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has pleaded the Defendant's
malicious intent. The Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that the
Defendant knew of State Farm's contracts with its insureds. The
Plaintiff's valuation report also shows the Defendant's knowledge
of her contract with State Farm. So based on the Plaintiff's
allegations, the Court finds it plausible that, when it created its
valuation reports, the Defendant knew a contract existed between
State Farm and the Plaintiff.
But does she allege that the Defendant knew about State Farm's
contractual obligation to pay the Plaintiff the actual cash value
of her vehicle, and that the Defendant knowingly and maliciously
induced State Farm to breach that provision of the contract, asks
District Judge Thomas L. Parker. Reading the facts in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court finds that she does.
Though it is a close call, the Plaintiff's allegations pass muster
here, Judge Parker holds. Those allegations suggest that the
Defendant acted with the required intent and malice. Judge Parker
concludes that the Plaintiff has alleged intent. He adds that
allegations also support the Plaintiff's contention that the
Defendant knew its valuation reports violated policy terms and
state law, and that it acted with malicious intent.
All in all, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges the Defendant's
intent and malice, Judge Parker holds. In the end, the Court denies
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's tortious
interference and inducement of contract claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that, "in valuing
first-party total loss claims, it is a violation of Tennessee law
to use Typical Negotiation Adjustments that are (a) arbitrary, (b)
contrary to industry practices and consumer experiences (and
therefore not reflective of the vehicle's fair market value), and
(c) not as specific as reasonably possible or appropriate as to
dollar amount." The Defendant argues that the Declaratory Judgment
Act does not create an independent cause of action, so if the
Plaintiff's tort claims fail, so does her declaratory judgment
claim.
The Court denies the Defendant's motion for two reasons. First, the
Court found that the Plaintiff sufficiently alleged her tort
claims. And second, at this point the Plaintiff must only "state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face," citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 570 (2007). Plus allowing
declaratory relief is in the Court's discretion.
With that in mind, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has
adequately alleged that she is entitled to declaratory relief to
overcome a motion to dismiss. The Court, thus, denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's declaratory judgment
claim.
Conclusion
The Plaintiff alleges a claim upon which relief can be granted. The
Court, thus, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3wd9p8te from Leagle.com.
AURA HOME INC: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aura Home, Inc. The
case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Aura Home, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04654 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aura Home doing business as Aura Frames -- https://auraframes.com/
-- is a smart picture frame designed to fill their home with
beautiful photos of their family and friends.[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
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Auto-Owners Insurance
Company. The case is styled as John Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Auto-Owners Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-02597 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Auto-Owners Insurance Group -- https://www.auto-owners.com/ -- is a
mutual insurance company that provides life, home, car and business
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik David Peterson, Esq.
MEHR FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
201 W Short St Ste 800
Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: (859) 225-3731
Email: edp@austinmehr.com
BAMBOO AVE: Olsen Files ADA Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamboo Ave. The case
is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Bamboo Ave LLC doing business
as: Vybe Interior, Case No. 1:21-cv-02937 (E.D.N.Y., May 25,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bamboo Ave -- https://bambooave.com/ -- offers Buttery-soft shorts
that are so versatile.[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
BAMBOO YA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Staff, Cabrera Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM DISLA CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAMBOO YA SUSHI INC., YINGLUN
ZHONG, and WAN KWOK TUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02947
(E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wage for all hours
worked, failure to pay overtime premiums for hours worked over 40
in a given workweek, failure to pay spread-of-hours premiums, and
failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants at Bamboo Ya Sushi
restaurant located at 69-12 Austin Street, Forest Hills, New York
from in or around October 2019 through in or around March 2021.
Bamboo Ya Sushi Inc. is an owner and operator of a restaurant
located at 69-12 Austin St., Forest Hills, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
BANK OF AMERICA: Lubin Alleges Wiretapping of Website Visitors
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LUBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-010486 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., May 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Florida Security of Communications Act and invasion of privacy
under Florida law.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged wiretapping the
electronic communications of visitors to the Defendant's website,
bankofamerica.com, and the Bank of America mobile application. The
wiretaps, which are embedded in the computer code on the websites
and the app, are used by the Defendant to secretly observe and
record visitors' keystrokes, mouse clicks, swipes, gestures and
other electronic communications, including the entry of Personally
Identifiable Information (PII). As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misconduct, the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and Class
members are invaded.
Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association, with its
principal place of business in North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 W. 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufinanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and –
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Christopher E. Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Ave., Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Reaches $75MM Settlement Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel at Reuters reports that Bank of America Corp
(BAC.N) agreed to pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the
second-largest U.S. bank of extracting overdraft fees it didn't
earn from customers with savings and checking accounts, court
papers showed.
A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action was filed on
with the federal court in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the bank
is based, and requires a judge's approval.
Customers said Bank of America often charged multiple $35 fees for
insufficient funds or overdrafts on a single transaction, sometimes
reflecting the bank's repeated attempts to process it at a
merchant's request.
One woman said the bank charged her $105 after rejecting her $20
credit card payment and then attempting without her knowledge to
"retry" processing the same payment five and nine days after the
initial rejection, resulting in three $35 fees.
One woman said the bank imposed $105 in fees after rejecting her
$20 credit card payment, attempting without her knowledge to
"retry" processing the same payment five and nine days after the
initial rejection, resulting in three $35 fees.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said that as part of the settlement, Bank
of America will stop imposing multiple fees on "retry" payments for
at least five years, saving customers an estimated $5.3 million a
month and $318 million overall.
Bank of America denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. A
spokesman declined to comment on Friday.
The plaintiffs' lawyers intend to seek up to $25 million from the
settlement fund in attorney's fees.
Repeated overdrafts can result in account closures and leave some
lower-income customers without access to banking services.
Banks have faced many lawsuits over the years claiming they sought
to illegally maximize overdraft fees.
U.S. banks took in $11.68 billion of overdraft fees in 2019,
according to the Center for Responsible Lending, even before the
COVID-19 pandemic left millions in financial distress. Just 9% of
account holders paid 84% of the fees, the nonprofit said.
The case is Morris et al v. Bank of America NA, U.S. District
Court, Western District of North Carolina, No. 18-00157. [GN]
BAOBURG INC: Pitsamai FLSA Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ARNON PITSAMAI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAOBURG INC. (D/B/A BAOBURG) and
SUCHANAN AKSORNNAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-04286, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May
24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02904-AMD-RML to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated waiters
appropriate minimum wage, overtime pay, and spread-of-hours pay for
all hours worked; failure to maintain accurate recordkeeping of all
hours worked; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; and
unlawful tip deductions.
Baoburg Inc. is an owner and operator of a Southeast Asian
restaurant under the name Baoburg located at 614 Manhattan Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
BAOBURG INC: Pitsamai Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnon Pitsamai, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BAOBURG INC. (D/B/A BAOBURG) and SUCHANAN AKSORNNAN,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04286 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 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.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping 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 he had to work over 10 hours a day. The Defendants
paid the Plaintiff at a rate that was lower than the required
tip-credit rate.
In addition, the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
unlawfully appropriating the Plaintiff's and other tipped
employees' tips and made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff P's and
other tipped employees' wages. The Defendants maintained a policy
and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work
in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage
and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a waiter at the restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Southeast Asian
restaurant, located in Brooklyn, New York under the name
"Baoburg."[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
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bids for Summary Judgment Nixed in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re GLUMETZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (N.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order that all motions for summary judgment are denied.
This order has trodden carefully to resolve the parties' four
dispositive motions without requiring full resolution of the
parties' ten pending Daubert motions. Argument on the Daubert
motions will be set midsummer. A future order will resolve those
motions. The Court trusts that if resolution of the Daubert motions
fundamentally undercuts a party's ability to make a certain
argument, the party will own up to it and not waste our time at
trial. For that matter, trial remains set for and voir dire will
commence on Ocotober 4 at 7:30 A.M. The Court is looking forward to
it.
In a secret pharmaceutical-patent infringement settlement
agreement, concealed from the district judge, brand and generic
manufacturers of the type 2 diabetes drug Glumetza allegedly
pledged not to compete with each other by agreeing to not introduce
a generic version of the drug for several years. So, while generic
competition should have driven drug prices down, the brand
manufacturer instead hiked prices up. The generic manufacturer
belatedly entered the market at premium pricing, and, as a result,
the conspiring manufacturers allegedly extracted huge sums of money
from consumers. In this resulting antitrust action, a certified
class of direct purchasers move for partial summary judgment that
our defendant brand and generic manufacturers wielded market power.
For their part, defendants move for summary judgment, attacking the
underlying antitrust violation and causal injury. All motions are
denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fBZGUQ at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYER CORPORATION: Boulware-Jones Sues Over Harmful Dog Collars
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Boulware-Jones, individually on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CORPORATION, & ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-11114 (D.N.J., May 12, 2021), is
brought on behalf of all who purchased Seresto Collars due to the
Defendants' misleading and deceptive practice of failing to
disclose the dangers associated with the pesticides used in the
Seresto Collars and their representation that the possibility of an
adverse reaction was only a rarity when in fact there have been
more than 75,000 reported incidents.
The Defendants claimed that their Seresto Flea and Tick Pet Collars
rarely caused reactions and sensitivities in the owner's pet. In
2021, it was publicly reported that, despite these representations,
the Environmental Protection Agency has received nearly 1,700
reported pet deaths associated with the Seresto Collars and,
alarmingly, more than 75,000 adverse incident reports, with more
than 10,000 classified as major or moderate incidents, asserts the
complaint.
Like many others, after the Plaintiff's dog wore a Seresto Collar,
he suffered a series of adverse reactions for which her
veterinarian could not identify a cause. Ultimately, the
Plaintiff's dog suffered from a lymphatic cancer diagnosis and had
to be put to sleep. Only after the reports on Seresto Collars
became public did Plaintiff recognize the correlation between her
dog's symptoms and the Seresto Collar. The Plaintiff would not have
purchased a Seresto Collar had she known that the Defendants
falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively failed to disclose the
dangers associated with the pesticides used in the Seresto Collars,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased during the class period Seresto Flea and
Tick Collars from Amazon and other retailers for her pit bull,
Josh.
Bayer Corporation and Elanco Animal Health, Inc., developed,
tested, designed, manufactured, marketed and sold Seresto Flea and
Tick Pet Collars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor
Haddonfield, NJ08033
Phone: 856-772-7200
Fax: 856-210-9088
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
klaukaitis@shublawyers.com
BELLUS HEALTH: Morganti & Co. Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morganti & Co., A pro-investor law firm with licensed and
experienced lawyers in Canada and the United States that represent
investors announces the filing of a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired common
stock of Bellus Health, Inc. ("Bellus" or "Company") (NASDAQ: BLU,
TSX: BLU, FWB: BHN0) from September 5, 2019 through July 5, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Bellus is a biopharmaceutical company whose lead product is
BLU-493, which is still being developed for the treatment of
chronic cough and other afferent hypersensitization related
disorders. The Complaint alleges that Bellus made false and
misleading statements that resulted in the dramatic decrease in
stock price on July 6, 2020. On July 6, 2020, Bellus reported that
the Phase 2 RELIEF trial did not achieve statistical significance
for primary endpoint of reduction in placebo-adjusted cough
frequency at any dose tested.
If you purchased Bellus' securities on either the Nasdaq or Toronto
Stock Exchange and would like to learn more about the differences
between enforcing your rights and access to justice, please contact
us at info@morgantico.com. You can be based in The Americas, Asia,
Europe or anywhere, we welcome you to contact us to protect your
rights and recover your investment.
Morganti & Co. is a law firm representing all types of investors -
we do not discriminate on how much you lost, where you reside, or
which stock exchange you purchased securities. We are the law firm
that helped create court decisions to allow global investors to
enforce their rights in Canadian courts. In Canada, we are
affiliated with Kim Spencer McPhee Barristers, P.C. Our lawyers are
fluent in Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Korean, and
Farsi.
Contacts
Andrew Morganti or Manjit Singh
Licensed to practice law in Ontario, Canada, California, and New
York, USA
Morganti & Co., P.L.C.
550 Merrill Street, Suite 100
Birmingham, Michigan 48009
Tel: (647) 344-1900
www.morgantico.com
info@morgantico.com [GN]
BENTLEY MANHATTAN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bentley Manhattan
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Bentley Manhattan Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04679 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bentley Manhattan -- https://www.bentleymanhattan.com/ -- is a
prestigious Bentley dealer of New York, New York serving Brooklyn
and Manhattan meeting all top luxury vehicle needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
BLAZE REALTY: Foster Seeks Disabled People's Equal Property Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
LELAND FOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLAZE REALTY LLC and PNC BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00995-DAP (N.D. Ohio, May
13, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Ohio Disability
Discrimination Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to comply with the
remedial provisions of the ADA at their office buildings. The
Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the office
buildings operated by the Defendants. The barriers to access at the
property have endangered his safety and protected access to the
Defendants' place of public accommodation. The Defendants have
discriminated against the Plaintiff by denying him access to the
full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, the
Plaintiff alleges.
Blaze Realty LLC is an owner of a property located at 343 W. Bagley
Rd., Berea, OH 44017 in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.
PNC Bank, National Association is a banking firm with an office
located at 343 W. Bagley Rd., Berea, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR.
The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
Toledo, OH 43615
Telephone: (419) 241-9661
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net
- and –
Valerie J. Fatica, Esq.
The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
Toledo, OH 43615
Telephone: (419) 654-1622
Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
E-mail: valeriefatica@gmail.com
BLINK CHARGING: Bid to Dismiss Bush Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------
Blink Charging Co. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled,
Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527, is
pending.
On August 24, 2020, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned Bush v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No. 20-cv-23527,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Michael Farkas (Blink's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), and Michael
Rama (Blink's Chief Financial Officer).
On September 1, 2020, another purported securities class action
lawsuit, captioned Vittoria v. Blink Charging Co. et al., Case No.
20-cv-23643, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the same defendants and
seeking to recover the same alleged damages.
On October 1, 2020, the court consolidated the Vittoria Lawsuit
with the Bush Lawsuit and on December 21, 2020 the court appointed
Tianyou Wu, Alexander Yu and H. Marc Joseph to serve as the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs.
The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on February 19,
2021. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about the size and
functionality of the Blink Network, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Amended Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to
recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Blink's common stock between March 6, 2020 and August 19,
2020.
On April 20, 2021, Blink and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. The deadline for the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs to file an opposition brief in response to the motion to
dismiss is June 21, 2021 and the deadline for Blink to file a reply
in support of the motion to dismiss is July 21, 2021.
The Company believes that the claim has no merit, and wholly and
completely disputes the allegations therein. The Company has
retained legal counsel in order to defend the action vigorously.
Blink said, "The Company has not recorded an accrual related to
this matter as of March 31, 2021 as it determined that any such
loss contingency was either not probable or estimable."
Blink Charging Co. a leading owner, operator and supplier of
proprietary electric vehicle charging equipment and networked EV
charging services. The company serves both residential and
commercial EV charging settings, enabling EV drivers to easily
recharge at various location types. The company is based in Miami
Beach, Florida.
BLUE CROSS: Claim Your Cash Payment From Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Gould at abc3340.com reports that from time to time we all
get notices in the mail saying we may qualify for a class action
lawsuit settlement. Recently notices started arriving in mailboxes
in the metro area for a proposed $2.67 billion dollar settlement
involving an anti-trust lawsuit against Blue Cross Blue Shield. The
company is accused of limiting competition.
Attorneys advise you to take a close look at the notices and fill
out the paperwork either online or by mail.
Click https://www.bcbssettlement.com/ to learn more: BCBS
settlement You will find details on the settlement and key dates.
You can sign up to become part of the class, opt out or object to
the settlement. A hearing is set before Federal Judge David Proctor
to issue a final ruling in November.
"In the long run settlements like this should make companies think
twice before engaging in these anti-trust violations and should
lead to more competitive markets and prices," says UA Law Professor
Adam Steinman.
He advises consumers take a close look at their options and act.
"The exact amount you receive won't be finalized until the
settlement is approved," remarked Steinman.
We also asked Steinman about the large attorney fees put at $667
million dollars. He explains this type of lawsuit is extremely
costly and risky to litigate. There is no assurance there would be
any settlement.
DATES/DEADLINES
July 28, 2021 (Postmarked)
Objection Deadline
July 28, 2021 (Postmarked)
Exclusion ("Opt Out") Deadline (Damages Class Only)
October 20, 2021
Fairness Hearing
November 5, 2021 (Postmarked or Submitted Online)
Claims Filing Deadline (Damages Class Only) [GN]
BLUESOURCE LLC: Rivas Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to M.D.N.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EDUARDO RIVAS FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BLUESOURCE, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11514, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00404 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated master electricians overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Bluesource, LLC is an energy company, with its headquarters in
Durham, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
BOFI HOLDING: Discovery Order Objections in Securities Suit Quashed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
overrules the Defendants' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Feb.
26, 2021 discovery order issued in the lawsuit entitled In re BofI
Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC
(S.D. Cal.).
On March 12, 2021, the Defendants filed a Motion on Objections to
Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford's Feb. 26, 2021 Order.
Background
The case is a consolidated putative securities fraud class action
brought by purchasers of BofI's stock for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On Feb. 1,
2016, the Court appointed Houston Municipal Employees Pension
System as lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff").
The operative pleading in this case is the Third Amended Complaint
(the "TAC"). On March 21, 2018, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the TAC with prejudice. The Court concluded that
the TAC failed to identify a corrective disclosure of the alleged
misrepresentations with the particularity required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Specifically, the Court determined that the two alleged corrective
disclosures--the complaint in Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., No.
3:15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), (the "Erhart Complaint") filed
against BofI by Charles Matthew Erhart, a former BofI internal
auditor, and several articles by Seeking Alpha--could not establish
loss causation. With respect to the Erhart Complaint, the Court
found that the complaint was at most a "partial" corrective
disclosure of the Defendants' misrepresentations about BofI's
internal controls because the allegations, standing alone, did not
confirm the fraud.
As to the Seeking Alpha articles, the Court determined that the
Plaintiff did not plausibly allege a corrective disclosure because
all of the articles were based on public information. The Court
also determined that certain statements by the Defendants regarding
regulatory investigations were not actionable misstatements under
the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") and that the TAC failed
to adequately allege corrective disclosures with respect to this
issue.
The Plaintiff appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, In re BofI
Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth
Circuit agreed that the Seeking Alpha articles could not constitute
corrective disclosures, though for a slightly different reason, but
determined that the Plaintiff adequately alleged the Erhart
Complaint was a corrective disclosure and that the loss causation
element was satisfied.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Court's determination
that misstatements alleged for the first time in the TAC related to
regulatory investigations were not actionable, and agreed that the
Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege falsity. In a footnote, the
Ninth Circuit also noted that the Court had not addressed whether
certain other alleged misstatements were actionable and would need
to make that determination on remand, but added that "it appears
that at least some of them are."
On Dec. 11, 2020, following remand, the Court held an appeal
mandate hearing. At the hearing, Defense counsel inquired whether
the Court would entertain another round of litigation on the
pleadings, in light of the Ninth Circuit's indication that the
Court would need to determine whether certain alleged misstatements
were actionable on remand. The Plaintiff maintained that the
alleged misstatements that had yet to be specifically addressed by
the Court were closely related to the issues already ruled upon,
and thus that an additional round of litigation on the pleadings
was not required.
The Court directed the parties to "meet and confer to identify what
these additional statements are and whether or not they come within
the scope of statements or type of statements that this Court and
the Ninth Circuit has previously addressed" and stated that the
Court would entertain a request to file a further motion
challenging the pleadings "to the extent that the defense takes a
position that it expands the universe of statements in a
significant way." The Defendants have, thus, far not filed such a
motion or request for leave to do so.
The Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Crawford to proceed
with discovery. The Plaintiff propounded its first set of requests
for production ("RFPs"), consisting of 47 requests. The Defendants
then served their responses, which included a number of objections.
After meeting and conferring several times regarding the discovery
disputes, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Extension of Time to
Raise Discovery Disputes ("Joint Motion"). In the Joint Motion, the
parties identified four threshold discovery issues for judicial
determination:
1. The relevant time period for discovery;
2. Whether the Defendants must produce discovery from
Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-02324-BAS-NLS;
3. Whether the Defendants must produce information relating to
underwriting standards and credit quality; and
4. Whether Defendants must produce documents regarding all of
the internal control, compliance infrastructure, and risk
management deficiencies alleged in the TAC, or only
documents regarding the purported violations of its
internal controls, compliance infrastructure and risk
management alleged in the Erhart complaint and reprinted in
the TAC.
The parties stated that resolution of these threshold issues will
allow them to promptly clarify and resolve their remaining disputes
and requested that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiff to
move to compel on its Requests to 14 days following the Court's
resolution of the threshold issues.
On Feb. 26, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Regarding
Threshold Discovery Issues and Denying as Moot Joint Motion for
Extension of Time to Raise Discovery Disputes. According to the
Discovery Order, "Counsel for the parties conferred with the
Court's staff regarding these discovery issues on February 23,
2021, and, at the Court's request, subsequently lodged copies of
the relevant discovery requests and responses thereto."
In the Discovery Order, the Magistrate Judge resolved the four
threshold discovery issues identified in the Joint Motion and
clarified that "the foregoing rulings are without prejudice to the
parties' ability to raise disputes regarding specific document
requests that are not otherwise addressed by this Order," and set a
deadline of March 26, 2021, for the parties to raise any disputes
regarding Plaintiff's first set of RFPs. With respect to the first
threshold issue, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the relevant
time period of discovery proposed by Plaintiff, from April 1, 2013,
to June 30, 2016, was appropriate given that facts beyond the
quarters in which the alleged misleading statements and corrective
disclosures were made may be highly relevant to elements of
Plaintiff's claims.
As to the second threshold issue, the Magistrate Judge agreed with
the Defendants and found that they are not obligated to produce all
discovery from the Erhart action. The Magistrate Judge agreed with
the Plaintiff on the third and fourth threshold issues, finding
that information related to credit underwriting standards and
credit quality were still relevant to the non-dismissed portions of
the TAC and that information relating to internal controls,
compliance infrastructure, and risk management deficiencies, even
if not alleged in the Erhart Complaint and reprinted in the TAC,
still falls within the broad scope of discovery under Rule 26.
On March 12, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant objection to
the Discovery Order's resolution of the first, third, and fourth
threshold discovery issue. On April 9, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a
response in opposition. On April 23, 2021, the Defendants filed a
reply.
Discussion
In their objection, the Defendants make two primary arguments:
First, that the Magistrate Judge's resolution of the first, third,
and fourth threshold discovery issues relating to the scope of
discovery was contrary to law under the standards set out in Rule
26; and second, that the Defendants' due process rights were
violated by the Magistrate Judge's decision to issue the Discovery
Order on the threshold issues without giving the Defendants an
opportunity to be heard and without abiding by the procedures set
out in the Magistrate Judge's Chambers Rules. The Court first
addresses the Defendants' due process arguments before considering
whether the resolution of the threshold discovery disputes in the
Discovery Order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Due Process
The Defendants contend that the Discovery Order violated their due
process rights because the Magistrate Judge issued the order on the
threshold disputes without motion practice or argument.
Specifically, the Defendants argue that the Magistrate Judge
violated 28 U.S.C. Section 636 because she did not "hear" the
dispute when deciding the issues without briefing or a hearing, and
that she violated her own Chambers Rules. The Plaintiff responds
that no due process violation occurred as neither Section 636 nor
the Magistrate Judge's Chambers Rules prohibited the procedure used
here.
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel holds that assuming that some
process is due before a court decides "threshold" discovery
disputes without prejudice to future motion practice on specific
disputes, the Defendant has not demonstrated that the process here
was insufficient.
Because the parties' joint motion suggested that they sought the
Magistrate Judge's guidance on threshold issues before potentially
raising disputes as to particular RFPs through a discovery motion,
the Court is not convinced that due process requires the
opportunity to engage in two full rounds of briefing on a single
set of RFPs. Rather, it appears that the Magistrate Judge acted
within her discretion to expeditiously resolve the "threshold
issues" raised by the parties while reserving further briefing for
discovery disputes arising from specific requests, Judge Curiel
holds.
Nor have the Defendants demonstrated that the Discovery Order
violates 28 U.S.C. Section 636 or the Magistrate Judge's Chambers
Rules, Judge Curiel finds. And although the Magistrate Judge's
Chambers Rules indicate that the Court will direct the parties to
either engage in an informal dispute resolution conference or file
a joint motion for determination of the discovery dispute after
explaining the dispute to the law clerk, the Chambers Rules also
explicitly provide that they are intended as guidance and that "the
Court may vary these procedures as appropriate in any case."
Judge Curiel opines that the Defendants fail to adequately support
their argument that the Magistrate Judge's decision to issue a
decision on the threshold issues after ascertaining the parties'
basic positions without soliciting further argument, even if this
arguably varies from the Chambers Rules, rises to the level of a
deprivation of their due process rights.
The Court, therefore, overrules the Defendants' objections on the
basis that their due process rights were violated by the Discovery
Order.
Scope of Discovery
The Court now turns to whether the Discovery Order was contrary to
law or clearly erroneous.
Judge Curiel notes that the Magistrate Judge's order here differs
from a typical discovery order because it dealt only with the
"threshold issues" that the parties represented would "allow them
to promptly clarify and resolve their remaining disputes" before
resorting to a motion to compel. The Court, therefore, finds it
inappropriate to reach arguments regarding particular RFPs and will
confine its review to the limited threshold issues that the
Magistrate Judge actually decided in the Discovery Order.
The Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint ("TAC")--the operative
pleading--alleges a class period of Sept. 4, 2013, to Feb. 3, 2016.
Meanwhile, the Erhart Complaint that was identified by the Ninth
Circuit as a corrective disclosure was filed on Oct. 13, 2015 (See
In re BofI Sec. Litig., 977 F.3d at 788.) The Magistrate Judge
determined that "the appropriate time period for discovery in this
matter is April 1, 2013 to June 30, 2016."
The Defendants object that the time period sought by the Plaintiff
and approved of by the Magistrate Judge is overbroad and would
encompass communications that cannot be tied to actionable
misstatements and corrective disclosures, arguing that the
discovery period should start on July 1, 2013, the start of the
fiscal quarter before the start of the Plaintiff's proposed class
period, and end on Dec. 31, 2015, the end of the fiscal quarter
after the filing of the Erhart Complaint. The Plaintiff responds
that the time period approved of by the Magistrate Judge is
appropriate as it would lead to the discovery of material relevant
to the earliest alleged misstatements and communications regarding
the Defendants' response to the Erhart Complaint in the months that
followed the filing.
As to justification for the discovery of documents prepared or
created five months prior to the start of the proposed class
period, the Plaintiff notes that a Confidential Witness ("CW")
alleged deficiencies in BofI's internal controls stemming from
conduct observed no later than May 2013, when the CW left BofI. At
minimum, the CW allegations relate to whether BofI's internal
controls were in fact deficient and whether the Defendants knew of
those deficiencies when they made the alleged misstatements.
Judge Curiel notes that such information would be relevant as to
the falsity and scienter of the alleged misstatements. He agrees
that documents created after the alleged fraud was revealed may be
relevant to scienter and falsity. Information relating to the
independent investigation may likewise be relevant. Although the
end date of June 30, 2016 is somewhat arbitrary, it is no more
arbitrary than the Dec. 31, 2015 date proposed by the Defendants,
as the Court doubts that communications and other documents related
to the allegations in the Erhart Complaint halted upon the end of
the fiscal quarter. It is not unreasonable to presume that relevant
communications continued to occur several months after the filing
of the Complaint and only a few months after the Audit Committee's
announcement, Judge Curiel holds.
The Court, therefore, concludes that the Magistrate Judge did not
err in finding that documents from between April 1, 2013, to June
30, 2016, were potentially relevant.
In the Discovery Order, the Magistrate Judge found that "the topics
of underwriting standards or credit quality are comfortably within
Rule 26's broad scope." The Defendants argue that the misstatements
regarding these topics are not actionable because the Plaintiff
only pleaded that these statements were corrected by the Seeking
Alpha articles that the Ninth Circuit found insufficient. The
Plaintiff argues that its requests related to BofI's underwriting
policies and practices are supported by the allegations in the TAC
and that the Ninth Circuit found that Erhart Complaint could serve
as a corrective disclosure for misstatements related to those
topics.
At the outset, the Court notes that courts may properly deny
discovery into matters that have been stricken or claims that have
been dismissed from the complaint unless they are otherwise
relevant. If a court has dismissed one of several claims in a
complaint, discovery into topics relevant only to that dismissed
claim is no more permissible than if it had been the sole claim
raised and the case were dismissed outright.
The Court, therefore, agrees in principle with the Defendants'
argument that the Plaintiff cannot base its discovery requests on
allegations that have already been determined not actionable or
claims that have been determined to fail as a matter of law.
Judge Curiel opines that the relevance of BofI's loan underwriting
and credit quality standards, therefore, depends upon whether those
topics are relevant to a claim or defense that has not been
dismissed or struck. These topics could be discoverable if the
surviving portions of the TAC include a claim arising from
misstatements relating to loan underwriting and credit quality, or
if information relating to loan underwriting and credit quality is
otherwise relevant to the remaining claims in the TAC. The
Magistrate Judge answered both of these implicit questions in the
affirmative.
While the Court agrees that the TAC is not a model of clarity, the
Court cannot conclude that as a blanket matter, lending and credit
quality are irrelevant to the claims remaining after the Ninth
Circuit's decision.
The Defendants may have stronger arguments as to the limited
relevance and disproportionality of particular discovery requests
as they relate to this area of inquiry, Judge Curiel notes.
However, he finds, the Discovery Order did not make any decisions
regarding particular discovery requests in resolving these
threshold disputes. The Court will, therefore, clarify that even
though information related to underwriting standard and credit
quality is broadly relevant, the Defendants should have an
opportunity to challenge particular discovery requests on the basis
of the proportionality analysis demanded by Rule 26(b)(1). However,
an argument that all documents related to these topics are
irrelevant is not the appropriate way to do so.
Accordingly, based on the Ninth Circuit's opinion and the TAC, the
Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge erred in determining
that as a threshold matter, information regarding loan underwriting
and credit quality is discoverable. The Court also finds that the
Magistrate Judge did not clearly err or act contrary to law in
determining that discovery into internal controls is not limited
only to allegations from the Erhart Complaint.
The Defendants additionally object that the Magistrate Judge did
not consider the Rule 26 proportionality standard in making her
determination on the threshold issues, and thus that the Discovery
Order was contrary to law. The Plaintiff contends that the
Magistrate Judge's direction to the parties to meet and confer
regarding appropriate search terms appropriately addressed the
Defendants' proportionality concerns at the stage of these
threshold disputes.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that the Discovery Order does
not address the proportionality factors set out in Rule 26(b)(1).
However, the parties framed the first dispute in their joint motion
as a threshold issue regarding the relevant time period for
discovery, and the Court fails to see how the Magistrate Judge
erred in failing to explicitly answer the separate question of
whether the Plaintiff's RFPs were proportional with respect to this
threshold dispute. Likewise, the Court does not interpret the
Discovery Order as making a final determination that all discovery
into underwriting standards and credit quality or internal controls
is proportional to the needs of the case.
The Court, therefore, finds it premature to determine, as a
threshold issue, that any discovery into the relevant time period
objected to by the Defendants, loan underwriting and credit
quality, and internal controls would be disproportionate to the
needs of the case. However, the Court clarifies that the Defendants
will have the opportunity to challenge specific discovery requests
on the basis of proportionality.
The Court, therefore, overrules the Defendants' objections to the
Magistrate Judge's resolution of the threshold discovery issues.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in the Order, the Court: vacates the
hearing on this matter; and overrules the Defendants' Objections.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/amahfw79 from Leagle.com.
BOWMAR NUTRITION: Lozano Sues Over Deceptive Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Deana Lozano, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. BOWMAR NUTRITION, LLC, an Iowa limited liability
company, Case No. 2:21-cv-04296 (C.D. Cal., May 24, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant who has engaged in unfair and
deceptive trade practices, sold goods or products under false
pretenses, and defrauded its customers of the benefit of their
bargain in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL") and False Advertising Law ("FAL") and grant equitable and
other relief to the extent permitted by law.
According to the complaint, in addition to being advertised as
"delicious" and "tasty," these Products are fortified with whey
protein and are specifically formulated and advertised as being
"high protein." On the front labels of its Products, Bowmar
Nutrition specifically advertises these spreads, frostings,
powders, and protein bars as providing specific amounts of protein
per serving. These protein claims are repeated on the "Nutrition
Facts" portion of the Products' labels.
Whey-derived protein supplements and food replacement items are
available--at a premium price--from the Defendant. The Products
manufactured by Bowmar include various powders, bars, frostings,
nut spreads, and snacks containing or derived from whey protein
isolate. But the Defendant's whey protein Products provide
substantially less protein than is stated on the federally mandated
nutritional label and represented in Defendant's website and social
media advertising. In addition, testing reveals that many other
statements on the nutritional labels are false and deceptive, with
material differences as to calories, fats, and various nutrients.
The variances range from a 15 percent shortfall from stated values
for the protein bars, through approximately a 50 percent shortfall
for varieties of the nut spreads, to up to a 60 percent or more
shortfall for the protein powders and frostings.
The labels' claims were false, inaccurate, and misleading, and the
labels and advertising violate federal and state laws and
regulations requiring accuracy in nutritional labels. Thousands of
consumers, including Plaintiff Deana Lozano, purchased the Products
in reliance on Defendant's marketing claims, and especially on the
false and misleading nutritional label. Defendant reaped millions
of dollars in profits from these consumers, who received an
inadequate product sold under false pretenses, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased at least one of the Products.
Bowmar Nutrition manufactures, formulates, and/or distributes a
line of nut-based spreads, frostings, popcorn snacks, bars, and
powders containing whey protein isolate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles C. Weller, Esq.
CHARLES C. WELLER, APC
11412 Corley Court
San Diego, CA 92126
Phone: 858.414.7465
Fax: 858.300.5137
BRASKEM SA: New Jersey Consolidated Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Braskem S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend
a consolidated class action suit filed in the US District Court for
the District of New Jersey
On August 25, 2020, an action was filed against Braskem and some of
its current and former executives in the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey, in the United States, on behalf of an
alleged class of investors who acquired Braskem's shares between
March 21, 2019 and July 8, 2020.
The action is grounded in the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and its rules, based on allegations that the defendants made false
statements or omissions related to the geological event in Alagoas.
On January 15, 2021, the Court named two plaintiffs to act as lead
plaintiffs in the action.
On April 28, 2021, the lead plaintiffs of the action filed a
consolidated complaint with its initial arguments.
The Company engaged a specialized US-based law office to represent
it in the class action.
Sao Paulo, Brazil-based Braskem S.A. produces petrochemical
products and has a strategic focus on polyethylene, polypropylene
and polyvinyl chloride. The Company has integrated first and second
generation petrochemical production facilities, with 18 plants in
Brazil.
CABELL HUNTINGTON: Misrepresents Retiree Benefit Plans, Blenko Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA BLENKO and LAURA MULLARKY, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CABELL HUNTINGTON
HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00315 (S.D. W. Va., May
25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
fiduciary duty and failure to meet duty of disclosure with respect
to summary plan descriptions pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendant misled the Plaintiffs and
all others similarly situated persons regarding their retiree
welfare benefits and induced them to retire based on
misrepresentations about their likely receipt of future benefits
under the operative welfare benefit plan. The Defendant repeatedly
represented to the Plaintiffs and the Class that they could retire
as non-union employees beginning at age 62 and retain their health
insurance if they had attained 17 years of credited service. In
January 2021, the Defendant announced the termination of welfare
benefits for non-union Cabell retirees effective March 31, 2021,
which the Defendant later extended to September 2021. At no time
prior to the Plaintiffs' retirement did the Defendant inform them
that it reserved a right to materially alter or to terminate the
retiree welfare benefits it had promised to them, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the
curtailment or termination of retiree welfare benefits because the
loss of benefits would cause the retirees immediately to postpone
or forego critical medical care.
Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc. is a medical center with its
principal place of business located at 1340 Hal Greer Boulevard,
Huntington, West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq.
PETSONK PLLC
P.O. Box 1045
Beckley, WV 25802
Telephone: (304)900-3171
Facsimile: (304)986-4633
E-mail: sam@petsonk.com
- and –
Bren J. Pomponio, Esq.
Laura Davidson, Esq.
MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
1217 Quarrier Street, Suite
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304)344-3144
Facsimile: (304)344-3145
E-mail: bren@msjlaw.org
laura@msjla.org
CALIBER HOME: Tannenbaum Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caliber Home Loans,
Inc. The case is styled as Terry Tannenbaum, on his own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caliber Home Loans,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 9:21-cv-80929-DMM (S.D.
Fla., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Caliber Home Loans -- https://www.caliberhomeloans.com/ -- is a
full-service mortgage banking company, headquartered in Irving,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Scott Shipp, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF TYAN S. SHIPP
814 W. Lantana Road, Suite 1
Lantana, FL 33462
Phone: (561) 699-0399
Email: ryan@shipplawoffice.com
CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Denhardt Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Denhardt, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, INC. AND CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN OF ANNAPOLIS, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-01245-ADC (D.
Md., May 21, 2021), is brought implicating the Defendants'
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's tip credit and
subsequent underpayment of their employees at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate and violations of the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law for the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff their
earned minimum wages.
According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tipped
employees, including servers and bartenders, below the minimum wage
rate by taking advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the FLSA
and, in Maryland, the MWHL. Under the tip-credit provisions, an
employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay
those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip
credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the
tips received from customers. However, there are strict
requirements for an employer to utilize the "tip credit." An
employer must advise an employee in advance of its use of the tip
credit pursuant to the provisions of section 3(m) of the FLSA. As a
result of these violations, the Defendants have lost the ability to
use the tip credit and therefore must compensate the Plaintiff at
the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for
all hours worked.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at the California Pizza Kitchen
location in Hunt Valley, Maryland as waitress from October 2016 to
August 2019.
The Defendants operate a nationwide chain of restaurants under the
trade name "California Pizza Kitchen" throughout the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
WYLY & COOK, PLLC
1415 North Loop West, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77008
Phone: (713) 236-8330
Fax: (713) 863-8502
Email: kcook@wylycooklaw.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
Texas Bar No. 24050022
4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
Email: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022
Phone: 216-696-5000
Facsimile: 216-696-7005
Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
CANAAN INC: The Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Canaan Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of CAN during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead
Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.
CONTACT US HERE:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=15821&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: February 10, 2021 to April 9, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: they concealed that due to ongoing
supply chain disruptions and the introduction of the Company's
next-generation A12 series bitcoin mining machines - which had
cannibalized sales of the older product offerings - Canaan's 4Q20
sales had declined more than 93% year-over-year compared to its
fourth quarter fiscal year 2019 ("4Q19") sales and more than 93%
quarter-over-quarter compared to its third quarter FY20 ("3Q20")
sales.
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/83970 [GN]
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Financial
Company Limited Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Terry
Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cardinal Financial Company Limited Partnership, Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them Case No.
2:21-cv-04399-FMO-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Cardinal Financial Company -- https://cardinalfinancial.com/ --
provides brokerage services and is modernizing the way home loans
are obtained with unrivaled transparency, simplicity, and
value.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
CAROL SPAHN: Faisal Files Suit in Northern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carol Spahn. The case
is styled as Yasmeen Faisal, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Carol Spahn, in her official capacity
as Acting Director of the Peace Corps., Case No. 3:21-cv-04007-LB
(N.D. Cal., May 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Job
Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act).
Carol Spahn -- https://www.peacecorps.gov/about/leadership/ -- is
serving as the Acting Director of the Peace Corps.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
Cassidy Clark, Esq.
BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 444-9300
Fax: (510) 444-9301
Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
cassidy@bryanschwartzlaw.com
CELSION CORP: Continues to Defend Spar Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, Spar v.
Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228.
On October 29, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned
Spar v. Celsion Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-15228.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Individual Defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding one of the Company's
product candidates, ThermoDox(R), and brings claims for damages
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against all Defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Spar Individual Defendants.
The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously.
Celsion said, "Due to the early stage of the case neither the
likelihood that a loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate
of possible loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined."
Celsion Corporation, a development stage oncology drug company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of directed
chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA based
therapies
for the treatment of cancer. Its lead product candidate is
ThermoDox, a liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in
Phase III clinical trial for treating primary liver cancer. The
company is also developing GEN-1, a DNA-based immunotherapeutic
product for the localized treatment of ovarian and brain cancers.
Celsion Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in
Lawrenceville, New Jersey.
CENTENE CORPORATION: Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENASHA OLIVER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CENTENE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, and CENTENE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, Case No.
4:21-cv-00199-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) class;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
text message) to:
"All current and former hourly call center workers,
including, but not limited to: Customer Care Associates,
Customer Support Representatives, and Customer Service
Representatives ("Customer Service Representatives")
who worked for the Defendants at any time three years
prior to the date this motion is granted through
judgment; and
3. requiring the Defendants to identify all putative collective
action members by providing a list of their names, last known
addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers,
and email addresses in electronic and importable format
within 10 days of the entry of the order.
Centene Corporation is a large publicly traded company and a
multi-line managed care enterprise that serves as a major
intermediary for both government-sponsored and privately insured
health care programs. It is a healthcare insurer that focuses on
managed care for uninsured, underinsured, and low-income
individuals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oWCUeT
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Class/Collective
action members, are:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
Alana Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
- and -
Gary Burger, Esq.
BURGER LAW
500 N. Broadway, Suite 1860
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 542-2222
E-mail: gary@burgerlaw.com
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert. Filing Date Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GARCIA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CENTER FOR
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-03039-JFW-RAO (C.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge John
F. Walter entered an order denying the joint stipulation to
continue deadline to file motion for class certification.
CEO provides employment services.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fOoMjz at no extra charge.[CC]
CHEETAH MOBILE: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheetah Mobile Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re:
Cheetah Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:20-cv-05696).
The company and certain of its current and former officers have
been named as defendants in two putative securities class actions
captioned Azure Funds LLC v. Cheetah Mobile, Inc. et al., (Case No.
2:20-cv-05696) and Ning Wang v. Cheetah Mobile, Inc. et al., (Case
No. 2:20-cv-06896) filed on June 25, 2020 and July 31, 2020
respectively in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
On August 24, 2020, the Court consolidated the two cases under the
caption In Re: Cheetah Mobile, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
2:20-cv-05696).
On January 12, 2021, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs in this action. On March 15, 2021, an amended complaint
was filed.
According to the amended complaint, the action is purportedly
brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered
damages as a result of their trading in our ADRs between April 26,
2017 and March 24, 2020.
The action alleges that the comapny made false or misleading
statements regarding our business and operations in violation of
the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action remains at
its preliminary stages.
Cheetah Mobile Inc. operates a platform that offers mobile and
personal computer (PC) applications for its users and global
content promotional channels.
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
company and urges investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm. Further details about the case, including
important upcoming deadline, can be found at the link provided.
ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ:CCXI) Securities Fraud Class Action:
Class Period: Nov. 26, 2019 - May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021
Visit:http://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CCXI
Contact An Attorney Now:CCXI@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
The lawsuit focuses on ChemoCentryx's statements about its new drug
application ("NDA") for its vasculitis drug candidate Avacopan.
Beginning on Nov. 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx touted positive topline
data from its Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE trial demonstrating
Avacopan's superiority over standard of care in ANCA-associated
vasculitis and that the trial met both of its primary endpoints.
This and subsequent positive announcements sent the price of CCXI
soaring.
The complaint alleges ChemoCentryx concealed that: (1) the trial's
study design was flawed; (2) data from the trial raised serious
safety concerns; and (3) these issues presented a substantial
concern about the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA.
On May 4, 2021, the truth emerged when the FDA announced it had
identified several areas of concern, including "uncertainties about
the interpretability of the data and the clinical meaningfulness of
these results." In addition, the document took issue with the
complex trial design and the lack of long-term safety data.
This news drove the price of ChemoCentryx shares crashing over 45%
lower on May 4, 2021, wiping out as much as $1.5 billion of the
company's market capitalization.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving ChemoCentryx misled
investors about Avacopan's efficacy and safety," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a ChemoCentryx investor and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
ChemoCentryx, PureCycle and/or Peloton should consider their
options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email
CCXI@hbsslaw.com, PCT@hbsslaw.com, and/or PTON@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) between November
26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 6, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the ChemoCentryx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2088.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 6, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the study design of the Phase
III ADVOCATE trial presented issues about the interpretability of
the trial data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of
avacopan and its role in the management of ANCA-associated
vasculitis; (2) the data from the Phase III ADVOCATE trial raised
serious safety concerns for avacopan; (3) these issues presented a
substantial concern regarding the viability of ChemoCentryx's New
Drug Application ("NDA") for avacopan for the treatment of
ANCA-associated vasculitis; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the ChemoCentryx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2088.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
CHOFETZ CHAIM: Gewirtzman Suit Transferred to NY Bankruptcy Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Gewirtzman, Avrohom Gottheil, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated individual, as
congregants of the synagogue located at 1-60 Kiryas Radin Drive,
Spring Valley, New York 10977 v. Chofetz Chaim Inc., Congregation
Radin Development Inc., Aryeh Zaks, Gittel Zaks Layosh, Eliyahu
Layosh, Samuel Markowitz, Deborah Zaks Hillman, Yom T. Henig,
Steven Green, Daniel Green, Abraham Zaks, Sterling National Bank,
Case No. 7:21-cv-4560, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York on May 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 21-07028-rdd to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as 02.
Chofetz Chaim Inc. is headquartered in Monsey, New York and is a
501(c)(3) organization.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendant Chofetz Chaim Inc. is represented by:
Michael Levine, Esq.
LEVINE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
15 Barclay Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (914) 600-4288
Fax: (914) 725-4778
Email: ml@levlaw.org
The Other Defendants appear pro se.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Discloses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Churchill Capital Corp IV
(NYSE:CCIV). Investors who purchased CCIV stock or other securities
between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021 may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
The complaint alleges that on February 22, 2021, a merger agreement
was announced between Churchill, a special purpose acquisition
company and Lucid, an American automotive company specializing in
electric cars. The transaction equity value was estimated at $11.75
billion. Churchill's share price closed at $57.37. It is alleged
that Lucid announced the production of its debut car would be
delayed until at least the second half of 2021, with no definite
date set for delivery of an actual vehicle. It is also alleged that
Lucid was projecting the production of only 557 vehicles in 2021,
rather than the 6,000 it had been touting before the merger
announcement.
The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. A lead plaintiff
acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the
class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order
to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they
can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been
certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not
represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently
representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating
the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead
plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill [GN]
CITADEL SALISBURY: Hooker Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SONYA HOOKER, SYBIL
RUMMAGE, DONNA DEAL, KENNETH MICHAEL DEAL and BETTY DEAL,
individually and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated,
v. THE CITADEL SALISBURY LLC, SALISBURY TWO PROPCO LLC, ACCORDIUS
HEALTH LLC, THE PORTOPICCOLO GROUP, LLC, SIMCHA HYMAN and NAFTALI
ZANZIPER, Case No. 1:21-cv-00384-TDS-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifyng a class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), with regard
to
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and unfair and
deceptive trade practices; and
2. certifying an issue class under Rule 23(c)(4), on the issues
of whether the Defendants' Citadel Salisbury nursing home was
systematically understaffed during the time period running
from February 1, 2020 to present, and, on the issue of
whether Defendants, or one or more of them, engaged in unfair
and deceptive trade practices by failing to make proper
express written agreements with and provide proper express
written disclosures to the Plaintiffs and class members as
required by statute;
The Plaintiffs have filed a class action complaint concurrently
withthe filing of this motion. The Plaintiffs are aware that
Defendants must appear before motions can be briefed but file this
motion in the spirit of LR 23.1 to ensure their bases for class
certification are expressed as early as possible in this case.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 17,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wGHwZ3
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John Hughes, Esq.
Mona Lisa Wallace, 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
CLEARVIEW AI: Vestrand Files Privacy Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vestrand, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clearview AI, Inc., Hoan
Ton-That, Richard Schwartz, Rocky Mountain Data Analytics LLC,
Thomas Mulcaire and Macy's, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04360
(C.D. Cal., May 21, 2021), seeks damages and other legal and
equitable remedies for violation of California privacy
protections.
Defendants Clearview, Ton-That and Schwartz are alleged of covertly
scraping three billion photographs of facial images from the
internet and then using artificial intelligence algorithms to scan
the face geometry of each individual depicted in the photographs in
order to harvest the individuals' unique biometric identifiers,
thus invading the privacy of the American public for their own
profit.
Clearview Defendants created a searchable biometric database that
contained biometrics and allowed users of the database to identify
unknown individuals merely by uploading a photograph to the
database. In September 2019, Rocky Mountain was organized and,
shortly thereafter, contracted with the Illinois Secretary of State
to provide the Secretary of State with access to the said biometric
database. Mulcaire was the Vice President of Rocky Mountain.
Richard Schwartz is a co-founder and the President of Clearview.
Hoan Ton-That is a co-founder and the Chief Executive Officer of
Clearview. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Megan Pierce, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Tel: (312) 243-5900
Fax: (312) 243-5902
Email: megan@loevy.com
CLEVELAND BIOLABS: Bid to Nix Litwin Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland Biolabs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit entitled, Litwin v. Cleveland
BioLabs, Inc. et al., Case 2021-0242, is pending.
On October 16, 2020, the Company, High Street Acquisition Corp., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and Cytocom, Inc., a Delaware corporation, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which, among other
matters, and subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Cytocom, with Cytocom continuing as a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company and the surviving corporation of the
merger.
On March 19, 2021, a putative class action complaint, captioned
Litwin v. Cleveland BioLabs, Inc. et al., Case 2021-0242, was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in connection with the Merger.
The Litwin Action names as defendants Cleveland BioLabs, each
director on the Cleveland BioLabs board of directors, and the Vice
President of Finance of Cleveland BioLabs.
The complaint in the Litwin Action alleges that Defendants omitted
and/or provided misleading information in the registration
statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC in connection with the
Merger, of which this proxy statement/prospectus forms a part, in
breach of their fiduciary duties.
The Litwin Action seeks, among other things, an injunction
preventing the closing of the Merger, rescission of the merger if
it is consummated, the dissemination by Cleveland BioLabs of a
revised registration statement on Form S-4 and an award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' and experts' fees.
Plaintiff in the Litwin Action has filed a motion for expedited
proceedings, which Defendants have opposed.
Defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss the Litwin Action.
Cleveland Biolabs, Inc., aims to develop pharmaceuticals to target
cancer and protect healthy cells. The Buffalo, New York-based
Company's most advanced drug candidate, entolimod is a radiation
countermeasure and an immunotherapy for oncology.
COLLECTION BUREAU: Debt Collection Letter "Misleading," Klein Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARYEH KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLLECTION BUREAU OF THE HUDSON VALLEY, INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02917 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a false, deceptive
and misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding an
alleged debt owed to Optimum. The Defendants' letter includes $80
charge for unreturned equipment but it failed to mention the
possibility of reducing the total balance due if the Plaintiff
would return the equipment which forms the basis of the charge. By
listing an equipment balance and not stating the plain and simple
way in which the Plaintiff can remedy this balance, the Defendants
has deceptively misled the Plaintiff by implying that the equipment
balance is fixed and cannot be remedied or mitigated, the suit
alleges.
Collection Bureau of The Hudson Valley, Inc. is a debt collection
company with its principal place of business located at 155 N.
Plank Road, Newburgh, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
COMMUNITY BANK: Class Settlement in Thompson Suit Gets Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TINA THOMPSON and SCOTT DOXEY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-CV-919 (MAD/CFH)
(N.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York grants the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement and Certification of Settlement
Class.
The Settlement Agreement and Release was executed by Defendant
Community Bank on Dec. 4, 2020, and by Plaintiffs Tina Thompson and
Scott Doxey on Nov. 22 and 23, 2020, respectively.
The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the class as defined in
the Settlement Agreement meets all of the requirements for
certification of a settlement class under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and applicable case law. Accordingly, the Court
provisionally certifies the Settlement Class, which is composed of
all current and former customers of Defendant with consumer
checking accounts, who were charged a Relevant Overdraft Fee during
the Class Period.
District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino provisionally appoints Tina
Thompson and Scott Doxey as the Class Representatives of the
Settlement Class. She also appoints Epiq Class Action and Claims
Solutions, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator under the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.
For purposes of the Settlement Agreement, the Court further
provisionally finds that counsel for the Settlement Class, Jeff
Ostrow, Esq., and Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq., of Kopelowitz
Ostrow P.A., and Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq., and Sophia G. Gold, Esq.,
of Kaliel PLLC, are qualified, experienced, and skilled attorneys
capable of adequately representing the Settlement Class, and they
are provisionally approved as Class Counsel.
For the purposes stated and defined in the Settlement Agreement,
the Court sets these dates and deadlines: Opt-Out Deadline --
Thirty Days Before Final Approval Hearing; Deadline to Submit
Objections -- Thirty Days Before Final Approval Hearing; Deadline
to Respond to Objections -- Fifteen Days Before Final Approval
Hearing; and Final Approval Hearing -- July 20, 2021, at 12:00
p.m.
The Court approves and adopts the procedures, deadlines, and manner
governing all requests to be excluded from the Class, or for
objecting to the proposed settlement, as provided for in the
Settlement Agreement.
All costs incurred in connection with providing notice and
settlement administration services to the Class Members will be
paid from the Settlement Fund.
If the settlement is not approved or consummated for any reason
whatsoever, the Settlement Agreement and all proceedings in
connection therewith will terminate without prejudice to the status
quo ante and rights of the parties to the action as they existed
prior to the date of the execution of the Settlement Agreement,
except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/29r3mexk from Leagle.com.
DANIEL TROPIN, ESQ. -- tropin@kolawyers.com -- JONATHAN M.
STREISFELD, I, ESQ. -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ
OSTROW FERGUSON WEISLBERG GILBERT, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
JEFFREY M. OSTROW, ESQ. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- KOPELOWITZ,
OSTROW LAW FIRM, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Attorneys for
Plaintiff.
JAMES R. PELUSO, JR., ESQ. -- jpeluso@dblawny.com -- DREYER
BOYAJIAN LLP, Albany, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
JEFFREY D. KALIEL, ESQ. -- jkaliel@kalielpllc.com -- SOPHIA GOREN
GOLD, ESQ. -- sgold@kalielpllc.com -- KALIEL PLLC, in Washington,
D.C., Attorneys for Plaintiff.
STUART M. RICHTER, ESQ. -- stuart.richter@katten.com -- ANDREW J.
DEMKO, ESQ. -- andrew.demko@katten.com -- KATTEN, MUNCHIN LAW FIRM,
in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant
JONATHAN B. FELLOWS, ESQ. -- jfellows@bsk.com -- BOND SCHOENECK &
KING, PLLC — SYRACUSE, in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for
Defendant.
COMMUNITY BANK: Thompson Settlement Class Provisionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINA THOMPSON and SCOTT
DOXEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., Case No. 8:19-cv-00919-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Mae D'Agostino entered an amended order as follows:
1. provisionally certifying the Settlement Class, which is
composed of:
"all current and former customers of Defendant with consumer
checking accounts, who were charged a Relevant Overdraft Fee
during the Class Period."
2. provisionally appointing Tina Thompson and Scott Doxey as the
Class Representatives of the Settlement Class;
3. appointng Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. as the
Settlement Administrator under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.; and
4. provisionally finding that counsel for the Settlement Class,
Jeff Ostrow and Jonathan M. Streisfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow
P.A., and Jeffrey D. Kaliel and Sophia G. Gold of Kaliel
PLLC, are qualified, experienced, and skilled attorneys
capable of adequately representing the Settlement Class, and
they are provisionally approved as Class Counsel.
Community Bank is a commercial bank serving customers in Upstate
New York, Northeastern Pennsylvania, Vermont and Massachusetts.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RPx3M2 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Ttropin, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISLBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
- and -
James R. Peluso, Jr., Esq.
DREYER BOYAJIAN LLP
75 Columbia Street
Albany, New York 12210
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1100 15th Street NW -- 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20009
The Defendant is represented by:
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KATTEN, MUNCHIN LAW FIRM
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
- and -
Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
Andrew j. demko, Esq.
BOND SCHOENECK & KING,
PLLC -- SYRACUSE
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
CONCIERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Nix Suit Against USCF & USO Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Concierge Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In
re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 1:20-cv-04740, is pending.
On June 19, 2020, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF") and
United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO"), John P. Love, and Stuart P.
Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
by purported shareholder Robert Lucas.
The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two
related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August
13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff.
The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re:
United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
1:20-cv-04740.
On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under
the 1933 Act, the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class
Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that
became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as
subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain
extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused
the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19
global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by
an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020
and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration
statements.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to
award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined
at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees.
The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO,
John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F
Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and
Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS
Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP
Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation,
Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International
Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC.
The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its
claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse
Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC.
USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States
Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest
such claims and has moved for their dismissal.
Concierge Technologies, Inc. through its wholly-owned operating
subsidiary Kahnalytics, Inc., is in the business of importing,
selling, distributing and installing high-definition digital video
recorders with GPS mapping, audio recording, wireless broadcasting,
playback and security features as conceptualized to provide
historical records of vehicle driving behavior and mobile
incidents. The company is based in San Clemente, California.
CRASH CHAMPIONS: Underpays Auto Repair Shop Staff, Gallardo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GALLARDO and CARLOS MAGANA PACHECO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CRASH
CHAMPIONS, LLC; PRESTIGE TOO AUTO BODY, LLC; PACIFIC ELITE, LLC;
FOUNTAIN VALLEY BODYWORKS; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV19705 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
May 25, 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 minimum wages,
failure to pay wages and overtime, meal period liability,
rest-break liability, and failure to reimburse necessary business
expenditures.
Plaintiffs Gallardo and Pacheco were employed by the Defendants as
a porter and a quality control and/or production assistant at the
Torrance, California location from September 26, 2019, through
March 27, 2020 and from July 2017 to October 2020, respectively.
Crash Champions, LLC is an owner and operator of a vehicle
collision repair facility in California.
Prestige Too Auto Body, LLC is an owner and operator of a vehicle
collision repair facility in California.
Pacific Elite, LLC is an owner and operator of a vehicle collision
repair facility in California.
Fountain Valley Bodyworks is an owner and operator of a vehicle
collision repair facility in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
alvin@yeremianlaw.com
- and –
Robert Drexler, Esq.
Molly DeSario, Esq.
Jonathan Lee, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
Molly.DeSario@capstonelawyers.com
Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces Sochet Suit Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Sochet, individually, and on behalf of other similarly
situated consumers v. CREDIT CONTROL LLC, Case No. 606379/2021
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 21, 2021), is brought for damages arising from
the Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff incurred a personal debt
for a vehicle. The debt went delinquent. On May 2, 2020, the
Plaintiff reached a settlement on the debt, and satisfied the debt
in full. On September 10, 2020, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter seeking to collect on the satisfied debt. The
Plaintiff says the letter is false and deceptive as the Plaintiff
no longer owes any debt. Further, the Defendant used a third party
to send the letter to the Plaintiff. By doing so, the Defendant has
disclosed the Plaintiff's personal information to a third party in
violation of the FDCPA. The Defendant's collection attempts have
caused the Plaintiff specific emotional harm and difficulty
obtaining credit.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who has resided in Cedarhurst,
New York.
The Defendant is a corporation doing business in the State of New
Jersey and is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Phone: (862)227-3106
Fax: (973)282-8603
Email: dz@zemellawllc.com
ea@zemellawllc.om
CREDIT CORP: Durling Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Corp Solutions
Inc. The case is styled as Gerald Durling, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Credit Corp Solutions Inc., Case No.
0:21-cv-61002-RS (S.D. Fla., May 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Corp Solutions -- https://www.creditcorponline.com/ -- is a
receivables management company that purchases and collects consumer
debt including unpaid retail finance and sales finance credit cards
and personal loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse S. Johnson, 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: jjohnson@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
CREDIT LAW: Ensminger Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ENSMINGER, on behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. CREDIT LAW CENTER, LLC
a/k/a THOMAS ANDREW ADDLEMAN L.L.C., d/b/a CREDIT LAW CENTER and
THOMAS ADDLEMAN a/k/a TOM ADDLEMAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-02147-TC-JPO
(D. Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class;
2. appoint Plaintiff as representative of the class and his
undersigned counsel as class counsel;
3. granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and appropriate.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34ic6vQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Putative Class, are:
Matthew S. Robertson, Esq.
A.J. Stecklein, Esq.
Michael H. Rapp, Esq.
Matthew Robertson, Esq.
STECKLEIN & RAPP CHARTERED
748 Ann Avenue, Suite 101
Kansas City, KS 66101
Telephone: (913) 371-0727
Facsimile: (913) 371-0727
E-mail: aj@kcconsumerlawyer.com
mr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
msr@kcconsumerlawyer.com
- and -
Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
keith@keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) between October 29,
2020 and March 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Credit Suisse securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Credit Suisse class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2091.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Credit Suisse's co-mingling of
its lending, asset management, and private wealth management
functions and imprudently aggressive pursuit of fees had materially
diminished the Company's ability to properly assess and manage its
own risk exposure to high-risk clients and potential liabilities
from client losses; (2) Credit Suisse had ignored numerous red
flags in connection with the Greensill Capital funds, such as
suspicious shipment activities during an internal compliance check,
and overrode the concerns of the Company's in-house
credit-structuring team in packing and selling billions of dollars'
worth of Greensill-linked securities to investors; (3) Credit
Suisse had conspired with Sung Kook ("Bill") Hwang to allow
Archegos Capital Management to covertly take on billions of dollars
in excessively concentrated and risky positions by utilizing highly
leveraged total return swaps, placing the risk of loss associated
with these positions on Credit Suisse and its investors; (4) Credit
Suisse was understating its exposure to risk and thus overstating
its Tier 1 capital ratios in its public statements; and (5) Credit
Suisse's internal controls were inadequate to ensure that the
Company's potential liability to customers and losses arising from
its exposure to customer losses were properly accounted for,
managed and disclosed to investors. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Credit Suisse class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2091.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CRICKET WIRELESS: Balks at Thomas et al., Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERMAINE THOMAS, et al.,
v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-07270-WHA (N.D. Calif.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order allowing them to
file two supplemental declarations in support of its opposition to
plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification -- specifically, the
declarations of Kimberley Hill, the former spouse of plaintiff
Sarah Waters and Gary W. Braxton, who conducted additional searches
for Cricket account records based on information that Ms. Hill
provided.
The Plaintiff Waters seeks to represent a putative class of
purchasers of 4G/LTE phones and service from Cricket between
November 2012 and September 2014. Although she alleges that she
"became a Cricket customer in 2013", during her deposition, she
changed her story to say that she paid for two Samsung Galaxy S4
phones and 4G/LTE Cricket service during the class period on the
account of her then-spouse, Kimberley Hill. Cricket has never been
able to find records of the alleged purchases or an account in her
or her former spouse's names during the putative class period.
A copy of the Defendant's motion for leave to file declarations in
opposition to class cert. bid dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yMw3ZK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq.
Kevin Ranlett, Esq.
Daniel E. Jones, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1999 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 263-3000
Facsimile: (202) 263-5000
E-mail: aparasharami@mayerbrown.com
kranlett@mayerbrown.com
djones@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Matthew D. Ingber, Esq.
Jarman D. Russell, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 506-2373
Facsimile: (212) 849-5973
E-mail: mingber@mayerbrown.com
jrussell@mayerbrown.coms
CULTURAL CARE: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MORALES POSADA,
AMANDA SARMENTO FERREIRA GUIMARAES, WILLIANA ROCHA, and SARA
BARRIENTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11862-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action and
authorizing distribution of notice to the collective:
"All individuals who were sponsored by Cultural Care and
worked as J-1 visa au pairs during any portion of the period
commencing three years prior to the filing of this action
through the entry of final judgment in this action;"
2. directing Cultural Care to provide a list of all au pairs
that are members of the collective, including each au pair's
email addresses, cell phone numbers, and dates and locations
of employment;
3. directing the Cultural Care to provide the information within
14 days of an Order granting this Motion;
4. authorizing thev Plaintiffs to provide notice in form
submitted to all au pairs identified by Care by e-mail, text
message, and social media advertising;
5. providing a 90 day opt-in period to begin on the date that
the Notice is sent for each member of the collective to opt
into the case; and
6. authorizing a reminder notice to be sent by email and text
message, 45 days into the opt-in period.
Cultural Care was founded in 2004. The Company line of business
includes providing child care services for infants and children.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 12,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34rpaPy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
P.O. Box 371680
PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: David@TowardsJustice.org
- and -
Peter Rukin, Esq.
RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
- and -
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
CULTURAL CARE: Seeks June 9 Deadline to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN MORALES POSADA,
AMANDA SARMENTO FERREIRA GUIMARAES, WILLIANA ROCHA, and SARA
BARRIENTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CULTURAL CARE, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation, Case
No. 1:20-cv-11862-IT (D. Mass.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting its motion and setting the deadline for
filing its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification as June 9, 2021.
Cultural Care, Inc. was founded in 2004. The Company line of
business includes providing child care services for infants and
children.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 14,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SygMLC
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
PO Box 371680
PMB 44465
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: David@TowardsJustice.org
- and -
Peter Rukin, Esq.
RUKIN HYLAND & RIGGIN LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
Oakland, CA 94612
- and -
Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
H. Clara Coleman, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
The Defendant is represented by:
Harvey J. Wolkoff, Esq.
Matthew Mazzotta, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
Telephone: (617) 712-7100
111 Huntington Ave., Suite 520
Boston, MA 02199-3600
E-mail: harveywolkoff@quinnemanuel.com
matthewmazzotta@quinnemanuel.com
CVS HEALTH: Asks Court to Reconsider April 29, 2021 Order
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MIER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH,
Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS (C.D. Calif.), the Defendant will move the
Court on June 14, 2021 to enter an order reconsidering the Court's
April 29, 2021 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and for Appointment of Class Counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 7-18 and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
CVS Health is an American healthcare company that owns CVS
Pharmacy, a retail pharmacy chain; CVS Caremark, a pharmacy
benefits manager; Aetna, a health insurance provider, among many
other brands. The company's headquarters is in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uyh2r7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and
Intervenor-Defendant VI-JON, LLC, are:
Carol R. Brophy, Esq.
Melanie Ayerh, Esq.
Anthony Hopp, Esq.
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 365-6700
Facsimile: (415) 365-6699
E-mail: cbrophy@steptoe.com
mayerh@steptoe.com
ahopp@steptoe.com
CYCLE26 LLC: Holden Slams Illegal SMS Ad Blasts
-----------------------------------------------
Trevor Holden, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cycle26 LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-21-010437 (Fla. Cir., May 25, 2021), seeks statutory damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Cycle26 LLC operates as "Cyclebar Doral," a fitness center in
Doral, Florida. It allegedly utilizes an automatic telephone
dialing system in transmitting advertising and telemarketing text
messages for the purpose of selling its membership. At no point in
time did Holden provide them with his express written consent to be
contacted using an automated dialer, asserts the complaint. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Danimer Scientific, Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company")
(NYSE: DNMR) and certain of its officers and directors. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02708, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities
between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Danimer securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 13, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=dnmr for
information about joining the class action]
Danimer was formerly known as "Live Oak Acquisition Corp." ("Live
Oak"), 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
("Legacy Danimer"), a performance polymer company specializing in
bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based
plastics (the "Business Combination"). Following the Business
Combination, Live Oak changed its name to "Danimer Scientific,
Inc.," changed its business to Legacy Danimer's business, and
replaced its management with Legacy Danimer's management.
Since 2020, Legacy Danimer—and, following the Business
Combination, 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, among others. The Company has touted Nodax as
a 100% biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic, which is
purportedly superior to traditional plastics because of its
advanced biodegradability. The Company attributes Nodax's advanced
biodegradability to microorganisms in nature that eat the
bioplastic.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal
controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter
alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii)
Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in
oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an
article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the
Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things,
Danimer's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly than
fossil-fuel plastics. The WSJ article alleged that, according to
several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax
are exaggerated and misleading." While Danimer reportedly asserts
its claims are factual, the article cites at least one expert as
stating that making broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is
not accurate" and is "greenwashing."
On March 22, 2021, the first trading day following the publication
of the WSJ article, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or
12.87%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021.
Following the end of the Class Period, on April 22, 2021, Spruce
Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report on
Danimer, noting, among other red flags, various inconsistencies
with Legacy Danimer's (and Danimer's) historical and present claims
regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and
degradability, and the Company's expected profitability.
Following the publication of the Spruce Point report, Danimer's
stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per
share on April 22, 2021.
Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on
Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated"
production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on
documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of
Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection under the Freedom
of Information Act, all of which cast serious doubt on the
integrity of the Company's internal controls.
Following the publication of this second Spruce Point report,
Danimer's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to close at
$22.14 per share on April 22, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
DAPPER LABS: Faces Friel Suit Over Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeeun Friel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DAPPER LABS, INC., and ROHAM GHAREGOZLOU, Case No.
653134/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 12, 2021), is brought under the
Securities Act, within the Class Period, which is from June 15,
2020, through the present, with regards to the Defendants operating
an application called NBA Top Shot that promoted, offered, and sold
securities known as NBA Top Shot Moments, throughout the United
States, which is an unregistered securities, in violation of
federal securities laws.
The Moments are a type of digital asset known as a non-fungible
token ("NFT"). In this case, the NFTs depict video clips of
highlights from NBA basketball games. The NFTs exist on a
"blockchain," which is a decentralized digital ledger that records
transactions of digital assets. Assets that reside on a blockchain
are sometimes referred to as "crypto assets." There are various
kinds of digital "crypto assets," including cryptocurrencies like
Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin and Ethereum are commodities, not
securities, because they are decentralized means of exchange. The
price of bitcoin, for example, is subject only to market forces.
There is no "Bitcoin Incorporated" managing the project.
Other types of digital assets, however, derive their value from the
success or failure of a given project, promoter, or start-up.
Investors purchase this type of digital asset with the hope that
its value will increase in the future as the project grows in
popularity, based upon the managerial efforts of the issuer of the
asset or token and those working to develop the project. Because
this type of digital asset is properly classified as a security
under federal law, the issuers of this type of token, including the
Defendants, are required to file registration statements with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and comply with federal
securities laws. The Defendants failed to do so.
By selling these unregistered securities to investors, the
Defendants reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
Moreover, the Defendants used their control over NBA Top Shot to
prevent investors from withdrawing their funds for months on end.
By preventing investors from "cashing out," the Defendants ensured
that money stayed on the platform, propping up the market for
Moments as well as the overall valuation of NBA Top Shot. As a
result of the Defendants' issuance, promotion, and sale of
unregistered securities, the Plaintiffs and the Class--many of whom
are retail investors who lack the technical and financial
sophistication necessary to have evaluated the risks associated
with their investment in Moments, and were denied the information
that would have been contained in the materials required for the
registration of the Moments--have suffered significant damages,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Moments, unregistered securities during the
Class Period.
Dapper Labs is a blockchain-focused technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Michael Cohen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
mcohen@rosenlegal.com
DEEP FOODS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deep Foods Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Deep Foods Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04614
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Deep Foods Inc. doing business as Deep Indian Kitchen --
https://deepindiankitchen.com/ -- is part of the Deep Foods
family-owned and operated company, is both the #1 Indian food brand
in the U.S. and a popular chain of fast-casual Indian restaurants
in the heart of NYC.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
DENISE MASHBURN: Goodman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denise Shannon
Mashburn, et al. The case is styled as Gary Goodman, on behalf of
all others similarly situated and/or aggrieved v. Denise Shannon
Mashburn, Michael Eugene Mashburn, Mashburn Transportation
Services, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-101196 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
May 26, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Mashburn Transportation Services --
https://www.mashburntransportation.com/ -- is a family owned
service company that provides transportation services, as well as
tank cleaning for multiple industries including Oil & Gas,
Agriculture and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: (310) 438-5555
Fax: (310) 300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
DESERT RESOURCES: Singer Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Desert Area Resources
and Training. The case is styled as Brenda L. Singer, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Desert Area Resources and
Training, Case No. BCV-21-101093 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., May
13, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Desert Area Resources and Training is a social services
organization in Ridgecrest, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
DESIGNER BRANDS: Must Amend Notice of Removal in Whisman Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Lori Whisman and Joanne Allen, individually
and on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Designer Brands Inc., Defendant, Case No.
21-21167-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida directed the Defendant to amend its
notice of removal to cure certain deficiencies.
The matter is before the Court upon an independent review of the
record. In reviewing the record, the Court is uncertain whether it
has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.
The Defendant states that the Court has jurisdiction over the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transaction Act ("FACTA") putative class action
because the matter involves a class of greater than 100 persons,
with minimal diversity, and the amount at issue between the parties
exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. In support of
its removal of the matter, the Defendant states that they believe
the putative class exceeds 5,000 members, that Class Action
Fairness Act's minimal diversity requirements have been met, and
because FACTA provides for up to $1,000 in statutory damages per
consumer, in addition to punitive damages, attorneys fees, and
costs, and because Defendant believes the putative class would
exceed 5,000 persons, the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.
The Court finds the Defendant's allegations in support of removal
to be unsupported and conclusory, citing Kayode v. ABB, Inc., No.
18-62416-Civ, 2018 WL 4941777, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2018)
(Scola, J.). The Defendant states the size of the potential class
at issue in this lawsuit is greater than 5,000 members but provides
no support for that supposition. Conveniently, a class of 5,000
members, who can potentially recover $1,000 in statutory damages
each satisfies CAFA's jurisdictional threshold of $5 million.
While it may be true that a class of this size exists, CAFA does
not change the traditional rule that the party seeking to remove
the case to federal court bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction, District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr., opines, citing
Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir.
2010).
Given the lack of support provided by the Defendant, the Court says
it cannot determine if it has jurisdiction over this matter.
Judge Scola also notes that the notice of removal also assumes that
each member of the purported class will collect the maximum amount
of statutory damages, but provides no support for why that is the
case. Indeed, the Defendant acknowledges that the FATCA provides
"for actual damages or statutory damages of 'not less than $100 and
not more than $1,000' per consumer" for willful violations, but
does not provide any support for its position that every member of
the class will collect the maximum amount provided for by statute.
The Court may not speculate in an attempt to make up for a notice
of removal's shortcomings.
Because of these insufficient allegations, the Court is unable to
ascertain whether its jurisdictional threshold has been met.
Accordingly, the Defendant must file an amended notice of removal
which adequately alleges federal-subject-matter jurisdiction. If
the Defendant fails to file an amended notice of removal or the
amended notice fails to provide the facts necessary to establish
jurisdiction, the Court will remand this matter back to the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4tc6evtv from Leagle.com.
DIAMOND PAINTING: Ruiz Suit Seeks Laborers' Unpaid Wages and OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN RUIZ, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIAMOND PAINTING & SANDBLASTING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:221-cv-01010 (E.D. La., May 25, 2021) is
a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged failure to pay appropriate overtime wages in violation of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Laborer beginning
in September 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Laborers, who were employed by the Defendant within 3
years from the filing of this complaint, regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per workweek. However, the Defendant allegedly failed
to pay them their correct overtime pay at the applicable overtime
rate in accordance with the law.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover unpaid wages
for all unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and
other relief as may be required by law.
Diamond Painting & Sandblasting, LLC provides painting and
sandblasting of on-shore and off-shore equipment, vessels, and
structures to its clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
HMS, L.L.C.
3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 590
Metairie, LA 70002
Tel: (504) 356-0110
Fax: (504) 356-0112
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Seeks to Certify Class of Transgenders
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNDAY HINTON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-JDB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed class consisting of:
"all transgender individuals who currently reside in a
District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DOC) housing
unit that does not accord with their gender identity, or who
will be detained in a DOC facility in the future; and
2. appointing her counsel to represent the class.
This case arises from Defendant District of Columbia's decision to
house Plaintiff Sunday Hinton, a transgender woman, with male
prisoners based on a policy that relies presumptively, and at times
exclusively, on detained persons' anatomy to make housing
determinations. The Defendant's policy is facially discriminatory
in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and
the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA).
The District of Columbia Department of Corrections (DCDC) is a
correctional agency responsible for the adult jails and other adult
correctional institutions for the District of Columbia, in the
United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TokEzh
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Michelman, Esq.
Megan Yan, Esq.
Marietta Catsambas, Esq.
Michael Perloff, Esq.
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 601-4267
E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
- and -
Rachel Cicurel, Esq.
Steven Marcus, Esq.
PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: 202 824-2774
Facsimile: 202 824-2776
E-mail: rcicurel@pdsdc.org
DJKM LANE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mateo Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN MATEO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DJKM LANE FOOD CORP. (D/B/A FOOD UNIVERSE
MARKETPLACE); and ALEX LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04518
(S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Mateo was employed by the Defendants as deli manager.
DJKM LANE FOOD CORP. owns and operate a supermarket, located at 126
Featherbed Ln, Bronx, NY 10452 under the name "Food Universe
Marketplace."
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, New York 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
DOORDASH INC: Approval of Marko Revised Settlement Pact Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
DoorDash, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the plaintiffs in Marko
v DoorDash, Inc., Case No. BC659841, filed a revised settlement
agreement with the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles,
The company is currently involved in a number of putative class
actions, representative actions, such as those brought under the
California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, and
individual claims both in court as well as arbitration and other
matters challenging the classification of third-party delivery
providers on the company's platform and on the Caviar platform as
independent contractors.
In November 2019, the company filed an agreement to pay $40 million
with the representatives of Dashers that had filed certain actions
in California and Massachusetts in settlement of claims under PAGA
and class action claims alleging worker misclassification of
Dashers, or the Marciano settlement.
These actions were filed by and on behalf of Massachusetts Dashers
that utilized the DoorDash platform since September 2014 and
California Dashers that utilized the DoorDash platform since August
2016.
The settlement was filed with the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco on November 21, 2019. On April 24, 2020,
the court issued a tentative ruling raising certain issues with the
filed settlement agreement and requesting supplemental briefing
from the parties.
On June 8, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefing and an
amended settlement agreement to the court. The amended settlement
agreement increased the total amount to be paid by us from $40
million to $41 million.
On June 19, 2020, the court issued a tentative ruling raising
certain issues with the filed amended settlement agreement and
requesting supplemental briefing from the parties. On July 24,
2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefing and an amended
settlement agreement to the court.
On August 31, 2020, the court issued a tentative ruling denying
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the amended
settlement without prejudice and inviting the parties to file
supplemental briefing addressing the concerns raised by the court.
On October 30, 2020, we entered into an amended settlement
agreement to increase the total amount to be paid by us from $41
million to $89 million.
On November 4, 2020, the parties submitted supplemental briefing
and the amended settlement agreement to the court. On February 17,
2021, the court issued a tentative ruling denying plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement without
prejudice.
On April 7, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice of withdrawal of the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
In light of the court's concern about the plaintiffs releasing
various class claims that were not originally pled in the Marciano
action (which was filed as a PAGA-only case), the parties agreed
not to seek a release of these claims Marciano, but to instead
present a new proposed settlement in Marko v DoorDash, Inc., Case
No. BC659841 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.), where the court currently
has jurisdiction over the various class claims under the Labor Code
encompassed by the agreement.
On April 16, 2021, plaintiffs filed a revised settlement agreement
with the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, or
the Marko settlement.
The total amount to be paid by the company is $100 million.
DoorDash said, "If the Marko settlement ultimately receives final
approval from the court, we expect that this would resolve claims
under PAGA and claims alleging worker misclassification for Dashers
in California for the period of August 30, 2016 through December
31, 2020 and claims alleging worker misclassification for Dashers
in Massachusetts for the period of September 26, 2014 through March
31, 2021. Although the settlement only involves claimants in
certain actions, any final settlement would be on a class basis and
would encompass claims by all Dashers in California and
Massachusetts for the period noted in the previous sentence.
Dashers that are members of the class purported to be covered by
the settlement could elect to opt out of such settlement, and
therefore could bring claims against us separately."
DoorDash, Inc. operates an online food ordering and food delivery
platform. It is based in San Francisco. With a 56% market share, it
is the largest food delivery company in the United States.
DRAGADOS USA: Burmudez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GUSTAVO BURMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DRAGADOS USA, INC.; FLATIRON WEST,
INC.; DRAGADOS/FLATIRON JV; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
21CECG00066, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Fresno, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on May 26, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-at-00589 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 provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, and
failure to pay minimum wages and other wages.
Dragados USA, Inc. is a construction engineering company located in
New York.
Flatiron West, Inc. is a construction engineering company located
in San Diego, California.
Dragados/Flatiron JV is a joint venture between Flatiron West, Inc.
and Dragados, USA, Inc. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara A. Cotter, Esq.
Dennis B. Cook, Esq.
COOK BROWN, LLP
2407 J Street, Second Floor
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: (916) 442-3100
Facsimile: (916) 442-4227
E-mail: bcotter@cookbrown.com
dcook@cookbrown.com
EASTPOINT RECOVERY: Bid to File Class Certification Due Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATATIAOU ERGAS,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
EASTPOINT RECOVERY GROUP, INC., UNITED HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, Case
No. 1:20-cv-00333-WMS-LGF (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Leslie G.
Foschio entered an order amending the First Amended Scheduling
Order filed January 22, 2021 as follows:
-- All fact discovery in this case shall conclude on August 10,
2021.
-- Motions to compel fact discovery shall be filed not later
than July 10, 2021.
-- Plaintiff shall identify any expert witnesses through
interrogatories and provide reports pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
26 by August 10, 2021. Defendants shall identify any expert
witnesses through interrogatories and provide reports
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 by September 10, 2021. Motions to
compel expert disclosures shall be filed not later than
September 17, 2021.
-- Motions for class certification shall be filed no later than
September 30, 2021.
-- Dispositive motions, if any, shall be filed no later than
October 15, 2021. 2021. Such motions shall be made returnable
before Judge Skretny.
-- Mediation sessions may continue, in accordance with Section
5.12 of the ADR Plan, until November 1, 2021. The
continuation of mediation sessions shall not delay or defer
other dates set forth in this Scheduling Order.
-- In the event that no dispositive motions are filed, a final
pretrial status conference is scheduled for November 2, 2021
at 11:30 a.m. before the undersigned. No extension of the
above cutoff dates will be granted except upon written
application to Judge Skretny, filed prior to the cutoff date,
showing good cause for the extension. The attached guidelines
shall govern all depositions. Counsel’s attention is
directed
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) calling for sanctions in the event of
failure to comply with any direction of this court.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hU7Ivg at no extra charge.[CC]
EBANG INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ebang International Holdings Inc. ("Ebang
International") (NASDAQ: EBON) between June 26, 2020 and April 5,
2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebang-international-holdings-loss-submission-form?prid=15893&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Ebang International Holdings Inc. NEWS - EBON NEWS
CASE DETAILS: The complaint alleges that throughout the class
period Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the proceeds from
Ebang's public offerings had been directed to an low yield, long
term bonds to an underwriter and to related parties rather than
used to develop the Company's operations; (2) Ebang's sales were
declining and the Company had inflated reported sales, including
through the sale of defective units; (3) Ebang's attempts to go
public in Hong Kong had failed due to allegations of embezzling
investor funds and inflated sales figures; (4) Ebang's purported
cryptocurrency exchange was merely the purchase of an
out-of-the-box crypto exchange; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Ebang
International you have until June 7, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Ebang International securities
during the Class Period date OF between June 26, 2020 and April 5,
2021, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
HOW TO JOIN THE CLASS ACTION: Complete this brief submission form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebang-international-holdings-loss-submission-form?prid=15893&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to speak to Joseph E. Levi, Esq. to discuss
this case.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by Corporations.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 90 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ECOGUARD PEST: Uribe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ecoguard Pest
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Michael Uribe, and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Ecoguard
Pest Management, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No.
34-2021-00300650-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
EcoGuard Pest Management -- https://www.ecoguardpestmanagement.com/
-- provides eco-friendly and natural pest control solutions for
residential and commercial properties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMOGA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT: Kincaid Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Sheila Kincaid, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v.
EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an unknown business
entity; ECMC GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00295336 was removed from the
Superior Court in the State of California, Sacramento County. to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on May 12, 2021, and assigned Case No. 2:21-at-00442.
The Complaint alleges ten causes of action: (1) Unpaid Overtime;
(2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums;
(4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6)
Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage
Statements; 8) Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9)
Unreimbursed business Expenses; and (10) Violation of California
Business & Professions Code sections 17200.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Carla J. Hartley, Esq.
Cynthia C. Cheung, Esq.
DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP
601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 397-2700
Facsimile: (415) 397-3300
Email: cjh@dillinghammurphy.com
ccc@dillinghammurphy.com
ELECTRIC SOLIDUS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric Solidus LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Electric Solidus LLC, Case No
1:21-cv-04722 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Electric Solidus LLC doing business as Swan Bitcoin --
https://www.swanbitcoin.com/ -- is the best place to buy Bitcoin
with your bank account using automated savings plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
ELEPHANT IN A BOX: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elephant in a Box,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Elephant in a Box, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04681 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Elephant in a Box -- https://elephantinabox.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of foldable and portable sofa that can be assembled by
one person.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
ELITE LABOR: Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FERNANDO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. ELITE LABOR SERVICES WEEKLYS, LTD; ELITE
STAFFING, INC.; SOUTHLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. HG20053059, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-03860 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to pay vacation
wages, failure to pay sick time, failure to indemnify, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all
final wages, failure to pay wages without discount, and unfair
competition.
Elite Labor Services Weeklys, Ltd. is a provider of temporary
staffing and employment services, headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.
Elite Staffing, Inc. is a provider of temporary staffing and
employment services, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.
Southland Employment Services, Inc. is an employment services
company located in Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
Chloe S. Chang, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
christopher.decker@ogletree.com
chloe.chang@ogletree.com
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Emergent Biosolutions Inc.
(NYSE: EBS) alleging that the Company violated federal securities
laws.
Class Period: July 6, 2020 and March 31, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in EBS:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?id=15890&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Emergent Biosolutions Inc. made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant had a history of
manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive
contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks and
quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string of
FDA citations; (iii) the Company previously had to discard the
equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers
at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements
about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple
COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore manufacturing site were
materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Shareholders have until June 18, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the EBS lawsuit, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
EMPIRE OUTLET: Concrete's Bid for Class Certification Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled CONCRETE
INDUSTRIES ONE CORP., Plaintiff v. EMPIRE OUTLET BUILDERS, LLC, BFC
PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT LLC, BFC PARTNERS, L.P., ST. GEORGE OUTLET
DEVELOPMENT LLC, DONALD CAPOCCIA, JOSPEH FERRARA, BRANDON BARON and
JOHN DOES 1-10 and ABC CORPS 1-10, FICTITIOUS NAMES, TRUE NAMES
BEING UNKNOWN, WHO ARE OR WERE OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS,
OR AGENTS OF TRUSTEES EMPIRE OUTLET BUILDERS, LLC, BFC PARTNERS
DEVELOPMENT LLC and/OR BFC PARTNERS, L.P., CLAIMED TO APPLY OR
CONSENTED TO THE APPLICATION OF TRUST FUNDS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN
THOSE OF THE TRUSTS, OR WHO ARE OR WERE RECIPIENTS OF FUNDS
DIVERTED FROM THE TRUSTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT,
Respondents, Case No. 150400/2020 (N.Y. Sup.).
Procedural History/Relevant Facts
Plaintiff Concrete Industries One Corp., is a New York corporation
engaged in the business of "high end" construction work. Defendant
Empire Outlet Builders, LLC is a general contractor who hired the
Plaintiff as a subcontractor. Defendant St. George Outlet
Development, LLC is the owner of a large plot of commercial
property located in Staten Island, New York. The remaining
individual and corporate defendants collectively identified by the
Plaintiff as the "BFC entities" were responsible for the receipt
and management of trust fund monies held for the potential benefit
of trust fund beneficiaries pursuant to the New York Lien Law.
The action, and various other related actions all relate to the
construction of a large waterfront shopping mall located in Staten
Island, New York. The contract at issue in the present action was
entered into between the Plaintiff as a subcontractor and Defendant
Empire as general contractor. The Plaintiff was contracted to
perform various facets of construction work at the site. Pursuant
to the contract, the Plaintiff was to be paid $3,589,728 for its
work. However, the Plaintiff argues that "all parties understood"
that the actual amount owed was adjusted to $4,130,483 after
additional work and costs were incurred.
The action was commenced by the filing of a Summons and Verified
Complaint on Feb. 25, 2020. In its Verified Complaint, the
Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action: (1) breach of contract;
(2) quantum meruit; (3) account stated; (4) unjust enrichment; (5 &
6) diversion of trust fund claims under Article 3-A of the lien
law; and (7) a cause of action for common law indemnification.
The Defendants have filed a Verified Answer in which they raise 14
affirmative defenses. In addition to the defenses asserted here,
Defendants St. George and Empire have also commenced a breach of
contract action against Concrete, which is currently pending in
Kings County Supreme Court under Index Number 524252/2019. Concrete
has asserted 16 affirmative defenses in that case. A considerable
amount of litigation has taken place in the Kings County action.
The most recent motion filed in that action was to consolidate it
with the present action. That motion was denied without prejudice
to renewal subject to the Court's ruling on the class action
certification issue.
In addition to the Kings County action, the parties have identified
at least nine other actions pending in Kings County and New York
County, which are related to the present action. One of those
actions, pending in Kings County under index number 511173/2020, is
stylized as a class action lawsuit and identifies Concrete as a
member of the relevant class of trust beneficiaries.
Present Motions
Plaintiff Concrete moves by Notice of Motion (Seq. No. 001) for an
Order pursuant to Lien Law Section 77 and New York Consolidated
Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) Section 902, Section 903
and Section 904 determining that the present action may be
maintained as a class action lawsuit and for additional relief
related to identifying and notifying potential class members. The
Defendants have filed written opposition to the motion.
In addition, the Defendants have filed a cross motion (Seq. No.
002) for an order dismissing various causes of action raised by the
Plaintiff as duplicative, or otherwise unsupportable, as a matter
of law. Among the claims sought to be dismissed are the Plaintiff's
fifth and sixth Lien Law causes of action which form the basis of
the application to certify this action as a class action lawsuit.
The Defendants argue that if their motion is granted, the
certification motion will become moot. The Plaintiff has filed
written opposition to the Defendants' cross motion.
Decision
The Plaintiff concedes that it did not commence the present action
as a representative lawsuit in compliance with Lien Law Section
77(1). It now moves under CPLR Section 901 and Section 902 to
convert this case into a class action suit for the benefit of all
members of the class of beneficiaries seeking to recover funds from
the Article 3-A Trust.
In opposition to class certification, the Defendants argue that the
Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Section 901 prerequisites, or
to properly address the Section 902 factors. The Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff has offered only conclusory statements, which
have no evidentiary value. They also argue that even if the Court
considered the applicable factors, they strongly weigh against the
Plaintiff being certified to represent the class of beneficiaries.
The Defendants' cross motion also seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's
Lien Law 3-A claims, which they argue would necessarily moot the
application for class certification.
As tes case was not commenced as a representative action, the
Plaintiff bears the burden of satisfying the CPLR Section 901
prerequisites by "tendering evidence in admissible form" to support
the request for class certification, Judge Catherine M. DiDomenico
states, citing Yonkers Contr. Co. v. Romano Enters. of NY, Inc.,
304 A.D.2d 657 (2d Dept. 2003).
Judge DiDomenico finds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet this
burden as its motion is based wholly on conclusory statements made
on "information and belief" without supporting facts or evidence.
The Plaintiff also fails to address the nature or procedural
posture of the related cases that raise Lien Law claims, which are
not referenced by index number. The Plaintiff has not provided any
documentary evidence from which thd Court could determine the
nature of the claims asserted, their procedural status, or the
position any party takes on this motion in this case.
The only document offered by the Plaintiff is an affirmation of
counsel, which contains conclusory allegations that the Section 901
prerequisites have been satisfied, Judge DiDomenico observes. In
the absence of evidentiary facts, this affirmation is insufficient
to support class certification under Lien Law Section 901, Judge
DiDomenico opines. The Judge adds that the Plaintiff's attempt to
cure this lack of proof in its Reply papers is unavailing as this
Court cannot consider evidence raised for the first time in reply.
The evidentiary deficiencies warrant denial of class certification
under CPLR Section 901, Judge DiDomenico holds. Accordingly, the
Court need not consider the factors set forth in Section 902.
However, even if this Court were to consider the same, the
Plaintiff's motion would still fail. As argued by the Defendant, at
least two factors weigh heavily against Concrete being certified as
a class representative.
In addition to opposing class certification, the Defendants cross
move to dismiss the fifth and sixth Lien Law diversion causes of
action asserted by the Plaintiff pursuant to CPLR Section
3211(a)(4). CPLR Section 3211(a)(4) gives the court discretion to
dismiss a case when there is another action pending between the
same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state.
Judge DiDomenico notes that it is undisputed that the Defendants'
motion was not timely filed pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(e), and
that the issue was not raised as an affirmative defense in the
Defendants' Answer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section 3211(a)(4)
motion to dismiss must be denied as waived. However, as the
underlying Lien Law Section 77 statutory prohibition against
multiple cases cannot be waived, the motion is denied without
prejudice to the filing of a motion for summary judgment, a motion
to sever and transfer the lien law claim, or for other relief
supportable by law, Judge DiDomenico holds.
The Defendants also move to dismiss the second, third, fourth and
seventh causes of action pursuant to CPLR Section 3211(a)(7) on the
basis that those claims are precluded by the existence of a binding
contract. However, despite the existence of a contract, Concrete
asserts various causes of action sounding in the quasi contractual
theories of quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and for an account
stated, together with a cause of action for common law
indemnification.
The existence of a valid contract generally precludes recovery
under quasi contractual theories for events arising out of the same
subject matter, Judge DiDomenico notes, citing EBC I, Inc. v.
Goldman Sachs & Co., 5 N.Y.3d 11 (2005). However, there are some
circumstances where quasi contractual theories may be plead and
advanced in the alternative.
Here, the Defendants argue that the contract sufficiently covers
the subject matter of the suit such that the quasi contractual
claims should be dismissed as a matter of law. In opposition, the
Plaintiff argues that they should be able to plead quasi-contract
theories in the alternative, as the scope of the contract is in
dispute. Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that the contractual
payment amount agreed to by the parties was increased from
$3,589,728 to $4,130,483. The Plaintiff further asserts that the
Defendants have denied that the scope of work authorized under the
contract included pre-cast stairs installation, pavers work on
walkways and asphalt installation.
After review of the moving papers filed by both parties, together
with the contract at issue, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims sounding in unjust enrichment and quantum meruit
is granted, Judge DiDomenico rules. She explains that the
Plaintiff's first argument regarding an alleged increase in the
contract price is unpersuasive because if the parties "agreed" to
the increase, then that agreement would arguably serve as an
authorization for additional work under the original contract. As
for their second argument, the scope of work to be completed is
clearly outlined in the contract. Moreover, the contract indicates
that "any extra work performed without notification and approval
will not be reimbursed."
While there may be a question of fact as to whether additional work
or payment was authorized, that issue still falls within the scope
of the parties' agreement, Judge DiDomenico notes. Therefore, the
Plaintiff's second and fourth causes of action are dismissed as the
parties' valid contract covers the entire scope of work to be
completed by the Plaintiff.
However, as the Plaintiff has alleged facts in the Summons and
Complaint sufficient to establish a cause of action for an account
stated, the motion to dismiss that cause of action is denied, Judge
DiDomenico rules. A cause of action for an account stated may be
plead in the alternative to a breach of contract claim, although
the same damages cannot be recovered twice.
Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's cause of
action for "commonlaw indemnification." The Plaintiff seeks
indemnification against Defendant Empire and the BFC Defendants on
the ground that Concrete was unable to pay its suppliers and
subcontractors because it wasn't paid in compliance with the
contract. However, the concept of commonlaw indemnification is not
available for simple breach of contract damages based upon pure
economic loss, Judge DiDomenico opines. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's seventh cause of action is dismissed.
Conclusion
Judge DiDomenico rules that this Decision and Order constitutes the
Court's Decision on motion sequence numbers 001 and 002. Any issues
raised in either of those motions, but not specifically addressed
here, are denied without prejudice. As certain causes of action
asserted by the Plaintiff remain, the parties are directed to serve
initial discovery demands and appear for a preliminary conference.
Counsel are further directed to inform the Court if the motion to
consolidate in Kings County is being re-filed in light of the
present Decision, at which point the Preliminary Conference may be
adjourned.
A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/paj6ud38 from
Leagle.com.
The Plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey Fleischmann, Esq. --
jf@lawjf.com -- (150 Broadway, Suite 900, in New York City 10038).
The Defendants are represented by Andrew Achiron, Esq., --
aachiron@silverfirm.com -- of Silverman Shin & Byrne PLLC. (88 Pine
St., Floor 22, in New York City 10005).
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Bowen Sues Over Mislabeled Sunscreen Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BETH BOWEN, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC., EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE COMPANY, EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, EDGEWELL PERSONAL
CARE, LLC, PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-04356 (C.D. Cal., May 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair
Competition Law and the False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of sunscreen
products under their brand name Banana Boat. The Defendants failed
to disclose in the products' label the presence of benzene, a known
human carcinogen. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have
purchased the sunscreen products had they known there was a risk
the products may contain benzene. As a result, they suffered injury
in fact when they spent money to purchase sunscreen products they
would not otherwise have purchased absent the Defendants'
misconduct, the suit alleges.
Energizer Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of sun care products,
with its principal place of business at 533 Maryville University
Drive, St. Louis, Missouri.
Edgewell Personal Care Company is a manufacturer of personal care
products, with its principal place of business in Chesterfield,
Missouri.
Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Edgewell Personal Care Company, with its principal place of
business in Shelton, Connecticut.
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Edgewell Personal Care Company, with its principal place of
business in Shelton, Connecticut.
Playtex Products, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edgewell
Personal Care Company, with its principal place of business in
Shelton, Connecticut.
Sun Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Edgewell
Personal Care Company, with its principal place of business in
Shelton, Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main St., Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32501
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: mliu@awkolaw.com
- and –
R. Jason Richards, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main St., Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32501
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: jrichards@awkolaw.com
ENSITE USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-04437 (S.D.N.Y., May 17, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as welding inspector.
ENSITE USA, INC. provides services to companies in the oil and
energy industry across the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
-and-
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
EQUILON ENTERPRISES: June 17 Deadline to Oppose Class Status Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO DIMERCURIO, et al.,
v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-04029-JSC (N.D.
Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
that:
-- Deadline for Defendant's Class June 17, 2021
Certification Opposition:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: July 29, 2021
-- Hearing Date for Plaintiffs' Class August 26, 2021
Certification Motion:
Equilon is an oil refining and marketing company.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TfVFOq at no extra charge.[CC]
EVANS HOTELS: Counsel to Get $102K in Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES RUTHERFORD and THE
ASSOCIATION 4 EQUAL ACCESS, v. EVANS HOTELS, LLC, and DOES 1 to 50,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00435-JLS-MSB (S.D. Calif.), the Hon. Judge Jannis
L. Sammartino entered an order that Plaintiffs shall pay the
Defendant the total sum of $115,074.48, consisting of $102,458.75
in attorneys' fees and $12,615.73 in costs.
In light of the limited nature of success achieved by the
Defendant, the Court concludes that an award of the full lodestar
figure would be excessive. Accordingly, the Court finds a fifty
percent reduction of the lodestar figure appropriate to account for
the Defendant's limited success, and the Court therefore adjusts
the lodestar figure from $204,917.50 to $102,458.75.
Evans Hotels consists of Bahia Resort Hotel, Catamaran Resort Hotel
and Spa and The Lodge at Torrey Pines.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wLrv4h at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: Wins Final Approval of Adkins Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued final approval of class
action settlement and granted in part the motion for attorney's
fees in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN ADKINS, Plaintiff v. FACEBOOK,
INC., Defendant, Case No. C 18-05982 WHA (N.D. Cal.).
A coding error allowed hackers to break into the Facebook platform
and pilfer the personal information of millions of users in the
United States. This came to light in 2018, leading to a flurry of
complaints. A prior order explained the coding vulnerability
responsible for the data breach. In brief, if three particular
features on the Facebook platform aligned simultaneously, "access
tokens" became visible. Similar to a password, access tokens
permitted access to accounts. The compromising of access tokens
made millions of users accounts vulnerable to entry.
A consolidated complaint sought relief in the form of a credit
monitoring service for the victims, in addition to compensatory,
statutory, and punitive damages, and declaratory relief based on
ten claims. To this end, counsel moved to certify a class of users
whose information had been compromised. An order declined to
certify a damages class but allowed an injunctive relief class.
Users were left to pursue damages claims on their own but no one
ever filed one. All but two of the Plaintiffs' claims were
dismissed and by the time the case settled, only one named class
representative remained out of the 11 Plaintiffs involved in the
case after consolidation. The terms of the settlement included
commitments by Facebook to prevent future vulnerabilities related
specifically to access tokens and consent to be independently
monitored.
Class counsel also move for attorney's fees in the amount of
$10,700,000 (based on a 1.253 multiplier), $1,210,900.75 in costs,
a reserve of $15,000 for a data security vendor to monitor
compliance with the settlement terms (by way of the SOC2 Type II
assessments), and a $5,000 service award for Plaintiff Stephen
Adkins.
After the coding error in the Facebook platform exposed users to
possible loss of personal information, at least 10 civil actions
were immediately filed in this district and consolidated. A
previous order certified a class seeking injunctive relief but
rejected certification of a damages class. A class settlement
followed whereby Facebook agreed to maintain certain security fixes
almost all of which Facebook would likely have maintained anyway.
Judge Alsup states that this order will approve the settlement as
fair and adequate in light of the substantial risks of litigation.
All damages claims have been preserved but none have been asserted
anywhere by any of the millions potentially affected. This order
will also grant reasonable attorney's fees and expenses for class
counsel but not for other lawyers.
Attorney's Fees and Costs
Judge Alsup notes that in the class settlement agreement, Facebook
agreed to pay attorney's fees and costs awarded by the Court to
"Class Counsel." The agreement defined "Class Counsel" as Class
Counsel and Lead Settlement Class Counsel mean John Yanchunis,
Esq., of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Ariana Tadler,
Esq., of Tadler Law LLP, and Andrew Friedman, Esq., of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.
This order will, accordingly, award all reasonable attorney's fees,
costs, and expenses to class counsel but will not do so for lawyers
other than class counsel, Judge Alsup holds.
Although most of the work appears to have been done by class
counsel, the application includes time and expenses for 17 law
firms and over 100 timekeepers, including law firms that
represented one or more early plaintiffs (all but one of whom
eventually withdrew or were dismissed), Judge Alsup notes. He
points out that none of these other firms were ever designated as
class counsel. The Applicants, however, answer that the work of
class counsel was farmed out to many of these other firms and,
therefore, seek to include them, albeit after the fact. Therefore,
the Applicants say, Facebook should pay the committee members for
their work.
This is not quite what the record shows, Judge Alsup observes.
During an early case management conference on Jan. 12, 2019,
counsel said they would move to be interim counsel to help
coordinate the various cases, Judge Alsup notes. Three days later,
on Jan. 15, 2019, counsel filed their motion to appoint John
Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, Ariana Tadler of Milberg Tadler
Phillips Grossman LLP, and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, PLLC as "interim counsel." At the end of the
attachments to that motion, counsel included a table depicting a
committee structure for delegating work across 17 law firms and a
protocol for time and expense reporting. The protocol included the
statement "before you expend any time in this litigation for which
you may seek compensation, you must obtain written approval in
advance from Co-Lead Counsel."
Judge Alsup explains that the Court's order certifying a class and
appointing class counsel, unlike the interim order, did not approve
or refer to any committee structure. He adds that the very
definition used in the settlement agreement--three firms and three
firms only.
It was, therefore, improper for class counsel to delegate class
representation after appointment, Judge Alsup opines. He insists
that any work farmed out to lawyers other than class counsel will
not be included in the lodestar. He adds that turning to the work
of class counsel, the Court's review even for work by class counsel
raises questions concerning reasonableness of time spent and costs
requested.
Judge Alsup holds that the only truly novel element of the
settlement agreement is the involvement of the Court, class
counsel, and an independent monitor in ensuring that Facebook
maintains the security measures they would have implemented anyway.
He adds that this order will allow recover for all of the
reasonable time incurred by class counsel in the case (without
reduction for limited success) because Facebook agreed to pay it in
the settlement agreement. But no bonus or multiplier will be
allowed in view of the limited success in this case (even if the
agreement could be stretched to cover a bonus or multiplier).
Incentive awards pose the risk that a class representative has gone
along with a settlement, not because it secures a good outcome for
the class, but simply for the incentive award, Judge Alsup notes.
Such awards should, therefore, be subject to careful scrutiny. This
order finds the $5,000 incentive award for Plaintiff Adkins is
unreasonably high. A reasonable amount is $500 in order to
compensate Plaintiff Adkins for the use of his vacation time from
work to travel to San Francisco for proceedings and his role in
discovery (including allowing his phone to be forensically
examined).
Conclusion
The final settlement is approved and class counsel's fees motion is
granted in part as to entitlement of class counsel (and class
counsel only), but denied as to amount. The special master will
recalculate fees and costs to a reasonable sum based on the
foregoing considerations and the companion order.
Order Appointing Special Master
A companion order found class counsel entitled to reasonable
attorney's fees.
Under Rules 53 and 54, the Court appoints Attorney Ellen Eagen as
the special master to determine the reasonable value of services
rendered herein by class counsel (and class counsel only). By
special accommodation of the Court, Attorney Eagen has agreed to
provide this service at the reduced rate of $300 per hour. Each
side will submit a statement with any objection to the appointment,
including any suggestions for alternative candidates or other
requests to be heard. If neither side objects, then the Court will
proceed with the appointment.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yzpwakv5 from Leagle.com.
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the purported class action suit headed by the Turner Insurance
Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner.
On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and
certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosure
related to the FPI Loan Program was materially false and misleading
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially
identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported
shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the
Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff.
On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action
voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action.
On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders
of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia
Turner, as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action.
On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and
additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended
complaint in the Turner Action.
On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on
July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
Obelisk Capital Management from the case.
In connection with Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the
case, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on
December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the
action pending the court's determination of the motion.
On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeking to have the Turners and purported
stockholder Don Brokop appointed as class representative. On
December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff
in place of Obelisk Capital Management.
Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to
adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the
discovery stay on January 29, 2020.
On December 8, 2020, the court granted the Turners' motion to amend
to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff and denied the Company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings. As a result, the automatic
discovery stay was lifted and the court entered a schedule for
proceedings going forward.
The Company, Mr. Paul A.Pittman, and Mr. Luca Fabbri filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
February 8, 2021. On February 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion
to withdraw the Turners as lead plaintiffs and to substitute Brokop
as lead plaintiff.
Discovery remains ongoing.
Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the
Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other
remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no
assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an
estimate of related expenses at this time."
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
FIND YOUR TRAINER: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Find Your Trainer,
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Find Your Trainer, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04684 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Find Your Trainer -- https://findyourtrainer.com/ -- is an online
marketplace for finding a vetted and certified personal
trainer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
FIRST NATIONAL: Lawrence Files FDCPA Suit in District of Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First National
Collection Bureau Inc. The case is styled as Kathleen Lawrence, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. First National
Collection Bureau Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00814-MC (D. Ore., May 26,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc. -- http://www.fncbinc.com/
-- is an agency that collects debt on behalf of a variety of
creditor clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth P. Dobson, Esq.
0324 SW Abernethy Street
Portland, OR 97239
Phone: (503) 717-6582
Email: landlaw.oregon@gmail.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Andre Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Debt
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Andre, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly Situated consumers v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Case
No. 8:21-cv-01140-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 11, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) as a result of unlawful disclosure of debt to
third parties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff allegedly incurred and
owed a consumer "debt" to Synchrony Bank. The Defendant is not the
original creditor and was assigned the debt for collection by the
creditor after the debt was already in default. The Defendant then
commenced communicating with the Plaintiff regarding the debt by
sending collection letters using a third-party mail processing
company. The Defendant disclosed to the mail processor information
including: the Plaintiff's name, address, and status as a debtor,
and that the Plaintiff owed the Defendant $2,017.81, 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
FLAUM APPETIZING: Perechu, Duran Seek Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIEGO PERECHU and CESAR
DURAN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
FLAUM APPETIZING CORP. d/b/a FLAUM APPETIZING and MOSHE GRUNHUT and
AVIRAM CHEN, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-01085-SJB (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs file consent motion to preliminarily approve
settlement agreement, certify settlement class, authorize notice to
class, and schedule fairness hearing.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court review and approve the terms
of the proposed settlement of this action both as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also as a class
action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for Plaintiffs' claims under the
New York Labor Law, sections 190 et seq.
The Plaintiffs also request the Court to approve the proposed
apportionment of the settlement proceeds, after conducting a
hearing about the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
proposed settlement.
Flaum Appetizing manufactures food preparations including
wholesales snack foods nuts or dried fruits, and dried or processed
meats.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vsOEbc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
MENKEN SIMPSON & ROZGER LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
80 Pine Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 509-1616
Facsimile: (212) 509-8088
- and -
LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, Suite 300
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
FORD MOTOR: Mendoza Sues Over Defective Instrument Panel
--------------------------------------------------------
Joey Mendoza, Julie Deakin, and Michael Zelaska, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00688-UNA (D. Del., May 12, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, breach of express warranty, and violations of consumer
statutes in Illinois, Virginia, and California, on behalf of
current and former owners of model year 2015-2020 Ford F-150 XL and
XLT vehicles ("Class Vehicles"), which contain a defectively
manufactured instrument panel, initially bearing Part No.
FL3Z-1504320-AG (the "Original Dash" or "Original Dashboard").
According to the complaint, the Original Dash and subsequent
replacement dashboards contain manufacturing defects that make them
prone to warping and separation from the vehicle, particularly in
the area surrounding the defroster vents. In multiple cases, the
Original Dash and subsequent replacement dashboards have warped and
peeled away from the truck body, within the warranty period, and at
times mere weeks after purchase. Despite a landslide of complaints
regarding this Defect, the Defendant refused to address the issue
for years. Hundreds of complaints were made specifically about the
Defect, which the Defendant knew about no later than April 2015.
The Plaintiffs also submitted complaints to Defendant's customer
service line, and/or to Defendant's agents at authorized Ford
dealerships.
The Defendant omitted and/or concealed the existence of the Defect
in the Original Dash to increase profits by selling additional
Class Vehicles. Knowledge and information regarding the Defect were
in the exclusive and superior possession of Defendant and its
dealers, and this information was not provided to Plaintiffs and
members of the Class. As a direct result of Ford's wrongful
conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been harmed and
are entitled to actual damages, including damages for the benefit
of the bargain they struck when purchasing their vehicles, the
diminished value of their vehicles, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees, costs, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs leased one of the Class Vehicles at an authorized
Ford dealer.
Ford designs, engineers, manufactures and sells vehicles in this
District and throughout the United States through its network of
authorized motor vehicle dealers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ian Connor Bifferato, Esq.
THE BIFFERATO FIRM
1007 N Orange Street, 4th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 429-0907
Email: cbifferato@tbf.legal
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
4730 Table Mesa Drive, Suite G-200
Boulder, CO 80305
Phone: (202) 559-2433
Facsimile: (844)-300-1952
Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com
- and -
Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
33 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (202) 559-2433
Facsimile: (844)-300-1952
Email: rchang@hfajustice.com
- and -
Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
BARON & HERSKOWITZ
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: (305) 670-0101
Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com
- and -
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (888) 711-9975
Facsimile: (610) 421-1326
Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
FORD MOTOR: Mustang Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Wiring Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Ford Mustang class action lawsuit
alleges the cars have defective wiring harnesses in the trunk lids
that cause failures of the backup cameras, trunk releases, trunk
lights and satellite radio reception.
The lawsuit alleges 2015-2017 Mustangs in Illinois are dangerous
because critical safety equipment either fails or works only part
of the time.
Ford allegedly knew the trunk lid wiring harnesses had problems
before the Mustangs were ever sold, yet the automaker allegedly
didn't warn customers about the dangers.
Illinois plaintiff Enrique Rodriguez owns a 2015 Ford Mustang he
purchased in October 2019, but in November 2019 the Mustang's
backup camera began to malfunction. The plaintiff claims he
received less than what he paid for because the backup camera still
has problems.
The class action lawsuit says Ford issued a technical service
bulletin (TSB 18-2362) in December 2018 informing service
technicians of the wiring harness defect and recommending a repair
procedure.
However, the plaintiff says Ford has not recalled the Mustangs or
offered extended warranties for owners due to the trunk wiring
harnesses.
And the plaintiff alleges the TSB repair procedure doesn't work
anyway because Ford technicians are told to splice new wire into
the harness to replace the broken wire, adding two new solder
joints for each wire replaced.
According to the Mustang class action lawsuit, the solder joints
are inflexible and even more prone to wear out and break than the
original wiring. The plaintiff says this means the Mustangs will
continue to have problems with the trunk lid wiring harnesses.
The class action says Ford dealers routinely tell Mustang owners
that no problems could be found, causing owners to continue to lose
their backup cameras and other features.
At other times dealerships allegedly inform Ford Mustang customers
the repairs are not cheap even though the trunk lid wiring harness
repairs are allegedly inadequate.
The Ford Mustang class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois: Enrique
Rodriguez, v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiff is represented by Barnow and Associates, P.C., and
Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC. [GN]
FRONTLINE ASSET: Sazonoff Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies. The case is styled as Richard Sazonoff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated individuals v. Frontline
Asset Strategies, Case No. 0:21-cv-01264-MJD-ECW (D. Minn., May 21,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Frontline Asset Strategies -- https://frontlineas.com/ -- is a
collection agency based out of Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. 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
GARDENS ALIVE: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gardens Alive, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Gardens Alive, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-02972 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gardens Alive! -- https://www.gardensalive.com/ -- offers a
selection of effective, environmentally responsible, eco-friendly
home and garden solutions.[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
GARZON & BERNAL: Correa Sues to Seek Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Correa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. GARZON & BERNAL DESIGN, INC., AG PAINTING & DECORATING INC.,
ISLAND DESIGN, and MIGUEL GARZON, individually, Case No.
2:21-cv-02888 (E.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021), is brought to seek unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post- judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate
legal and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring
the Plaintiff to regularly work without being paid overtime wages
as required by applicable federal and state law, as the Plaintiff's
hours were always capped at 40 hours per week when he worked
significantly more hours per week, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, where he worked as a
painter for 20 years until he was injured on the job on March 10,
2021.
Garzon & Bernal Design, Inc. is a domestic corporation authorized
to do business in the State of New York, with its principal place
of business located in the County of Suffolk, State of New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yale Pollack, Esq.
CAMPOLO, MIDDLETON & MCCORMICK, LLP
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
Phone: (631) 738-9100
Email: ypollack@ccmmllp.com
GDK GO: Cottrill Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmynn Cottrill, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. GDK GO, INC., and EL SADIG ABDELMOTAL individually, Case
No. 4:21-cv-01684 (S.D. Tex., May 21, 2021), is brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime hours owed to herself and similarly situated delivery
drivers employed by the Defendants at their Domino's stores.
The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from September
2019-August 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's
store.
The Defendants operate several Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
Katherine Serrano, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-2100
Fax: (469) 399-1070
Email: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
kserrano@foresterhaynie.com
GENERAL DYNAMICS: Loreto's Bid for $900K Class Deal Approval Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JOSE LORETO, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Virginia Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01366-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California entered an
order denying without prejudice motion for preliminary approval of
proposed $900,000 class action settlement.
Procedural History
On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Loreto filed a putative class
action and Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action
complaint against Defendant General Dynamics Information
Technology, Inc. ("GDIT") and Does 1 through 100. On September. 5,
2019, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
which is the operative complaint in this case.
In the FAC, the Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) failure
to pay overtime wages under the FLSA; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages under California Labor Code Section 1194; (3) failure to
timely pay wages at separation under California Labor Code Sections
201-203; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
under California Labor Code Sections 226(a) and (b); (5) failure to
provide all premium wages under California Labor Code Section
226.7; (6) violation of unfair business practices act, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-17208, along with
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") penalties for failure to pay
overtime wages, timely pay wages at separation, provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and provide all premium wages under
California Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a non-exempt employee of GDIT in San
Diego, he and other non-exempt employees receive lump sum payments
not included the regular rate of pay, which results in the
underpayment of overtime and premium wages, inaccurate wage
statements, and failure to timely pay final wages to separated
employees. He also alleges other defects in the wage statements
that render them confusing or inaccurate.
On Oct. 15, 2019, the Defendant filed an Answer to the FAC. On Dec.
13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg held an early neutral
evaluation conference and the case did not settle. The parties
subsequently agreed to participate in private mediation in the
hopes of settling the case. On Aug. 17, 2020, after receiving leave
of Court, the Defendant filed an Amended Answer to the FAC.
On Nov. 2, 2020, the parties filed a status report indicating that
they had reached a settlement in principle through mediation.
On March 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
Settlement Terms
The Settlement Agreement provides for a non-reversionary Maximum
Settlement Amount of $900,000, from which the following deductions
would be made:
(a) attorneys' fees up to $300,000 to compensate class
counsel;
(b) actual costs of $12,940;
(c) service payment to Plaintiff up to $10,000;
(d) settlement administration expenses up to $13,200;
(e) PAGA payment to the Labor Workforce and Development Agency
(LWDA) of $33,750 (75% of the $45,000 PAGA penalty); and
(f) PAGA payment of $11,250 to PAGA members (June 26, 2018
through preliminary approval) (25% of the $45,000 PAGA
penalty).
After these deductions, the remaining sum, or Net Settlement
Amount, would be distributed to all class members who do not
opt-out of the settlement ("Settlement Class Members"). The
Plaintiff's counsel estimates the Net Settlement Amount to be
$518,860. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Net Settlement
Amount will be divided as follows:
(a) Former employees (estimated to be 305) will receive $200
as a Waiting Time Penalties Payment, and the remaining
approximately $457,860 will make up the Workweek Fund; and
(b) Settlement Class Members will be credited three points for
each week of the Class Period in which more than 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week was worked (Overtime
Workweeks) and one point for each week in the Class Period
in which overtime was not worked (Non-Overtime Workweeks).
Each Settlement Class Member's share of the Workweek Fund
will be determined by dividing each member's points by the
total number of points assigned to all Settlement Class
Members.
The Plaintiff calculates the per-work-week value of the settlement
to be $4.22 for Non-Overtime Workweeks and $12.66 for Overtime
Workweeks, with a blended value of $7.43 per workweek. The
settlement payments would be allocated 50% to wages and 50% to
interest and penalties.
The Settlement Agreement provides that following final approval and
the effective date of settlement, each Settlement Class Member, who
did not request exclusion will be mailed their share of the Net
Settlement Amount without need to submit a claim form. PAGA members
would be mailed the PAGA payment even if they opt-out of the class
settlement. After 120 days, uncashed settlement payments would be
sent to the State Controller Unclaimed Property Division.
Members of the class can be identified by Defendant's employment
records. To provide notice to the class, the claims administrator
would conduct a search of the National Change of Address database
to update class members addresses, and mail a Notice of Class
Action Settlement ("Class Notice"), Change of Address form, and
pre-printed return envelope ("Notice Packet") to each member of the
class as identified in the employment records.
The Settlement Agreement releases: "Any and all claims,
obligations, demands, actions, rights, causes of action, and
liabilities against GDIT Releasees, whether in law or equity, that
have been asserted in the Complaint, or could have been asserted in
the Complaint based on the facts and allegations pled therein, and
including all such claims for recovery or compensation, and/or all
penalties under the California Labor Code and California's Wage
Orders, the California Business & Professions Code, from July 23,
2015 through the Preliminary Approval Date."
With respect to the released claims, Settlement Class Members also
waive rights under California Civil Code Section 1542. PAGA Group
members also are subject to an equivalent release of claims under
PAGA throughout the PAGA period. The Settlement Agreement does not
cover or release the FLSA claims. The agreement provides that the
parties will jointly file a motion for leave for the Plaintiff to
file a Second Amended Complaint to permit him to dismiss the FLSA
claims without prejudice.
The Plaintiff determined the FLSA claims should not be pursued
because "The FLSA claim applied to hours over 40 per week; GDIT's
compliance with DOL guidance was a strong good faith defense, which
limited the FLSA period to two years and precluded liquidated
damages; No contact was made with any non-California employee; No
notice was given; No one attempted to opt-in; and, no release is
being given for FLSA claims."
Provisional Class Certification Under Rule 23
The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a Class defined as
"all GDIT non-exempt employees in California at any time between
July 23, 2015 and September 30, 2020." The Plaintiff argues that
the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure are met such that the Class can be certified for the
purposes of settlement. Rule 23(a) establishes four prerequisites
for class certification: (1) numerosity; (2) commonality; (3)
typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation.
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel finds that the numerosity
requirement is satisfied. The Court also finds that the proposed
class meets the commonality requirement, and that the Plaintiff's
claims are typical of the putative class because he was a
non-exempt employee of GDIT, who was subject to the same regular
rate policies and issued the wage statements with the same alleged
deficiencies as other class members.
Judge Curiel observes that it does not appear that the Plaintiff
has any interests that are in conflict with the class other than
the potential Service Payment, and his active participation in the
lawsuit, including in discovery and mediation, has allowed it to
progress to a settlement that he contends will benefit the entire
class. There is no indication that he or his counsel will not
continue to prosecute this lawsuit vigorously. The Court,
therefore, concludes the adequacy requirement is met for the
purposes of conditional certification.
Finally, to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must
find "that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Here, liability hinges on whether the Defendant's method of
calculating the regular rate of pay was unlawful and whether the
information provided on wage statements was inaccurate. Because
liability would be determined by looking at GDIT's uniform policies
and practices and concentrating litigation of the issue in one
lawsuit would be the most efficient, the Court concludes that
common questions predominate and a class action is the superior
vehicle towards adjudicating the dispute. Accordingly, the Court
will conditionally certify the class for settlement purposes only.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiff's attorneys should be
provisionally designated as class counsel. Additionally, the Court
finds provisionally appointing Plaintiff Loreto as class
representative is appropriate. The Court, therefore, determines
that the Plaintiff should be appointed class representative for the
provisionally certified class.
Adequacy of Relief Provided to the Class
The parties agreed to settle the case for a non-reversionary
Maximum Settlement Amount of $900,000. After deductions for
attorney's fees, litigation costs, a service payment to Plaintiff,
settlement administration expenses, and PAGA penalties, the
Plaintiff estimates that $518,860 will be distributed to Settlement
Class Members. An estimated $61,000, or $200 each, will be
distributed to former employees as a "Waiting Time Penalties
Payment" to account for the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant
failed to timely pay wages due at separation. The remaining
"Workweek Fund" is estimated to be $457,860 and would be
distributed to Settlement Class Members based on the Overtime
Workweeks and Non-Overtime Workweeks worked. A Settlement Class
Member, who worked the entire class period, is estimated to receive
between $1,141.93 and $3,425.80, depending on the number of
Overtime Workweeks worked.
The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendant will not
oppose Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees, provided it does
not exceed $300,000. The Court need not determine at the
preliminary approval stage whether it will ultimately approve an
award in the range of $300,000. It is sufficient for the Court to
conclude that this is not a situation in which the attorney's fee
provision of the Settlement Agreement is so out of proportion with
the relief provided to the class that it "calls into question the
fairness of the proposed settlement," citing Pokorny v. Quixtar
Inc., No. 07-0201 S.C. 2011 WL 2912864, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 20,
2011).
In any event, the Settlement Agreement is not conditioned on any
particular award of attorney's fees, and provides that none of the
$900,000 Maximum Settlement Amount will revert to the Defendant.
Any difference between the up to $300,000 requested by the
Plaintiff's counsel and the amount of fees the Court ultimately
determines is reasonable will not revert to the Defendant, and will
be added to the Net Settlement Amount. This lessens the potential
unfairness of the clear sailing provision.
However, if the Plaintiff appeals the Court's order on attorney's
fees, costs, or the Class Representative Service Payment, the
Settlement Agreement provides that "any amount not approved by the
Court will not be added to the Net Settlement Amount and after the
resolution of the appeal any amount not approved, if any, will be
distributed by cy pres to the California CASA Association."
Judge Curiel finds that the California CASA Association is an
organization that advocates for children or youth in the foster
care system. He observes that this provision of the Settlement
Agreement is not addressed in the Plaintiff's motion, and the Court
cannot discern a connection between this charity's purpose and the
California labor laws at issue or the class of employees, although
counsel represented at the hearing that the organization has been
approved in other cases.
This part of the Settlement Agreement will only be invoked if (1)
the Court refuses to grant in full the Plaintiff's request for
attorney's fees, expenses, or the service payment, (2) the
Plaintiff elects to appeal, and (3) the Plaintiff does not succeed
on his appeal. But while a challenge to the cy pres recipient may
not be ripe at this stage, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that
district courts should not approve settlements that provide for
distributions to improper cy pres recipients, Judge Curiel notes.
Accordingly, the Court determines it is not likely to approve this
portion of the settlement regarding the potential cy pres
distribution of settlement funds based on the information before
it.
Thus, while the Court concludes that the proposed award of
attorney's fees does not itself call into question the adequacy of
the relief provided to the class, the Court finds that the cy pres
distribution set out in the Settlement Agreement likely cannot be
approved. In a subsequent motion for preliminary approval of
settlement, the Court instructs the parties to identify why any new
cy pres organization they select is appropriate under the standard
set out by the Ninth Circuit.
Equity Between Class Members With Different Claims
The Plaintiff asserts that the method of distribution allocates
funds based on weeks worked, and the basis of the claims, and does
not give preference to any Class Member. The Court generally agrees
that the distribution method of the "Workweek Fund," which
essentially compensates class members for unpaid overtime and wage
statement penalties, is likely equitable if not exactly precise.
Class members will receive a greater payment for the weeks in which
they worked overtime, which appropriately reflects the fact that
the lawsuit's primary claims arise from the underpayment of
overtime and the effect that had on the accuracy of the wage
statements.
However, with respect to the additional "Waiting Time Penalties
Payment" to be made to former employees, the Court has some
concerns, which it highlighted to counsel at the hearing. The
Plaintiff has calculated that the maximum exposure for the waiting
time penalty claim under California Labor Code Section 203 to be
about $1.9 million, or about $6,240 per former employee assuming
each employee was owed maximum damages.
The Plaintiff determined that due to the difficulty of establishing
that any violation was willful, there is no more than a 25%
probability of prevailing, and thus estimated realistic exposure on
the waiting time penalty claim to be $475,800, or about $1,560 per
former employee.
Under the Settlement Agreement, these former employees will receive
only $200 each as a "Waiting Time Penalties Payment," or about
12.8% of the Defendant's realistic exposure. In contrast, the
Settlement Agreement appears to pay more than 100% of what the
Plaintiff estimated was the realistic exposure for the overtime and
wage statement claims. Thus, Judge Curiel says, the allocation of
the settlement proceeds appears skewed against the waiting time
penalty claims and, thus, against former employees, compared to
what class members would be expected to recover at trial.
While this discrepancy causes the Court some concern, it does not
necessarily mean that the Settlement Agreement would be found not
fair, reasonable, and adequate on this basis alone, Judge Curiel
notes. Thus, the Court will require the Plaintiff on a renewed
motion to fully explain why the proposed distribution between the
waiting time penalties and the other claims is equitable.
Equity Between Unnamed Members and Class Representative
The Court also considers whether the proposed $10,000 "Service
Payment" to the Plaintiff raises concerns about the equity of the
proposed settlement. The $10,000 that Class Counsel will request
for Plaintiff Loreto to compensate him for his participation in
this lawsuit over the course of nearly two years is not unheard of.
Further, a $10,000 payment is equivalent to about 1% of the Maximum
Settlement Amount and 2% of the Net Settlement Amount. While the
Court need not decide now whether a $10,000 incentive award is
justified, the fact that such a payment is contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement does not render the settlement inequitable.
The Court, thus, determines that the Settlement Agreement may
provide equitable treatment of class members, but requests further
information as to the distinction between the waiting time
penalties claims and other claims. The Court will direct the
Plaintiff to provide further support for this factor in any renewed
motion.
PAGA Claims
Because Plaintiff's complaint includes claims under PAGA and the
Settlement Agreement provides for PAGA penalties, the Court must
take into account special considerations of that statute to
determine whether provisional approval of the settlement is
appropriate with respect to those claims.
The Settlement Agreement provides that Counsel will submit the
proposed settlement to the LWDA as required by Cal. Lab. Code
Section 2699(l)(2) in conjunction with their Motion for Preliminary
Approval. At the hearing, counsel confirmed that it was submitted.
With this procedural requirement presumably satisfied, the Court
turns to whether the Settlement Agreement's $45,000 allocation to
PAGA penalties is likely to be found fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
The Plaintiff argues that the $45,000 allocated to PAGA penalties,
75% of which will be paid to the LWDA and 25% of which will be paid
to aggrieved employees who worked during the PAGA period, is a
reasonable settlement of the PAGA claims even though it represents
less than 10% of the Defendant's realistic exposure. The Plaintiff
notes that similarly sized settlements have been approved despite
far lower allocations to PAGA penalties.
The Court, therefore, concludes that the proposed settlement's
allocation to PAGA penalties is likely fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
To-Be-Withdrawn FLSA Claims
The FAC includes claims under the FLSA, but the parties have agreed
to dismiss the FLSA claims without prejudice should the settlement
be preliminarily approved. The Settlement Agreement does not
release any FLSA claims. Given that the Plaintiff has legitimate
reasons for deciding not to pursue settlement of the FLSA claims
based on the limited likelihood of success, and no one has
attempted to opt-in to the FLSA collective action, the Court does
not find that exclusion of the FLSA claims from the settlement
jeopardizes the fairness of the agreement.
Thus, although much of the Settlement Agreement likely satisfies
the "fair, reasonable, and adequate" standard set out in Rule
23(e)(2), the cy pres provision likely cannot be approved and the
Court requests additional explanation to inform its analysis of
whether the settlement provides equitable treatment to different
members of the class based on the value of their claims. The Court,
therefore, denies the motion for preliminary approval without
prejudice.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth, the Court:
1. provisionally approves certification of the class for the
purposes of settlement;
2. provisionally appoints the Plaintiff's counsel as Class
Counsel for the purposes of settlement and designates the
Plaintiff as class representative for the purposes of
settlement; and
3. denies preliminary approval of the settlement without
prejudice.
The Court will permit the Plaintiff to file a renewed motion for
preliminary approval within 30 days of this Order addressing the
deficiencies noted in this Order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/8ryb423m from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: 87 Anderton Plaintiffs Dismissed From Duramax Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IN RE: DURAMAX DIESEL LITIGATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-11661 (E.D. Mich.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Northern Division, issued an order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice certain Anderton
Plaintiffs, who failed to comply with the order regarding plaintiff
fact sheets.
On May 25, 2017, Andrei Fenner and Joshua Herman filed a putative
class action complaint against the Defendants, General Motors,
Bosch LLC, and Bosch GmbH. The Plaintiffs allege that to appeal to
environmentally conscious consumers, GM markets its Silverado and
Sierra Duramax vehicles as having low emissions, high fuel economy,
and powerful torque and tow capacity, charging a premium of
approximately $5,000. However, the Plaintiffs also allege that GM's
representations are deceptive and false and GM programmed its
Silverado and Sierra Duramax vehicles to significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the NOx reduction systems during real-world
driving conditions.
The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as:
All persons who purchased or leased a model year 2011-2016
GM Silverado 2500HD or 3500HD, or a GM Sierra 2500HD or
3500HD ('Affected Vehicles').
On June 21, 2017, Plaintiffs Carrie Mizell, Matt Henderson, George
Stanley, Michael Reichert, Gregory Williams, Phillip Burns, Kurt
Roberts, and Keith Ash filed a complaint against the same
Defendants. The cases were consolidated on July 25, 2017. On Aug.
4, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated case by
the joint Plaintiffs listed above, with the addition of Anthony
Gadecki, Cody McAvoy, and James Crunkleton. Additional non-class
action cases, the "Anderton Cases" and the "California Cases" have
since been consolidated with In re Duramax. The Anderton Plaintiffs
represented to the Court that they only filed individual suits now
to avoid a potential statute of limitations defense by the
Defendants later and they agreed to consolidate their cases with In
re Duramax for discovery purposes.
On May 14, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation and proposed order
governing discovery for the Anderton Cases, non-class action
Plaintiffs. The long form plaintiff fact sheets were distributed to
150 Plaintiffs and short form plaintiff fact sheets were
distributed to 500 Plaintiffs.
The Court has previously granted five of the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss without prejudice for the Plaintiffs, who failed to
complete their discovery obligations. Now, the Defendants have
filed two Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice, identifying the
previously dismissed the Plaintiffs and seeking to dismiss their
claims with prejudice.
The Defendants provide that more than 30 days have elapsed since
the orders dismissing claims without prejudice and the dismissed
Plaintiffs have failed to remedy the deficiencies in their
Plaintiff Fact Sheet Responses. The Defendants argue that Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) authorizes dismissal of the
Plaintiffs, who have failed to comply with the Plaintiff Fact Sheet
Order.
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington notes that in this case, the
Plaintiffs were provided ample notice of their deficiency. The
Plaintiffs were notified by Defense counsel of the deficiency, had
an opportunity to respond to the initial motions to dismiss without
prejudice, could have supplemented their discovery responses after
the orders granting the motions to dismiss without prejudice, and
could have provided the information in response to the instant
Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice. The Plaintiffs have not. The
Judge opines that first of all, the parties' failure to cure is
solely the Plaintiffs' fault.
Second, the Defendants have been prejudiced by the Plaintiffs'
conduct, as they were required to spend time following up with the
Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the delinquent discovery requests, as
well as drafting the motions to dismiss with and without prejudice.
Third, the Plaintiffs have been warned multiple times that their
failure to cooperate would lead to dismissal.
Finally, less drastic sanctions were considered prior to the filing
of the instant Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice, Judge Ludington
states. First, both parties stipulated to the entry of the
Plaintiff Fact Sheet order. Second, deficient Plaintiffs were given
multiple opportunities to cure their deficiency prior to the
Defendants' filing the instant Motions to Dismiss with prejudice.
In fact, some Plaintiffs corrected their deficiency.
The Plaintiffs were given more than 30 days to provide the
requested information after the Orders Dismissing Plaintiffs'
Claims were granted without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Fact Sheets
were originally due between June and Oct. 2020. It is now May 2021,
Judge Ludington notes. The Plaintiffs have been provided more than
sufficient time to cure their deficiency.
As further evidence of Plaintiffs' failure to properly respond to
the Defendants' requests, the Plaintiffs' counsel do not offer an
explanation for the Plaintiffs' behavior. Instead, the counsel
explain they "had hoped to cure the deficiencies with these
Plaintiffs' fact sheets but have been unable to do so as of the
filing of this response. The Anderton Plaintiffs will continue to
attempt to obtain completed fact sheets and request additional time
to do so."
The Defendants have worked with the Plaintiffs to obtain responses
to the outstanding discovery requests and the Plaintiffs have given
no indication that they intend to correct the deficiencies. Their
Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice Claims of Certain Plaintiffs will
be granted.
Accordingly, it is ordered that Defendants Bosch LLC's and GM's
Motions to Dismiss with Prejudice are granted in part. The
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice as to Plaintiff
Wettstein is denied.
It is further ordered that these Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed
with prejudice:
1. Richard Avon (consol. no. 19-11337),
2. James Back (consol. no. 19-11372),
3. Scott Beam (consol. no.19-11372),
4. Robbie Collins (consol. no. 19-11372),
5. Joe Crabbe (consol. no. 19-11372),
6. Angelo Archuleta (consol. no. 19-11332),
7. Otto Bartel (consol. no. 19-11357),
8. Nathan Berner (consol. no. 19-11354),
9. Greg Berry (consol. no. 19-11349),
10. John Bjork (consol. no. 19-11348),
11. Kaleb Bowden (consol. no. 19-11306),
12. Jerry Bridge (consol. no. 19¬11308),
13. Mary Bridge (consol no. 19-11308),
14. Kevin Cheuvront (consol. no. 19-11308),
15. Donald Cocherl (consol. no. 19-11337),
16. Sam Cornwell (consol. no. 19-11354),
17. Keith Danielson (consol. no. 19-11331),
18. Marty Forman (consol. no. 19-11306),
19. Lee Gardner (consol. no. 19-11354),
20. Garett Gray (consol. no. 19-11381),
21. Mike Gunn (consol. no. 19-11339),
22. Mike Hardin (consol. no. 19-11368),
23. Lester Harrison (consol. no. 19-11368),
24. William Griffin (consol. no. 19-11320),
25. Darwin Helms (consol. no. 19-11372),
26. Darlene Fisher (consol. no. 19-11337),
27. Randy Forkum (consol. no. 19-11337),
28. Randy Gill (consol. no. 19-11368),
29. Joshua Goldman (consol. no. 19-11349),
30. Adam Hayward (consol. no. 19-11308),
31. Alan Hissam (consol. no. 19-11372),
32. Jeffrey Houston (consol. no. 19-11394),
33. Annette Hurmiz (consol. no. 19-11365),
34. Charles Hurmiz (consol. no. 19-11365),
35. Hunter Impson (consol. no. 19-11344),
36. Drema Isaac (consol. no. 19-11374),
37. James Kirkpatrick (consol. no. 19-11331),
38. Mark Kowalczyk (consol. no. 19-11357),
39. Clyde Lantz (consol. no. 19-11381),
40. John LaCourt (consol. no. 19-11374),
41. Richard LaPoint (consol. no. 19-11320),
42. Michael Leary (consol. no. 19-11313),
43. Mark Lehnhoff (consol. no. 19-11308),
44. Joseph Lemoine (consol. no. 19-11344),
45. Keith Lepley (consol. no. 19-11372),
46. Ken Lister (consol. no. 19-11306),
47. Sam Lyons (consol. no. 19-11357),
48. Tyler Malott (consol. no. 19-11331),
49. Bob McManus (consol. no. 19-11372),
50. Heath Newland (consol. no. 19-11376),
51. Badur Otarashvili (consol. no. 19-11357),
52. Mike Page (consol. no. 19-11349),
53. Michael Pearson (consol. no. 19-11357),
54. James Harp (consol. no. 19-11357),
55. Jordan Readd (consol. no. 19-11348),
56. Courtney Oberg (consol. no. 19-11349),
57. Carmon Pruitt (consol. no. 19-11348),
58. Roland Pruitt (consol. no. 19-11348),
59. Craig Reichel (consol. no. 19-11349),
60. Evie Mostacci (consol. no. 19-11339),
61. Jesse Petary (consol. no. 19-11320),
62. Marcus Petty (consol. no. 19-11341),
63. Dwane Rice (consol. no. 19-11320),
64. Farrell Rodgers (consol. no. 19-11332),
65. Bonin Rodrigue (consol. no. 19-11348),
66. Scott Sadler (consol. no. 19-11320),
67. Joshua Schantz (consol. no. 19-11348),
68. Robert Secody (consol. no. 19-11370),
69. Volley Seymore (consol. no. 19-11370),
70. Janelle Couch (consol. no. 19-11376),
71. Ricky Thompson (consol. no. 19-11306),
72. Lane Toups (consol. no. 19-11370),
73. Tony Whisenant (consol. no. 19-11339),
74. Curt Wallace (consol. no. 19-11370),
75. Carley Young (consol. no. 19-11365),
76. Jason Traxler (consol. no. 19-11349),
77. William Walcutt (consol. no. 19-11354),
78. Garrett Walker (consol. no. 19-11370),
79. Eric Webster (consol. no. 19-11337),
80. Nick Webster (consol. no. 19-11370),
81. Michael Whitehead (consol. no. 19-11349),
82. Brian Williams (consol. no. 19-11320),
83. Leszek Wysocki (consol. no. 19-11337),
84. Jonathan Yocom (consol. no. 19-11370),
85. Harvey Smith (consol. no. 19-11394),
86. Stanley Teague (consol. no. 19-11374), and
87. Deborah Trefelner (consol. no. 19-11372).
Judge Ludington notes that Plaintiff Mark Wettstein provided his
outstanding discovery obligations on March 17, 2021. The parties
agree he has cured his defect and the current motion to dismiss
should not apply to him.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/svu59dkk from Leagle.com.
GENERAL MOTORS: Two Bellwether Plaintiffs in Duramax Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Northern Division, issued an order granting the Defendants' motion
to dismiss without prejudice regarding two bellwether plaintiffs in
the lawsuit entitled IN RE: DURAMAX DIESEL LITIGATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-11661 (E.D. Mich.).
On May 25, 2017, Andrei Fenner and Joshua Herman filed a putative
class action complaint against Defendants General Motors, Bosch
LLC, and Bosch GmbH. The Plaintiffs allege that to appeal to
environmentally conscious consumers, GM markets its Silverado and
Sierra Duramax vehicles as having low emissions, high fuel economy,
and powerful torque and tow capacity, charging a premium of
approximately $5,000. However, the Plaintiffs also allege that GM's
representations are deceptive and false and GM programmed its
Silverado and Sierra Duramax vehicles to significantly reduce the
effectiveness of the NOx reduction systems during real-world
driving conditions.
The Plaintiffs' proposed class is defined as:
All persons who purchased or leased a model year 2011-2016
GM Silverado 2500HD or 3500HD, or a GM Sierra 2500HD or
3500HD ('Affected Vehicles').
On June 21, 2017, Plaintiffs Carrie Mizell, Matt Henderson, George
Stanley, Michael Reichert, Gregory Williams, Phillip Burns, Kurt
Roberts, and Keith Ash filed a complaint against the same
Defendants. The cases were consolidated on July 25, 2017. On Aug.
4, 2017, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated case by
the joint Plaintiffs, with the addition of Anthony Gadecki, Cody
McAvoy, and James Crunkleton. Additional non-class action cases,
the "Anderton Cases" and the "California Cases" have since been
consolidated with In re Duramax.
The Anderton Plaintiffs represented to the Court that they only
filed individual suits now to avoid a potential statute of
limitations defense by the Defendants later and that they agreed to
consolidating their cases with In re Duramax for discovery
purposes.
On May 14, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation and proposed order
governing discovery for the Anderton Cases, non-class action
Plaintiffs. The long form plaintiff fact sheets were distributed to
150 Plaintiffs and short form plaintiff fact sheets were
distributed to 500 Plaintiffs. One hundred short form Plaintiffs
and 30 long form Plaintiffs were selected each month, with
responsive dates beginning June 15, 2020, and ending Oct. 15, 2020.
Additionally, the Defendants could schedule depositions of up to 40
Anderton Plaintiffs prior to Nov. 20, 2020. The agreement further
provides that a Plaintiff's claims are subject to dismissal if s/he
fails to respond. 21 days after responses are due, the Defendants
may serve a Notice of Overdue Discovery. If responses are still
incomplete 14 days later, the Defendants may file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. Further, if this
Court dismisses the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and 30
days later the Plaintiff still has failed to submit their requested
discovery, the Defendants may move for a dismissal with prejudice,
subject to the traditional motion to dismiss briefing schedule.
On Feb. 8, 2021, Defendants GM and Bosch LLC filed a motion to
dismiss two bellwether Plaintiffs without prejudice for failure to
complete their discovery obligations. The Defendants explain that
all questions must be answered for the short form fact sheet (good
faith answers, such as "not applicable" and "unknown" are
acceptable) and long form fact sheets also require the Plaintiffs
to provide any responsive documents in their control. The
Defendants assert that of the Plaintiffs whose responses were due
on Oct. 22, 2020, one Plaintiff failed to submit any Plaintiff fact
sheet response at all, and one Plaintiff has submitted an
incomplete Plaintiff fact sheet response, lacking responses to one
or more questions.
The Defendants explain that FRCP 37 provides that a defendant may
seek to dismiss a plaintiff's claims for failure to respond to
discovery requests. For relief, the Defendants seek an order: (1)
dismissing without prejudice the claims of the two Plaintiffs
identified in Exhibit C, (2) providing that these Plaintiffs may
not refile their claims without complying with their PFS
obligations, and (3) providing that if these Plaintiffs do not
comply with their PFS obligations within 30 days after entry of the
Court's order, their claims may be subject to dismissal with
prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' counsel acknowledges that the two identified
Plaintiffs failed to provide the required discovery. They explain
they will continue to attempt to obtain completed fact sheets and
request additional time to do so.
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington notes that these two Plaintiffs
were served with either the long or short form fact sheets and did
not comply with their discovery obligations, which were due on Oct.
22, 2020. On Dec. 4, 2020, the Defendants informed the Plaintiffs'
counsel about multiple Plaintiffs, who failed to submit fact
sheets, failed to sign the declaration, submitted an incomplete
fact sheet, or failed to provide requested documents.
On Feb. 8, 2021, the instant Motion was filed naming the two
Plaintiffs with outstanding discovery deficiencies, David Bell and
Jose Acevedo. The Plaintiffs do not contest the merits of the
Motion, but rather seek additional time to correct the
deficiencies. However, the Plaintiffs participated in arriving at
the discovery schedule, and this is at least the fifth wave of
deficient Plaintiffs, Judge Ludington notes. The scheduling order
already allows the Plaintiffs to submit discovery five weeks late
without penalty.
Additionally, Judge Ludington holds, this dismissal is without
prejudice. The Plaintiffs still have 30 days to respond to the
outstanding discovery requests to avoid a motion to dismiss with
prejudice. There is no good reason furnished to delay dismissing
these Plaintiffs' claims.
Accordingly, it is ordered that Defendants Bosch LLC's and GM's
Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiffs David Bell (consol. no.
19-13220) and Jose Acevedo (consol. no. 19-13220) are dismissed
without prejudice. The Plaintiffs must fully comply with any
outstanding discovery requests prior to refiling their claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/299u797t from Leagle.com.
GENEX SERVICES: Deal Labor Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TRACEY DEAL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. GENEX SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00010974-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on May 26,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01009-AJB-KSC 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 unfair competition, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and failure to reimburse business expenses.
Genex Services, LLC is a provider of managed care services with its
headquarters in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
Joel M. Purles, Esq.
Sarah J. Allen, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
Telephone: (714) 830-0600
Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
joel.purles@morganlewis.com
sarah.allen@morganlewis.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Toxic Chemicals, Lawson Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LAWSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:21-cv-04006 (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for quasi contract or 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 in the
U.S.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby food
products. The Defendant advertised and labeled its products as safe
and healthy for children. However, contrary to the Defendant's
marketing statements, the products contain harmful heavy metal
contaminants including inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and
mercury. As a result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations
and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered
damages.
Gerber Products Company is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Virginia. [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: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
mpearson@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 –
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: byagman@milberg.com
- and –
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW P.C.
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: 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
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Terenzini & Kearney Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the court consolidated
the class action suits initiated by R. Brian Terenzini and Bryan
Kearney respectively.
On December 18, 2020, R. Brian Terenzini, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 2:20-cv-11444).
On January 8, 2021, Bryan Kearney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, also filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:21-cv-00175).
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as interest, fees
and costs. The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and assert that the
Company failed to disclose to investors that Amazon.com, Inc. was
developing its own mobile and online prescription medication
ordering and fulfillment service that would compete directly with
the Company. According to the complaint, when Amazon announced its
competitor service, the Company's stock price fell, causing
investor losses.
Lead plaintiff applications were submitted February 16, 2021, and
on April 8, 2021, the court consolidated the two lawsuits and
appointed lead plaintiffs.
The Company intends to seek dismissal of the consolidated case.
GoodRx said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims of the plaintiffs and members of the class and any
liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and a
loss or range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable."
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website.
GoodRx Holdings serves customers in the United States. The company
is based in Santa Monica, California.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: James Lee Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES LEE CONSTRUCTION,
INC., a Montana Corp., JAMES B. LEE, and TRACY D. LEE, husband and
wife, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
9:20-cv-00068-DWM (D. Mont.), the Plaintffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying the case for class resolution of issues under
the class allegations of the Second Amended Complaint so that the
common issues can be efficiently and consistently litigated with
fairness and due process for all affected interests.
The proposed class is defined as individuals and commercial and
other entities:
-- Who were insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy
issued by one of the Defendant Insurance Companies in
Montana;
-- Who, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, suffered losses
covered by such policy;
-- Who received payments under the coverages of such policy;
-- With respect to whom Government Employees Insurance Company
and/or its PRU personnel implemented and collected on
subrogation claims, including through use of the types of
Subrogation Procedures described in paragraph 10 of the
Second Amended Complaint;
-- With respect to whose motor vehicle tort claim, Government
Employees Insurance Company PRU, and/or its PRU personnel
recovered funds under a claim of subrogation from a third
party for some or all of such payments;
-- With respect to whom the subrogation was recovered not more
than eight years preceding the filing of the Complaint in
this action;
-- Excluding therefrom all present or former officers and/or
directors of the GEICO Defendants, Class Counsel and their
resident relatives, the Judge in this case and the judge's
resident relatives, and Defendants' counsel of record and
their resident relatives.
A copy of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 10, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fGmmU6 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Judah M. Gersh, Esq.
Brian M. Joos, Esq.
VISCOMI, GERSH, SIMPSON & JOOS, PLLP
121 Wisconsin Avenue
Whitefish, MT 59937
Telephone: (406) 862-7800
E-mail: gersh@bigskyattorneys.com
joos@bigskyattorneys.com
- and -
Evan F. Danno, Esq.
DANNO LAW FIRM, P.C.
725 South Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
Telephone: (406) 755-4100
E-mail: evan@dannolawfirm.com
- and -
Alan J. Lerner, Esq.
LERNER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1158
Kalispell, MT 59903-1158
E-mail: lerner@lernerlawmt.com
- and -
Allan M. McGarvey, Esq.
McGARVEY LAW
345 First Ave. E.
Kalispell, MT 59901
E-mail: amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com
GOYA FOODS: Herrera CMWA Class Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MADELINE HERRERA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. GOYA FOODS, INC., and A.N.E. SERVICES,
INC., Case No. ESX-L-003861-21, was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-11628 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act and breach of contract.
Goya Foods, Inc. is an American producer of a brand of foods sold
in the United States, headquartered in Manhattan, New York.
A.N.E. Services, Inc. is a company that operates miscellaneous food
stores, with its principal place of business in New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ryan T. Warden, Esq.
Kevin P. Hishta, Esq.
Margaret Santen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 656-1600
E-mail: ryan.warden@ogletreedeakins.com
GREEN PEAK: Bids for Class Certification Filing Due July 29
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA MONTANEZ, v. GREEN
PEAK INDUSTRIES LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00235-HYJ-PJG (W.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Phillip J. Green entered an initial case management
order as follows:
-- Motions or Stipulations to Join June 4, 2021
Parties or Amend Pleadings
-- Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures
(including lay witnesses)
Defendant: May 17, 2021
Plaintiff: May 17, 2021
-- Completion of Discovery July 29, 2021
-- Motions for Class Certification July 29, 2021
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oORkxD at no extra charge.[CC]
GRUBHUB INC: Restaurants Fight Settlement in False Ad Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
law360.com reports that restaurant owners suing Grubhub in Illinois
federal court on claims that it uses their trademarks without
permission have urged a Colorado federal judge to deny a proposed
settlement in a similar suit, saying the deal would effectively
legalize Grubhub's practice of listing 150,000 restaurants on its
platform without consent.
Lynn Scott LLC and The Farmer's Wife LLC, which are not parties in
the Colorado case but are seeking to intervene in the suit, joined
with 30 other restaurant owners May 7 to oppose a deal between
Grubhub Inc. and Denver bar and restaurant Freshcraft that would
end claims accusing the food delivery giant of falsely saying
competitor restaurants are closed during the coronavirus pandemic.
The owners in the competing proposed class action in Illinois claim
their interests might not be protected in the proposed Colorado
settlement.
They allege the deal wouldn't give any notice to affected
restaurants or allow them to opt out of the settlement, causing
them to lose the right to pursue legal action against Grubhub in
the future. Also, they say, it would force eatery owners listed
without their permission to post their own Grubhub profile listing
before the platform would allow them to request removal or fix
errors in menus or hours of operation.
"When Grubhub started listing 150,000 small, local restaurants on
its platform without permission, the company's value increased by
$4 billion in less than eight months," according to the objectors'
brief. "Under the Lanham Act, those restaurant owners are entitled
to disgorgement of Grubhub's massive profits. But the proposed
settlement now before the [Colorado] court would release those
claims for no money — and do so without first notifying
restaurants or giving them a fair opportunity to object."
According to the proposed settlement, the parties reached an
agreement in principle in January. The two restaurant owners
involved in litigation of similar claims in Illinois filed a motion
to intervene in the Colorado case on March 18. The court has not
yet made a ruling on that motion.
Both sides in the Colorado suit have urged the judge not to let the
proposed Illinois intervenors get involved in their deal.
Grubhub said April 7 that the intervention would compromise
settlement efforts and disrupt the agreement reached after three
full-day mediation sessions and subsequent negotiations.
Freshcraft, meanwhile, said April 8 that eateries in the Illinois
suit can state their case later if the deal wins approval.
The proposed classwide settlement reached between GrubHub and
Freshcraft would provide "significant, sweeping relief" to the
class and resolve their claims accusing the online food-ordering
company of falsely stating that competitor restaurants are closed
during the coronavirus pandemic, according to Freshcraft's brief
opposing the Illinois intervention bid.
GrubHub urged the Colorado federal judge April 16 in a settlement
notice to approve the class action deal to end false advertising
claims that it steered customers to its partner restaurants by
telling customers that other establishments were closed or not
accepting online orders. Grubhub agreed to alter its platform's
wording and not to oppose paying up to $450,000 in attorney fees.
The stipulation and settlement agreement filed by Grubhub and
plaintiff CO Craft LLC, which does business as Freshcraft, would
certify a settlement class of any restaurant, convenience store,
market, grocery store or other food service business that did not
have any type of agreement with GrubHub from May 11, 2016, until
final approval of the settlement.
The deal also includes a $5,000 service award for Freshcraft, while
GrubHub admits no wrongdoing.
Freshcraft said it thinks the delivery app has been using its false
advertising tactic since before the pandemic, but it alleges the
impact now is especially damaging to restaurants that are
"struggling to stay afloat" during the crisis.
The family-owned restaurant filed suit on behalf of all restaurants
in the United States, claiming GrubHub created landing pages and
falsely advertised that restaurants were closed or not accepting
online orders when they were actually accepting orders.
Because the COVID-19 outbreak led most states to issue stay-at-home
orders, meal delivery services like GrubHub have seen business
skyrocket, according to the suit. And GrubHub has created menu
pages for most restaurants in major cities, including those that do
not offer delivery through its platform, Freshcraft said.
A lawyer for the Illinois plaintiffs, Steven Tindall of Gibbs Law
Group LLP, told Law360 in a statement that the proposed settlement
"is nothing less than a sweetheart deal for Grubhub" that would let
it pay nothing to the class of restaurant owners.
"If approved, it will effectively legalize Grubhub's practice of
listing approximately 150,000 restaurants on its platform without
the restaurants' consent, and it will bind affected restaurants to
the settlement without giving them any notice, the ability to opt
out, nor any compensation for the unauthorized use of their names
and logos," Tindall said.
Counsel for Grubhub and Freshcraft did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
The proposed Illinois intervenors are represented by Steven M.
Tindall, Geoffrey A. Munroe and Alex J. Bukac of Gibbs Law Group
LLP and Paul F. Lewis, Michael D. Kuhn and Andrew E. Swan of Lewis
Kuhn Swan PC.
Freshcraft is represented by Ross Ziev of the Law Offices of Ross
Ziev PC and Laura L. Sheets of Liddle & Dubin PC.
GrubHub is represented by Jean Marie French, Meredith C. Slawe and
Michael W. McTigue Jr. of Cozen O'Connor.
The Colorado case is CO Craft LLC dba Freshcraft v. GrubHub Inc.,
case number 1:20-cv-01327, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.
The Illinois case is Lynn Scott LLC et al. v. GrubHub Inc., case
number 1:20-cv-06334, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. [GN]
GSK CONSUMER: Swetz Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN SWETZ, individually
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GSK
Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04731-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(e):
1. preliminarily approving the proposed class action
settlement;
2. preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes;
and
3. granting approval of the proposed notice plan.
GSK develops and markets products in wellness, oral health,
nutrition and skin health.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34jBgKS
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Settlement Class, are:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com
- and -
Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave., NW, Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Ste 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Katherine Bruce, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 804
Los Angeles, CA 90069
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Moon, Esq.
MOON LAW APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-915-9432
Facsimile: 650-618-0478
E-mail: chris@moonlawapc.com
H & I FITNESS: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Ads, Caraboolad Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CARABOOLAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H & I FITNESS, LTD, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-03120-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., May 24, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent text messages to the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated consumers in an attempt
to promote its services without obtaining prior consent from them.
The Defendant allegedly sent the telemarketing messages even though
the Plaintiff's and Class members' phone numbers were registered on
the National Do Not Call registry.
H & I Fitness, LTD is an owner and operator of fitness clubs in
Springfield, Illinois under the name FitClub. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juneitha Shambee Esq.
SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
701 Main St., Ste. 201A
Evanston, IL 60202
Telephone: (773) 741-3602
E-mail: juneitha@shambeelaw.com
- and –
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Faces Lawson Suit Over Baby Foods' Toxic Contents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN LAWSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02986 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for quasi contract or 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 in the
U.S.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby food
products under the brand name Earth's Best Organics. The Defendant
advertised and labeled its products as organic, safe and healthy
for children. However, contrary to the Defendant's marketing
statements, the products contain harmful heavy metal contaminants
including inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered damages.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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 –
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: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
mpearson@pswlaw.com
- and –
Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq.
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
LEVIN PAPANTONIO RAFFERTY
316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
E-mail: btimmons@levinlaw.com
mschultz@levinlaw.com
- and –
Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq.
MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
E-mail: byagman@milberg.com
- and –
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW P.C.
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: 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
HAIN CELESTIAL: Ojeda Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOELLE OJEDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02983 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California False Advertising Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby food
products under the brand name Earth's Best Organics. The Defendant
advertised and labeled its products as organic, safe and healthy
for children. However, contrary to the Defendant's marketing
statements, the products contain harmful heavy metal contaminants
including inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a
result of the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered damages.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and –
Amber L. Eck, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619)342-8000
Facsimile: (619 342-7878
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
HAIR STUDIO: Hartford Dodges Pa. Suit Over Virus Loss Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
law360.com reports that a Pennsylvania hair salon can't make a
class action insurance claim for its losses due to COVID-19 because
the pandemic and its associated government closure orders did not
physically damage its structure, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg dismissed Quakertown,
Pennsylvania-based Hair Studio 1208 LLC's proposed class action
against Hartford Underwriters Insurance Co. on the grounds that
closing to prevent the pandemic's spread did not cause physical
loss of or damage to the salon, and thus wasn't covered.
"When the structure continues to function, there is no physical
loss that would be eligible for coverage," Judge Goldberg wrote.
"Plaintiff does not assert the presence of COVID-19 on its
property. Indeed, the amended complaint does not allege any facts
regarding the physical integrity or use of the covered property.
Rather, plaintiff contends that it closed its business due to
Governor [Tom] Wolf's closure orders . . . There was no physical
source or threatened presence of a physical source that caused
plaintiff's inability to use its property for its intended
purpose."
Judge Goldberg granted Hartford's motion to dismiss the salon's
suit, joining a number of other federal courts that have denied
that coverage exists when there was no physical alteration of the
insured business's property.
Hair Studio 1208 had contended that its "all-risk" policy from
Hartford assumed that all potential losses not specifically
excluded from the policy would be covered, but Judge Goldberg said
that argument improperly flipped the burden of proof for a
plaintiff to show that a loss was covered.
"The policies do not cover 'all losses,' but rather only 'direct
physical loss or direct physical damage to covered property at the
premises' and any extension of those losses set forth in the
business income and civil authority endorsements," the judge wrote.
"Accordingly, the burden remains on plaintiffs to show a 'covered
cause of loss.'"
The salon had failed to plead that the virus itself was present or
had contaminated its building, and the loss of use of the
facilities and equipment due to the government closure orders
didn't qualify as a physical change to the premises either, and
could not be read as causing a covered loss or damage, the court
found.
"To read the insurance policies as covering losses from the closure
orders would render the policy's use of the word 'physical'
meaningless or superfluous," Judge Goldberg wrote. "Mere loss of
use of property without any physical change to that property cannot
constitute direct physical loss or damage to the property."
Nor were the closure orders enough to trigger the "civil authority"
parts of the insurance policy, since those still required there to
be some kind of physical damage surrounding or impeding access to
the property, the court ruled.
The salon also tried to claim loss of income coverage under part of
the policy that contemplated the business being closed due to a
disaster, but Judge Goldberg said that was also dependent on there
being physical damage to be cleaned up, since the policy referred
to a "period of restoration."
"Nothing in the amended complaint suggests that plaintiff's
property needs to be repaired, rebuilt, replaced, or moved to a new
location. Rather, plaintiff's ability to operate fully depends
solely on whether the closure orders are in effect at any
particular time," he wrote. "Should the closure orders be lifted,
plaintiff may immediately reopen its business without any period of
restoration."
Judge Goldberg noted that because he didn't think there was any
covered loss, he didn't have to get into whether the pandemic fell
under the policy's virus exclusion, or address the salon's
contention that the virus exclusion should be tossed out because it
was never intended to cover a pandemic.
"We appreciate the court's thoughtful analysis and careful work on
the issues in this case. We respectfully disagree with the
conclusion, and appreciate the court's recognition that a number of
courts have reached opposite conclusions," said Ian Birk of Keller
Rohrback, representing the salon. "We continue to believe that
ordinary insurance consumers in Pennsylvania and around the country
would have believed their business interruption policies would
cover them in this unprecedented crisis."
Counsel for Hartford did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
Hair Studio 1208 and the proposed class are represented by Alison
E. Chase, Amy C. Williams-Derry, Gabriel Verdugo, Gretchen Freeman
Cappio, Ian S. Birk and Nathan L. Nanfelt of Keller Rohrback LLP
and Joseph B. Kenney and Joseph G. Sauder of Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
Hartford is represented by Alan E. Schoenfeld and Ryan M. Chabot of
WilmerHale, Anthony J. Anscombe, Caitlin R. Tharp and Sarah D.
Gordon of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Richard D. Gable Jr. of Butler
Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.
The case is Hair Studio 1208 LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance
Co., case number 2:20-cv-02171, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.[GN]
HAMPTONS WEST: Armand Sues to Recoup Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Derilus St. Armand, and other similarly situated individuals v.
HAMPTONS WEST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-21912-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2021), is brought to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the laws
of the United States pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked an average of 96 to 102 hours per week without
being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half
times the regular rate at which he was employed. The Defendant
willfully and intentionally refused to pay the Plaintiff overtime
and minimum wages as required by the laws of the United States
owing the Plaintiff these overtime and minimum wages since the
commencement of the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendant, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cook for the
Defendant's business.
The Defendant is a Florida company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanesha Blye, Esq.
Aron Smukler, Esq.
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
Email: tblye@saenzanderson.com
asmukler@saenzanderson.com
msaenz@saenzanderson.com
HANOVER COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanover Company
Store, LLC. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Hanover Company Store,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04728 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Hanover Company Store, LLC -- www.hanoverdirect.com -- was founded
in 2013. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of
household furniture.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
HARU HOLDING: Fortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josefino Morales Fortiz, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HARU HOLDING, CORP (D/B/A HARU SUSHI) and
STEVEN LAY, Case No. 1:21-cv-04630 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 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, including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to pay
the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiff Morales as a
delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties
required a significant amount of time spent performing the
non-tipped duties alleged above. Regardless, the Defendants paid
the Plaintiff at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit
rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants were
not entitled to take a tip credit because the Plaintiff's
non-tipped duties starting on March 2020 exceeded 20% of each
workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a delivery worker at the restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Japanese Restaurant,
located in New York City under the name "Haru Sushi."[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
HEALTH NET: Cunanan Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Cunanan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HEALTH NET, LLC, HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., HEAL
TH NET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, HEALTH NET COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS,
INC., CALIFORNIA HEAL TH & WELLNESS, CALVIVA HEALTH, and ACCELLION,
INC., Case No. 21CV381776 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May
12, 2021), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to
safeguard personally identifying information ("PII") and personal
health information ("PHI") entrusted to them in their role as
health care providers, or in their role storing and transferring
said information.
According to the complaint, the action arises from Defendants'
reliance on an outdated and insecure information storage and
transfer system that proved readily penetrable to nefarious hackers
in December 2020 and January 2021, resulting in the exposure of
sensitive information, such as health insurance details, names,
dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,
Social Security numbers, and bank account information, including
routing numbers. Prior to the data breach, Health Net partnered
with Accellion, a California-based private cloud solutions company
that purportedly provides secure third-party data file transfer
services to more than 3,000 global customers. Health Net used
Accellion to store Health Net's customers' data. However, rather
than employing Accellion's "modem and more secure platform,
Kiteworks," Health Net continued to rely on Accellion's File
Transfer Appliance ("FTA") software that was developed more than 20
years ago. And despite the fact that Accellion knew of the risks
inherent in the FTA, Accellion continued to provide this service
for Health Net's use.
The Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiff and Class members to
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard the PH/PHI they collected and stored about
them. The Defendants breached said duty by failing to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect
the PII/PHI from unauthorized access and unnecessarily using,
storing, and retaining the Plaintiffs and Class member's personal
information on Accellion's inadequately protected 20-year-old FTA
software. The Defendants knew that critical software was required
to protect Plaintiffs and Class members' personal information.
Further, Defendants knew that the FTA, which relied on CentOS 6,
had an end-of life point of November 30, 2020. Thus, Defendants
knew that the information uploaded on the FTA was susceptible to
security risks. Nonetheless, Health Net continued to use
Accellion's FTA to store, maintain and transmit extremely sensitive
PII/PHI, and Accellion continued to allow Health Net to use this
insecure software. Due to the Defendants' inadequate cybersecurity,
both Plaintiffs and Class members' PH/PHI was accessed and
disclosed in the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is insured through Health Net of California, Inc. and
routinely provides Health Net with her confidential and highly
sensitive PII/PHI when she seeks medical and/or dental treatment.
Health Net is a leading provider of health care coverage in
California with 3 million members statewide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
HELIX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Norwood Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JAY NORWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.; and
HELIX WELL OPS INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-01625 (S.D. Tex.,
May 17, 2021) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Norwood was employed by the Defendants as technical
officer.
HELIX ENERGY SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC. is a marine contractor and
operator of offshore oil and gas properties and production
facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
712 Main Street, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 401-3557
Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com
mark@osattorneys.com
HENDERSON, NE: June 4 Deadline Extension of Class Cert. Reply OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN and THOMAS
WOODBURN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE
CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF
(D. Nev.), the Court entered an order granting the parties
stipulation as follows:
-- The parties agree to a reciprocal extension of the deadline
for the Plaintiffs' Reply in support of that Motion by one
week and it shall be filed no later than, June 4, 2021.
-- The parties also hereby stipulate and request an order
extending the time for Defendant to file an Opposition to
the Plaintiffs' Motion for Collective Action Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), filed April 29, 2021, by three weeks
from the current deadline of May 13, 2021 up to and including
June 3, 2021.
-- The parties also agree that Plaintiffs' Reply in support of
that Motion shall be 2 extended by two weeks and shall be
filed no later than June 24, 2021.
The extensions requested are sought prior to the expiration of the
deadlines in question and are needed to allow Defendant additional
time to consider and prepare responses to the two motions recently
filed by Plaintiffs and to accommodate Defense Counsel’s
professional caseload and personal commitments over the coming
weeks. Defendant also needs additional time to investigate some of
the issues raised in the Plaintiffs' motions.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bT8tAQ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph N. Mott, Esq.
CLAGGETT & SYKES LAW FIRM
4101 Meadows Ln No. 100
Las Vegas, NV 89107
The Attorneys for Defendant City of Henderson, are:
Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
Ethan D. Thomas, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5937
Telephone: (702) 862-8800
Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
E-mail: mpaek@littler.com
edthomas@littler.com
HENRY ARMENTA: Loses Bid for Summary Ruling in Consent Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIO V.; GERALDINE JULIE
B.; I.G.V., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem MARIO V.;
OSCAR G.; CHRISTINA G.; O.D.G., a minor by and through Guardian Ad
Litem CHRISTINA G.; Y.P., a minor by and through Guardian Ad Litem
CHRISTINA G.; HUGO P.; ALICIA P.; A.P.H., a minor by and through
Guardian Ad Litem ALICIA P.; and other Similarly Situated, v. HENRY
ARMENTA and DIANA GARCIA, Case No. 5:18-cv-00041-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order:
1. granting Garcia's motion for summary judgment; and
2. denying Armenta's motion for summary judgment.
The putative class action was filed after an elementary school
teacher performed blood sugar testing on students without their
parents' knowledge or consent. Several students and parents brought
suit against the teacher, the school principal, the school, and the
school district. The school and the school district thereafter were
dismissed, leaving only the teacher, Henry Armenta, and the school
principal, Diana Garcia, as defendants in the case. Armenta and
Garcia are sued in their individual capacities.
The Court granted Garcia's motion for summary judgment. The
possibility that other unnamed class members were injured after
Christina G.'s call to the school does not save this claim. Prior
to class certification, if it is found that the defendants are
entitled to summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' individual
claims, "there is no further action for the district court to
take." Corbin v. Time Warner Ent.-Advance/Newhouse P'ship, 821 F.3d
1069, 1085 (9th 16 Cir. 2016). Summary judgment for Garcia
therefore is appropriate regardless of Plaintiffs' class
allegations, as this action has not been certified.
Armenta joined Garcia's motion for summary judgment. The bulk of
the motion, addressing Garcia's knowledge of Armenta's conduct,
does not apply to Armenta. However, Armenta joins the portion of
the motion arguing that summary judgment against Minor Plaintiffs
is appropriate as to Claim 1, because California Education Code
§48200 does not give rise to a Fourteenth Amendment liberty
interest in a safe school campus. The Plaintiffs have abandoned
their Fourteenth Amendment claim grounded in section 48200.
However, the Court finds that when liberally construed Claim 1
encompasses a Fourteenth Amendment claim for violation of the right
to family association on
behalf of both Parent Plaintiffs and Minor Plaintiffs.
Consequently, Armenta is not entitled to summary judgment against
Minor Plaintiffs on Claim 1. Armenta's motion for summary judgment
is denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3i2vhlw at no extra charge.[CC]
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Sues Over Refusal to Adhere to Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Bartok, Barbara Lee, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals; The Manufactured Home Federation of
Massachusetts, Inc., on behalf of its members and other similarly
situated individuals v. Hometown America Management, LLC, Hometown
America, LLC, Hometown Oak Point II, LLC, River Bend MHC, LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D. Mass., May 20, 2021), arises from
Hometown's refusal to adhere to the requirements of Section 32L(2),
that is, Hometown's adoption of a general business practice,
including at Miller's Woods and Oak Point, of charging higher rents
to new community entrants and driving up the cost of what is
supposed to be affordable housing--a practice prohibited by Section
32L(2).
The purchase price of a manufactured home is typically less than
that of a traditional home because the construction of a
manufactured home occurs in a factory and the purchase price of a
manufactured home does not include the land on which the home is
eventually assembled. Because manufactured housing offers less
expensive homeownership opportunities for households that might not
otherwise be able to purchase a home, the public policy of
Massachusetts is to preserve manufactured housing as affordable
housing for the elderly, disabled persons and other vulnerable
individuals.
Since 1973, the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Act has sought
to preserve the long-term affordability of manufactured housing
communities in the Commonwealth by, among other requirements,
obligating manufactured housing community owners to charge the same
rents for all similarly-situated home sites in a community, an
obligation codified at Section 32L(2) of the Act. Section 32L(2)
specifically preserves the long-term affordability of manufactured
housing in Massachusetts by ensuring that home-site rent is
dictated by the services each rent- payer receives, and not the
vagaries of the local rental housing market, as well as by ensuring
that the costs of operating the community are born equally by all
rent-payers.
By this action, the MFM--standing in the shoes of its members--and
the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
current residents or tenants who reside in or are otherwise
obligated to pay rent to Oak Point – seek injunctive relief
requiring that Hometown and its affiliates adopt a rent structure
at Oak Point which complies with the requirements of Section 32L(2)
of the Act. Also by this action, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated residents or tenants who have
resided in or have otherwise been obligated to pay rent to Miller's
Woods and Oak Point since June of 2015, seeks damages from Hometown
and its affiliates in the amount of rent overpaid in violation of
Section 32L(2) plus interest on the unlawfully collected funds,
says the complaint.
Plaintiff Bartok is an MFM member and has paid home-site rent to
Hometown or its Miller's Woods affiliates since 2017. Plaintiff Lee
is an MFM member and has paid home- site rent to Hometown or its
Oak Point affiliates since 2017.
Hometown America, LLC indirectly owns and manages dozens of
manufactured housing communities across the United States,
communities in which thousands of resident or tenant households pay
rent so that their manufactured homes may sit on land in each such
community, land that is typically called a home site and that is
leased to them by Hometown or one of its affiliates.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq.
Northeast Justice Center
50 Island Street, Ste. 203B
Lawrence, MA 01840
Phone: (781) 599-7730
Email: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org
HOMETOWN AMERICA: Bartok Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Edwin Bartok, Barbara Lee, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated individuals; The
Manufactured Home Federation of Massachusetts, Inc., on behalf of
its members and other similarly situated individuals v. Hometown
America Management, LLC, Hometown America, LLC, Hometown Oak Point
II, LLC, River Bend MHC, LLC, Case No. 2185CV00441 was removed from
the Worcester Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on May 13, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Real Property.
Hometown America -- https://www.hometownamerica.com/ -- offers
homes with resident amenities, scheduled events and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq.
Northeast Justice Center
50 Island Street, Ste. 203B
Lawrence, MA 01840
Phone: (781) 599-7730
Email: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa C. Goodheart, Esq.
Andrea Studley Knowles, Esq.
Tristan P. Colangelo, Esq.
SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN, P.C.
101 Merrimac Street
Boston, MA 02114-4737
Phone: (617) 227-3030
Fax: (617) 523-4001
Email: goodheart@srbc.com
knowles@srbc.com
colangelo@srbc.com
HUMANA INC: Segars Files Suit in Western District of Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Janie Segars, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Humana, Inc., Cotiviti, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-00342-RGJ (W.D. Ky., May 26, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Humana Inc. -- https://www.humana.com/ -- is a for-profit American
health insurance company based in Louisville, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
305 W. Nationwide Blvd.
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 224-6000
Fax: (614) 224-6066
Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
- and -
Penny U. Hendy, Esq.
HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN EMERY, PSC
909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 210
Ft. Wright, KY 41011
Phone: (859) 578-4444
Fax: (859) 578-4440
Email: phendy@justicestartshere.com
- and -
Ronald E. Johnson, Jr. , Esq.
HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN EMERY, PSC–Louisville
600 W. Main Street, Suite 100
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: (859) 578-4444
Fax: (859) 578-4440
Email: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com
HUNT GUILLOT: Underpays Pipeline Inspectors, Taylor Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN TAYLOR, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HUNT, GUILLOT, & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00477 (D.N.M., May 25, 2021) brings this complaint as a
class and collective action to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act as a result of the Defendant's illegal pay
practices that violated the laws.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from July 2018 until
January 2019 as a Welding Inspector to perform pipeline inspections
to Enlink Midstream around Carlsbad, New Mexico.
The Plaintiff asserts that although he routinely worked more than
60 hours per week, the Defendant denied him of his lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, the Defendant paid his normal day rate only even
if he worked overtime hours, the Plaintiff adds.
Hunt, Guillot, & Associates, LLC is a staffing company that
provides recruitment services to the oil and gas, power, and
construction industries, among others. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Elantra Class Action Lawsuit Reached Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Hyundai Elantra class action
lawsuit has been settled over "Nu" 1.8-liter engines that allegedly
suffer from piston slap, oil sludge problems and failures that
cause customers to pay thousands of dollars.
The Hyundai Elantra lawsuit includes:
"2011-2016 Hyundai Elantra, 2013 Hyundai Elantra GT and 2013
Hyundai Elantra Coupe cars factory equipped with 1.8L Nu engines,
which were purchased or leased in the U.S. (including the District
of Columbia but excluding other territories), or purchased or
leased abroad while a Class Member was on active military duty."
The Elantra Nu engines allegedly knock and make ticking noise
before they fail, allegedly causing customers to pay up to $10,000
per engine replacement. The class action lawsuit alleges Hyundai
knows oil sludge destroys the Nu engines and the automaker has
issued technical service bulletins about Elantras.
The plaintiffs claim the engine noise is piston slap which is
caused by a gap between the piston and the outer cylinder. And
Hyundai dealers allegedly deny the Elantra engines are defective,
then drivers are allegedly blamed for not properly maintaining the
cars.
Hyundai says there is nothing wrong with the cars and denies all
wrongdoing.
The Hyundai Elantra class action lawsuit was dismissed in 2019, but
the judge allowed the plaintiffs to change and refile the lawsuit.
Hyundai Elantra Engine Lawsuit Settlement
Although the Nu engine class action lawsuit has been settled,
customers need to be aware of the terms concerning these cold
weather states.
Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Hyundai Elantra Engine Extended Powertrain Warranty
According to the Elantra Nu engine settlement, Hyundai will extend
the powertrain warranty for a car registered in a cold weather
state and owned by the original purchaser, original lessee or
certified pre-owned Elantra purchaser.
The extended powertrain warranty covers the engine block,
crankshaft, connecting rods and pistons from damage accompanied by
a piston slap noise in the upper end of the engine. This is
ordinarily most common in cold weather compared to other engine
noises related to engine and accessory bearings, timing chain,
valve train or squealing belts.
The warranty is good for 10 years or 120,000 miles following the
original sale or lease of the Elantra.
For non-original purchasers and lessees in cold weather states, the
extended powertrain warranty is good for 8 years or 80,000 miles
following the original sale or lease of the Elantra.
A Hyundai Elantra extended powertrain warranty is available in warm
weather states, but only under certain conditions.
To receive coverage, an Elantra customer must verify one of the
following conditions.
-- After the settlement notice date, the customer registers the
Elantra for at least six months in a cold weather state.
-- Must show the Elantra was previously registered in a cold
weather state.
-- The customer must show substantial prior cold weather usage for
a period of at least 90 consecutive days during the months of
November to March, during which the Elantra was located in a place
where it was exposed to at least 50 cumulative days of temperatures
at or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit in that location during that
period.
-- Or the customer can "otherwise demonstrate with a heightened
proof submission (as in, actual parts, photographs, or other
evidence that clearly substantiates) that their engine problem is
directly related to the piston-scuffing type defect alleged in the
Action."
Hyundai Elantra Automatic 90-Day Warranty Extension
According to the Elantra class action settlement, cars already
beyond the time and mileage limitations will receive an automatic
90-day powertrain warranty extension following the final approval
order (April 20, 2021). Ask the settlement administrator about
mileage limitations.
Hyundai Elantra Nu Engine Repair Reimbursements
For Elantra customers with cars registered in cold weather states,
those customers will be able to submit reimbursement claims for
"qualifying repairs" performed before the customers received
notices of the settlement. However, the claim must be submitted by
June 29, 2021, and must include all required documentation.
For an Elantra not registered in a cold weather state, the customer
must show substantial prior cold weather usage for a period of at
least 90 consecutive days during the months of November to March,
during which the Elantra was located in a place where it was
exposed to at least 50 cumulative days of temperatures at or below
32 degrees Fahrenheit in that location during that period.
Or the customer can "otherwise demonstrate with a heightened proof
submission (as in, actual parts, photographs, or other evidence)
that clearly substantiates that their engine problem is directly
related to the piston-scuffing type defect alleged in the Action."
Counsel for the plaintiffs will receive $875,000 for attorney fees
and expenses.
Affected Hyundai Elantra owners may learn more and find claim forms
at hmapistonsettlement.com.
The Hyundai Elantra class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division -
Brown, et al., v. Hyundai Motor America, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Migliaccio
& Rathod LLP, and Levin Sedran & Berman. [GN]
i360 LLC: Tag Files Suit in Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against i360, LLC, et al. The
case is styled as Jennifer Tag, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. i360, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; GC Strategies, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; Joseph Leventhal, an individual; Case No.
3:21-cv-00975-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., May 21, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
i360 -- https://www.i-360.com/ -- sits on the bleeding edge of
technology, delivering innovative products and services through the
strategic use of data, software and analytics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
IMPERIAL PIZZA: Improperly Pay Restaurant Staff, Hernandez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IMPERIAL PIZZA OF LINDENHURST, INC. and
ANGELO BULONE, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02926 (E.D.N.Y., May
24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by
failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated restaurant workers overtime pay and spread-of-hours
premium for all hours worked, failing to provide written notice
upon employment, and failing to furnish accurate wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from April 2014 to April
2021. He performed non-exempt duties including preparing food,
cooking, and cleaning the premises.
Imperial Pizza of Lindenhurst, Inc. is an owner and operator of a
restaurant in the County of Suffolk and State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway, Suite B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a stockholder class action suit entitled, Sears
v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL.
On March 23, 2020, a Stockholder Class Action Complaint was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a stockholder and purported
class representative, Samuel P. Sears, commencing litigation
captioned Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL. The
plaintiff amended his complaint in May 2020.
The defendants named in the Putative Class Action are identical to
those named in the Action, with the exception that Inhibitor
Therapeutics, Inc. is not a party to the litigation.
The Putative Class Action asserts three direct breach of fiduciary
duty claims (one against Mayne only, another against the Individual
Defendants, and a third against all defendants) and the facts
underlying those claims almost entirely mirror those alleged in the
Action.
On December 10, 2020, the Court of Chancery entered an order
coordinating the Action and the Putative Class Action for purposes
of the litigations.
The Company believes the Putative Class Action is legally and
factually baseless, and the Individual Defendants intend to defend
themselves vigorously.
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for patients with cancer and
non-cancerous proliferation disorders. Inhibitor Therapeutics
operates in the State of Florida. The company is based in Tampa,
Florida.
INSTAGRAM LLC: Hunley Sues Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS HUNLEY; and MATTHEW SCOTT BRAUER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTAGRAM, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-03778 (N.D. Cal., May 19, 2021) alleges
that the Defendant committed widespread copyright infringement.
According to the complaint, Instagram is the world's largest photo
sharing application with more than 50 billion photos uploaded by
over one billion Instagram users since 2012. Instagram's scheme is
to generate substantial revenue for its parent, Facebook, Inc., by
encouraging, inducing, and facilitating third parties to commit
widespread copyright infringement. This scheme was accomplished by
using Instagram's "embedding" tool to display copyrighted works of
Instagram users on third-party publisher websites, thereby vastly
extending Instagram's reach across the Internet, but without
appropriately compensating the copyright holders.
Generally, "embedding" means the process of copying the unique
hypertext markup language ("HTML") code assigned to each photo or
video published to the Internet, and the insertion of that code
into a target webpage or social media post so that photo or video
appears within the target post. Within the Instagram environment,
this means that third parties can copy the HTML code of an
Instagram user's post and paste it into the third party's website,
causing the photo or video posted to that Instagram user's account
to be simultaneously displayed on that third party website.
The Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are victims of a scheme
that denies the copyright owner the right to protect their
copyrighted works when uploaded to Instagram. In other words,
Instagram knowingly deprived the copyright owner of any means,
device or tool to protect their copyrighted works. This action
seeks to redress Instagram's culpable conduct in effectuating its
scheme to use third parties to expand and grow Instagram's platform
beyond the Instagram app and Instagram.com website. Instagram's
scheme caused third party website publishers to believe they were
"free" to embed valuable copyrighted works into their websites
without paying a licensing fee to copyright owners, and in turn
Instagram directly benefited from the significant traffic, views
and impressions generated from users viewing and interacting with
the display of the embedded copyrighted works. Instagram is liable
for damages for each copyrighted work infringed by each third-party
embedder, the Plaintiffs assert.
Instagram, Inc. provides mobile phone-based photography sharing
services. The Company offers mobile application that enables users
to take photos, add effects, and share content online and over
various social networks. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
CERA LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 1350
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 777-2230
E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
tbright@cerallp.com
pmarkert@cerallp.com
-and-
James H. Bartolomei III, Esq.
DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
809 W. 3rd Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 228-7600
E-mail: james@duncanfirm.com
-and-
Todd Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
-and-
Bryan D. Hoben, Esq.
HOBEN LAW
1112 Main Street
Peekskill, NY 10566
Telephone: (347) 855-4008
E-mail: bryan@hobenlaw.com
INTEL CORPORATION: Garcia Sues Over Undisclosed CPU Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLO GARCIA, VICTORIA BELLE DUNN, and KORY JENO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTEL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00817-JR (D. Ore., May 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for quasi contract or
unjust enrichment and violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law and various state consumer protection and deceptive
trade practices laws in the U.S.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional
concealment of the design defects of its central processing units
(CPUs). As designed, Intel CPUs suffer from unauthorized access
which allows program instructions unauthorized access to protected
data. When Intel processors speculatively execute instructions,
incomplete undo allows protected data to remain in Intel's CPU's
unsecure subsystems when speculation is wrong. Intel was aware that
its processor design, which allowed secrets to be placed into the
CPU's unsecure subsystems by unauthorized users, presented a
substantial security risk to consumers and could be exploited. Had
the Plaintiffs known about the defects in Intel's CPUs or that
Intel's mitigations needed to address the defects and protect
against the Intel CPU exploits would materially impact the CPUs'
security, functionality, and performance, they would have paid less
for them based only on the CPUs' post-mitigation performance, the
suit says.
Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and
technology company, with its principal place of business located at
2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (503) 227-1600
E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
jwagner@stollberne.com
- and –
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
- and –
Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
505 14th Street, Suite 1110
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
- and –
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
- and –
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
STULL, STULL, & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York City, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 687-7230
E-mail: memert@ssbny.com
- and –
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
- and –
Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 400-3000
E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
- and –
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and –
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
J.R. SIMPLOT: Dutra Files Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.R. Simplot Company.
The case is styled as Dennis Tony Dutra, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. J.R. Simplot Company, a Nevada
Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0004841 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., May 25, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
The J.R. Simplot Company -- https://www.simplot.com/ -- is one of
the largest privately held food and agribusiness companies in the
nation, though at heart we're as small as a single farme.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
FARNAES & LUCIO, APC
2235 Encinitas Blvd, Suite 210
Encinitas, CA 92024
Phone: 760-942-9430
Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com
JAMES LEBLANC: Seeks June 29 Deadline to Identify Experts
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY et al., v.
JAMES LEBLANC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that:
1. their deadline to identify class certification experts be
extended from Friday, May 14, 2021 to Friday, May 28, 2021;
and
2. the Defendant's deadline to identify class certification
experts be extended from Tuesday, June 15, 2021 to Tuesday,
June 29. 2021
The Plaintiffs say that they have been working diligently to
identify appropriate expert witnesses for the class certification
stage, but have determined that they require some additional time
to complete their expert selection process. Plaintiffs believe that
two additional weeks will be sufficient to complete selection of
appropriate experts.
The Plaintiffs have consulted with counsel for the Defendant, who
does not oppose Plaintiffs' request, and asks for a corresponding
two-week extension of their June 15, 2021 deadline to identify
defense class certification experts. Plaintiffs do not oppose this
request.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJgXlO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
Rebecca Ramaswamy, Esq.
Nishi Kumar, Esq.
THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
1024 Elysian Fields Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70117
Telephone: (504) 529-5955
Facsimile: (504) 595-8006
E-mail: mmontagnes@defendla.org
- and -
William Most, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST, L.L.C.
Louisiana Bar No. 37764
201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 114 No. 101
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
- and -
Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
Sarah Grady, Esq.
Stephen Weil, Esq.
LOEVY & LOEVY
311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd FL
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 243-5900
Facsimile: (312) 243-5902
E-mail: sarah@loevy.com
JAN MARINI SKIN: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jan Marini Skin
Research, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Jan Marini Skin
Research, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04618 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Jan Marini Skin Research -- https://www.janmarini.com/ -- is a
leading innovator in professional, science-backed skin care
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
JOLO INC: Gallo Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DeAnna Gallo, Brittany Duchaine and Sanchare Kelly, on behalf of
themselves and All others similarly situated v. JOLO, INC. d/b/a
HURRICANE BETTY'S and MYLES O'GRADY individually, Case No.
4:21-cv-40048 (D. Mass., May 12, 2021), is brought against the
Defendants who have violated the rights of the Plaintiffs and
proposed Class members, under Massachusetts statutory and common
law and the Federal Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiffs minimum and overtime wages.
The Defendants failed to pay exotic dancers working at Hurricane
Betty's minimum wage and overtime, mandated that their dancers pay
house and late fees and share their tips with DJs. The Complaint
also alleges the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs and the
proposed Class as independent contractors, despite the fact that
Plaintiffs and the proposed Class were employees and must legally
be treated as employees for wages, overtime, health insurance, and
all other employment purposes and benefits, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at Hurricane Betty's.
JOLO owns and operates a strip club known as Hurricane Betty's
located in Worcester County, Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Dishman, Esq.
DISHMAN LAW, PC
224 Lewis Wharf
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-523-5252
Email: david@dishmanlaw.com
- and -
Tod A. Cochran, Esq.
PYLE ROME EHRENBERG PC
2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
Boston MA 02109
Phone: 617-367-7200
Email: tcochran@pylerome.com
JUSTFOODFORDOGS LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JustFoodForDogs, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04635 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
JustFoodForDogs -- https://www.justfoodfordogs.com/ -- manufactures
scientifically proven, whole food diets made fresh daily for
dogs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (845) 367-7146
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com
KALLBERG INDUSTRIES: Ojeda FLSA & PRWPS Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IVAN OJEDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KALLBERG INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11512, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-61071-RKA to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated mechanics overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Kallberg Industries, LLC is a company that provides power
generation services, headquartered in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
KANSAS CITY, MO: 8th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Zimmerli Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled John Zimmerli, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated; Matthew Dietrick, on behalf
of themselves and all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. The City of Kansas City, Missouri,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 19-2721 (8th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirms the judgment issued
by the district court.
The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri issued a summary judgment in
favor of Defendant-Appellee Kansas City.
The case involves the interpretation and application of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1983 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.,
and its accompanying federal regulations. First, the Appellate
Court must determine whether a class of emergency medical
technicians (EMTs) and paramedics has been improperly denied
overtime compensation using the wage calculation formula set forth
in its members' collective bargaining agreement. Second, the
Appellate Court must decide whether a separate class of
dual-function firefighter/paramedics has been improperly classified
as partially exempt from overtime compensation because its members
are "employees in fire protection activities" who have the
"responsibility to engage in fire suppression."
Background
Plaintiffs John Zimmerli and Matthew Dietrick, employees of the
Kansas City, Missouri Fire Department (Kansas City), brought this
class-action lawsuit against the city in May 2017 to recover
overtime compensation under the FLSA. Zimmerli, a static,
single-job paramedic, sues on behalf of himself and similarly
situated EMTs and paramedics, conditionally certified by the
district court as a class of "Static, Single Job EMT and/or
Paramedics" (Static EMT/Paramedics) under the opt-in, collective
action provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). He alleges
that Kansas City is violating the FLSA by underpaying members of
the class, who were previously recognized as entitled to overtime
compensation, citing Hermsen v. City of Kansas City, No.
11-00753-CV-W-BP, 2014 WL 12773937, at *7 (W.D. Mo. June 25,
2014).
Mr. Dietrick, on the other hand, is a dual-job paramedic,
cross-trained in both firefighting and emergency medical services.
He sues on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals,
conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) as a class
of "Fire Medics," and alleges that Kansas City has underpaid
members of the class by treating them as partially exempt from the
FLSA's overtime provision.
On February 28, 2019, after limited discovery, the parties agreed
that there were no material facts in dispute and cross-moved for
summary judgment. On July 12, 2019, the district court entered
summary judgment in favor of Kansas City.
The Plaintiffs now appeal, arguing that the district court erred in
determining (1) that Static EMT/Paramedics were properly being paid
overtime compensation, and (2) that Fire Medics are partially
exempt from overtime pay because they have the responsibility to
engage in fire suppression activities under 29 U.S.C. Section
203(y).
The first class of plaintiffs is comprised of Static
EMT/Paramedics. Static EMT/Paramedics are based out of fire
stations and are scheduled to work 24-hour shifts, alternating
workweeks of either 48 or 72 hours in a seven-day period.
The second class of plaintiffs is comprised of cross-trained or
dual-purpose firefighter/paramedics, colloquially known as "Fire
Medics." Based on their job class specification, the Fire Medics'
work involves training for and participating in duties of
protecting life through the performance of rescue firefighting and
emergency medical activity.
Fire Medics must maintain paramedic licenses and ambulance
credentials, and they must be trained in fire suppression and
receive firefighter certification. For any given shift, Fire Medics
can be assigned to either a fire suppression apparatus (e.g., fire
engine) or an ambulance. When assigned to a fire suppression
apparatus, Fire Medics are charged with the same duties performed
by firefighters, including donning fire protective gear and
self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs) and providing fire
suppression at fire scenes, regardless of the need for medical
treatment.
This case, however, concerns the Fire Medics' role when they are
assigned to ambulances. While working a shift on an ambulance, Fire
Medics do not carry fire protection gear including fireproof suits,
SCBA equipment or even tools necessary to fight fires.
Additionally, they are strictly designated as fire combat support
roles, are not permitted to go within 50 feet of a burning building
(i.e., the "hot zone"), and principally provide medical services.
Nevertheless, Fire Medics assigned to ambulances are responsible
for some activities in a fire scene's "warm zone" and have been
ordered in the past and are expected to erect and place ('throw')
ladders; provide incident command if they are the appropriate
person to do so; deploy, connect, and straighten fire hoses; and
participate in building evacuation. Finally, and central to the
Fire Medics' legal claim, Kansas City has treated Fire Medics as
partially exempt from the FLSA's overtime provision because the
City considered them to be employees in fire protection services.
Overtime Pay for Static EMT/Paramedics
Circuit Judge Jane L. Kelly, writing for the Panel, states that
after a close examination of the record and the parties' arguments,
the Panel conclude that Kansas City has paid overtime compensation
to Static EMT/Paramedics in compliance with the FLSA's overtime
provisions. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Kansas City
pays Static EMT/Paramedics a regular hourly rate for the first 40
hours worked in a workweek and pays an overtime rate greater than
one and one-half times that regular hourly rate for all subsequent
overtime hours worked.
Judge Kelly notes that Each Static EMT/Paramedic's hourly rate is
calculated using a mathematical formula set forth in the 2015
Collective Bargaining Agreement and is dependent on two variables:
the number of scheduled work hours in a year (typically 2,604
hours) and the Static EMT/Paramedic's monthly pay scale (which
estimates a Static EMT/Paramedic's monthly compensation based on
their seniority). Once the hourly rate has been calculated, Kansas
City pays a Static EMT/Paramedic on an hourly basis, at that rate
for the first 40 hours worked per week and at greater than one and
one-half times that rate for any additional hours worked. The
Plaintiffs' union representatives and Kansas City voluntarily
entered into this arrangement after the district court's Hermsen
decision, and the city's compensation scheme complies with all that
the FLSA's overtime provision requires.
The Plaintiffs nevertheless argue that the formula Kansas City uses
to calculate the hourly rate of pay violates the FLSA and results
in Static EMT/Paramedics being paid less than they are owed. Their
core objection to the current payment scheme is that it pays Static
EMT/Paramedics effectively the same amount after the Hermsen
decision that they were paid before.
The FLSA simply requires that the Static EMT/Paramedics be paid at
one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are employed
for hours worked in excess of 40, Judge Kelly explains. The
undisputed evidence establishes that Kansas City does this. The
Appellate Court says it does not doubt that the Plaintiffs'
dissatisfaction with their current compensation is genuine, but
those concerns cannot be redressed by the FLSA.
Treatment of Fire Medics Under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(k)
The Court next considers whether the Kansas City Fire Medics are
employees in fire protection activities and, therefore, partially
exempt from the FLSA's overtime provision (29 U.S.C. Section
207(k)).
The parties do not dispute that Fire Medics are trained in fire
suppression, have the legal authority to engage in fire
suppression, are employed by a fire department, and respond to
emergency situations where life, property, or the environment is at
risk. Rather, the crux of their disagreement is whether Fire Medics
have the "responsibility to engage in fire suppression."
To decide this case, the Court says it need not weigh in on one
side or the other of divergent views among its sister circuits.
Even assuming the Ninth and Third Circuits' narrower interpretation
of "responsibility"--something that is mandatory and expected to be
completed as part of someone's role or job, citing Lawrence v. City
of Philadelphia, 527 F.3d 317 (3d Cir. 2008)--applies, Kansas City
has carried its burden to demonstrate that Fire Medics have the
responsibility to engage in fire suppression, Judge Kelly holds.
The analysis is fact-intensive, and there is no dispute that Fire
Medics receive advanced firefighter training and are fully
cross-trained firefighter/paramedics. Even when assigned to
ambulances and relegated to fire combat support roles in the "warm
zone," Fire Medics are expected and asked to perform tasks that
amount to engaging in fire suppression, including throwing rescue
ladders; providing incident command; deploying, connecting, and
straightening fire hoses; and participating in building
evacuation.
In this way, Judge Kelly finds, Fire Medics are different from the
cross-trained firefighter/paramedics that other courts have
determined were not exempt under Section 207(k). By contrast, Fire
Medics in Kansas City are most comparable to the
firefighter/paramedics and fire medics in Huff v. DeKalb County,
516 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2008), who were regularly sent to fire
scenes and required to assist with fire suppression if needed and
who were consequently held to be partially exempt from the FLSA's
overtime provisions under Section 207(k).
Although the Fire Medics' responsibilities do not include donning
fire protection gear, entering burning buildings, or dousing fires
directly, their duties are integral to fire suppression. Here, even
assuming the Court applies the stricter framework adopted by the
Third and Ninth Circuits, Fire Medics have the responsibility to
engage in fire suppression because they have a real obligation or
duty to assist with it while assigned to ambulances, Judge Kelly
opines. As a result, the Fire Medics are partially exempt from the
FLSA's overtime provision under 29 U.S.C. Section 207(k).
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Appellate Court affirms the order of
the district court in full.
David Stras, Circuit Judge, concurring.
Based on the district court's finding that the Static Emergency
Medical Technicians and Paramedics were compensated on an hourly
basis, Judge Stras agrees that Kansas City did not violate the Fair
Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. But Judge Stras still
have serious doubts about how the district court got there, which
was to treat them as if they were salaried rather than hourly
employees. It then confused matters further by calculating overtime
using annual-salary figures, rather than the workweek equivalent,
Judge Stras notes, citing Singer v. City of Waco, 324 F.3d 813,
823-25 (5th Cir. 2003).
Judge Stras writes that he does not understand the court to be
blessing this patchwork approach, however, so he concurs.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bw69e7mw from Leagle.com.
KANSAS HIGHWAY: Shaw, et al Seek Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blaine Franklin Shaw, et
al., v. Herman Jones in his official capacity as the Superintendent
of the Kansas Highway Patrol, et al., Case No.
6:19-cv-01343-KHV-GEB (D. Ks.), the Plaintiffs Blaine Shaw, Samuel
Shaw, and Joshua Bosire ask the Court to enter an order continuing
the date currently set for the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.
For reasons similar to those set forth in Plaintiffs' April 27,
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to certain
Defendants' motions for summary, the Plaintiffs request a
continuance of the Class Hearing.
Due to time constraints for all Plaintiffs' counsel largely from
other cases including extensive briefing, a scheduled argument in
the Kansas Court of Appeals, and attendance at a NITA training
program, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Class Hearing
be continued until the week of May 17, 2021 or thereafter.
The Plaintiffs are not seeking this extension to incur delay or for
any other improper purpose. This request for extension from May 14,
2021, to June 4, 2021, was sustained on May 4, 2021.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 7, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vo0xiE at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leslie A. Greathouse, Esq.
Patrick McInerney, Esq.
Madison A. Perry, Esq.
SPENCER FANE LLP
1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 474-8100
Facsimile: (816) 474-3216
E-mail: lgreathouse@spencerfane.com
pmcinerney@spencerfane.com
mperry@spencerfane.com
- and -
Sharon Brett, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
6701 W. 64th St., Suite 210
Overland Park, KS 66202
Telephone: (913) 490-4110
Facsimile: (913) 490-4119
E-mail: sbrett@aclukansas.org
KAY WATERPROOFING: Huertero Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Huertero, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. KAY WATERPROOFING CORP., d/b/a KR&R, KAY WATERPROOFING
& RESTORATION LLC, d/b/a KR&R, and BARRY GRUMMER, Case No.
1:21-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law that he and
others similarly situated are entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked for a
total of 40 hours per week. For at least two weeks per month, the
Plaintiff was required to work additionally for a total of 48 hours
per week. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, but never received any overtime premium for the hours in
excess of 40 that they worked each workweek. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying for all hours worked, and the proper overtime rate
thereof for all hours worked to the Plaintiff in violation of the
FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a scaffold
helper.
The Defendants collectively own and operate 2 building and
waterproofing restoring companies at the same location in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
KENNETT CONSULTING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Ojeda Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN OJEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KENNETT CONSULTING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-11513-KM-JBC (D.N.J., May 19, 2021) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Plaintiff Ojeda was employed by the Defendant as laborer.
KENNETT CONSULTING, LLC is a Florida Domestic Limited-Liability
Company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
-and-
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
KENNETT CONSULTING: Ojeda Wage Suit Moved From D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IVAN OJEDA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KENNETT CONSULTING, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11513, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:21-cv-61073 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated mechanics overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Kennett Consulting, LLC is a consulting firm with its principal
place of business located in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
KENTUCKY DERBY: Gambling Losses After Medina Spirit's Failed Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Taranto at cbssports.com reports that hall of Fame Horse
racing trainer Bob Baffert has had a difficult week, as his
Kentucky Derby title and his own honor alike have both come under
fire following a failed drug test for his horse Medina Spirit. And
to make matters worse, a group of bettors who lost money gambling
on the Kentucky Derby have placed litigation to Baffert's
ever-expanding palette of grievances.
According to a report by Tim Sullivan of the Louisville Courier
Journal, a group of bettors have filed separate class-action
lawsuits in California and Kentucky courts against Bob Baffert,
accusing him of a variety of offenses ranging from fraud &
racketeering to negligence. The bettors are seeking compensation
for money lost on the Kentucky Derby following Medina Spirit's
victory, and also seek that Baffert and horse owner Amr Zedan
divest themselves "of any interest (direct or indirect) in any
enterprise," and that "reasonable restrictions" be imposed on their
future activities in horse racing.
The plaintiffs in the California suit claim that they were deprived
of payoffs worth a minimum of $54,000 by Medina Spirit's victory,
while the Jefferson County, Kentucky plaintiffs claim that they
were in line to collect $1 million in winnings before Medina
Spirit's win was declared official. Medina Spirit's Kentucky Derby
victory was jeopardized after it was revealed that the horse failed
a post-race drug test due to an excessive amount of the steroid
betamethasone.
While Baffert's attorney Craig Robertson called the California
lawsuit "completely frivolous with zero legal merit", the plaintiff
in the Jefferson County case also alleges negligence on the part of
Churchill Downs, claiming that the racetrack is culpable for
failing to detect and and scratch ineligible horses prior to
competition. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks to create a
fund to settle wagers involving horses that end up being
disqualified from races.
"At the very minimum, Bob Baffert was extremely careless with
administering betamethasone to Medina Spirit, and Churchill Downs
has absolutely no system in place to prevent ineligible horses from
competing in its races," said Will Nefzger, the attorney for
plaintiff Anthony Mattera. "They have it completely backwards and
allowed this to happen. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of a
couple huge problem in horse racing - continued and repeated
medication violations by trainers and continually forcing
horseplayers to bear the brunt of careless and reckless behavior."
After initially going on the defensive following Medina Spirit's
failed drug test, claiming that his suspension from Churchill Downs
was the result of "cancel culture" during an appearance on Fox
News, Baffert released a statement explaining that he believed
Medina Spirit's failed drug test stemmed from the use of the
anti-fungal ointment Otomax in order to treat dermatitis.
"Yesterday, I was informed that one of the substances in Otomax is
betamethasone," read Baffert's statement. "While we do not know
definitively that this was the source of the alleged 21 picograms
found in Medina Spirit's post-race blood sample, and our
investigation is continuing, I have been told by equine
pharmacology experts that this could explain the test results. As
such, I wanted to be forthright about this fact as soon as I
learned of this information."
Both Medina Spirit and another horse trained by Baffert, Concert
Tour, are set to compete at the Preakness Stakes. Baffert stated
that he would not travel to the race in order to keep from being a
distraction. [GN]
KEYENCE CORP: Cassidy Sues Over Sales Engineers' Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE CASSIDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KEYENCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant,
Case No. 21CV382350 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., May 24, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay compensation due upon
discharge from employment, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and unfair business practices.
Mr. Cassidy was employed by the Defendant as a sales engineer at
its San Jose location from approximately June 2019 through March
2021.
Keyence Corporation of America is a manufacturer of electronic
components, with its principal place of business located at 669
River Drive, Suite 403 Elmwood Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Hammond, Esq.
Polina Brandler, Esq.
Ari Cherniak, Esq.
HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
11780 W. Sample Road, Suite 103
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (310) 601-6766
Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com
achemiak@hammondlawpc.com
KIMPTON HOTEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due June 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, SALVATORE
GALATI, and JONATHAN MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP,
LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
3:19-cv-01860-MMC (N.D. Calif.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order setting a class certification schedule including the
following deadlines:
-- The Plaintiff to Disclose April 16, 2021
Class Certification Expert(s):
-- The Defendant to Disclose Class May 7, 2021
Certification Expert(s):
-- The Plaintiff to File Class June 18, 2021
Certification Motion:
Kimpton Hotel is a San Francisco, California, based hotel and
restaurant brand owned by the Intercontinental Hotels Group.
Founded in 1981 by Bill Kimpton and led by Chief Executive Officer
Mike DeFrino, the group was the largest chain of boutique hotels in
the United States in 2011.
A copy of the Parties motion dated May 7, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2QNZYQe at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd 12th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 335-2402
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
633 West 5 th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
KIMPTON HOTEL: Sabre's Bid to Quash in Thomas Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies
in part the motion to quash in the lawsuit styled SABRE GLBL, INC.,
Petitioner v. JAKE THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
21-mc-80053-MMC (JSC), Related Case No. 19-cv-01860-MMC (N.D.
Cal.).
Non-Party Sabre GLBL Inc. filed a motion to quash a subpoena issued
by Plaintiffs-Respondents Jake Thomas, Michelle Anderson, Tom
Ainsworth, Jonathan Martin, and Salvatore Galati in the District
Court for the Central District of California. Sabre and the
Plaintiffs-Respondents stipulated that the motion be transferred to
this District as it arose out of an action pending here: Thomas, et
al. v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, 19-cv-01860-MMC. The
court granted that request, the motion to quash was transferred in
the Court, and opened as the miscellaneous action. The district
court in the underlying action then referred the motion to quash to
Judge Corley.
Background
In the underlying action, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class
action alleging that Defendant Kimpton contracted with non-party
Sabre to provide a reservation system, which the Plaintiffs used to
book hotel reservations at Kimpton hotels (Thomas, et al. v.
Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, 19-cv-01860-MMC). When they
made the reservations, the Plaintiffs provided their private
identifiable information ("PII") which includes their full name,
credit and debit card account numbers card expiration dates, card
verification codes, emails, phone numbers, full addresses and other
information. Hackers later accessed the Plaintiffs' PII.
In June 2020, the district court granted in part and denied in part
Kimpton's motion to dismiss such that only the Plaintiffs' claims
for breach of contract and failure to maintain reasonable security
practices in violation of Cal. Civil Code Section 1798.81.5(c)
remain, Thomas, et al. v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC,
19-cv-01860-MMC, Dkt. No. 61. Discovery is ongoing and the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due June 18, 2021.
In Dec. 2020, the Plaintiffs served a subpoena on non-party Sabre
seeking 21 categories of documents. Sabre contacted the Plaintiffs
and argued that many of the documents sought were equally available
from Kimpton. The Plaintiffs agreed to an extension of Sabre's
deadline to respond while the parties met and conferred. Sabre and
the Plaintiffs were unable to reach agreement and this motion to
quash followed. After the matter was referred to Judge Corley, the
Court ordered Sabre and the Plaintiffs to meet and confer and file
further briefing if they were unable to resolve the matter through
the good faith meet and confer. The supplemental briefing is now
complete.
Discussion
Sabre moves to quash the subpoena because (1) the information
sought is equally available from Kimpton, who is a party to the
underlying action, and (2) the subpoena is overly broad and
burdensome.
Judge Corley holds that first, to the extent that Sabre objects to
producing documents that are equally available from Kimpton, that
issue appears moot as the Plaintiffs in their opposition state that
to the extent that Sabre's objections to the subpoena cover
documents equally available to Kimpton, these objections are
perfectly reasonable and acceptable. The Plaintiffs elsewhere state
that they agree that Sabre is not required to produce documents
encompassed within Request Nos. 1-8 and 13-17 that have already
been produced or could potentially be produced by Kimpton.
The Plaintiffs have not identified any documents that they believe
would be responsive to these requests, which would be in Sabre's,
but not Kimpton's possession, custody, or control, and it has had
ample opportunity to do so through meet and confer and briefing,
Judge Corley opines. Accordingly, Sabre's motion to quash the
subpoena to the extent that it seeks documents equally available
from Kimpton is granted. To the extent that the Plaintiffs
subsequently identify specific documents not in Kimpton's custody
or control, they may serve a new narrowly tailored subpoena, the
Judge adds.
Second, with respect to the remaining requests (Request Nos. 9-12,
18-21), Sabre argues that the subpoena should be quashed on the
basis of burden and overbreadth. Sabre argues generally that these
requests are not limited to the at-issue incident or the underlying
action. It suggests that the Plaintiffs are using the subpoena as a
"fishing expedition" related to claims that were dismissed with
prejudice in a prior action they brought against Sabre (Smith v.
Sabre Corp., No. 2:17-cv-05149-SVWAFM (C.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)).
Judge Corley finds that this blanket argument is unpersuasive. At
least for purposes of this motion, there does not appear to be a
dispute that Kimpton contracted with Sabre to provide the hotel
reservation system that the Plaintiffs allege was hacked and that
their PII was accessed by these hackers. She points out that
discovery into Sabre's investigation of the hacking incident,
including security measures which caused the data breach (Requests
Nos. 11, 12, and 21) are relevant to the Plaintiffs' claims in this
action.
Sabre does, however, point to three requests, which are not related
to the incident in question and instead broadly seek all documents
regarding Sabre's decision to use or not use single-factor
authentication, multi-factor authentication, and "advanced
behavioral analytics" (Request Nos. 18-20). Judge Corley notes that
the Plaintiffs do not respond to Sabre's arguments regarding these
requests, and instead argue as a general manner that its requests
are clear and particular and the documents requested are directly
relevant to the cause and effects of the data breach, along with
Plaintiffs' remaining claims of breach of contract and violation of
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1798.81.5. Judge Corley holds that the
Plaintiffs' generalized argument regarding relevance fails to
persuade and does not address Sabre's breadth and scope
objections.
Accordingly, Sabre's request to quash is granted as to Request Nos.
18-20. It is also granted as to Request Nos. 9-10 because the
Plaintiffs have not made a showing of relevance with respect to
these requests which seek contracts between Sabre and Plaintiffs or
Sabre and any of Kimpton's other customers--the Plaintiffs' breach
of contract claim is as to Kimpton, not Sabre.
Plaintiffs have, however, made a threshold showing of relevance as
to Requests 11, 12, and 21 and Sabre has not shown that responding
to these requests would be burdensome; as such, its motion to quash
these requests is denied, Judge Corley holds, citing Am. Broad.
Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. CV-12-80300-RMW, 2013 WL
1508894, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013).
Conclusion
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
non-party Sabre's motion to quash. The motion is granted as to
Request Nos. 1-10 and 13-20; it is denied as to Request Nos. 11,
12, and 21.
The Order disposes of Docket No. 1.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/j9n6t4b5 from Leagle.com.
KROGER COMPANY: Powell Wage-and-Hour Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WILLIAM POWELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KROGER COMPANY and DILLON
COMPANIES, LLC a/k/a KING SOOPERS, INC. d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY
MARKET, Case No. 1:20-cv-01983, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-00345-MWM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated assistant store managers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The Kroger Company is American retail company, with its principal
place of business located at 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dillon Companies, LLC, also known as King Soopers, Inc. and doing
business as King Soopers/City Market, is an operator of market
stores in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, with its
principal place of business located in Hutchinson, Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
LAS BRISAS RESTAURANT: Diaz Sues Over Failure to Pay All Wages Due
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Diaz, on behalf of herself and all others aggrieved employees
v. LAS BRISAS RESTAURANT, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES
1- 50, Inclusive, Case No. 21STCV18122 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 13,
2021), is brought to seek relief against the Defendant for its:
failure to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods or premium compensation in lieu
thereof; failure to provide rest periods or premium compensation in
lieu thereof; failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide
accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment; and failure to indemnify for
expenditures or losses in discharge of duties.
The Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced the
following unlawful policies and practices against the Plaintiff:
(a) Willfully refusing to pay all hours worked, including both
regular and overtime wages; (b) Willfully refusing to permit
off-duty meal periods or providing compensation in lieu thereof;
(c) Willfully refusing to permit rest periods or providing
compensation in lieu thereof; (d) Willfully refusing to furnish
accurate itemized wage statements upon payment of wages; (e)
Willfully refusing to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment; and (f) Willfully refusing to pay for expenditures or
losses in the discharge of their duties, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from December 2, 2019,
until July 7, 2020, in Los Angeles County.
Las Brisas is a California corporation, operating Restaurants
throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Lo, Esq.
Berkeh Alemzadeh, Esq.
WORK LAWYERS PC
22939 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 202
Torrance, CA 90505
Phone: (424) 355-8535
Facsimile: (213) 784-0032
Email: justin@caworklawver.com
bevonca@caworklawver.com
- and -
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP
249 E. Ocean Blvd. Suite #814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
LIFEMD INC: Faces Owens and Cho Putative Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeMD, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2021, that the company faces purported securities class
action suits entitled, David L. Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 21-cv-03384 and Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-04004, respectively.
On April 16, 2021, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned David L. Owens, Sr. v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-03384, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Justin Schreiber
(LifeMD's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer), Juan
Pinero Dagnery (LifeMD's former Chief Financial Officer), and Marc
Benathen (LifeMD's current Chief Financial Officer).
The Owens, Sr. Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants made false or misleading statements about, and allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning, the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The Complaint does not quantify damages but seeks to recover
damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
LifeMD's common stock between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021.
Similarly, on May 5, 2021, a second purported securities class
action lawsuit, captioned Cho v. LifeMD, Inc. et al., Case No.
21-cv-04004, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the same aforementioned
parties.
The Cho Complaint makes the same claims as found in the Owens, Sr.
Lawsuit, and, similarly, does not quantify damages and seeks to
recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired LifeMD's common stock during the same, aforementioned time
period between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021.
LifeMD, Inc. direct-to-patient telehealth company that provides a
smarter, cost-effective and convenient way of accessing healthcare.
The company is based in New York, New York.
LIFEMD INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against LifeMD, Inc. f/k/a Conversion Labs, Inc. ("LifeMD" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LFMD) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-04004, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired LifeMD securities
between January 19, 2021 and April 13, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased LifeMD securities during the
Class Period, you have until June 15, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
[Click https://pomlaw.com/learn-more-form?company=LFMD for
information about joining the class action]
LifeMD is a direct-to-patient telehealth company. It offers a
telemedicine platform that purports to help patients access
licensed providers for diagnoses, virtual care, and prescription
medications.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) many of
LifeMD's executives were associated with Redwood Scientific
Technologies, Inc. ("Redwood Scientific") when it was charged for
unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and false claims, and
that they employed similar practices at the Company; (ii) LifeMD
engaged in autoshipping products to unwilling customers to record
recurring revenue and the Company made it difficult to cancel such
subscriptions; (iii) certain of the purportedly licensed physicians
on the Company's platform were not in fact licensed and faced
disciplinary action; (iv) as a result of the foregoing practices,
the Company was reasonably likely to face regulatory scrutiny
and/or reputational harm; and (v) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On April 14, 2021, Culper Research ("Culper") issued a report
alleging that "LifeMD appears to use unlicensed doctors to dispense
OTC medications, has implemented an autoshipping/autobilling
scheme, failed to honor guarantees, and put in place abusive
telemarketing practices." The report also alleged that several of
the Company's executives were involved in "wide ranging fraud" at
Redwood Scientific, which was charged by the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission for "unlawful autoshipping, abusive telemarketing, and
false claims." Specifically, according to Culper, "many customers
are effectively duped into purchasing subscriptions rather than
one-time purchases" and LifeMD "makes cancellations difficult if
not impossible."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.84, or 24%, to
close at $9.00 per share on April 14, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
LJNK ENTERPRISES: Aguero Sues Over Unpaid Wages Due to Time Shaving
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Neptali Aguero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. LJNK ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SERVEPRO OF HOBOKEN/UNION CITY,
LANCE L. HARVEY, and JENNIFER L. HARVEY, Case No. 1:21-cv-04586
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law that he and others similarly situated are entitled to
recover from the Defendants: unpaid wages due to time shaving,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and
costs.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was paid $15/hour through
a prepaid Mastercard. He never clocked in and out. For all his
shifts, the Plaintiff was required to arrive and begin work 15
minutes before his scheduled shift and to stay on working 15
minutes past his scheduled shift. However, he was always paid only
for his scheduled shift and not for this additional time. Through
their unlawful time-shaving practices, the Defendants injured the
Plaintiff by categorically reducing their compensable time every
week. The Plaintiff did not receive a wage and hour notice. He also
did not receive wage statements, since his wages were directly
deposited in a prepaid Mastercard. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying the
Plaintiff all wages due and for all hours worked, in violation of
the FLSA, NYLL, and NJWHL.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, cleaning and
disinfecting the "F" subway line in New York City.
LJNK ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a SERVEPRO OF HOBOKEN/UNION CITY is a
Serve Pro franchise that specializes in commercial cleaning and
building restoration.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
LMD & ASSC: Hernandez Labor Class Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EFRAIN HERNANDEZ-ADORNO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LMD & ASSC., LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11507, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 2:21-cv-01519-DCN to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Puerto Rico Wage Payment
Statute by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
LMD & Assc., LLC is a company that specializes in providing
technology services and products to the hospitality industry, with
its headquarters in Summerville, South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
- and –
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@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
MAD SECURITY: Estrada Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mad Security
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Leopold Estrada, Jr., and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mad Security Services,
Inc., Case No. 34-2021-00300627-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
MAD Security -- https://madsecurity.com/ -- provides Managed
Security Services to enterprises enabling them to secure data,
reduce risk, and meet compliance needs cost-effectively..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
SHIMOGA LAW CORP.
9401 E Stockton Blvd., Ste. 120
Elk Grove, CA 95624-5050
Phone: 916-525-0716
Fax: 916-760-3733
Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com
MAKANA HAWAIIAN EATERY: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Zenovio Pablo Cantu and Adan Hernandez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
KALAHOSPITALITYGROUP LLC, Aloha Brothers, LLC, Mahalo Brothers LLC,
David Hom and David Chan, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-04664, (S.D. N.Y., May 25, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime premium pay owed pursuant to both the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
claims for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, unlawfully withheld
gratuities and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage
statement violations.
Defendants operate three Hawaiian restaurants under the name
"Makana Hawaiian Eatery" in New York where Plaintiffs are delivery
and back-office employees. They claim to be denied minimum wage for
all hours worked and were not paid overtime premiums for hours
worked over 40 in a given workweek. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
Website: www.PeltonGraham.com
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces LEHB Antitrust Suit Over ACTH Drug Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAW ENFORCEMENT HEALTH BENEFITS, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK TRUDEAU; HUGH O'NEILL;
STEPHEN WELCH; ANGUS RUSSELL; DAVID CARLUCCI; J. MARTIN CARROLL;
PAUL R. CARTER; DAVID NORTON; CARLOS V. PAYA, M.D., PH.D.; BRYAN
REASONS; JOANN REED; ANNE C. WHITAKER; KNEELAND YOUNGBLOOD, M.D.;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT ARD, LLC, Formerly known as
MALLINCKRODT ARD, INC., Formerly known as QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; QUESTCOR INTERNATIONAL LTD., f/k/a/ AKASIA LTD.; ST
OPERATIONS LLC; MALLINCKRODT INTERNATIONAL FINANCE SA; MALLINCKRODT
UK LTD; MALLINCKRODT GROUP S.A.R.L.; MALLINCKRODT LUX IP S.a.r.l.;
MALLINCKRODT PHARMA IP TRADING UNLIMITED CO., f/k/a MALLINCKRODT
PHARMA IP TRADING DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CO.; ACTHAR IP UNLIMITED CO.
f/k/a ACTHAR IP; MALLINCKRODT ARD IP UNLIMITED CO., f/k/a
MALLINCKRODT ARD IP LIMITED CO.; MALLINCKRODT IP ULIMITED CO.;
MALLINCKRODT HOSPITAL PRODUCTS IP UNLIMITED CO.; MALLINCKRODT
PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND, LTD; SONORANT THERAPEUTICS LTD.; THERAKOS
EMEA LTD., f/k/a MALLINCKRODT SPECIALTY PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND,
LTD., f/k/a QUESTCOR OPERATIONS LTD.; MEH INC.; ST US HOLDINGS LLC;
MALLINCKRODT BRAND PHARMACEUTICALS; ST US POOL LLC; MALLINCKRODT US
HOLDINGS, LLC; MALLINCKRODT ARD HOLDINGS, INC.; MALLINCKRODT
EQUINOX FINANCE LLC; PETTEN HOLDINGS INC.; MALLINCKRODT PETTEN
HOLDINGS B.V.; ST SHARED SERVICES LLC, f/k/a MALLINCKRODT
PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.; CIGNA HOLDING COMPANY; CIGNA CORPORATION;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; CURASCRIPT,
INC.; CURASCRIPT SD; PRIORITY HEALTHCARE CORP. AND PRIORITY
HEALTHCARE DISTRIBUTION, INC., doing business as CURASCRIPT SD AND
CURASCRIPT SPECIALTY DISTRIBUTION SD; ACCREDO HEALTH GROUP, INC.;
UNITED BIOSOURCE CORPORATION now known as UNITED BIOSOURCE LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of UNITED BIOSOURCE HOLDINGS, INC.; and
ALIXPARTNERS, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-50215 (N.D. Ill.,
May 26, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
monopolization, anti-competitive agreements in unreasonable
restraint of trade, state antitrust law claims, conspiracy to
defraud, and unjust enrichment.
In this case, the Plaintiff and Class members seek to challenge the
lawfulness of Mallinckrodt's post-bankruptcy petition exercise of
its monopoly power in the U.S. market for adrenocorticotropic
hormone (ACTH) drugs by taking actions to maintain and enhance that
monopoly power in violation of the antitrust laws from October 12,
2020. The Defendants allegedly engaged in conspiracy and agreement
to limit the distribution and output of Mallinckrodt's flagship
product, H.P. Acthar Gel, in order to raise the price to
unconscionable levels. Moreover, the Defendants agreed to market,
promote and sell Acthar for unapproved uses and doses to the
detriment of patients and payors of Acthar, the suit says.
Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. (LEHB), is a non-profit
organization in Pennsylvania that provides medical insurance
coverage and prescription, dental and vision benefits to police
officers and their families.
Mallinckrodt plc is an American-Irish domiciled manufacturer of
specialty pharmaceuticals, generic drugs and imaging agents based
in United Kingdom.
Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, formerly known as Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc.,
formerly known as Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a subsidiary
of Mallinckrodt plc based in California.
Questcor International Ltd., f/k/a/ Akasia Ltd., is a
biopharmaceutical company based in California.
ST Operations LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt, plc
with its principal place of business in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt International Finance SA is a pharmaceutical company
with its principal place of business in Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Mallinckrodt UK Ltd. is wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt,
plc based in United Kingdom.
Mallinckrodt Group S.a.r.l. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt Lux IP S.a.r.l. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Luxembourg.
Mallinckrodt Pharma IP Trading Unlimited Co., f/k/a Mallinckrodt
Pharma IP Trading Designated Activity Co., is a pharmaceutical
company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Acthar IP Unlimited Co., f/k/a Acthar IP, is a pharmaceutical
company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Mallinckrodt ARD IP Unlimited Co., f/k/a Mallinckrodt ARD IP
Limited Co., is a pharmaceutical company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Mallinckrodt IP Unlimited Co. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Dublin, Ireland.
Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Unlimited Co. is a pharmaceutical
company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland, Ltd. is a pharmaceutical
company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Sonorant Therapeutics Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals based in Dublin, Ireland.
Therakos EMEA Ltd., f/k/a Mallinckrodt Specialty Pharmaceuticals
Ireland, Ltd., f/k/a Questcor Operations Ltd., is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals based in Dublin,
Ireland.
MEH Inc. is a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Mallinckrodt
plc.
ST US Holdings LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt,
plc based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
ST US Pool LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt, plc
based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt US Holdings, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt ARD Holdings, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt Equinox Finance LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
Petten Holdings Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt,
plc based in Missouri.
Mallinckrodt Petten Holdings B.V. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
ST Shared Services LLC, f/k/a Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ltd., is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Mallinckrodt, plc based in Missouri.
Cigna Holding Company is a healthcare and insurance company based
in Bloomfield, Connecticut.
Cigna Corporation is a healthcare and insurance company based in
Bloomfield, Connecticut.
Express Scripts Holding Company is a healthcare opportunity company
based in Missouri.
Express Scripts, Inc. is a pharmacy benefit management services
provider based in Missouri.
CuraScript, Inc. is a specialty pharmacy business based in Orlando,
Florida.
CuraScript SD is a provider of integrated delivery solutions for
the safe and efficient distribution of specialty pharmaceuticals
based in Florida.
Priority Healthcare Corp. and Priority Healthcare Distribution,
Inc., doing business as CuraScript SD and CuraScript Specialty
Distribution SD, is a health care distribution company based in
Florida.
Accredo Health Group, Inc. is a provider of pharmacy services based
in Memphis, Tennessee.
United BioSource Corporation, now known as United BioSource LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of United BioSource Holdings, Inc., is a
provider of pharmaceutical support services based in Pennsylvania.
AlixPartners, LLP is a global consulting firm based in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street, Suite 300
St. Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: (630) 232-6333
Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
- and –
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
William H. Platt, II, Esq.
Haviland Hughes, Esq.
HAVILAND HUGHES LAW FIRM
201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110
Ambler, PA 19002
Telephone: (215) 609-4661
Facsimile: (215) 392-4400
E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com
platt@havilandhughes.com
- and –
Dion G. Rassias, Esq.
Jillian E. Johnston, Esq.
THE BEASLEY FIRM, LLC
1125 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 592-1000
Facsimile: (215) 592-1523
E-mail: dgr@beasleyfirm.com
Jill.johnston@beasleyfirm.com
- and –
Daniel K. Astin, Esq.
CIARDI & ASTIN
1204 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 658-1100
Facsimile: (302) 658-1300
E-mail: dastin@ciardilaw.com
- and –
Albert A. Ciardi, Esq.
Walter W. Gouldsbury, III, Esq.
CIARDI & ASTIN
1905 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 557-3550
Facsimile: (215) 557-3551
E-mail: aciardi@ciardilaw.com
wgouldsbury@ciardilaw.com
- and –
James Bartimus, Esq.
Anthony DeWitt, Esq.
BARTIMUS FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON, RADAR, PC
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com
aldewitt@bflawfirm.com
MAXIMUS FEDERAL: Response to Class Status Bid Due June 21
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferjani et al v. Maximus
Federal Services, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-60770 (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge James I. Cohn entered an order granting the Defendants
unopposed motion to enlarge time to respond to motion to certify
class.
The Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed as
collective action on or before June 21, 2021.
The suit alleges violatoion of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Maximus is an American outsourcing company that provides business
process services to government health and human services agencies
in the United States, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the
United Kingdom.[CC]
MAYWEATHER PROMOTIONS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mayweather Promotions
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mayweather Promotions LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04677 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mayweather Promotions, LLC -- https://mayweatherpromotions.com/ --
is a boxing promotional firm founded in 2007 by five-division world
and twelve-time world champion Floyd Mayweather, Jr., after
exercising a provision in his contract with Bob Arum and Top Rank
that allowed him to become a free agent for the price of
$750,000.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MCCALLA RAYMER: Franken Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McCalla Raymer
Leibert Pierce, LLC. The case is styled as Philip Franken,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-11191-BRM-ZNQ
(D.N.J., May 13, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLC -- https://www.mccalla.com/ --
is a full service Residential and Commercial Real Estate Legal
Services firm with a combined 75 years of experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Fax: (732) 298-6256
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
MED-DATA INC: Tokarski Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nicole Tokarski, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Med-Data Inc., Case No.
21-00002-04918-1 was removed from the King County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
on May 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00631 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
MedData, Inc. -- https://www.meddata.com/ -- provides medical
revenue cycle management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Lynn M. Engel, Esq.
ARETE LAW GROUP PLLC
1218 THIRD AVE STE 2100
SEATTLE, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 428-3250
Email: lengel@aretelaw.com
MEDI-VET ANIMAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medi-Vet Animal
Health, L.L.C. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Medi-Vet Animal
Health, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-04269-JMF (S.D.N.Y., May 12,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Medi-Vet Animal Health LLC -- https://www.medi-vet.com/ -- provides
veterinary care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
MEIJER GREAT: Miller Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Miller, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. MEIJER GREAT LAKES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Case No. 2:21-cv-11207-GCS-KGA (E.D. Mich., May 24, 2021), is
brought for money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees and other relief as a result of the Defendant instituting a
policy requiring employees to clock out and forego compensable work
hours for breaks of twenty minutes or less that should be included
in the sum of hours worked for purposes of calculating overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant instituted a policy
requiring employees to clock out and forego compensable work hours
for breaks of 20 minutes or less that should be included in the sum
of hours worked for purposes of calculating overtime wages.
Defendant applied its policy and practice of not paying
compensation to employees who took breaks for 20 minutes or less to
all non-exempt employees in the same manner. The Defendant's policy
of requiring employees to clock out and forego compensable work
hours for breaks of 20 minutes or less deprived the Plaintiff of
overtime pay in the amount of one and a half times the regular rate
of pay. As a result of requiring employees to clock out and forego
compensable work hours for breaks of 20 minutes or less, the
Defendant's employees were and/or are unlawfully deprived of
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
week.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Jackson, Michigan, which
is located in Jackson County.
The Defendant is a for-profit company that operates a large chain
of grocery stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
NACHTLAW, P.C.
101 N. Main Street, Ste. 555
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: (734) 663-7550
Email: nhurwitz@nachtlaw.com
MELTECH INC: Grove Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Exotic Dancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GROVE and CHRYSTINA
WINCHELL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, v. MELTECH, INC., H&S CLUB OMAHA, INC., SHANE
HARRINGTON, and BRAD CONTRERAS, Case No. 8:20-cv-00193-JFB-MDN (D.
Neb.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order certying a
class of:
"all individuals who worked as exotic dancers at Club Omaha at
any time within the three years prior to the filing of this
lawsuit who were misclassified as independent contractors and
who were not paid minimum wage or overtime compensation as
required by the Nebraska Wage and Hour Act (the Nebraska
Class)."
The Plaintiffs and Nebraska Class Members meet the requirements for
class certification under Rule 23. They all performed the same
work, were subject to the same rules and policies, and suffered a
common violation -- namely, being improperly classified as
independent contractors and denied minimum wage and overtime
compensation. The evidence used to adjudicate Plaintiffs' and the
class members' claims centers on Defendants' standard rules and
policies, and uniform classification and compensation policies,
which apply to all members of the Nebraska Class, suit says.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SqV2Bt
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
MERCHANTS' CREDIT: Peltonen Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants' Credit
Guide Co. The case is styled as Renae Peltonen, On behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. Merchants' Credit Guide
Co., Case No. 3:21-cv-00322 (D. Wis., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Merchant's Credit Guide Co. -- https://merchantscreditguide.com/ --
is a debt collection agency in Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Davidson, 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
MIA JEWELS: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mia Jewels Ecommerce
Corp. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mia Jewels Ecommerce Corp., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04680 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Mia Jewels -- https://miajewels.com/ -- is a jewelry store in
Aventura, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Phone: (917) 915-7415
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Claims in Richards PLRA Suit Against MDOC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
Northern Division, dismissed several claims in the lawsuit styled
KYLE B. RICHARDS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-194 (W.D. Mich.).
Defendant Heidi E. Washington serves as the director of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. The lawsuit is a civil rights
action brought by three state prisoners under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.
Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs Kyle B. Richards, Robert Kissee, and Kenneth Damon
Pruitt presently are incarcerated with the Michigan Department of
Corrections (MDOC) at the Baraga Correctional Facility (AMF) in
Baraga, Baraga County, Michigan. The events about which they
complain occurred at that facility. The Plaintiffs sue MDOC
Director Heidi Washington and the following AMF officials: Warden
Kristopher Taskila; and Residential Unit Managers Unknown Perttu
and Unknown Neimi. The Plaintiffs also sue Michigan State Police
(MSP) Director Joseph M. Gasper and Sergeant Thomas Rajala.
The Plaintiffs seek to pursue a class action. In the first count of
their complaint, they allege that, on April 16, 2020, Defendant
Perttu approached Plaintiff Richards' door and informed him that he
would be calling him out to talk, because the Plaintiff needed to
do what he was told. An hour later, Plaintiffs Richards and Pruitt
were escorted to the 3-Unit phone room, where Defendant Perttu
punched and beat them and sexually assault them. The Plaintiffs
were handcuffed throughout. The assaults were allegedly repeated
multiple times.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Perttu's conduct violated the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 34 U.S.C. Section 30301, the
Eighth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Convention against Inhumane Treatment and Torture.
In Count 2 of their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they sent
multiple kites about the incidents to Defendants Washington,
Taskila, Rajala, and Gasper, but those Defendants took no action.
Plaintiff Richards also allegedly met with Defendant MSP Sergeant
Rajala on May 4, 2020, when Rajala came to interview the Plaintiff
over an unrelated matter concerning a terror threat against the
courts. Plaintiff Richards explained what was going on, and
Defendant Rajala acknowledged receiving the Plaintiff's letters and
indicated that a copy had been forwarded to Defendant Gasper and
another copy to MDOC internal affairs. Rajala indicated that the
MSP did not get involved unless the MDOC requested assistance. The
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant Rajala's response indicated that
the MSP has a "hands off" policy that violates the PREA, the Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the International Convention against Inhumane Treatment
and Torture.
In Count 3 of the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that, on April
16, 2020, and May 20, 2020, Defendants Neimi and Taskila ignored
requests from Plaintiffs Richards, Pruitt, and Kissee for medical
attention. On April 16, Defendant Neimi instructed medical staff
not to provide medical assistance. During rounds, Defendant Taskila
told all three Plaintiffs that they should drop the issue and that
no medical services would be allowed, despite the fact that two
Plaintiffs had apparent and significant injuries, including a
battered face, broken nose, and sprained arm. Plaintiff Kissee was
coughing up blood.
The Plaintiffs allege that they filed multiple health care requests
but received no treatment. the Plaintiffs contend that Defendants
Neimi and Taskila denied them necessary medical care, in violation
of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and unspecified
international treaties, presumably the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Convention against Inhumane
Treatment and Torture. They allege that unnamed medical personnel
also denied them medical attention.
In Count 4 of the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
Perttu retaliated against them for filing grievances and interfered
with their grievances, ostensibly in violation of the First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and international law.
The Plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief is that Defendants
Washington, Taskila, and Perttu have caused them "'psychosomatic'
stress and physical harm" by maintaining a policy of not providing
them "equal access to sexually stimulating materials necessary for
maintaining psychological health." The Plaintiffs contend that the
prison does not permit hard-core pornography and, while it permits
the possession of soft porn, including nude pictures, such
materials are expensive and not available to prisoners without
substantial resources. The Plaintiffs allege that sexual
stimulation is a basic human need like food and water and that its
absence causes physical ailments. They allege that Defendants'
failure to provide sexually stimulating materials violates the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, international law, and the PREA.
In Claim 6, the Plaintiffs allege that the limitations on sexually
stimulating materials are unreasonably restrictive and deprive them
of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Plaintiffs also contend that the restrictions place them at
increased risk of prison rape due to sexual frustrations among the
prison population, in violation of the PREA, the Eighth Amendment,
and international law.
Plaintiffs allege in Claim 7 that the Defendants' policy governing
sexually explicit materials amounts to censorship, lacks a
legitimate penological purpose, and is counterproductive, in
violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and
international law. Plaintiffs contend that, if providing sexually
explicit mail is not reasonably feasible, Defendants should provide
access to an adult television station.
In their final claim, Claim 8, the Plaintiffs allege that MDOC
Policy Directive 04.07.112, Attach. A-21, B-27, and C-34, violates
the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by prohibiting the game
"Dungeons and Dragons." The Plaintiffs allege that the prohibition
demeans the religions of Wicca and Druidry, because the game is
premised on Wiccan lore and liturgy, which itself depends on the
Greek, Roman, and Chinese mythological pantheon. The Plaintiffs
contend that the Defendants favor Christian religions by permitting
Christian observants to possess Christian board games, Bible
flashcards, and Bible puzzles.
The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, together
with nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages.
Class Certification
The Plaintiffs seek class certification. They contend that there
are thousands of victims in the MDOC system, who have suffered
verbal, physical, or sexual abuse by one or more MDOC employees, as
well as deprivations of personal property. They also contend that
numerous prisoners suffer from the deprivation of sexually explicit
materials, which causes extreme mental suffering.
Judge Maloney finds that the Plaintiffs' request for class
certification fails on multiple prongs of the Rule 23(a) test. The
Plaintiffs utterly fail to demonstrate numerosity. They also cannot
demonstrate either typicality or commonality with their proposed
class.
Moreover, it is well established that pro se litigants are
inappropriate representatives of the interests of others, Judge
Maloney holds, citing Garrison v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 333 F.
App'x 914, 919 (6th Cir. 2009), et al. Because the Plaintiffs are
incarcerated pro se litigants, the Court finds that they are not
appropriate representatives of a class, much less the class they
seek to describe.
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief respecting prison policy governing pornography,
the claim is tangential to the central issues in the Plaintiffs'
complaint, which have to do with specific conduct. Moreover, as
discussed elsewhere in this opinion, the claim is frivolous and
will be dismissed. Therefore, the Court will deny the Plaintiffs'
request for class certification.
Various Claims and Disposition
In each of their eight claims, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants' actions in committing or allowing the assaults,
depriving the Plaintiffs of sexually stimulating materials, and
refusing to allow the playing of Dungeons and Dragons violated the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention
Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Judge Maloney notes that the Supreme Court has long recognized the
distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as
domestic law, and those that--while they constitute international
law commitments--do not by themselves function as binding federal
law, citing Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505 (2008). Federal
courts do not recognize a private cause of action for prisoners
based on the UDHR. As a consequence, the Plaintiffs are unable to
sustain a claim under either the UDHR or the CAT, Judge Maloney
holds.
In Claims 1 and 2 of the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant Perttu violated the PREA by sexually assaulting them and
that other Defendants are responsible for allowing those assaults.
In Claims 5 and 6, the Plaintiffs allege that the denial of
hard-core pornography violates the PREA by creating dangerous
psychosocial conditions and excess sexual frustrations and sexual
tensions that increase the risk of prison rape.
Judge Maloney opines that the PREA does not provide the Plaintiffs
a cause of action entitling them to relief. He points out that the
Plaintiffs have no independent cause of action for any Defendant's
failure to comply with the PREA. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
claims under the PREA will be dismissed.
In their fourth claim, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Perttu
tore up their grievances, in violation of the First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. The Plaintiffs also appear to allege that
Defendant Neimi failed to process grievances that were handed to
him directly. The Court presumes that, by invoking the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Plaintiffs may intend to allege that the Defendants
denied them due process by interfering with their right to pursue
grievances.
The Plaintiffs have no due process right to file a prison
grievance, Judge Maloney opines. The courts repeatedly have held
that there exists no constitutionally protected due process right
to an effective prison grievance procedure. Because the Plaintiffs
have no liberty interest in the grievance process, the conduct of
Defendants Perttu and Neimi did not deprive them of due process.
The Plaintiffs also raise a series of Eighth Amendment claims
against the Defendants. The Eighth Amendment imposes a
constitutional limitation on the power of the states to punish
those convicted of crimes. Judge Maloney notes that the Eighth
Amendment is only concerned with deprivations of essential food,
medical care, or sanitation or other conditions intolerable for
prison confinement.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Perttu, on multiple occasions,
beat and kicked them and forced them to engage in sexual conduct.
Not every shove or restraint gives rise to a constitutional
violation, Judge Maloney holds, citing Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d
600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986). While the extent of a prisoner's injury
may help determine the amount of force used by the prison official,
it is not dispositive of whether an Eighth Amendment violation has
occurred.
Applying this standard, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs'
allegations concerning Defendant Perttu's repeated physically
abusive conduct--punching, kicking, and beating Plaintiffs--clearly
are sufficient to state a claim. Judge Maloney points out that the
Plaintiff's allegations concerning Defendant Perttu's sexually
abusive conduct, if true, are more than sufficient to state a
claim.
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant MSP officials Rajala and
Gasper failed to conduct a criminal investigation in response to
the Plaintiffs' reports that Defendant Perttu was assaulting them.
They argue that, although Defendant Rajala reported the alleged
abuse to the relevant MDOC officials, such action was inadequate
and equivalent to doing nothing at all. The Plaintiffs contend
that, having been informed of the abuse, Defendants Rajala and
Gasper violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth Amendment
by not pursuing a criminal investigation and prosecution against
Defendant Perttu.
Simply put, Judge Maloney opines, the Plaintiffs cannot compel a
criminal prosecution of the Defendants because private citizens,
whether or not they are incarcerated, cannot compel a criminal
prosecution of another. As a consequence, the Plaintiffs'
allegations against Defendants Rajala and Gasper fail to state a
claim.
The Plaintiffs allege in Claim 4 that Defendants Neimi failed to
process their grievances. They allege in Claim 2 that Defendants
Taskila and Washington failed to take action to punish Defendant
Perttu, despite having been informed of his conduct.
To the extent that Plaintiffs allege in Claim 4 that Defendant
Neimi failed to ensure that their grievances about Defendant Perttu
were processed and in Claim 2 that Defendants Taskila and
Washington failed to take action to punish Defendant Perttu after
receiving written and oral complaints from them, the Plaintiffs
fail to state an actionable Section 1983 claim, Judge Maloney
holds. Government officials may not be held liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior or vicarious liability, citing Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 676; Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
691(1978).
Judge Maloney holds that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that
Defendants Neimi, Taskila, and Washington engaged in active
unconstitutional behavior related to Defendant Perttu's abuse. As a
consequence, the Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Neimi, Taskila, and Washington, as raised in Counts 2
and 4, will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The Plaintiffs allege in Claim 3 that Defendants Neimi and Taskila
refused to provide them medical care and refused to allow others to
do so. Judge Maloney holds that the Plaintiffs' allegations are
sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. Assuming the
allegations of the complaint to be true, the Plaintiffs have stated
Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Neimi, Taskila for their
denials of medical care.
In Counts V through VII of their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants Washington, Taskila, and Perttu have deprived them
of pornography, causing significant psychological and physical
suffering, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
As this Court previously discussed, the Eighth Amendment only
guarantees access to the minimal civilized measure of life's
necessities, such as food, medical care, or sanitation. Judge
Maloney holds that the Constitution does not mandate comfortable
prisons. Instead, the prohibition on hard-core pornographic
material is at best an unpleasant experience, which is not barred
by the Eighth Amendment. The Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claim
based on the denial of pornography, therefore, will be dismissed.
In Claims 5 and 7 of their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants Washington, Taskila, and Perttu have denied them equal
access to sexually stimulating materials. They contend that
Defendants have violated their rights to equal protection under the
Fourteenth Amendment by adopting and enforcing the policy
directives on prisoner personal property, MDOC Policy Directive
(PD) 04.07.112 (effective Sept. 1, 2018), and prisoner mail, MDOC
PD 05.03.118 (effective Mar. 1, 2018). The prisoner-property policy
bans prisoners from possessing property that violates the mail
policy, and such property is deemed contraband.
Judge Maloney opines that the Plaintiffs have not alleged that they
have been intentionally treated differently from other prisoners,
who cannot afford to purchase sexually stimulating magazines. The
Plaintiffs also do not suggest that other prisoners, who cannot
afford such magazines, are given those items without paying for
them. Instead, they insist that they are entitled to have such
magazines provided to them on an equal level with prisoners, who
can afford to purchase them.
Judge Maloney points out that indigency is not a protected
characteristic. Courts have never held that prisoners--or any other
citizens--have a fundamental constitutional right to possess
spending money, much less sufficient money to purchase any item
they may wish, at an equal level with other persons. The
Defendants' distinction between those who pay for optional
materials and those who are unable to pay for such items is
entirely rational. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs fail to state an
equal protection claim.
In their fourth claim, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Perttu
retaliated against them for filing grievances by ripping up
numerous grievances, placing them in the garbage, or failing to
submit them. Judge Maloney notes that retaliation based upon a
prisoner's exercise of his or her constitutional rights violates
the Constitution, citing Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394
(6th Cir. 1999) (en banc).
Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege that Defendant Perttu took
adverse action against them, their fourth claim against Defendant
Perttu fails to state a claim.
In their seventh claim for relief, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants, by adopting and applying a prison policy that limits
the types and sources of pornography, have violated the Plaintiffs'
First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.
In the instant case, the Plaintiffs raise only a facial challenge
to the MDOC policy, as they do not contest the application of the
policy to specific mail rejections, Judge Maloney observes. To the
extent that the Plaintiffs argue in Claim 6 that the banning of
hardcore, sexually explicit materials undermines prison safety,
rather than serving the interest of safety, they cannot prevail,
Judge Maloney opines. The Plaintiffs also fail to meet the second
prong of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 85 (1987), whether there
are alternative means of exercising the right.
Judge Maloney also holds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs
utterly fail to meet their burden of identifying any easily
implemented and equally effective alternative to the MDOC
restrictions that would protect their rights at a de minimis cost
to the penological interests. The Plaintiffs' claim, therefore,
fails on the fourth Turner element. Because the Plaintiffs fail to
allege facts that support any--much less all--of the elements of
their First Amendment challenge to the MDOC policy, their
allegations fail to state a claim under the First Amendment's free
speech clause.
In their eighth and final claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants, by banning the game "Dungeons and Dragons" (D&D) while
permitting Bible trivia games, Bible flashcards, and Bible puzzles,
have discriminated against Wiccans, whose mythology has been
incorporated into D&D. By invoking the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Plaintiffs presumably allege a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Plaintiffs also contend
that the prohibition of D&D violates the First Amendment religious
rights of Wicca adherents.
In the instant case, Judge Maloney notes, no Plaintiff alleges that
he is a practitioner of Wicca. As a consequence, the Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate that one or more of them suffered either a First
Amendment or equal protection injury arising out of the banning of
D&D. And Plaintiffs lack standing to assert the constitutional
rights of other prisoners.
Because the Plaintiffs are not licensed attorneys, they are
prohibited from representing others in federal court, Judge Maloney
holds. Both because they lack standing and are not attorneys, the
Plaintiffs' eighth claim will be dismissed.
Pending motions
Plaintiff Richards has filed six motions that remain pending before
the Court: (1) a request for expedited hearing; (2) a motion for
declaratory ruling on the application and interpretation of foreign
law; (3) a motion to disqualify the undersigned and to change
venue; (4) a motion for federal investigation and monitoring; (5) a
motion seeking a preliminary injunction to freeze federal aid
benefits to the State of Michigan; and (6) a motion to appoint
counsel.
Plaintiff Richards seeks a declaratory ruling that the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention
Against Inhumane and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners and Torture
are sources of law that provide a cause of action to the
Plaintiffs. As the Court held in this opinion, neither
international agreement creates a cause of action. The motion,
therefore, will be denied.
Plaintiff Richards seeks to disqualify Judge Maloney and to change
venue. He complains that Judge Maloney and other judges of this
district are partnered with the MDOC and biased against him, and he
alleges that Defendant Perttu claims to personally know every judge
of the district.
To the extent that Plaintiff argues that Judge Maloney and
Magistrate Judge Vermaat have previously ruled against him,
Plaintiff Richards alleges bias that arises strictly from a
judicial source, which is not a basis for disqualification, Judge
Maloney holds. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that the Court
has partnered with the MDOC to rule against prisoners or that the
undersigned has a personal relationship with any Defendant, his
allegations are both untrue and wholly conclusory. Judge Maloney
says he has no personal relationship with any Defendant. The mere
fact that Defendant Perttu or any other Defendant claimed to know
Judge Maloney is not evidence of such a relationship.
With respect to Plaintiff Richards' request to transfer venue to
the Eastern District of Michigan, the request will be denied. The
action was transferred from the Eastern District to this Court on
Sept. 30, 2020, because venue was proper only in this district. As
a consequence, venue properly lies in this and no other district.
Plaintiff Richards' motion, therefore, will be denied.
In his "Motion for Federal Investigation and Monitoring," Plaintiff
Richards seeks preliminary injunctive relief in the form of an
order barring Defendant Perttu and a non-Defendant mail-room
officer from destroying, falsifying, or interfering with his mail.
Specifically, he complains that pages are occasionally missing from
his motions and that they sometimes are "edited" by facility staff.
He requests that the FBI and United States Marshals Office be
ordered to conduct an investigation into the matter. In his "Motion
for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Freezing of Federal Aid
Benefits to the State of Michigan," the Plaintiff contends that he
is entitled to an injunction to freeze federal aid to the State of
Michigan in order to secure his recovery of damages in this action
and to enforce the PREA. Finally, in his motion seeking expedited
relief, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified emergency ruling.
Judge Maloney finds that the Plaintiff's allegations of
interference with his mail are wholly conclusory. Conclusory
allegations of unconstitutional conduct without specific factual
allegations fail to establish a constitutional violation. The fact
that a page of a document may occasionally be lost or uncopied is
not evidence that any person intentionally interfered with the
mail. In addition, the Plaintiff provides no specifics concerning
any alleged alterations by any Defendant in this action. As a
consequence, the Plaintiff's motion for an injunction against mail
interference is wholly unsupported and without merit.
Further, as earlier discussed, Plaintiff has no right to demand a
criminal investigation of any claim. In addition, Plaintiff has
alleged no facts warranting such an investigation. As a
consequence, Plaintiff's request for an investigation by the FBI
and the Marshal is denied.
Plaintiff's demand for the freezing of federal aid under the
authority of the PREA fails for the reasons previously
stated--Plaintiff has no cause of action under the PREA. Further,
no basis exists for freezing assets to secure any potential
recovery. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks damages from
Defendants in their official capacities, he seeks damages from the
State of Michigan.
Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their
departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in
the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity or
Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by
statute. Because no damages may be awarded against the state,
Plaintiff has absolutely no basis for securing his potential
recovery from state funds or federal aid.
Finally, in his motion seeking expedited relief, the Plaintiff
seeks unspecified emergency relief. The Plaintiff provides no
factual basis for granting such relief. Moreover, at this juncture,
most of the Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed, with the
exception of certain Eighth Amendment claims arising out of past
events. Regardless of the merits of the remaining claims, the
Plaintiff cannot demonstrate entitlement to preliminary injunctive
relief under these circumstances, because he cannot show
irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction does not issue.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motions seeking injunctive relief
will be denied.
In his final pending motion, Plaintiff Richards requests a
court-appointed attorney in this action. Indigent parties in civil
cases have no constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney.
Judge Maloney notes that appointment of counsel is a privilege that
is justified only in exceptional circumstances. The Court has
carefully considered these factors and determines that the
assistance of counsel does not appear necessary to the proper
presentation of the Plaintiffs' position. Plaintiff Richards'
request for appointment of counsel, therefore, will be denied.
Conclusion
Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, the Court denies class certification and determines
that Defendants Washington, Gasper, and Rajala will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2)
and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).
The Court also will dismiss, for failure to state a claim, the
following claims against the remaining Defendants: Plaintiffs' PREA
and international law claims; their First, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendment (equal protection) claims related to the prohibition on
hardcore pornography and other explicit content; their due process
claims; and their claim alleging religious discrimination and
denial of equal protection based on the banning of Dungeons and
Dragons. In addition, the Court will dismiss, for failure to state
a claim, the Plaintiffs' retaliation claim against Defendant
Perttu.
The Plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment claims against Defendant Perttu
for excessive force and sexual assault and their Eighth Amendment
claims against Defendants Neimi and Taskila for denial of medical
care remain in the case.
Plaintiff Richards' pending motions will be denied. Plaintiff
Richards will be barred from filing any further motions without
obtaining the signatures of all Plaintiffs. In addition, Plaintiff
Richards will be barred from filing any future action alleging a
violation of international human rights law or challenging MDOC PD
05.03.118(NN) respecting the limits on hard-core pornography.
An order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y26w7w6w from Leagle.com.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bar Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Orit Bar,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:21-cv-61079-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Burrell Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alexea Burrell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC, John Does
1-25, Case No. 8:21-cv-01240-WFJ-AEP (M.D. Fla., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Gratt Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHOLEM GRATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02914 (E.D.N.Y., May 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a false, deceptive
and misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding
his alleged debt owed to Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. The third
payment option provided by the Defendants on the letter is not
adequately explained and results in two different possible
interpretations. By failing to explain whether the third option is
a settlement option or a full pay option, the letter is false,
deceptive and misleading, the suit says.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection company based
in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Hesse Sues Over Unlawful Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Hesse, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. TRUEACCORD,
CORP., and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. (E.D. Mo., May 21, 2021),
is brought for damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
against the Defendants as a result of the Defendants collection
practices.
According to the complaint, prior to January 1, 2020, Ms. Hesse
incurred a debt to Comenity Bank in the amount of $535.87. In its
efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Midland Credit decided to
contact Plaintiff by written correspondence. Rather than preparing
and mailing such written correspondence to Plaintiff on its own,
Midland Credit decided to utilize third-party vendor(s) to perform
such activities on its behalf. As part of its utilization of
third-party vendor(s), Midland Credit conveyed information
regarding the Debt to the third-party vendor(s). The information
conveyed by Midland Credit to third-party vendor(s) included
Plaintiff's status as a debtor, the precise amount of the Debt, the
entity to which the Plaintiff allegedly owed the Debt, and/or the
fact that the Debt concerned a defaulted debt of the Plaintiff,
among other things. Midland Credit also conveyed it was a debt
collector and was attempting to collect a debt from Plaintiff. The
FDCPA provides that "a debt collector may not communicate, in
connection with the collection of any debt," with anyone other than
the consumer "without the prior consent of the consumer given
directly to the debt collector." The Plaintiff never consented to
Midland Credit's communication with anyone concerning the alleged
Debt or concerning the Plaintiff's personal and/or confidential
information.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, over the age of eighteen,
residing in St. Charles County, State of Missouri.
Midland Credit is a "debt collector."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Boris E. Graypel, Esq.
LEGAL RIGHTS COUNSEL
12685 Dorsett Rd., #258
St. Louis, MO 63043-2100
Phone: (314) 300-9590
Fax: (314) 754-9305
Email: bgraypel@gmail.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Benjamin Johnson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-02301-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Montfort Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Desiree Montfort,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
0:21-cv-61113-RAR (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
Hollywood, FL 33024
Phone: (754) 217-3084
Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Morcos Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Matthew Morcos,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-11810 (D.N.J., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Shaul Rosenberg,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-11663 (D.N.J., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Ruiz Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Patricia Ruiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:21-cv-00977-W-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jitesh Dudani, Esq.
BARSHAY, RIZZO & LOPEZ, PLLC
445 Broadhollow Road, Suite Cl18
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (510) 701-7886
Email: jdudani@brlfirm.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Saada Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mazal Saada,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Encore Capital Group, Inc., DOES 1
through 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-04250 (C.D. Cal., May 21,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN
7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-0400
Fax: (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
MIKE BROWN: Thompson Suit Transferred to W.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Arthur V. Thompson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Mike Brown, Warden, named as Michael
Brown; Heidi E. Washington, Director, named as Heidi Washington;
Unknown Party #1, named as Ms. (Jane Doe #1); Unknown Party #2,
named as Ms. (Jane Doe #2); Case No. 2:21-cv-11044, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on
May 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00106-JTN-MV to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Prison Condition for
Prisoner Civil Rights.
Michael Brown is the warden of Kinross Correctional Facility
originally opened in 1977 utilizing converted U.S. Air Force
buildings for most of its major structures.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Arthur V. Thompson #219215
4533 W Industrial Park Drive
Kincheloe, MI 49786
Kinross (MSP)
Kinross Correctional Facility
PRO SE
MONINI NORTH AMERICA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monini North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Monini North America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04639 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Monini North America, Inc. -- https://www.monini.com/en/since-2000
-- offers the finest Extra Virgin Olive Oil from Italy to America's
tables.[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
MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT: Jimenez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Flor Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONTGOMERY RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a MOURAD, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00880-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2021), is brought
to secure redress against the Defendants for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because the Defendant's
website, https://www.mouradsf.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant owns, operates, and maintains a brick-and-mortar
restaurant location in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: Thiago@whilshirelawfirm.com
Jamine@wilshirelawfirm.com
MOUNTAIN RECOVERY: Martinez Files FDCPA Suit in D. Wyoming
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocky Mountain
Recovery Systems Inc. The case is styled as Kaytlyn Martinez, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rocky
Mountain Recovery Systems Inc. a corporation, Case No.
0:21-cv-00101-KHR (D. Wyo., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rocky Mountain Recovery Systems, Inc. is a debt collection agency
located in Gillette, Wyoming.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth Shumaker, Esq.
Bank of the West Plaza
2 North Maint Street Suite 103
Sheridan, WY 82801
Phone: (307) 675-1233
Fax: (307) 675-1235
Email: sheridanwyolaw@gmail.com
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Paradis Putative Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Multiplan Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Samuel Paradis v.
MultiPlan Corporation et. al., No. 1:21-cv. 1853
On July 12, 2020, Churchill entered into the Merger Agreement by
and among First Merger Sub, Second Merger Sub, Holdings, and
MultiPlan Parent. On October 8, 2020, the Merger Agreement was
consummated and the Transactions were completed.
On February 24, 2021 and March 5, 2021, putative securities class
action complaints captioned Srock v. MultiPlan Corporation et al.,
No. 1:21-cv-1640 (S.D.N.Y.) and Verger v. MultiPlan Corporation et
al., No. 1:21-cv-01965 (S.D.N.Y.) were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Srock lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on March 15, 2021. The
Verger lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on March 24, 2021.
On April 6, 2021, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Samuel Paradis v. MultiPlan Corporation et. al., No.
1:21-cv. 1853 (E.D. N.Y.) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The Paradis lawsuit is brought against the Company; our Chief
Executive Officer, Mr. Mark Tabak; and our Chief Financial Officer,
Mr. David Redmond, as well as individuals and entities involved in
the Transactions, including Paul Galant, the company's President,
New Markets, and Glenn August and Michael Klein, each of whom
currently serve on the company's Board.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b),
14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and seeks damages based on
alleged material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
Transactions and in the company's public disclosures. The proposed
class period is July 12, 2020, through November 10, 2020,
inclusive.
MultiPlan Corporation, formerly known as Churchill Capital Corp III
(formerly known as Butler Acquisition Corp), was incorporated in
Delaware on October 30, 2019 and formed for the purpose of
effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with
one or more businesses.
Multiplan Corporation is a leading value-added provider of data
analytics and technology-enabled end-to-end cost management,
payment and revenue integrity solutions to the U.S. healthcare
industry. The company is based in New York, New York.
MUNICO CORPORATION: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Munico Corporation.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Munico Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-04661 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Munico Corporation, doing business as Traffic Safety Warehouse --
https://www.trafficsafetywarehouse.com/ -- provides traffic safety
services.[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
NATIONAL CREDIT: Henry Sues Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CV 21 947871 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., Cuyahoga Cty., May 24,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act and for defamation and invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's collection of an alleged rent
deficiency debt from the Plaintiff for the month of November, 2017,
owed to the Morgan Deville Properties. The Plaintiff asserts that
she could not owe rent for that month because her lease with Morgan
Deville Properties ended in October 2017. The Defendant's
collection agent, in a telephone call with the Plaintiff, admitted
that he knew she had paid all of her rent. In fact, the trade line
was deleted after the Plaintiff filed a dispute with the credit
bureaus in December, 2017. Inexplicably, in November, 2020, the
Defendant reinserted the trade line, without following required
procedures and with no new information. As a result of the
Defendant's inaccurate credit reporting, the Plaintiff has been
denied rental privileges by numerous apartments in Ohio, the suit
says.
National Credit Systems, Inc. is a debt collection company based in
Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James S. Wertheim, Esq.
JAMES S. WERTHEIM LLC
23811 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 330
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 902-1719
E-mail: wertheimjim@gmail.com
NAYA MEZZE: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geovani Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. NAYA MEZZE & GRILL, LLC, d/b/a NAYA; HRK FOOD INC., d/b/a NAYA;
NAYA EXPRESS I, LLC, d/b/a NAYA; NAYA EXPRESS II, LLC, d/b/a NAYA;
NAYA EXPRESS III NY, LLC, d/b/a NAYA; NAYA EXPRESS INC, d/b/a NAYA;
NAYA EXPRESS IV, LLC, d/b/a NAYA; NAYA EXPRESS VI NY LLC, d/b/a
NAYA; NAYA EXPRESS VII NY LLC, d/b/a NAYA; NAYA IP, LLC, d/b/a
NAYA; NAYA MOYNIHAN, LLC, d/b/a NAYA; and HADY KFOURY, Case No.
1:21-cv-04625 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, saying that he
is entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Although the Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek during his employment by the Defendants, the Defendants
never paid him overtime premium for weeks that he worked in excess
of 40 hours, as required under the FLSA and NYLL. There was never
any agreement that the fixed weekly salary that the Defendants paid
te Plaintiff covered the overtime hours in excess of 40 that the
Plaintiff worked each week. Similarly, FLSA collective Plaintiffs
and Class members also worked similar hours that regularly exceeded
40 hours per week and were similarly paid at a straight time rate,
asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a cook for
Defendants' NAYA restaurant.
The Defendants collectively own and operate 7 restaurants under the
common trade name "Naya".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1180
Fax: 212-465-1181
NCAA: Flores Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Daniel Flores,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01304-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., May 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
NCAA: Goode Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as styled as Kerry Goode, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, University of Rochester, Case No. 3:21-cv-00026, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on May 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02769 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cale H. Conley, Esq.
CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP
4200 Northside Parkway, NW
Building One, Suite 300
ATLANTA, GA 30327
Phone: (404) 467-1155
Email: cale@conleygriggs.com
- and -
Alex Barlow, Esq.
James B. Hartle, Esq.
9 Greenway Plz. Ste. 2300
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 782-0000
Email: barlow@heardrobins.com
jim@shraderlaw.com
- and -
Eugene R Egdorf, Esq.
SHRADER & ASSOCIATES, LLP
9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 782-0000
Email: gene@shraderlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Thomas Edward Lavender, III, Esq.
FISHERBROYLES, LLP–Atlanta
945 East Paces Ferry Road, Suite 2000
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 400-4500
Email: ted.lavender@fisherbroyles.com
NCAA: Kirkwood Sues Over Disregard for Health & Safety of Athletes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kirkwood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:21-cv-01284-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 21, 2021), is brought against
the Defendants to obtain redress for injuries sustained as a result
of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Waynesburg University student-athletes.
Despite knowing for decades of a vast body of scientific research
describing the danger of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like
those the Plaintiff experienced, the Defendants failed to implement
adequate procedures to protect the Plaintiff and other Waynesburg
football players from the long-term dangers associated with them.
They did so knowingly and for profit. As a direct result of the
Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and countless former
Waynesburg football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, the Plaintiff brings
this Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players'
rights and hold the NCAA accountable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Robert Kirkwood is a natural person and citizen of
the State of Pennsylvania.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Greensboro.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: 713.554.9099
Fax: 713.554.9098
Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com
- and -
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
Email: jedelson@edelson.com
brichman@edelson.com
- and -
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
NCAA: Reis Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Chester Reis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01303-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 24, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NCAA: Thomassey Suit Transferred to Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Edward Thomassey, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, University of Rochester, Case No.
1:21-cv-01136, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on May 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02771 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Lewis Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NEUTROGENA CORP: Serota Slams Toxic Benzene in Sunscreen
--------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Serota, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals and entities, Plaintiffs, v.
Neutrogena Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-61103 (S.D. Fla., May 25, 2021),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief to
enjoin and prevent Defendants from continuing to market and sell
sunscreen that may be adulterated with benzene, and requiring
Defendants to provide a full refund of the purchase price of the
sunscreen products under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.
Neutrogena Corp. is a subsidiary of the Johnson & Johnson
conglomerate and is one of the world's leading brands of skin care
hair care and cosmetics. It distributes its products, including
Neutrogena sunscreen products, throughout the United States.
Serota alleges that several of the Neutrogena sunscreen products
have been independently tested and shown to be adulterated with
benzene, a known human carcinogen.
Serota purchased Neutrogena Ultra Sheer (R) Weightless Sunscreen
Spray SPF 100+ and Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Face Mist SPF 55 from
Target store in Deerfield Beach, Florida. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Jason Richards, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 East Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
E-mail: jrichards@awkolaw.com
NEW YORK STATE DOCCS: Crichlow Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State DOCCS,
et al. The case is styled as Kevin Damion Crichlow, individually,
on behalf of many John Does, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New York State DOCCS, and several prisons; Comm.
Annucci; DSS Waren L. L., Eastern C.F.; John Doe, Dep. Morris, Dr.
Guzman, Nurse (F), Nurse, on behalf of 40 more John Does & Jane
Does et al. Individually & in His/Her capacity as an employee of
DOCCS, Case No. 1:21-cv-04457-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner: Prison Condition for
Prisoner Civil Rights.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision -- http://www.doccs.ny.gov/-- is the department of the
New York State government that maintains the state prisons and
parole system.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se:
Kevin Damion Crichlow
30 Institution Rd
P.O. Box 338
Napanoch, NY 12458
DIN: 08A3511
Eastern NY Correctional Facility
PRO SE
NEW YORK: Ginnery Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan M. Azrack transferred the lawsuit entitled
TRACEY W. GINNERY, 20-B-1008, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1302 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.),
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
Pro se Plaintiff, Tracey W. Ginnery, who is presently incarcerated
at the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. He also
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to
certify a class action because his claims are related to Stewart v.
The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
Judge Azrack notes that the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's
claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively at the Orleans
Correctional Facility located in Orleans County. Orleans County is
within the Western District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the Western District of
New York.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers this action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York. The determination of the Plaintiff's motions
to proceed in forma pauperis and for class certification is
reserved for the transferee court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York under Section
1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of this Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2zap4rcw from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Herrejon's Bid to Certify Class Reserved for W.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
transferred the lawsuit titled JULIO CESAR HERREJON, 17-A-3212,
Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-1340 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York and reserved the ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action to that court.
Pro se plaintiff, Julio Cesar Herrejon, who is presently
incarcerated at the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining
about the conditions of his confinement at that facility. More
specifically, the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place
at the Orleans Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19
virus. The Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and a motion to certify a class action because his claims
are related to Stewart v. The State of New York,
20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
The events giving rise to the Plaintiff's claims are alleged to
have occurred exclusively at the Orleans Correctional Facility
located in Orleans County. Orleans County is within the Western
District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is,
therefore, proper in the Western District of New York, District
Judge Joan M. Azrack holds.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers the action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. The determination of the
Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for class
certification is reserved for the transferee court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
under Section 1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed
to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case
closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/szbantkw from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Inzinga Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES INZINGA, THELMA JOY,
SUSAN LAKE, DAVID MASON, JOHNNA RAIMONDI, and THERESA SCIRA on
behalf of themselves and all Others similarly situated, v. The NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and ROBERTA REARDON, as
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor, Case No.
6:21-cv-06344-CJS (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting their class certification bid under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1).
The New York State Department of Labor is the department of the New
York state government that enforces labor law and administers
unemployment benefits. The mission of the New York State Department
of Labor is to protect workers, assist the unemployed and connect
job seekers to jobs, according to its website.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hTFWiw
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter O'Brian Dellinger, Esq. :
EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
West Main Street, Suite 200 7
Rochester, NY 14614 |
Telephone: (585) 454-4060 :
E-mail: pdellinger@empirejustice.org
- and -
Vanessa Glushefski, Esq.|
COVID LAW & COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CLINIC
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO SCHOOL OF LAW
507 O'Brian Hall, North Campus
Buffalo, NY 14260
Telephone: (716) 645-2167
Facsimile: (716) 645-6199
E-mail: law-covid@buffalo.edu
NEW YORK: Middlebrooks' Bid to Certify Class Reserved for W.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
transferred the lawsuit styled PAUL MIDDLEBROOKS, 20-B-0500,
Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-1303 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York and reserved the ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action to that court.
Pro se Plaintiff, Paul Middlebrooks, who is presently incarcerated
at the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. The
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion to certify a class action because his claims are
related to Stewart v. The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
District Judge Joan M. Azrack notes that the events giving rise to
the Plaintiff's claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively at
the Orleans Correctional Facility located in Orleans County.
Orleans County is within the Western District of New York. Under 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the
Western District of New York.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers the action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. The determination of the
Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for class
certification is reserved for the transferee court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York under Section
1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of the Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2pwpb4wc from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Napper Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan M. Azrack transferred the lawsuit entitled
LAWRENCE NAPPER, 15-B-1222, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1305 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
Pro se Plaintiff, Lawrence Napper, who is presently incarcerated at
the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. The
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion to certify a class action because his claims are
related to Stewart v. The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
Here, the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's claims are alleged
to have occurred exclusively at the Orleans Correctional Facility
located in Orleans County, Judge Azrack notes. Orleans County is
within the Western District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the Western District of
New York.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers the action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York. The determination of the Plaintiff's motions
to proceed in forma pauperis and for class certification is
reserved for the transferee court.
Judge Azrack directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York under
Section 1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail
a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s9ddftc from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: Stewart Suit Transferred From E.D.N.Y. to W.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
transferred the lawsuit captioned as JESSE LEE STEWART, JR.,
16-A-3508, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-CV-3630 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of New York.
Pro se plaintiff, Jesse Lee Stewart, Jr., who is presently
incarcerated at the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining
about the conditions of his confinement at that facility. More
specifically, the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place
at the Orleans Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19
virus. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the Court's filing fee
nor did he file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, the Court notified the Plaintiff that, in order for
his case to proceed, he must either remit the filing fee or
complete and return the enclosed application to proceed in forma
pauperis and Prisoner Litigation Authorization form ("PLRA") within
fourteen (14) days. To date, the Plaintiff has not responded to the
Court's notice.
Rather, the Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking to add his claims to a
class action case pending in this District, Butler,
11-2602(JS)(SIL). However, the claims in that case concern the
conditions of confinement solely at the Suffolk County Correctional
Facility.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's application for consolidation is
denied and, for the reasons that follow, the action is transferred
to the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York.
District Judge Joan M. Azrack notes that the events giving rise to
the Plaintiff's claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively at
the Orleans Correctional Facility located in Orleans County.
Orleans County is within the Western District of New York. Under 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the
Western District of New York. Although the Plaintiff includes
Suffolk County as a defendant, there are no allegations against it
in the complaint and it appears the Plaintiff names Suffolk County
solely because his conviction, which gave rise to his incarceration
occurred in Suffolk County.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers the action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the action to the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York under
Section 1406(a). The determination of the Plaintiff's motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is reserved for the transferee court.
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of the
Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/km2tdwer from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Bid to Certify Class in Cole Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
transferred the lawsuit titled STEPHEN J. COLE, 20-B-1002,
Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-1304 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York, and reserved the ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action to that court.
Pro se Plaintiff, Stephen J. Cole, who is presently incarcerated at
the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. The
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion to certify a class action because his claims are
related to Stewart v. The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
According to District Judge Joan M. Azrack, the events giving rise
to the Plaintiff's claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively
at the Orleans Correctional Facility located in Orleans County.
Orleans County is within the Western District of New York. Under 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the
Western District of New York.
Rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue, the Court, in
the interest of justice, transfers the action pursuant Section
1406(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New
York. The determination of the Plaintiff's motions to proceed in
forma pauperis and for class certification is reserved for the
transferee court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the action
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
under Section 1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed
to mail a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case
closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3np9zmfr from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Bid to Certify Class in Still Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan M. Azrack transferred the lawsuit styled ULNER
STILL, 05-B-0239, Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-1283 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, and
reserved the ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class
action to that court.
Pro se Plaintiff, Ulner Still, who is presently incarcerated at the
Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. The
Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
and a motion to certify a class action because his claims are
related to Stewart v. The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
Judge Azrack notes that the events giving rise to the Plaintiff's
claims are alleged to have occurred exclusively at the Orleans
Correctional Facility located in Orleans County. Orleans County is
within the Western District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the Western District of
New York.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers this action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. The determination of the
Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for class
certification is reserved for the transferee court.
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York under Section
1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy
of this Order to the Plaintiff and to mark the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/243bpy48 from
Leagle.com.
NEW YORK: W.D.N.Y. to Rule on Jacque-Crews' Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
transferred the lawsuit captioned D. JACQUE-CREWS, 18-B-1254,
Plaintiff v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-CV-1306 (JMA) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York and reserved the ruling on the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action to that court.
Pro se Plaintiff, D. Jacque-Crews, who is presently incarcerated at
the Orleans Correctional Facility, filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, complaining about the
conditions of his confinement at that facility. More specifically,
the Plaintiff complains about the protocols in place at the Orleans
Correctional Facility with regard to the COVID-19 virus. He also
filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to
certify a class action because his claims are related to Stewart v.
The State of New York, 20-CV-3630(JMA)(SIL).
The events giving rise to the Plaintiff's claims are alleged to
have occurred exclusively at the Orleans Correctional Facility
located in Orleans County, notes District Judge Joan M. Azrack.
Orleans County is within the Western District of New York. Under 28
U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2), venue is, therefore, proper in the
Western District of New York.
Accordingly, rather than dismiss the complaint for improper venue,
the Court, in the interest of justice, transfers the action
pursuant Section 1406(a) to the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York. The determination of the
Plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for class
certification is reserved for the transferee court.
Judge Azrack directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York under Section 1406(a). The Clerk of the Court is further
directed to mail a copy of the Order to the Plaintiff and to mark
the case closed.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith and,
therefore, should the Plaintiff seek leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, such status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/b8yb46h4 from
Leagle.com.
NORTH CENTRAL: Compton Suit Wins FLSA Conditional Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DEREK COMPTON,
Individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. NORTH
CENTRAL VIRGINIA RESTAURANTS, INC., d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA, Case
No. 5:20-cv-00073-TTC-JCH (W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Thomas T.
Cullen entered an order:
1. granting Compton's two motions for Fair labor Standards
(FLSA) conditional class certification
2. directing the Defendant to identify all delivery drivers it
has employed at any time in the last three years;
3. directing the Defendant, Within 14 days of this Order, to
produce and provide to Plaintiff's counsel a computer-
readable data file containing the names, last-known
addresses, email addresses, dates of birth, and dates of
employment with the respective store number(s) of all
putative class members to facilitate notice of this pending
action;
4. approving the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form;
5. directing the Plaintiff to send the notice and consent form
to all identified persons within 14 days of receiving the
above data; and
6. allowing the putative class members 90 days after the mailing
of the notices to opt-in to this case.
The Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant's delivery drivers are
similarly situated because the same compensation policies and
employment practices applied to all of them. Specifically, Compton
has provided evidence that Defendant's vehicle cost-reimbursement
policy applied to all of its delivery drivers, and that Defendant
paid all of its delivery drivers the same amount of overtime
wages.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vx2SYX at no extra charge.[CC]
NORTHWEST CONFECTIONS: Rodriguez-Alvarez Files Suit in Cal. Super.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northwest Confections
California, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ricardo
Rodriguez-Alvarez, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Northwest Confections California, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No.
34-2021-00300622-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
12, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Northwest Confections California is a Cannabis Distributor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
1110 Franklin St Ste 6, Oakland, CA 94607-6528
Phone: (415) 779-2888
Fax: (415) 738-7873
Email: larry@ysleelaw.com
NORTHWEST PALLET: Citizens Sues Over Insurance Coverage Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY of AMERICA, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHWEST PALLET SERVICES,
LLC, NORTHWEST PALLET HOLDINGS, LLC, and RENE CASTANEDA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02804 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment.
In this action, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has no
duty to defend or indemnify Northwest under the Cyber Liability
Coverage Part of the 2019 or the 2020 Commercial Lines Policies
that it issued to the Defendants in connection with the underlying
putative class action suit captioned Castaneda v. Northwest Pallet
Services, LLC dba Northwest Pallet Supply and Northwest Pallet
Holdings, LLC, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.
Citizens Insurance Company of America is an insurance company with
its principal place of business in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Northwest Pallet Services, LLC is a manufacturer of pallets and
crates, with its principal place of business in Des Plaines,
Illinois.
Northwest Pallet Holdings, LLC is a pallet solutions company, with
its principal place of business in Des Plaines, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Goldwater, Esq.
Kelly Ognibene, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
550 West Adams Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: (312) 345-1718
E-mail: Jeffrey.Goldwater@lewisbrisbois.com
Kelly.Ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com
ODONATE THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Tesetaxel Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss
the putative class action suit related to tesetaxel, is pending.
On September 16, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of stockholders of the Company against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and the Company's current and
former Chief Financial Officers. The complaint was last amended on
April 13, 2021.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California and alleges that the Company made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the safety and
tolerability of tesetaxel in the Company's public statements in
violation of federal securities laws.
The lawsuit seeks damages allegedly sustained by the class and an
award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees.
The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and that
it has substantive defenses to the claims of liability and damages.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 13,
2021.
Odonate said, "Due to the early stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."
Odonate Therapeutics, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company dedicated to
the development of best-in-class therapeutics that improve and
extend the lives of patients with cancer. The company's initial
focus is on the development of tesetaxel, an investigational,
orally administered chemotherapy agent that belongs to a class of
drugs known as taxanes, which are widely used in the treatment of
cancer. The company is based in New York, New York.
OGDEN CITY AIRPORT: Ogden Regional Files Suit in District of Utah
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ogden City Airport,
et al. The case is styled as Ogden Regional Airport Association, a
Utah Non-Profit Corporation; Wendy Marsell, Wayne Law, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Durbano Properties,
a Utah limited liability company, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Ogden City Airport, Ogden City, a
municipality in the State of Utah, Case No. 1:21-cv-00075-JNP (D.
Utah, May 25, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Condemnation for Civil Rights Act.
Ogden-Hinckley Airport -- https://www.ogdencity.com/1841/Airport --
is a public airport four miles southwest of Ogden, in Weber County,
Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M Durbano, Esq.
John E. Keiter, Jr., Esq.
DURBANO LAW FIRM
476 W Heritage Park Blvd., Ste. 200
Layton, UT 84041
Phone: (801) 776-4111
Email: doug@durbanolawfirm.com
john@durbanolawfirm.com
- and -
Bruce R. Baird, Esq.
BRUCE R BAIRD PC
2150 S 1300 E., Ste. 500
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Phone: (801) 328-1400
Email: bbaird@difficultdirt.com
OLDCASTLE SERVICES: Minor BIPA Class Suit Goes to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JERMAINE MINOR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. OLDCASTLE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 21 L 0361,
was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of St. Clair County to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00503 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to publicly
provide a retention schedule or guideline for permanently
destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and information;
failing to inform the Plaintiff and the Class in writing that their
biometric identifiers and information were being collected and
stored; failing to inform them in writing of the specific purpose
and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or
information were being collected, stored, and used; failing to
obtain written releases before it collected, used and stored their
biometric identifiers and information; and failing to store
biometric data using the reasonable standard of care within the
industry.
Oldcastle Services, Inc. is a company that supplies building
products based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patricia J. Martin, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 659-2000
E-mail: pmartin@littler.com
ONE CALL: Galarza FLSA Suit Moved From W.D. Texas to S.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOEL GALARZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ONE CALL CLAIMS, LLC, KRISTI SMOOT,
KELLY SMOOT, and TEXAS WINDSTORM INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:20-cv-00808, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Alabama assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00250-C to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated insurance adjusters overtime pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
One Call Claims, LLC is an insurance claims services outsourcing
company, with its principal place of business in Arizona.
Texas Windstorm Insurance Association is an insurance company, with
its principal place of business located at 5700 S. MoPac
Expressway, Building A, Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
8665 New Trails, Suite 160
The Woodlands, TX 77381
Telephone: (281) 364-7261
Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
OREGON: July 16 Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL MANEY; GARY CLIFT;
GEORGE NULPH; THERON HALL; DAVID HART; MICAH RHODES; SHERYL LYNN
SUBLET; and FELISHA RAMIREZ, personal representative for the ESTATE
OF JUAN TRISTAN, individually, on behalf of a class of other
similarly situated, v. STATE OF OREGON; KATE BROWN; COLETTE PETERS;
HEIDI STEWARD; MIKE GOWER; MARK NOOTH; ROB PERSSON; KEN JESKE;
PATRICK ALLEN; JOE BUGHER; and GARRY RUSSELL, Case No.
6:20-cv-00570-SB (D. Oreg.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline for them to respond to the
plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Damages and Wrongful Death Classes
and Alternative Motion to Certify Issue Class by 60 days from May
17, 2021, which results in a deadline of July 16, 2021.
The Defendants also request the Court extend their deadline to
respond to plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint to 60 days, to July
2, 2021.
The Defendants contend that the Court has authority to modify the
case schedule and extend briefing deadlines upon a showing of "good
cause." The Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion and
their Fourth Amended Complaint on May 4, 2021. The motion
encompasses many legal and factual issues that will require
discovery from plaintiffs and the declarants supporting plaintiffs'
motion. Defendants therefore request an extension to conduct the
discovery and prepare their response. The Plaintiffs do not oppose
an extension of 60 days.
The Defendants assd that they are also preparing a response to the
Fourth Amended Complaint, inclusive of motions to dismiss and
strike. The response is currently due on June 17, 2021. The
Plaintiffs added two new individual defendants to the Fourth
Amended Complaint: Joe Bugher and Garry Russell. Defendants
accepted service on behalf of Mr. Bugher and Mr. Russell.
Consequently, under FRCP 4(d)(3), the defendants Bugher and Russell
have 60 days to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint, which is
July 2, 2021. The Defendants request the deadline for all
responses, including motions, to the Fourth Amended Complaint be
extended to July 2, 2021 to accommodate additional time to analyze
the new allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint and to avoid
piecemeal filings for separate defendants.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 14, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34vqEZn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Special Assistant Attorneys General for the Defendants are:The
Anna M. Joyce, Esq.
Kerry J. Shepherd, Esq.
Molly K. Honore, Esq.
Jermaine F. Brown, Esq.
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 295-3085
Facsimile: (503) 323-9105
E-mail: AnnaJoyce@MarkowitzHerbold.com
KerryShepherd@MarkowitzHerbold.com
MollyHonore@MarkowitzHerbold.com
JermaineBrown@MarkowitzHerbold.com
- and -
Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
Andrew Hallman, Esq.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
Andrew.Hallman@doj.state.or.us
OUTLAW LABORATORY: Skyline Market Seeks to Certify Payment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE OUTLAW LABORATORY, LP LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Calif.), the third-party
plaintiff Skyline Market, Inc. will move the Court on July 2, 2021
or an order:
1. certifying the following "Payment Class" pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3):
"All retail entities in the United States that received a
demand letter sent on behalf of Outlaw Laboratory, LP, in
which Outlaw Laboratory threatened litigation over the
entity's sale of 'sexual enhancement products,' and where the
recipient thereafter paid money to Outlaw Laboratory, Tauler
Smith LLP, or an agent of either to 'settle' the claim."
Excluded from the proposed classes are Outlaw's officers,
directors, managerial employees, and their immediate
families, as well as this Court and the Court's immediate
family members; and
2. appointing Gaw Poe LLP as class counsel.
A copy of the Third Party's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vk4cOy
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Defendants, Counterclaimant, and Third-Party
Plaintiffs, are:
Mark Poe, Esq.
Randolph Gaw, Esq.
Samuel Song, Esq.
Victor Meng, Esq.
GAW | POE LLP
4 Embarcadero, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 766-7451
Facsimile: (415) 737-0642
E-mail: mpoe@gawpoe.com
rgaw@gawpoe.com
ssong@gawpoe.com
vmeng@gawpoe.com
OZONE NETWORKS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ozone Networks, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Ozone Networks, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04265 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ozone Networks Inc. -- http://www.ozonewifi.com/-- is a marketing
and advertising company based out of Austin, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
P.F. CHANG'S: Underpays Bartenders and Waiters, Fournier Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DYLAN FOURNIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC. and P.F.
CHANG'S III, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00912-SMB (D. Ariz.,
May 24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
restaurant workers at the mandated minimum wage rate by taking
advantage of the tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked as a bartender and waiter at the P.F. Chang's
location in Allen, Texas from December 2018 to June 2019.
P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. is an operator of a nationwide
chain of restaurants under the trade name P.F. Chang's throughout
the U.S.
P.F. Chang's III, LLC is an operator of a nationwide chain of
restaurants under the trade name P.F. Chang's throughout the U.S.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, LLP
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
- and –
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
PALOMAR HEALTH: Escalona Sues to Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Escalona, Ryan Grothe, and Lino Perez-Rojas, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. THE PALOMAR
HEALTH FOUNDATION, DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-00904-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2021), is brought to seek
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, minimum wages, interest
thereon, damages and other penalties, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and reasonable attorney fees and costs, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law.
The Defendant had a policy and/or practice of requiring, suffering,
and permitting the Plaintiffs to perform uncompensated work during
their meal break periods. The Defendants required full-time the
Plaintiffs to work eight-and-a-half hour days, which included one
unpaid half-hour lunch period per day. During meal breaks, the
Plaintiffs were required to monitor their radios and/or cell phones
and respond to any calls for assistance. The Plaintiffs could be
discipline for failing to do so. The Defendant did not compensate
the Plaintiffs for the required work performed during their meal
periods. the Plaintiffs worked during meal periods for which they
were not compensated. Defendant was aware that the Plaintiffs
performed work during their meal period without compensation. The
Defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the requirements of the
FLSA by not compensating the Plaintiffs for the hours worked during
their meal periods, and therefore failing to pay overtime owed
under the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in non-exempted
positions of Security Officer, Lead Security Officer, or Per Diem
Security Officer at its hospitals located in Poway, Escondido, and
downtown Escondido, California.
PALOMAR HEALTH FOUNDATION is a domestic nonprofit district
organized under the laws of the state of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Tashayla D. Billinton, Esq.
Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
A Professional Corporation
1912 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
Phone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
PARAGON METALS: Roberts FLSA Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTORIA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PARAGON METALS LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-11110, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan on May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Michigan assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00426-HYJ-RSK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated manufacturing workers overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Paragon Metals LLC is a company that operates manufacturing
facilities for metal components, with its principal place of
business in Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Wilkinson, Esq.
PALADIN EMPLOYMENT LAW PLLC
251 North Rose Street, Suite 200
Kalamazoo, MI 49007-3860
Telephone: (269) 978.2474
E-mail: mark@paladinemploymentlaw.com
- and –
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
KREIS ENDERLE HUDGINS & BORSOS PC
One Moorsbridge
P.O. Box 4010
Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
Telephone: (269) 321-2311
E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
PARKMOBILE LLC: Liable to Customer Info Disclosures, Baker Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02182-AT (N.D. Ga., May 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory
judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to implement and
follow security procedures in order to properly secure and
safeguard protected personally identifiable information (PII) of
its customers. The Defendant announced on March 26, 2021 that it
had been subject to a cybersecurity incident related to a
vulnerability in a third-party software vendor that it uses. The
data breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to
comply with industry standards to protect information systems that
contain PII. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide adequate
notice to the Plaintiff and Class members that their PII had been
accessed and compromised. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
omissions and negligence, the Plaintiff and Class members are, and
will continue to be at an increased risk of identity theft due to
the disclosure of their PII.
ParkMobile, LLC is an owner and operator of mobile applications
that provide parking services to users throughout the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
3535 Piedmont Road
Building 14, Suite 230
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 320-9979
Facsimile: (404) 320-9978
E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
- and –
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
- and –
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DE MARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Rd., Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and –
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and –
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: brian.gudmundston@zimmreed.com
PARTS AUTHORITY: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Polanco Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Polanco, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Parts Authority, LLC, Parts
Authority, Inc. and Yaron Rosenthal, Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-02957 (E.D. N.Y., May 25, 2021), seeks to redress Defendants'
systematic policy and practice of paying their delivery drivers
hourly wages well below the minimum required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and various states' labor laws.
Parts Authority, LLC and Parts Authority, Inc. together own and
operate a chain of approximately 200 automobile parts sales and
distribution stores in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas,
Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia. Parts Authority
also operates numerous automotive parts warehouses in various
locations around the nation.
Parts Authority requires its delivery drivers to drive their own
personal vehicles to pick up assigned automotive parts from a Parts
Authority store or warehouse and deliver them to Parts Authority's
customers.
Polanco is a delivery driver for Parts Authority. He claims to be
shortchanged for his reimbursements for vehicular wear and tear,
gas and other driving-related expenses thus, in effect, rendering
his pay below the minimum wage. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew White, Esq.
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Tel: (914) 298-3281
Fax: (914) 824-1561
Email: awhite@fbfglaw.com
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Mark Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
Facsimile: (314) 984-810
Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com
PATROWICZ HOLDINGS: Derossett Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY DEROSSETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATROWICZ HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a
JONATHAN C. PATROWICZ D.O., P.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01294-DKC (D. Md., May 25, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
prerecorded voice message to her cellular telephone number ending
in 1129 on or about May 5, 2021 in an attempt to promote its
services. The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the
Defendant with her express written consent to be contacted by
prerecorded message.
Allegedly, similar prerecorded messages were also transmitted by
the Defendants to other individuals that caused them harm including
the Plaintiff, in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, conversion,
inconvenience and disruption of their daily life.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated seeking statutory and
treble damages, and other relief as the Court deems necessary.
Patrowicz Holdings, LLC d/b/a Jonathan C. Patrowicz D.O., P.A.
operates a family medicine medical practice and has begun offering
membership medicine, where patients pay Defendant an annual
membership fee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: (202) 973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
- and –
Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Tel: (786) 496-4469
E-mail: IJhiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com
PATTERN ENERGY: Delaware Court Narrows Claims in Stockholders Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morgan T. Zurn of the Court of Chancery of Delaware issued a
Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part the motions
to dismiss filed in the lawsuit titled IN RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP
INC. STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION, Case No. 2020-0357-MTZ (Del. Ch.).
According to the Memorandum Opinion, the sales process of Pattern
Energy Group Inc. (the "Company") was run by an undisputedly
disinterested and independent special committee that recognized and
nominally managed conflicts, proceeded with advice from an
unconflicted banker and counsel, and conducted a lengthy process
attracting tens of suitors that the special committee pressed for
value. But, even having acknowledged that one eager bidder offered
superior value, the special committee ultimately selected a
different bidder as the buyer.
The buyer was preferred by a private equity investor, who formed
the Company and its upstream supplier, which the investor
controlled; appointed the Company's management team; and held a
consent right over Company changes of control. The investor favored
the buyer because its proposal, as shaped by the investor,
accomplished the investor's goals of taking the Company private and
consolidating it with the upstream supplier, while permitting the
investor to retain its equity stake in the new company.
In apportioning fault for the selection of the buyer's inferior
bid, the Plaintiff primarily points to three forces: (1) the
investor's control over the Company together with the upstream
supplier and management; (2) the Company's CEO, who was conflicted
in favor of the investor yet ran point on the sales process to
stockholders' detriment; and (3) the special committee's
prioritization of the investor's goals over stockholder value and
inability to say "no."
In her post-closing class action complaint, the Plaintiff seeks
entire fairness review due to the investor's alleged control group
standing on both sides of the transaction, or due to the CEO's
alleged fraud on the board. She claims the special committee and
management breached their fiduciary duties in a cash-out merger,
and that the investor and supplier either controlled that process
or participated as third-party tortfeasors.
The Defendants--the investor, the supplier, the conflicted
directors, the special committee, and conflicted
management--contend that the cash-out merger with Buyer was
cleansed by an informed stockholder vote; that the directors were
exculpated; and that no breaches of fiduciary duty or third-party
liability torts have been pled.
Background
The Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint, filed on May 28,
2020 (the "Complaint"), challenges the March 16, 2020 all-cash
acquisition (the "Merger") of Pattern Energy Group Inc. by Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board ("Buyer"). Lead Plaintiff Jody Britt
("Plaintiff") was a Company stockholder at all relevant times, and
brings her claims on behalf of all other similarly situated former
public Company stockholders.
By Oct. 2019, two competing bidders--Brookfield Asset Management
Inc. ("Brookfield") and Buyer, Riverstone's preferred
bidder--emerged as the Company's remaining serious bidders. Since
late August 2019, Brookfield labored to secure the Special
Committee's and Riverstone's approval of its premium bid,
continuing to entertain Company management's and Riverstone's
demands. In contrast, Buyer's offer moved forward smoothly with
little to no enhancement to its offer price. Despite Brookfield's
efforts and the 45% premium, and with the preferred stock sale on
the horizon, Director Defendant Alan R. Batkin and Company
management determined that the Brookfield offer would ultimately be
inadequate for Riverstone.
On Oct. 3, Batkin again encouraged Brookfield to engage with
Riverstone. Brookfield once more demanded exclusivity and stood
firm that, without it, Brookfield "would not be willing to devote
time and resources to discussions with Riverstone." Batkin told
Brookfield that the Company could not grant exclusivity, as the
Special Committee was still in discussions with other parties,
including Buyer and Party D.
On Nov. 1, Brookfield told Paul Weiss, who the Special Committee
hired as counsel, it could negotiate any necessary amendments with
Riverstone within 30 days. Paul Weiss demanded that Brookfield
submit definitive documents the next day, which Brookfield could
not do without Riverstone's cooperation, which it did not believe
it would receive. As a result, Brookfield decided its efforts were
futile and withdrew its bid. Buyer was the last bidder standing.
On Nov. 3, the Special Committee voted to recommend that the Board
approve the all-cash Merger with Buyer at $26.75 per share, which
was $1.05 less than the $27.80 closing trading price of the
Company's stock the previous day, but represented a 14.8% premium
to the Company's closing price on Aug. 9, the last trading day
before rumors of a potential acquisition leaked. Under the Merger
agreement with Buyer (the "Merger Agreement"), Buyer's offer of
$26.75 per share implied an enterprise value for the Company of
$6.1 billion, including debt. Evercore Group LLC, which the Special
Committee hired as an independent financial advisor, issued a
fairness opinion confirming that the Merger was fair from a
financial point of view; Goldman did not issue an opinion. The
Board approved the Merger that day.
Concurrently with approving the Merger, the Board adopted
resolutions that delegated full authority to prepare and
disseminate the Proxy to Company management. Management had
unbridled discretion to include or omit information as deemed
necessary, appropriate or advisable. As a result of leaving the
Merger disclosures in the hands of the Officer
Defendants--particularly Michael Garland--the Plaintiff contends
that the Proxy omitted or misrepresented numerous categories of
material information. Garland was the Company's first Chief
Executive Officer and is also an overlapping fiduciary of both
Riverstone and the Company.
Filing of Proxy
On Feb. 4, 2020, the Company filed the Proxy recommending that
Company stockholders vote in favor of the Merger. Including
annexes, the Proxy spanned 231 pages and, among other things,
disclosed a detailed summary of the Merger process, including
details about the bids by and negotiations with competitive
bidders; the valuation metrics employed; the Consent Right; the
concurrent Developer 2 acquisition and Contribution Agreement and
that certain members of Company management stood to benefit under
the Contribution Agreement; and that certain directors and officers
had potential conflicts of interest, and the Board was aware that
these interests existed and considered them, among other matters,
when it approved the Merger Agreement. After negative commentary by
proxy advisory firms and disclosure suits by stockholders, but
before the stockholder vote, the Company issued further disclosures
in a supplemental definitive proxy statement filed on March 4, 2020
(the "Supplemental Proxy").
However, as alleged, the Proxy and Supplemental Proxy failed to
disclose, among other things, that Riverstone used the Consent
Right to block a more valuable deal with Brookfield and TerraForm
Power, Inc.; that Garland had unauthorized discussions with
potential bidders in violation of the Special Committee's
instructions, including an unauthorized in-person meeting with
Buyer and representatives of Riverstone in April 2019; that Goldman
faced conflicts of interest, including that Goldman owns a
substantial stake in Riverstone, had advised Riverstone on a
take-private of the Company, and had earned fees totaling over $100
million from Riverstone and Buyer in recent years; that Browne, a
representative of Riverstone, attended a majority of the Special
Committee's meetings and Executive Sessions; and that the Company's
largest stockholder, PSP, held a 22% interest in Developer 2, and
therefore was interested in the Merger.
Following the Merger announcement, nine sets of plaintiffs filed
pre-merger lawsuits alleging that the Proxy made inadequate
disclosures. All but one of these lawsuits were voluntarily
dismissed shortly after the Company filed the Supplemental Proxy.
The remaining lawsuit was filed by Water Island Capital, LLC and
its affiliates ("Water Island"), who also launched an aggressive
public campaign urging other stockholders to vote against the
Merger based on the themes pervading the Complaint.
On Feb. 18, Water Island Capital LLC issued an open letter to
Company stockholders, opposing the consideration paid for Company
stock in the Merger as "woefully inadequate." Water Island claimed
that the Merger "originally offered at best a negligible premium,"
and, at the time of Water Island's letter, "a significant discount"
due to "the recent seismic shift in the value ascribed to renewable
energy companies."
On Feb. 19, the Company issued a press release responding to Water
Island's claims and reiterating the Board's position that the
Merger was the best path forward for the Company and its
stockholders. Water Island then issued a second letter on February
24, again urging stockholders to vote against the Merger and
detailing the same supposedly "misleading" aspects of the Proxy
that Plaintiff challenges in this litigation.
Following Water Island's public criticism of the Merger, on
February 28 and March 2, Institutional Shareholder Services ("ISS")
and Glass Lewis, the two largest proxy advisory firms in the United
States, both issued reports recommending that stockholders reject
the Merger. Glass Lewis expressed concern that the Board and
Special Committee did not run a sufficiently independent process
and believed the Company was worth more as a standalone entity.
While ISS also believed the Merger inadequate, it also acknowledged
that some Company stockholders may have preferred a cash offer, as
opposed to Brookfield's potential all-stock transaction, because it
provided "certainty of value" in the face of "global pandemic
fears," and the recent surge in the value attributed to renewable
energy companies may not necessarily be a "resilient long-term
trend."
Merger-Related Litigations
The Merger sparked litigation in this Court: two class action
complaints challenging the adequacy of the Merger process and its
consideration were filed in May 2020. Those actions were
consolidated into the present case, and Britt was appointed lead
plaintiff. Her class action Complaint asserts six counts.
Count I, for breach of fiduciary duty, asserts that, among other
things, the Director Defendants (Michael Garland, Edmund John
Philip Browne, Alan R. Batkin, Richard A. Goodman, Douglas G. Hall,
Patricia M. Newson, and Mona K. Sutphen) consciously disregarded
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to the
unfair Merger, which failed to maximize stockholder value, but was
the preferred transaction for Riverstone and a conflicted
management team.
Count II, for breach of fiduciary duty, asserts the Officer
Defendants (Michael Garland, Hunter Armistead, Daniel Elkort,
Michael Lyon, and Esben Pedersen) were interested in the Merger as
a result of their employment with and/or substantial equity
holdings in Developer 2 and their continued employment with and
equity interests in the post-closing combined entity; and that they
advanced their own self-interest and the interests of Riverstone to
the detriment of Company stockholders by improperly wielding
Riverstone's narrow consent right to improperly influence the
Special Committee, manipulating their own projections, and
knowingly and intentionally disseminating a materially false and
misleading Proxy. Count II alleges that Garland in particular
breached his duties by disobeying the Special Committee's
instructions, meeting with Buyer and Riverstone without the Special
Committee's authorization, and concealing that meeting from the
Special Committee.
Count III asserts the Entity Defendants aided and abetted Company
fiduciaries' breaches by, among other things, having unauthorized
meetings with Goldman, Garland, and Buyer; infecting the process
with conflicted individuals and entities; wrongfully exploiting the
Consent Right in favor of the Merger and Riverstone; and
threatening meritless litigation against Brookfield to block a
transaction with it. Count IV asserts the Entity Defendants
tortiously interfered with the Company stockholders' prospective
economic advantage in the superior Brookfield-TerraForm offer.
Count V asserts the Entity Defendants, Officer Defendants and
Browne conspired to defeat the Brookfield-TerraForm transaction in
favor of the unfair Merger and to ensure the Company did not
disclose all material information to its stockholders, thereby
inducing them to approve the Merger. Count VI collects the Officer
Defendants and the Entity Defendants into a group referred to as
the "Controller Defendants," and asserts they owed and breached
fiduciary duties as controllers.
On Sept. 11, 2020, the Individual Defendants and Entity Defendants
moved to dismiss under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6).
Discussion
The Director Defendants argue the that Plaintiff's breach of
fiduciary duty claims must be dismissed under Corwin v. KKR
Financial Holdings LLC because holders of a majority of
disinterested shares approved the Merger in a fully informed,
uncoerced vote, and, therefore, the business judgment rule
unrebuttably applies. Even if Corwin is inapplicable, the Director
Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's duty of care claims against
them are barred by the exculpation provision in the Company's
Certificate of Incorporation, and that the Plaintiff does not plead
a nonexculpated duty of loyalty claim.
The Plaintiff asserts that she has stated nonexculpated claims
against the Director Defendants for violating their duties in bad
faith; that Corwin does not apply to cleanse the transaction; and
that the Court should review it under an entire fairness standard
because controllers stood on both sides of the transaction, and/or
Garland committed fraud on the Board.
On the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Plaintiff prevails on
most of her arguments. Recognizing that neither the investor nor
the supplier owned Company stock, Judge Zurn states that the Court
leaves open the possibility that the Plaintiff may establish the
investor, supplier, and management stockholders formed a control
group, given the investor's consent right and other pervasive
sources of soft power over the Company and its sales process. Thus,
it remains possible that the transaction may be subject to the
entire fairness standard of review under a controller theory--but
not a fraud on the board theory.
At a minimum, the Plaintiff has pled the special committee and
management failed to manage conflicts and prioritized the
investor's goals over stockholder value in bad faith (as
distinguished from dereliction of duty), and so states
nonexculpated claims for breach of fiduciary duty that will be
reviewed under enhanced scrutiny. All but two management Defendants
allegedly contributed to flaws in the process. The sales process is
not presumptively subject to the business judgment rule: the votes
in favor fall below a majority of disinterested stockholders
because the block at the tipping point was subject to a voting
agreement that compelled favorable votes that were not informed,
disinterested, or voluntary. The Plaintiff has also pled the
special committee improperly and completely delegated drafting the
merger proxy to conflicted management, and that the Proxy was
inadequate.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss are granted and denied in part.
The Individual Defendants' Motion is denied as to Counts I and II.
The Entity Defendants' Motion is denied as to Count IV. Counts III,
V, VI are held in abeyance. With the exception of Count VI, all
claims are dismissed as to Armistead and Pedersen. The parties will
submit an implementing order within 20 days of this decision.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/rr2ex8d9 from
Leagle.com.
Ned Weinberger -- nweinberger@labaton.com -- and Mark Richardson --
mrichardson@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, in Wilmington,
Delaware; David MacIsaac -- dmacisaac@labaton.com -- and John
Vielandi -- jvielandi@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, in New
York City; Chad Johnson -- ChadJ@rgrdlaw.com -- Noam Mandel --
Noam@rgrdlaw.com -- and Desiree Cummings -- dcummings@rgrdlaw.com
-- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, in New York City; Brian Schall
-- brian@schallfirm.com -- and Rina Restaino -- rina@schallfirm.com
-- THE SCHALL LAW FIRM, in Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for
Lead Plaintiff Jody Britt.
A. Thompson Bayliss -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- and April M.
Kirby, ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Alan S.
Goudiss -- agoudiss@shearman.com -- K. Mallory Brennan --
mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- and Deke Shearon --
deke.shearon@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP; Christina
Urhausen -- christina.urhausen@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING
LLP, in San Francisco, California; Attorneys for Defendants Alan R.
Batkin, Edmund John Philip Browne, Richard A. Goodman, Douglas G.
Hall, Patricia M. Newson, Mona K. Sutphen, Michael Garland, Hunter
Armistead, Daniel Elkort, Michael Lyon, and Esben Pedersen.
Rudolf Koch -- koch@rlf.com -- Matthew D. Perri -- perri@rlf.com --
and Andrew L. Milam -- milam@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware; Matthew A. Schwartz --
schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Y. Carson Zhou --
zhouc@sullcrom.com -- John-Francis S. Flynn -- flynnjf@sullcrom.com
-- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP, in New York City; Attorneys for
Defendants Riverstone Holdings LLC, Riverstone Pattern Energy II
Holdings, L.P., and Pattern Energy Group, Holdings 2 LP.
PEACHCAP TAX: Leonard GUSA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CLYDE E. LEONARD JR., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PEACHCAP TAX & ADVISORY, LLC,
DAVID HARRISON MILLER, and ERIC STEVEN BURNETTE, Case No.
2021CV348012, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on May 24, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-02164-MHC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, breach of contract and violations of the
Georgia's Uniform Securities Act by using an affiliated
broker-dealer, PeachCap Securities, to buy and sell securities,
resulting in the Defendants receiving unauthorized and unlawful
commission payments.
PeachCap Tax & Advisory, LLC is a tax and advisory services
provider based in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq.
James Z. Foster, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3333 Piedmont Road NE
Terminus 200, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 553-2100
Facsimile: (678) 553-2212
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faces Drori Suit Over 28% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------------
LEIGH DRORI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PELOTON INTERACTIVE, INC., JOHN FOLEY, and
JILL WOODWORTH, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02925 (E.D.N.Y., May
24, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding Peloton's business, operations, and financial
results in order to artificially inflate prices of Peloton
securities between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) in addition to the
tragic death of a child, Peloton's Tread+ treadmill had caused a
serious safety threat to children and pets as there were multiple
incidents of injury to both; (ii) safety was not a priority to
Peloton as the Defendants were aware of serious injuries and death
resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or suggest a halt of
the use of the Tread+; (iii) as a result of the safety concerns,
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) declared the
Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health and safety resulting
in its urgent recommendation for consumers with small children to
cease using the Tread+; (iv) the CPSC also found a safety threat to
Tread+ users if they lost their balance; (v) Tread featured similar
safety concerns; (vi) merely reinforcing safety warnings would be
insufficient; (vii) the CPSC and Peloton would issue a recall of
the Tread+ and Tread; and (viii) as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' statements about Peloton's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged, Peloton's stock price fell $16.28 per
share, or 14%, over the next three trading days to close at $99.93
per share on April 21, 2021, damaging investors. Moreover, the
stock price further fell $14.08 per share, or 14.56%, to close at
$82.62 per share on May 5, 2021 following the disclosures of
Peloton's recall of Tread+ treadmills, the suit alleges.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. is a provider of interactive fitness
products, with its principal executive offices located at 125 West
25th Street, 11th Floor, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
company and urges investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm. Further details about the case, including
important upcoming deadline, can be found at the link provided.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON) Securities Fraud Class
Action:
Class Period: Sept. 11, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PTON
Contact An Attorney Now:PTON@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
The complaint alleges Peloton misled investors by misrepresenting
and concealing that (1) Peloton was focused on safety, (2)
Peloton's Tread+ caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both, including
death, and (3) despite knowledge of the dangers posed by Tread+,
defendants did not recall or suggest halting its use.
Investors began to learn the truth on Apr. 17, 2021, when the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission urgently warned consumers to
stop using the Tread+ after finding one death and dozens of
incidents of children being sucked under the Tread+. The next day,
CEO John Foley announced Peloton had no intention of recalling or
to stop selling the Tread+, calling the CPSC's warning "inaccurate
and misleading."
Then, on May 5, 2021, Peloton issued a recall of its Tread+ and
admitted it was wrong to call the CPSC's warning "inaccurate and
misleading."
These events caused Peloton shares to decline sharply.
"We're focused on investors' losses proving Peloton deceived
investors about the dangers posed by Tread+," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.
If you are a Peloton investor and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
ChemoCentryx, PureCycle and/or Peloton should consider their
options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email
CCXI@hbsslaw.com, PCT@hbsslaw.com, and/or PTON@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
PERDUE FOR SENATE: Wreyford TCPA Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hayden Wreyford, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Perdue for Senate, Inc., a Georgia
corporation; Conquest Communications Group, LLC, a Virginia limited
liability company; Georgians for Kelly Loeffler, Inc., a Georgia
corporation; Case No. 21C01804S5 was removed from the State Court
of Gwinnett County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on May 14, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02054-TWT to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
David Alfred Perdue Jr. is an American politician and business
executive who served as a United States senator from Georgia from
2015 to 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clifton R. Dorsen, Esq.
James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Phone: (404) 373-1978
Email: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
- and -
Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP-Woodstock
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Phone: (770) 427-5600
Fax: (404) 601-1855
Email: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
kskaar@skaarandfeagle.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan P. Tyson, Esq.
Loree Anne Paradise, Esq.
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: (770) 434-6868
Fax: (770) 434-7376
Email: btyson@taylorenglish.com
lparadise@taylorenglish.com
PLAZA RESEARCH: Advanced Dermatology Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY On
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. PLAZA
RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-02826-SL (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"All persons in the United States who received a facsimile,
soliciting their participation in a paid research study/project,
from or on behalf of Defendant and who had no ongoing business
relationship with Defendant and had not given consent to receive
facsimiles from Defendant, within the four years prior to the
filing of the Complaint until the class is certified."
Advanced Dermatology brings this action to secure redress from
Defendant Plaza Research practice of sending unsolicited
promotional faxes without consent of the recipient in violation of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaza Research is a national medical marketing, market research,
and promotion firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 7, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fNf1lN at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
Michael L. Berler, Esq.
Michael L. Fine, Esq.
FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
767 East 185th Street
Cleveland, OH 44119
Telephone: (216) 502-1055
Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
michaelf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
PLUG POWER: Continues to Defend Beverly Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug
Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004.
On March 8, 2021, Company stockholder Dawn Beverly, individually
and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021 (the
"Class"), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, Plug Chief
Executive Officer Andrew Marsh, and Plug Chief Financial Officer
Paul Middleton, captioned Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004.
The Class Action Complaint includes two claims, for (1) violation
of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b5 promulgated
thereunder (against all Defendants); and (2) violation of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act (against Mr. Marsh and Mr. Middleton).
The Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose that the Company (i) "would be unable to timely file its
2020 annual report due to delays related to the review of
classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right
to use assets with certain leases"; and (ii) "was reasonably likely
to report material weaknesses in its internal control over
financial reporting."
The Class Action Complaint alleges that, a result, "positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis,"
causing Class members losses and damages.
The Class Action Complaint seeks compensatory damages "in an amount
to be proven at trial, including interest thereon"; "reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action"; and "such other and
further relief as the court may deem just and proper."
Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.
PLUG POWER: Smolicek Class Suit in California Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Smolicek v. Plug Power Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02402.
On March 18, 2021, Company stockholder Branislav Smolicek,
individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Plug securities between November 9, 2020 and
March 1, 2021, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California a complaint captioned Smolicek v. Plug Power
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-02402.
The Smolicek Complaint is substantially similar to the Class Action
Complaint, asserting the same claims, for the same damages, against
the same Defendants as the Class Action Complaint.
The Company anticipates that the Smoliccek Complaint will be
consolidated with the Dawn Beverly et al. v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y.) under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.
PLUG POWER: Tank Class Action in New York Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit entitled, Tank v. Plug Power Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03985.
On May 4, 2021, Company stockholder Laxman Tank, individually and
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Plug
securities between November 9, 2020 and March 16, 2021, filed in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York a
complaint captioned Tank v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-03985.
The Tank Complaint is substantially similar to the Dawn Beverly et
al. v. Plug Power Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02004 (S.D.N.Y.),
asserting the same claims, for the same damages, against the same
Defendants as the Class Action Complaint.
The Company anticipates that the Tank Complaint will be
consolidated with the Class Action Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Plug Power Inc. is a provider of alternative energy technology
focused on the design, development, commercialization and
manufacture of fuel cell systems for the industrial off-road
(forklift or material handling) market. The company is based in
Latham, New York.
PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Jacobs Suit Over Mislabeled Power Chargers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DJAKARTA JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-04190-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal., May 19, 2021) is an action
alleging the Defendant's unlawful, unjust, unfair, and deceptive
practices in misrepresenting the milliampere-hours or mAh provided
by their power banks.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff manufactures and sells
chargers for portable electronic devices ("PEDs"). The packaging of
PNY's chargers (commonly referred to as "power banks") misrepresent
the milliampere-hours or mAh provided by their power banks. In
fact, the mAh PNY's power banks deliver is significantly lower than
represented to consumers. The consumers that buy those power banks
are harmed by receiving products inferior to what they believe they
are buying, the suit alleges.
PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. manufactures computer storage devices. The
Company offers memory cards, cables, drives, powerpacks, and cloud
data storage products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 593-9890
Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com
POLONIEX LLC: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Poloniex, LLC. The
case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Poloniex, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04644
(S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Poloniex -- https://poloniex.com/ -- buy, sell, and trade Bitcoin
(BTC), Ethereum (ETH), TRON (TRX), Tether (USDT), and the best
altcoins on the market with the legendary crypto exchange.[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
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Oshry Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Berel Oshry, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-04342-VB (S.D.N.Y., May
13, 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:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com
PORTICO BRANDS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portico Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Portico Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04732 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Portico -- https://porticohome.com/ -- provides upscale home
products that are rooted in refinement, relevance and
responsibility.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
POWER DESIGN: Maciel Sues Over Willful and Systematic Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amador Maciel, Luis Enrique, Camacaro and Ana Urbina, individually,
as representatives of the putative class v. POWER DESIGN, INC.;
MITCH ABRAHAM PERMUY; BENSON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.; BENSON SYSTEMS
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, LLC; SHAWN KARL BENSON; BRIAN JOSEPH
BARTLEY; CORY MICHAEL BENSON; MARTIN REYES DBA EAGLES CONTRACTING;
ROY ACEVEDO; AND J&N SERVICES LLC, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
21CV381784 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 12, 2021), is brought pursuant to
the Code of Civil Procedure for violations of the California Labor
Code, California Business, Professions Code 17200 et seq., and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order for the Defendants willful
and systematic wage theft.
According to the complaint, the Defendants, unlicensed second-tier
contractors, did not pay workers for all wages worked, overtime
wages, minimum wages, did not provide complaint meal and rest
breaks, and wrongfully employed workers with a designation of
"independent contractors" without any traditional payroll burden
such as payroll tax and deductions and in doing so did not provide
wage stubs as required by law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants on at least two projects
located in the County Santa Clara.
The Defendants are electrical contractors, licensed by the State of
California, who entered into contracts with unlicensed out of state
contractors to perform electrical work in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tomas E, MArgain, Esq.
Huy Tran, Esq.
JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP, LLP
1550 The Alameda, Suite 302
San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 317-1100
Facsimile: (408) 351-0l05
PRA HEALTH: Misleads Stockholders to Approve Merger, Kent Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRA HEALTH SCIENCES, INC., COLIN SHANNON,
JEFFREY T. BARBER, ALEXANDER G. DICKINSON, LINDA S. GRAIS, JAMES C.
MOMTAZEE, GLENN D. STETTIN, and MATTHEW P. YOUNG, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-00757-UNA (D. Del., May 26, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants authorized the issuance
of false and misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), which recommends PRA Health
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed acquisition of PRA
Health by ICON plc. The proxy statement allegedly omits or
misrepresents material information concerning, among other things:
(i) certain financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs
underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the
fairness opinions provided by PRA Health's financial advisors, BofA
Securities, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC; and (iii) the background
of the proposed transaction. It is imperative that the material
information omitted from the proxy statement is disclosed to PRA
Health's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so
that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek to enjoin the Defendants from
taking any steps to consummate the proposed transaction unless and
until the material information is disclosed to the stockholders or,
in the event the proposed transaction is consummated.
PRA Health Sciences, Inc. is a contract research organization with
headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
LONG LAW, LLC
3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 729-9100
E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com
PRIMERICA INC: Padilla PAGA Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EMILIO PADILLA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PRIMERICA, INC.; PRIMERICA CLIENT SERVICES,
INC.; PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES INSURANCE MARKETING, INC.;
PRIMERICA CONVENTION SERVICES, INC.; PRIMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES,
LLC; PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CVRI2101608, was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on May 21,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00883 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California's Private Attorneys General Act by failing to pay the
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated workers meal and rest break
wages, failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, failing to provide
accurate wage statements, and failing to reimburse business
expenses.
Primerica, Inc. is a provider of insurance, investment and
financial services, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
Primerica Client Services, Inc. is a financial services firm
headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
Primerica Financial Services Insurance Marketing, Inc. is a
financial services firm headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
Primerica Convention Services, Inc. is an insurance firm
headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
Primerica Financial Services, LLC is a financial services firm
headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
Primerica Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm headquartered
in Duluth, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian M. Lutz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
E-mail: blutz@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Stephen C. Whittaker, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3161 Michelson Drive
Irvine, CA 92612-4412
Telephone: (949) 451-3800
Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
E-mail: cwhittaker@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Cary G. Palmer, Esq.
Nathan W. Austin, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 341-0404
Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
E-mail: cary.palmer@jacksonlewis.com
nathan.austin@jacksonlewis.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Redhair Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN R. REDHAIR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
34-2021-00295190-CU-OE-GDS, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California on May 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-00947-MCE-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due at the time of
termination of employment, failure to comply with itemized employee
wage statement provisions, and unfair competition.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance company with
its headquarters located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield
Village, Ohio. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
Vartan S. Madoyan, Esq.
Joseph S. Persoff, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
jpersoff@bakerlaw.com
PROSPER LENDING: Bradford Files FCRA Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prosper Funding, LLC.
The case is styled as Radley Bradford, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Prosper Funding, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-01707 (S.D. Tex., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Prosper Funding LLC -- https://www.prosper.com/ -- provides
financial services. The Company offers peer-to-peer lending
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend itself against a putative class action suit
entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.
PSL ASSOCIATES: Agar-Valencia Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alexis Agar-Valencia, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. PSL Associates, LLC, DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV11548 was removed from the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on May 24, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04306 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.
PSL Associates LLC is a provider established in Bellingham,
Washington specializing in assisted living facility.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Shannon R Boyce, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON PC
2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
Phone: (310) 553-0308
Fax: (310) 553-5583
Email: sboyce@littler.com
PURECYCLE TECH: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
("PureCycle" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) and reminds investors
of the July 12, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in
a federal securities class action that has been filed against the
Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in PureCycle
stock or options between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/PCT.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not
proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (2) the
challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw
materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are
significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless;
and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell from its May 5, 2021
closing price of $24.59 per share to May 6, 2021 closing price of
$14.83, trading intraday as low as $13.55 per share. This
represents a one-day drop of approximately 40%.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding PureCycle's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.[GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Gainey McKenna Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of PureCycle between November 16, 2020
through May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities
laws.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the technology
PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents
serious issues even at lab scale; (2) the challenges posed by the
availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to
commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (3)
PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (4) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On May 6, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report on PureCycle
entitled "PureCycle: The Latest Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC Charade,
Sponsored by the Worst of Wall Street." Among the allegations in
the report were that "PureCycle's executives based their financial
projections on 'wild ass guessing,' brought companies public far
too early, and had deceived investors." The Report also stated that
Hindenburg was "unable to find a single peer reviewed study in any
scholarly journal citing or reviewing PureCycle's licensed
process," contrary to the norm in the field. Furthermore,
Hindenburg spoke to a "30-year expert on polymers" who "referred to
the company's flammable pressurized process as a 'bomb' and warned
about the company forging ahead to commercial scale despite having
issues at a lab scale."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell from its May 5, 2021
closing price of $24.59 per share to a May 6, 2021 closing price of
$14.83, which represents a one-day drop of approximately 40%.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of PureCycle
during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the July
12, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman updates investors in the following publicly-traded
company and urges investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm. Further details about the case, including
important upcoming deadline, can be found at the link provided.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCT) Securities Fraud Action:
Class Period: Nov. 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
Visit:www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/PCT
Contact An Attorney Now:PCT@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
The case centers on Defendants' repeated false claims that
PureCycle is an environmental, social and governance ("ESG")
company that is commercializing a proven patented purification
recycling technology developed by Proctor & Gamble for restoring
waste polypropylene into resin with near-virgin characteristics.
The complaint alleges Defendants concealed that (1) the licensed
P&G technology is not proven and has serious issues even at lab
level, (2) challenges posed by competition for- and availability
of- raw materials necessary for successful commercialization of the
technology are significant, and (3) PureCycle's financial
projections are baseless.
The truth emerged on May 6, 2021, when analyst Hindenburg Research
published a scathing report entitled "PureCycle: The Latest
Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC Charade, Sponsored By The Worst Of Wall
Street." Among other things, Hindenburg challenges the validity of
PureCycle's technology and purported access to feedstock to run PCT
process economically. Hindenburg also takes issue with PureCycle's
aggressive financial projections, its purported recycling
partnerships with well-known companies like L'Oreal and Total, and
the track record of the SPAC sponsors.
In response to this news, the price of PureCycle shares crashed
lower.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving PureCycle engaged
in greenwashing," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you are a PureCycle investor and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
ChemoCentryx, PureCycle and/or Peloton should consider their
options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC
Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who
provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30
percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more
information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email
CCXI@hbsslaw.com, PCT@hbsslaw.com, and/or PTON@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight
cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm
represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is
located at hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or
follow us on Twitter at @classactionlaw.
Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]
PURECYCLE: Thornton Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of PureCycle (NASDAQ: PCT) or Roth CH Acquisition I Co.
("ROCH") between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive. The
case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors may
contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by
visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle for more information.
Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call
617-531-3917.
The case alleges that PureCycle and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not
proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the
challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw
materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are
significant; and (iii) PureCycle's financial projections are
baseless.
Interested PureCycle investors have until July 12, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.
CONTACT:
Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle [GN]
QUALITY PACKAGING: Callender BIPA Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DAWN CALLENDER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. QUALITY PACKAGING SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, Case No. 2021L-000457, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, Law Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on
May 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00505 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged collection, storage,
and/or distribution of the Plaintiff's and Class members'
biometrics and biometric information in violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Quality Packaging Specialists International, LLC is a contract
packaging and supply chain management services company,
headquartered in Burlington, New Jersey. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
Alex W. Karasik, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
tahlering@seyfarth.com
akarasik@seyfarth.com
RANDY SMITH: Baqer Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMED BAQER, et. al., v.
RANDY SMITH, in his official and individual capacity, et. al., Case
No. 2:20-cv-00980-WBV-DPC (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. certifying a class defined as:
"All detainees who have been or will be placed into the
custody of the St. Tammany Parish Jail and were detained for
at least two consecutive days in holding cells. The class
period commences when this practice began, including but not
limited to the time period commencing on March 22, 2019, and
extends to the date on which St. Tammany Parish is enjoined
from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing its policy, practice and
custom of refusing to abide by appropriate detention and
housing standards to all pre-trial detainees admitted to the
St. Tammany Parish Jail and held in the intake and/or holding
cell area."
Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
heirs, successors, employees or assignees;
2. appointng one or more of them to be as Class Representatives;
and
3. appointing Jacob Litigation, the Glorioso Law Firm, and
Romanucci & Blandin, LLC as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(g).
The Plaintiffs represent a class of more than 5,000 men who were
detainees held in the holding cells at St. Tammany Jail from March
22, 2019 until the present.
As detainees, in the holding cells at St. Tammany Jail, detainees
were held in deplorable conditions and experienced egregious,
severe and demeaning violations of their constitutional rights. The
Plaintiffs filed claims alleging violations of their 14th Amendment
Rights under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.C
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 7, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3caI4Pl at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maria B. Glorioso, Esq.
Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., Esq.
THE GLORIOSO LAW FIRM
2716 Athania Parkway
Metairi, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 569-9999
Facsimile: (504) 569-9022
E—mail: maria@gtorts.com
- and -
Devon M. Jacob, Esq.
JACOB LITIGATION, INC.
P.O. Box 837
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-0837
Telephone: (717) 796-7733
E-mail: djacob@jacoblitigation.com
- and -
Antonio M. Romanucci, Esq.
Bhavani K. Raveendran, Esq.
Nicolette A. Ward, Esq.
Ian P. Fallon, Esq.
ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC
321 N. Clark Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 458-1000
Facsimile: (312) 458-1004
E-mail: aromanucci@rblaw.net
b.raveendran@rblaw.net
nward@rblaw.net
ifallon@rblaw.net
RAY KLEIN: Court Narrows Claims in Russell et al., Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS RUSSELL, MICHAEL
MCKIBBEN, and SHAWN TONEY v. RAY KLEIN, INC. and CHRISTOPHER
BEVANS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00001-MC (D. Oreg.), the Hon. Judge
Michael J. McShane entered an order partially denying the
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Class B's claims against
Defendant Klein and only granting as to Plaintiff Toney and
McKibben's claims against Defendant Bevans.
Judge McShane says that since the Plaintiffs Toney and McKibben
concede that Defendant Bevans never issued garnishments against
them, it follows then that they cannot maintain an individual claim
against Defendant Bevans.
The Plaintiffs contend that because the fees were issued by
in-house counsel, the issuance fees were unlawfully collected in
violation of the Oregon Uniform Trade Practices Act (UTPA), the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Oregon
Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (OUDCPA), and unjustly
enriched the defendants.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 10, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fm11Ae at no
extra charge.[CC]
RAYMOND JAMES: June 4 Extension of Expert Depositions Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY NGUYEN, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. RAYMOND JAMES &
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for
disclosure of expert reports regarding class certification issues
by seven days, to June 4, 2021.
Pursuant to the Court's Second Amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order, the Parties' deadline to disclose expert reports
regarding class certification issues is currently set for May 28,
2021. The Parties are in the process of scheduling several
depositions in the coming weeks and require additional time to
accommodate all schedules and to prepare expert reports. The
requested extension serves the interests of economy and efficiency,
as no other deadlines will be impacted by the seven-day extension,
and the Parties will still have adequate time to prepare for expert
depositions regarding class certification on or before July 16,
2021.
Raymond James operates as a wealth management firm. The Company
offers portfolio management, financial planning, and advisory
services to individuals, institutions, trusts, private funds,
charitable organizations, and investment companies.
A copy Parties' motion dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wwcH9q at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
& DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
361 W. Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
E-mail: sas@chimicles.com
zpb@chimicles.com
- and -
Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
MANDELBAUM SALSBURG
11891 U.S. Highway One, Suite 100
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 328-4617
Facsimile: (561) 214-4130
E-mail: steppler@lawfirm.ms
- and -
Franklin D. Azar, Esq.
Margeaux Azar, Esq.
Paul R. Wood, Esq.
Michael Murphy, Esq.
Jordan Coley, Esq.
FRANKLIN D. AZAR &
ASSOCIATES, P.C.
14426 East Evans Ave
Aurora, CO 80014
Telephone: (303) 757-3300
Facsimile: (720) 213-5131
E-mail: azarf@fdazar.com
azarm@fdazar.com
woodp@fdazar.com
murphym@fdazar.com
coleyj@fdazar.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Bryce M. Cullinane, Esq.
Bernard R. Suter, Esq.
KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
450 Pacific Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 398-6000
Facsimile: (415) 981-0136
E-mail: ben.suter@kyl.com
bryce.cullinane@kyl.com
- and -
John E. Clabby, Esq.
Caycee D. Hampton, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000
Tampa, FL 33601
Telephone: (813) 223-7000
Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
E-mail: jclabby@carltonfields.com
champton@carltonfields.com
- and -
Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400 West
Washington, DC 20007-5208
Telephone: (202) 965-8100
Facsimile: (202) 965-8104
E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.coms
REALPAGE INC: Faces Walker Suit Over FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Crystal Walker, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. REALPAGE, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00306-JAG (E.D.
Va., May 12, 2021), is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
because RealPage uses overly broad criteria in response to its
customers' requests for tenant screening reports which results in
the matching of inaccurate eviction records to consumers, as
demonstrated by the Plaintiff's experience in this case.
In this instance, the Defendant provided Plaintiff's potential
landlord with a grossly inaccurate report stating that Plaintiff
had an eviction action against her. The Defendant matched this
public-record information to the Plaintiff even though it knew that
the Plaintiff had a different first name and address than the
individual to whom the public record actually belonged. By
systematically allowing eviction records to be attributed to
consumers who had different names than the person associated with
the underlying eviction record, the Defendant failed to maintain
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy. Because
the putative class members were subject to the same procedure and
suffered the same overarching harm, this case is capable and
appropriate for class resolution, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person and a "consumer."
RealPage is a consumer reporting agency and has operated in the
rental screening business since 1998.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
Casey S. Nash, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO, PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone (703) 424-7572
Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
RECOVERY MANAGEMENT: Oigbokie Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recovery Management
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joselyn Oigbokie,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Recovery Management Services, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:21-cv-02626 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Recovery Management Services -- https://www.rmscollects.com/rms/ --
is a full-service collection agency that provides loan recoveries,
higher education & debt collection services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
RED RIVER: Continues to Defend Averette Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Red River Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a purported class action suit entitled, Aeron Averette v.
Red River Bancshares.
The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Aeron Averette v. Red River Bancshares, filed on August
28, 2020, in the 19th Judicial District Court of the State of
Louisiana.
The lawsuit alleges the Bank wrongfully imposed multiple
non-sufficient funds fees on what the plaintiff describes as a
single item presented for payment, thereby resulting in the Bank
breaching its customer account agreement, abusing its rights, and
being unjustly enriched.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all
account holders in Louisiana who incurred similar charges by the
Bank within the applicable prescriptive period.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees, attorney's
fees, and general and equitable relief for herself and the
purported class. The Company and Bank deny the allegations and are
vigorously defending this matter.
The Bank filed an exception of no cause of action in District Court
as to the three grounds alleged by the plaintiff.
On May 10, 2021, the 19th Judicial District Court ruled in the
Bank's favor.
The plaintiff may amend her petition to set forth a different cause
of action or appeal the decision.
Red River said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, we cannot determine
the probability of a materially adverse result or reasonably
estimate the potential exposure, if any."
Red River Bancshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for Red
River Bank, a Louisiana state-chartered bank established in 1999
that provides a fully integrated suite of banking products and
services tailored to the needs of its commercial and retail
customers. Red River Bank operates from a network of 25 banking
centers throughout Louisiana and one combined loan and deposit
production office in Lafayette, Louisiana.
RESCUE 1 FINANCIAL: Hastings Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rescue 1 Financial
LLC. The case is styled as Stan Hastings, individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated v. Rescue 1 Financial LLC, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00452-DPM (E.D. Ark., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Rescue One Financial -- https://rescueonefinancial.com/ -- is a
financial services company located in Irvine, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (615) 485-0018
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and -
Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
RYBURN LAW FIRM
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
Little Rock, AR 72211
Phone: (501) 228-8100
Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com
RESIL HEALTH: Northshore Pharmacy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resil Health. The
case is styled as Northshore Pharmacy, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated v. Resil Health, Case No.
2:21-cv-00652-WED (E.D. Wis., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Resil Health -- https://resilhealth.com/ -- is a cloud based
COVID-19 vaccination and testing Software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
301 N Broadway St-Ste 400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 273-8474
Fax: (414) 455-7676
Email: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
REVOLUTION TEA: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Revolution Tea, LLC.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Revolution Tea, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04646 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Revolution Tea -- https://www.revolutiontea.com/ -- has premium
loose leaf & full leaf teas made with the finest ingredients
sourced from across the globe.[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
RICHARD'S RESTAURANT: De Sa Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Kickbacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONIQUE DE SA, DANIELLE WILLIAMS, ALETHIA TYLER, and JULIEANNE
DOMNISSEY, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHARD'S RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, INC. dba
HEADLIGHTS GRANBY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; HEADLIGHTS, LLC; ROBERT L.
BROWN, JR.; DOE MANAGERS 1 through 3; and DOES 4 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00299 (E.D. Va., May 26,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks, unlawful
taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiffs worked as exotic dancers at the Defendants' club
Headlights Granby located at 7661 Granby Street, Norfolk,
Virginia.
Richard's Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. is an owner and operator of the
Headlights Granby Gentlemen's Club located at 7661 Granby Street,
Norfolk, Virginia.
Headlights, LLC is a company that operates the Headlights Granby
Gentlemen's Club located at 7661 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Suzanne S. Long, Esq.
David A.C. Long, Esq.
MEYER BALDWIN LONG & MOORE, LLP
5600 Grove Avenue
Richmond, VA 23226
Telephone: (804) 285-3888
Facsimile: (804) 285-7779
E-mail: slong@meyerbaldwin.com
dlong@meyerbaldwin.com
- and –
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: alejandro@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
E-mail: leigh@hughesellzey.com
RIVER FINANCIAL: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against River Financial Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. River Financial Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04719 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
River Financial -- https://river.com/ -- is the best place to buy,
sell, and use Bitcoin in the USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
RM ACQUISITION: Velez Files Suit in Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RM Acquisition, LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Velez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. RM Acquisition, LLC d/b/a Rand
McNally, Case No. 1:21-cv-02779 (N.D. Ill., May 21, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Rand McNally -- https://www.randmcnally.com/ -- is an American
technology and publishing company that provides mapping, software
and hardware for the consumer electronics, commercial
transportation and education markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert John Palmersheim, Esq.
PALMERSHEIM & MATTHEW
401 N. Franklin Street, Suite 4S
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 705-3622
Email: rjp@thepmlawfirm.com
ROBLOX CORPORATION: Faces Class Suit Over Content Deletion Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, a minor, represented by her father and next friend, JOHN
DENNIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-03943 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the California Business and Professions Code and the
California Civil Code.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of deleting in-game
contents from its platform without issuing refunds to game users
and forcing users to make new purchases to replace their in-game
experience. The Defendant asserts that the deletion is part of its
content moderation scheme to remove contents that violated its
platform's policies without providing any actual detail.
Roblox Corporation is a gaming platform developer, with its
principal place of business located at 970 Park Place, San Mateo,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Lily Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
lhough@edelson.com
ROCKFORD SLF: McPherson Files Suit in Illinois Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rockford SLF LLC. The
case is styled as Lula McPherson on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rockford SLF LLC, Case No. 2021-L-0000133 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., Winnebago Cty., May 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as Contract - Money Damages.
Rockford SLF, LLC (ROCKFORD SLF, LLC) is an assisted living
facility in Rockford, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Fish, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM, PC
200 E 5th Avenue, Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60565
ROMANOFF FLOOR: Court Approves $1.375M FCRA Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
esrcheck.com reports that on May 3, 2021, a California federal
court approved a settlement of $1.375 million in the class action
lawsuit BAILEY and CARRASCO JR. v. ROMANOFF FLOOR COVERING, INC.
where the Plaintiffs claimed the Defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) by misusing consent forms to improperly run
background checks.
The settlement is also for wage and hour violations under
California law. The California Class includes individuals who
worked for Defendant in California from March 30, 2013, to May 1,
2018, while the FCRA Class includes prospective employees for whom
Defendant procured a background check from March 30, 2012, to April
5, 2017.
The Order from United States District Judge Troy L. Nunley granting
final approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit BAILEY
and CARRASCO JR. v. ROMANOFF FLOOR COVERING, INC. (Case No.
2:17-cv-00685-TLN-DMC) in the United States District Court Eastern
District of California is available here.
Enacted by Congress in 1970, the FCRA 15 U.S.C § 1681 promotes the
accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained
in the files of Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and protects
consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate
information in their consumer reports.
Employment Screening Resources® (ESR) - a leading global
background check provider named the number one background screening
firm by HRO Today in 2020 - offers white papers on how employers
may avoid FCRA lawsuits and how CRAs may avoid FCRA lawsuits. To
learn more about ESR, visit www.esrcheck.com.
NOTE: Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) does not provide or
offer legal services or legal advice of any kind or nature. Any
information on this website is for educational purposes only.
© 2021 Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) - Making copies of
or using any part of the ESR News Blog or ESR website for any
purpose other than your own personal use is prohibited unless
written authorization is first obtained from ESR. [GN]
ROMEO POWER: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO) investors with
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities class
action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable
claims.
Class Period: Oct. 5, 2020 - Mar. 30, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
Visit: http://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/RMO
Contact An Attorney Now: RMO@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO) Securities Fraud Action:
The complaint centers on Romeo's misrepresentations and omissions
concerning its access to battery cells, a key component of the
company's battery modules and packs.
During the class period, Romeo emphasized the company's 4 key
battery cell supply partners, which in turn eliminated supply chain
risks and support its lofty revenue projections ($11 million for
2020 and $140 million for 2021). The company repeatedly assured
investors it had sufficient long-term contracts to supply enough
battery cells even in the face of the tight supply.
But the truth emerged on Mar. 30, 2021, when Romeo released a
dismal outlook for 2021, reducing its 2021 guided revenues by a
whopping 71% - 81%, claiming the shortfall stemmed from a shortage
of battery cells. On an earnings call later that same day,
management elaborated on the supply constraint, admitting that
Romeo depended on just 2 (not 4, as previously touted) battery cell
suppliers.
In response to this news, Romeo shares declined $2.04 per share, or
almost 20%, in a single trading day.
Most recently, on May 13, 2021, the company announced just $1.045
million revenues for Q1 2021. This was a 58% drop from Q1 2020 and
a tiny fraction of the $18 - $40 million 2021 revenue guidance
given on Mar. 30, 2021. Management noted the company is still
looking for battery cell suppliers.
"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Romeo concealed
supply chain risks," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.
If you are a Romeo Power investor and have significant losses, or
have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here
to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Romeo
Power should consider their options to help in the investigation or
take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email RMO@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at
hbsslaw.com. For the latest news visit our newsroom or follow us on
Twitter at @classactionlaw. [GN]
ROYAL APPLIANCE: Phillips Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SUSAN PHILLIPS, EKATERINI CAMPOS, ROBERT JELLINEK,
and JANINE HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO. d/b/a HOOVER, Case
No. 37-2021-00015486-CU-BT-NC, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on May 24,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00987-WQH-KSC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged product liability
claims.
Royal Appliance Mfg. Co. is a manufacturer of floor care products,
with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Williams, Esq.
Joshua L. Roquemore, Esq.
RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
111 New Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 275-8550
Facsimile: (415) 275-8551
E-mail: jwilliams@rshc-law.com
jroquemore@rshc-law.com
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faherty Files FDCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rubin & Rothman, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Kathleen S. Faherty, behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:21-cv-00650-AWT (D. Conn., May 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rubin & Rothman, LLC -- https://www.rubinrothman.com/ -- is a New
York and New Jersey creditor's rights law firm.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
One Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (646) 459-7971
Fax: (646) 459-7973
Email: jkj@legaljones.com
RUST-OLEUM CORP: Cole Sues Over Defective Acrylic Coating Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02816 (N.D. Ill., May 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for declaratory judgment, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraud or
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and
Practices Act and the New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its acrylic
coating products including Rust-Oleum Restore Deck Start Wood
Primer, Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain, and Restore 4X Deck Coat.
The Defendant markets these products to consumers as superior,
durable, and lower-maintenance products capable of resisting the
elements. However, contrary to the Defendant's advertising and
representations, and despite proper product application, the
products prematurely degrade, chip, peel, flake, strip, and
otherwise deteriorate. The products failed to provide the
advertised protection to the decks, patios, and other structures.
As a result of Rust-Oleum's alleged conduct, the Plaintiff and
Class members have incurred substantial costs relating to their
decks and other outdoor surfaces, have experienced property damage
to their structures, and have otherwise been injured.
Rust-Oleum Corporation is a manufacturer of protective paints and
coatings for home and industrial use, with its headquarters located
in Vernon Hills, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
- and –
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
Christopher Stiner, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
- and –
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
S & D COFFEE: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S. & D. Coffee, Inc.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. S. & D. Coffee, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04659 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
S&D Coffee & Tea -- https://sdcoffeetea.com/ -- is the largest
coffee and tea manufacturer and supplier to restaurants and
convenience stores in America.[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
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: D&V Bid to File Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the motion to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust is still pending.
On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants.
The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawrence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge
and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making
false and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of
its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal
defendant only.
On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.
On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.
In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SDR, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are
being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust,
but also by purchasers of common units of SDR.
On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust.
On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of common units of SDR.
On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations.
On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without prejudice
should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.
Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.
On April 2, 2020, the Trust filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Trust, arguing that
there is no evidence of requisite intent by the Trust, and further,
that the alleged acts and omissions of other defendants are not
properly attributable to the Trust. That motion remains pending.
On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust. That motion remains
pending.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.
SARATOGA SPRING: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saratoga Spring Water
Company. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Saratoga Spring Water
Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04729 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Saratoga Spring Water Co. -- http://www.sswc.com/-- has been
bottling premium spring water for over 140 years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SEAWEED BATH: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Seaweed Bath Co.
The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. The Seaweed Bath Co., Case No.
1:21-cv-04623 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Seaweed Bath Co -- https://seaweedbathco.com/ -- offers
sustainably-harvested, organic bladderwrack seaweed containing 65+
vitamins & minerals that help detoxify, moisturize, and nourish
skin and hair.[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
SELECT HOME: Dewey Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as David Dewey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SELECT HOME WARRANTY LLC, SELECT
HOME WARRANTY OF AMERICA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No.
BER-L-002030-21 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey -
Bergen County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on May 12, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-11103-CCC-MAH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Select Home Warranty -- https://www.selecthomewarranty.com/ --
offers three home warranty plans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Adam Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP, LLP
80 BROAD STREET, SUITE 1301
NEW YORK, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 500-6114
Fax: (646) 612-7996
Email: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark Oberstaedt, Esq.
ARCHER & GREINER, PC
ONE CENTENNIAL SQUARE
PO BOX 3000
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-0968
Phone: (856) 795-2121
Email: moberstaedt@archerlaw.com
SENTAI HOLDINGS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentai Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Sentai Holdings, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04604 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sentai Filmworks, LLC, or just Sentai --
https://www.sentaifilmworks.com/ -- is an American anime licensing
company located in Houston, Texas which specializes in Japanese
animation and Asian cinema.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
SERETT METALWORKS: Legacy Seeks to Recover Construction Deposit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEGACY BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS CORP., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERETT METALWORKS CORP.;
and JOSHUA YOUNG, Defendants, Case No. 653209/2021 (N.Y. Sup., New
York Cty., May 17, 2021) is an action against the Defendants to
recover for the losses the Plaintiff sustained as a result of the
Defendants' breach of contract and misconduct.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a general contracting
and construction management firm which was retained in July of 2020
to serve as general contractor in connection with certain
construction and renovation work (the "Project") at the property
located at 77 West 24 th Street, New York, New York, 10010 (the
"Property").
The Plaintiff hired the Defendants as a subcontractor in connection
with the Project. Pursuant to the subcontract between the parties
(the "Subcontract"), the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a
$65,000 deposit in early December of 2020 (the " Deposit"). The
Subcontract required the Defendants to perform certain specific
work and to provide certain specific materials by March 15, 2021.
However, a month after that deadline the Defendants had performed
none of the work it was required to perform and had provided none
of the materials it was required to provide. Despite demand from
the Plaintiff, the Defendants have refused to return the Deposit to
Legacy, the suit alleges.
SERETT METALWORKS CORP. provides custom metalwork, custom metal
fabrication, and architectural metal works. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Porter, Esq.
Randy Friedberg, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
7 Times Square, Suite 2900
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 714-3078
SERVICON SYSTEMS: Cooper Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTYANA M. COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICON SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV19452 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 24, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Private Attorneys' General Act
including failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to authorize all legally compliant meal periods or pay meal
period premium wages, failure to permit all legally compliant rest
periods or pay rest period premium wages, failure to provide
indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred
by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties,
failure to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay
employees all wages due upon separation of employment.
Servicon Systems, Inc. is a company that provides facilities
maintenance services, headquartered in Culver City, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
Blanca Retamozo Pelico, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
E-mail: ilavi@lelawfirm.com
vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
bpelico@lelawfirm.com
SITIME CORPORATION: Removal Provision "Invalid," Ribiere Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINIQUE RIBIERE, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SITIME CORPORATION, RAJESH VASHIST, RAMAN K.
CHITKARA, EDWARD H. FRANK Ph.D., CHRISTINE A. HECKART, TORSTEN G.
KREINDL Ph.D., KATHERINE E. SCHUELKE, AKIRA TAKATA, and TOM D. YIU,
Defendants, Case No. 2021-0463 (Del. Ch., May 26, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of Delaware General
Corporation Law (DGCL) Section 141(k) and Delaware common law.
The case arises from the Defendants' adoption and implementation of
the Removal Provision, which allows SiTime Corporation's directors
may be removed from office by a supermajority vote. The Plaintiff
and Class members seek a declaration that the Removal Provision
violates Delaware law and is therefore invalid and unenforceable.
SiTime Corporation is a manufacturer of silicon-based timing
products, with its principal executive office located at 5451
Patrick Henry Drive, Santa Clara, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and –
Brian P. Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave., Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and –
Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq.
KRANENBURG
80-83 Long Lane
London EC1A 9ET
United Kingdom
Telephone: +44-20-3174-0365
SKILLZ INC: Berman Tabacco Reminds of July 7, 2021 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Berman Tabacco' California office announces that a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against Skillz Inc. f/k/a
Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("FEAC") (collectively, the "Skillz"
or the "Company") (NYSE: SKILZ) and certain individuals. The case
is captioned Jedrzejczyk v. Skillz, et al., No. 3:21-cv-03450.
The class action lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a) against the Defendants on behalf of "those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz securities" between December
16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file
a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff with the Court no later than
July 7, 2021. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court
to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.
If you have a significant loss from your purchases of Skillz
securities during the Class Period and would like more information
about serving as a Lead Plaintiff, please visit:
https://bit.ly/3boi4j2.
Berman Tabacco is a national law firm representing institutions and
individuals in lawsuits, seeking to recoup losses caused by
corporate and board misconduct and violations of the securities and
antitrust laws. The firm has offices in San Francisco, California
and Boston, Massachusetts.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
Contact:
Jay Eng, Esq.
(800) 516-9926
Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN]
SKILLZ INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. ("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ)
securities between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Skillz investors have until July 7, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://www.frankcruzlaw.com/cases/skillz-inc/ to participate.
On March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report about the
Company alleging that the growth speculations from Skillz and its
insiders were "entirely unrealistic" and that Skillz's top three
games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue, reported a decline in
downloads since the third quarter of 2020.
On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 10.9%,
to close at $24.45, thereby injuring investors.
On April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous report on
Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of providing
users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely recognizes
substantial non-cash revenue and [] cash revenues may be less than
1/2 of GAAP revenue."
On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 6.61%,
to close at $14.11 on April 19, 2021. Shares continued to decline
to close at $12.55 on April 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) three games
responsible for a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined
substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue recognition policy
misrepresented the financial condition of the company; (3)
unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android market; and
(4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased Skillz securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than July 7, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Skillz securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210513006090/en/
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
SKILLZ INC: The Klein Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been
filed on behalf of shareholders of Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: SKLZ) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.
Class Period: December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in SKLZ:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?id=15905&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: representations relating
to certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and
ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to
attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking
popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its
revenue, and the Company's valuation. For example, one of the
Company's objectively unrealistic promises included the
unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at $3.5 billon,
based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million for 2022.
However, the Company failed to inform investors that downloads of
the games that account for a majority share of its revenue have
been declining since at least November 2020. In reality, the
Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale was far from
realistic given its size, market share, reliance on thirdparty app
stores, declining downloads of its most popular games and,
critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus Payments that
Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a fact that
investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are routinely
provided to its customers, who are expected to use them for game
entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz revenue.
Shareholders have until July 7, 2021 to petition the court for lead
plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the SKLZ lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
SMART FOODS: Aliav Sues Over Deceptive Avocado Oil Labels
---------------------------------------------------------
ANGELINA ALIAV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SMART FOODS, LLC, DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-04382 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair
Competition Law and common law fraud.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its Lombardi Quality Products Avocado Oil. The Defendant labels and
advertises the product as 100% avocado oil but in reality, it
consists of only 10% avocado oil. As a result of the Defendant's
alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff has been misled into
purchasing products she would not have otherwise purchased.
Smart Foods, LLC is a food production company based in Vernon,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Meghan E. George, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
SOUTHERN CAROLINA: Haynes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERMAINE HAYNES, FRANCIS CRAWFORD, VINQUANDRAE HALLMAN, LASHAWN
MARTIN, FREDERICK PERRY, CAREY RYANT, and KEVIN WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SOUTHERN CAROLINA WASTE, LLC D/B/A SC WASTE,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01544-JMC (D.S.C., May 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate
the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated drivers overtime
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and
retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs are former and current employees who worked for the
Defendant as drivers at any time between 2019 and 2021.
Southern Carolina Waste, LLC, doing business as SC Waste, is a
waste hauling company with its principal place of business in
Orangeburg, South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Scott Falls, Esq.
FALLS LEGAL, LLC
245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250
Charleston, SC 29492
Telephone: (843) 737-6040
Facsimile: (843) 737-6140
E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com
- and –
David Ricksecker, Esq.
Ryan C. Cowdin, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: dr@mselaborlaw.com
rcc@mselaborlaw.com
SPRING HOME: Class of Home Health Care Aide Certified in Cockrell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KASANA COCKRELL, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, et al., v. SPRING HOME
HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00346-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an order:
1. conditionally certifying the following class:
"All current and former hourly home health employees [home
health aides, nurses, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, and speech pathologists] of the Defendant who
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks from March
31, 2018 to the present;"
2. directing the Defendants to provide Ms. Cockrell, within 14
days of this Opinion & Order, a roster of all potential opt-
in plaintiffs that includes their names, dates of employment,
positions of employment, last known mailing addresses, and
last known e-mail addresses; and
3. directing that Notice and Consent to Join Form shall be sent
to the potential opt-in plaintiffs within seven days of
receipt of the roster using their home and e-mail addresses.
The Court determines that Ms. Cockrell has sustained her modest
burden of establishing that she is similarly situated to proposed
class members.
The Plaintiff Cockrell brought this suit as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and as a Rule 23
class action under Ohio's wage and hour laws.
The Defendant employed Ms. Cockrell from August 2019 through
February 2021 as a home health aide. Ms. Cockrell only had one
client for Defendant. Ms. Cockrell alleges that the Defendant paid
her an artificially low regular rate to avoid paying the full
time-and-one-half required for all hours worked over 40 under the
FLSA and corresponding Ohio law.
The Defendant is a provider of in-home healthcare services,
employing home health aides as well as nurses, physical therapists,
occupational therapists, and speech pathologists ("in-home health
care employees").
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 10, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vpGFvD at no
extra charge.[CC]
STATE STREET: Agrees to Pay $2.65MM to Resolve ERISA Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 14, 2021, that in
May 2021, the company agreed to pay $2.65 million to resolve a
purported class action that had been commenced against it in March
2017 alleging that the company had violated duties owed to
retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
STERLING BANCORP: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that a final settlement
approval hearing is scheduled to be held before the court on
September 16, 2021.
The Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and other parties were named as defendants in a
shareholder class action captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and
Retirement System v. Sterling Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS, filed on February 26, 2020 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2020, seeking
damages and reimbursement of fees and expenses. This action alleges
violations of the federal securities laws, primarily with respect
to disclosures concerning the Bank's residential lending practices
that were made in the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for its initial public offering, in subsequent press
releases, in periodic and other filings with the SEC and during
earnings calls.
On September 22, 2020, the Company filed with the court a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
In February 2021, the Company, each individual defendant and the
plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action lawsuit.
On April 19, 2021, the plaintiff, the Company and each of the other
defendants entered into the final settlement agreement and
submitted it to the court. Preliminary approval was granted by the
court on April 28, 2021, and a final approval hearing is scheduled
to be held before the court on September 16, 2021.
The final agreement provides for a single $12,500 cash payment in
exchange for the release of all of the defendants from all alleged
claims therein and remains subject to final documentation, court
approval and other conditions. This $12,500 liability has been
accrued for as of December 31, 2020.
Sterling said, "The full amount of the settlement will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers under applicable insurance
policies. In the event final court approval is not received, or the
settlement is not finalized for any other reason, the Company
intends to vigorously defend this action."
Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a unitary thrift holding company. Its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank and Trust, FSB, has primary
branch operations in San Francisco and Los Angeles, California, New
York City and Bellevue, Washington. Sterling offers a range of loan
products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as
retail and business banking services. Sterling also has an
operations center and a branch in Southfield, Michigan.
SUGARWISH INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sugarwish Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sugarwish Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04594
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sugarwish -- https://sugarwish.com/ -- is a unique e-commerce
website that provides an original approach to gifting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TASTY RIBBON: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tasty Ribbon LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Tasty Ribbon LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04730 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tasty Ribbon -- https://tastyribbon.com/ -- offers gourmet Italian
food gift boxes that are curated with delicacies from renowned
artisans imported directly from Italy.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TCGPLAYER INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TCGplayer, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. TCGplayer, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-04598 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
TCGplayer -- https://www.tcgplayer.com/ -- is the leading online
technology platform for the collectibles industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TEAM WASHINGTON: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hurt Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY HURT, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. TEAM WASHINGTON, INC. d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA;
and MARY LYNNE CARRAWAY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01379
(D.D.C., May 19, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Hurt was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.
TEAM WASHINGTON, INC. d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA owns and operates
Domino's Pizza franchise stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Matthew Haynie, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N St Paul St Ste 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com
TELUS INT'L: 3rd Bid to Stay Meagher Suit Due to Mediation Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada signed a stipulation and order to extend
current stay pending mediation in the lawsuit titled BRIELLE
MEAGHER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TELUS INTERNATIONAL (U.S.) CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-02074-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.).
Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR IA 6-2 and LR 7-1, Plaintiff Brielle
Meagher and Defendant TELUS International (U.S.) Corp., by and
through their counsel of record, stipulate and agree to continue
the current stay in this action to allow the parties to attend
mediation in this matter. The current stay ends June 15, 2021.
The parties had scheduled mediation for June 8, 2021, but, due to
unforeseen circumstances, the mediation has been continued to July
1, 2021. Accordingly, the parties are requesting to continue the
current stay to July 12, 2021. It is the parties' third request for
an extension of time. The first request for an extension of time
was filed on Jan. 26, 2021, and granted on Feb. 11, 2021. The
second request for an extension of time was filed on March 24,
2021, and granted on March 25, 2021.
Pending the outcome of the parties' mediation, the parties will
provide a Status Report to the Court no later than July 12, 2021,
setting forth these dates:
(1) Should the parties resolve this matter at mediation, the
parties will set forth a briefing schedule for joint
settlement approval;
(2) Should the parties be unsuccessful, the Defendant will
have up to and including Aug. 2, 2021, to file its
response to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint; and
(3) Should the parties need additional time in excess of the
stay for reasons related to rescheduling of the mediator,
they reserve the right to request additional time from the
Court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order dated May 6,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3z8yputb from
Leagle.com.
Don Springmeyer -- d.springmeyer@kempjones.com -- KEMP JONES, LLP,
in Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
ANTHONY L. MARTIN -- anthony.martin@ogletree.com -- DANA B.
SALMONSON -- dana.salmonson@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS,
NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for
Defendant TELUS International (U.S.) Corp.
BROWN, LLC, Nicholas R. Conlon -- nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com --
Jason T. Brown -- jtb@jtblawgroup.com -- in Jersey City, New
Jersey.
TESLA INC: Amans Sues Over Deceptive Marketing of Solar Roof
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Amans, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. TESLA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:21-cv-03577 (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2021), is brought against the
Defendant for its deceptive practice of marketing and selling its
solar roof product.
According to the complaint, Tesla's solar energy business emerged
after Tesla's multi-billion-dollar acquisition of a heavily
indebted solar panel company called SolarCity, which was co-founded
by Elon Musk and his cousins. SolarCity was on the brink of
collapse when Musk, as CEO of Tesla and a chairman of SolarCity,
orchestrated a merger with Tesla in an effort to save the solar
panel business (and his own multi-million-dollar investment in it).
In order to persuade Tesla's investors to approve the controversial
acquisition, Musk revealed a new product in October 2016 called the
Solar Roof. Musk told analysts that Tesla's acquisition of
SolarCity and its Solar Roof would create a "huge market" for the
combined companies. The merger would ostensibly allow Tesla to sell
consumers the entire solar energy solution: generation (solar
panels), storage (batteries), and transportation (electric cars).
The Solar Roof promised novel and enticing solar energy solutions
for homeowners. Unlike traditional boxy solar panels that sit atop
a roof, the Solar Roof was designed to make the roof itself solar
powered. The product comprises individual roof tiles with
integrated photovoltaic (PV) solar cells capable of generating
energy, while having the appearance of a traditional roof. During
the product's reveal, Musk touted the Solar Roof as more durable
than a traditional roof and a more affordable energy solution for
homeowners. However, the technology behind the Solar Roof was far
from complete at the time Musk revealed the product. The Solar Roof
that Musk showcased to investors at the October 2016 event was in
fact made entirely of non-functional "dummies," according to
engineers familiar with it. Some even referred to the event as
"vaporware." Thus, when the Solar Roof entered the market shortly
thereafter, its technology was subprime, and it continued to
disappoint in the years that followed.
Tesla struggled to sell its Solar Roof after the SolarCity
acquisition. Several California utility companies reported only 21
installations total. Ultimately, industry commentators concluded
that Tesla's Solar Roof and its solar business as a whole was a
"flop." Tesla continued to revise the Solar Roof's technology and,
while still struggling to turn a profit after its SolarCity
acquisition, the company released a "Version 3" of the Solar Roof
(the now-current version) in late 2019. The newest version of the
Solar Roof promised several improvements over the previous versions
including faster installation times and lower costs. Consumers
wishing to purchase a Solar Roof, including Plaintiff and the
Class, pre ordered the product, agreed to a total project cost
(based on their unique installation and roof requirements), paid a
deposit, and prepared their properties for installation.
Unfortunately, after finalizing its purchase and installation
agreements with customers who pre-ordered the newest Solar Roof,
Tesla raised the product's price inexplicably--in some instances
just days before the customer's scheduled installation. Tesla's
price increases substantially (and unilaterally) changed the terms
of the parties' purchase agreements and represented as much as a
100% increase for many consumers, amounting to tens of thousands of
dollars of unanticipated costs. Tesla's Solar Roof price increase
is a textbook bait and switch scheme. The company lured in
consumers with promises of affordable solar energy solutions and
now seeks to hold its customers hostage with unanticipated (and
unjustified) additional project costs in order to make up the lost
profit from the SolarCity acquisition. As a result, if consumers
want to move forward with the Solar Roof installation in which they
have already invested considerable time and money, they will have
to pay above and beyond the price they originally agreed to, as no
alternative product currently exists on the market, says the
complaint.
Tesla, Inc. is a manufacturer and seller of electric vehicles and,
more recently, solar panels and battery backup units.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey Balabanian, Esq.
Lily Hough, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
lhough@edelson.com
TESLA INC: Faces Kim Suit Over Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
SOL KIM; AARON MANDELL; ALISSA BETH COHEN MANDELL; MATTIAS ASTROM;
ARPAN PATEL; ANUPAMA VIVEK; JERIN ZACHARIAH; and PETER BURNS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TESLA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-03681 (N.D.
Cal., May 17, 2021) is an action seeking to stop Tesla from
unfairly and unlawfully representing to consumers nationwide that
they have no choice but to cancel their valid contracts for Tesla
Solar Roof systems or else agree to Tesla's after-the-fact
substantial and unilateral price increases.
According to the complaint, Tesla sold to the Plaintiffs and other
Class members high-priced Tesla Solar Roof systems. After
completing the sales agreements, and while the consumers have been
making plans for the installations, in classic bait-and-switch
fashion, Tesla is now informing these consumers they must pay
upwards of a 50% price hike on the cost of the Solar Roof if they
want to proceed with the installation—and if they do not pay
promptly, they risk losing their place in line for installation,
the suit says.
Tesla's conduct -- which emanates from its California headquarters
-- allegedly violates the California's consumer protection laws and
affects consumers nationwide. The Plaintiffs and the putative class
members have, and will, incur substantial economic harm and further
harm because of Tesla's conduct. The Plaintiffs and consumers
across the country were days or weeks from installation and now are
left to either agree to Tesla's price hikes under duress or be
forced to scramble for some type of alterative.
Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
-and-
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
LeVAN MUHIC STAPLETON LLC
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 561-1500
E-mail: pmuhic@levanmuhic.com
TITLEMAX FINANCING: Hyton Suit Transferred to S.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marlene Hyton, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Petitioner v. Titlemax Financing, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, Respondent, Case No. 1:21-cv-20994, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia on May 25, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00163-WTM-CLR to
the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Titlemax Financing, Inc. -- https://www.titlemax.com/ -- was
founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes providing
loans to individuals as well as financing retail sales.[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Rachel E Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th St.
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
The Respondent is represented by:
Gillian DiFilippo Williston, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Phone: (757) 687-7517
TORONTO, ON: Plastic Surgeon's Licence Suspended Over Online Posts
------------------------------------------------------------------
cbc.ca reports that a Toronto plastic surgeon and self-styled
social media influencer has had his licence to practise medicine
suspended.
In a decision released on May 12, the disciplinary committee of the
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) suspended the
licence of Dr. Martin Jugenburg -- who goes by Dr. 6ix on social
media -- for six months over inappropriate online posts and for his
use of surveillance cameras in his downtown Toronto clinic.
The decision sparked a mixed reaction from a woman who visited
Jugenburg's clinic, the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute, in
2018.
"I'm glad there's been some sort of real penalty from him, but at
the same time I don't think he should be allowed to practise
anymore as a medical doctor," she said.
The woman, whose name is being withheld to protect her identity,
said she had no idea cameras would be recording her during a breast
implant consultation.
"I felt pretty violated and very, very angry," she said, recalling
the moment while watching a story by CBC's Marketplace that she
realized there may have been cameras recording her consultation.
In 2018, while reporting undercover for a story on breast implants,
Marketplace producers spotted security cameras in a closed-door
consultation room at Jugenburg's clinic.
The college and Ontario's privacy commissioner both launched
investigations into Jugenburg and his clinic.
They found that his clinic operated a network of 24 cameras in
offices, examination rooms, the operating room, pre-operative
rooms, reception areas, hallways, administrative offices, a
workroom and the staff kitchen.
Recordings of the cameras were kept in locked closets at the
clinic, although there was a smartphone app where Jugenburg had
access to both live and archived video surveillance footage at any
time.
In a statement, the college said Jugenburg's actions erode the
public's trust in the medical profession.
"It was Jugenburg's responsibility to safeguard the privacy
interests of the patients of his clinic, and his failure to do so
amounts to disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct."
The college estimates that Jugenburg and his staff would have seen
thousands of patients in the two years that the cameras were in
operation from January 2017 to December 2018. [GN]
TOTAL INSURANCE: Middleton Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Karita Middleton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS LLC, Case No.
8:21-cv-01259-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla., May 24, 2021), is brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, against Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation (premium Pay) at the lawful
and correct rates to non-exempt employees, and failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant has maintained a scheme to
avoid its obligations to pay overtime wages to its non-exempt
employees in order to save millions of dollars in labor costs and
maximize profits all to the detriment of its employees. The
Defendant willfully, or with reckless disregard for the FLSA,
underpays the Plaintiff and all other sales agents for their
overtime hours by failing to pay overtime wages wages at the
required and mandated rate of time and one half the employee's
regular rate of pay. The Defendant does not include earned
commissions in the calculations of the regular rates of pay as
required by the FLSA, and has underpaid all sales agents who earned
commissions during any workweek he or worked more than 40 hours for
the workweek. The Defendant maintained this unlawful pay practice
applicable to all sales agents, failing to include commissions in
the regular rates of pay, and thus underpaying all sales agents for
the overtime hours they worked.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from March 2020 through May
10, 2021 from the Defendant's Tampa, Florida office as an inside
sales representative, also known as a sales agent, and used the
title of Senior Agent.
TIB is a Florida for profit corporation Florida Company with
principal place of business located in Tampa, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Phone: 813-639-9366
Fax: 813-639-9376
Email:Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
TOUCH OF CLASS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Touch of Class
Catalog, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Touch of Class
Catalog, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04726 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Touch of Class -- https://www.touchofclass.com/ -- offers unique
furnishings to decorate your home from home decor, bedspreads,
comforters, area rugs and wall art in many decorating styles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
TRAFFIC SAFETY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Traffic Safety Store,
Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Traffic Safety Store, Inc.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04626 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Traffic Safety Store -- https://www.trafficsafetystore.com/ --
is America's largest manufacturer and distributor of traffic safety
products.[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
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Guthrie Sues Over Misleading Statement
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Guthrie and Grady Lee Harris, Jr., on behalf of and
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. RG21098977 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda
Cty., May 11, 2021), is brought against the Defendant on behalf of
persons in the state of California to whom the Defendant issued a
Trendsetter LB individual term life insurance policy with a 30 day
right to cancel and return wherein the policy misleadingly
represented the Chronic and Critical Illness Accelerated Death
Benefit "Riders" as being included at "NO CHARGE."
The complaint asserts that it misleadingly portrayed the
Trendsetter LB policy as costing the same as a Trendsetter level
premium term policy without the Riders which simply was not true.
In fact, the Defendant had another Trendsetter policy called
Trendsetter Super that offered the same basic Trendsetter Series
level premium term life insurance coverage without all of the
"Riders" for a significantly lower level premium (i.e.,
approximately 14% to 27% lower). The Defendant had to duty to
disclose this material information about its Trendsetter Super
policy as part of its obligations under Cal. Ins. Code Section
330-32, its duty to correct its materially misleading "NO CHARGE"
representation and otherwise as explained herein.
Because this misleading "NO CHARGE" representation was made by the
Defendant to the Plaintiffs and the Class in each Trendsetter LB
policy issued to them and at a time when they had a 30 day right to
examine the policy and decide whether to keep or return it for a
full refund, the Defendant's misleading statement made without
disclosing the cost of a comparable Trendsetter Super policy was
both unfair and deceptive to the Plaintiffs and the Class and
materially affected their decision whether to keep the policy or
return it for a full refund. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the
Class have paid (and will continue to pay) higher premiums for the
same basic term life insurance coverage they could have had in a
Trendsetter Super policy for substantially lower level premiums,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are owners and insured of a Trendsetter LB.
Transamerica Life Insurance Company is the eighth largest provider
of life insurance in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
429 Fourth Avenue
Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-281-8400
Fax: 412-281-1007
Email: wlison@fdpklaw.com
jkravec@fdpklaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Blakeman, Esq.
BLAKEMAN LAW
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone: 213-629-9922
Fax: 213-232-3230
Email: ben@lifeinsurance-law.com
TRAVEL GUARD: Arce Files Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Travel Guard Group,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as William Arce, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Travel Guard Group,
Inc., NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, P.A.,
United Airlines, Inc., Chicago, IL, Case No. 2:21-cv-11741 (D.N.J.,
May 25, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Travel Guard -- https://www.travelguard.com/ -- offers travel
insurance plans that can cover trip cancellation, travel health
insurance, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: ykopel@bursor.com
U.S. BANK: Dunham Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Call Center Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEE DUNHAM, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00353-MWM (S.D. Ohio, May 25, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated call-center employees overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Plaintiff Dunham was employed by US Bank as a call-center employee
in Cincinnati, Ohio from approximately January 2017 until October
2020.
U.S. Bank National Association is a financial services company
located in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE
WENTZ MCINERNEY PEIFER, LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 221-4221
Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
- and –
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
UATP MANAGEMENT: APFA Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as APFA INC., v. UATP
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00108-O (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Reed O'Connor entered an order:
1. granting the Defendant UATP's motion to dismiss with respect
to all of Plaintiff's claims, which are dismissed
without prejudice.
2. denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion for
attorneys' fees; and
3. denying as moot the Defendant's alternative motion to stay
this suit pending arbitration.
The Court finds Plaintiff lacks associational standing to bring
this suit.
This case arises out of a dispute between a franchisor and an
association of franchisees. The Defendant UATP nationally
franchises nearly two hundred "Urban Air" locations -- indoor
adventure parks. The Plaintiff APFA represents more than 50 Urban
Air franchisees in the United States, with its mission to "protect
and preserve the rights of Urban Air franchisees."
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vlhOcu at no extra charge.[CC]
UMB BANK: Eichman Sues Over Improper Collection of Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Eichman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UMB BANK, N.A., Case No. 4:21-cv-00353-RK (W.D. Mo.,
May 21, 2021), is brought to seek monetary damages, restitution,
injunctive, and declaratory relief from the Defendant over the
improper assessment and collection of $36 "Overdraft Charge(s)"
("OD Fees") on debit card transactions that were authorized on
sufficient funds and that settled on negative funds in the same
amount for which the debit card transaction was authorized before
the authorization hold expired.
According to the complaint, besides being deceptive, this practice
breaches the Defendant's standardized adhesion contract, which
consists of the Important Information Regarding Your Deposit
Accounts document. The Account Agreement defines "overdraft" as
"any negative balance in your account resulting from the posting of
any item or other debit to your account." The Account Agreement
promises that "if your available balance is not sufficient to cover
all of the items that are posted to your account on any business
day, then we will assess and debit insufficient funds or overdraft
charges to your account." In breach of this promise, the Defendant
assesses OD Fees on transactions for which the customer's
"available balance" is "sufficient" "to cover all of the items that
are posted" to an account. This practice also violates the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiff and the Defendant's
customers have been injured by the Defendant's practices. The
Plaintiff brings claims for the Defendant's breach of contract,
including the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The Plaintiff has had a checking account with UMB.
UMB is a national bank that maintains its principal place of
business in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Thomas, Esq.
HUMPHREY FARRINGTON & McCLAIN P.C.
221 West Lexington Avenue
Independence, MO 64050
Phone: (816) 398-7435
Email: dat@hfmlegal.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN AND MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Martin F. Schubert, Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Fax: (615) 255-5419
Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
martys@bsjfirm.com
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 300
Little Rock, AK 72201
Phone: 501-372-1300
Fax: 888-505-0909
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
UMG RECORDINGS: Beach Boys Guitarist Leads Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
thewrap.com reports that David Marks, an early member of The Beach
Boys, has filed a class action lawsuit against UMG Recordings in
which he accuses the company of shorting its artists millions of
dollars from international streaming revenue.
According to the lawsuit, filed in California federal court, Marks
says that UMG is "contractually required to pay artists a portion
of the international revenue it receives from the exploitation of
Plaintiff and Class Members' artistic works from digital
streaming."
Marks says that UMG has been underreporting revenue generated from
foreign sales and thus paying its artists less than he believes
they are owed. He says that UMG does not disclose this income to
its artists and "essentially conceals and keeps a portion of the
international streaming revenues generated by its foreign
affiliates without accounting for or paying a fair share to
Plaintiff and Class Members."
Marks believes the amount owed to various artists exceeds $5
million but wants to do a full accounting of UMG's financials to
determine the exact amount. He is suing for breach of contract and
fraud, among other claims.
UMG did not immediately respond to TheWrap's request for comment.
[GN]
UNIFIN INC: Friedman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Isaac Friedman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case
No. 7:21-cv-04192-KMK (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
UNIFIN, Inc. is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and
is a full service BPO and Accounts Receivable Management firm
licensed and bonded nationally.[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
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: R.B. Files Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Behavioral
Health. The case is styled as R.B., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. United Behavioral Health, Case No.
1 1:21-cv-00553-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y., May 12, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for the E.R.I.S.A.
United Behavioral Health -- https://www.uhcprovider.com/en/ --
manages behavioral health services for UnitedHealthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Dismiss Fedor Class Suit Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Strike
Class and Collective Action Claims, and Compel Arbitration, or, in
the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in the lawsuit entitled DANA
FEDOR, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE, INC., and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. CV 17-13 MV/KBM (D.N.M.).
Plaintiff Dana Fedor worked for the Defendants as a "Care
Coordinator" from Nov. 2013 until Nov. 25, 2016. Opt-in Plaintiffs
Susan Davis, Donah E. Davison, Juliana J. Whitesell, Cindy L. Hays,
Michelle Rios Rice, Ann E. Beauchamp, William E. Snyder, and Lisa
Anne Salopek also formerly worked for the Defendants as Care
Coordinators.
Consistent with the Defendants' policies, along with his or her
offer letter, the Defendants provided Plaintiff and Opt-in
Plaintiffs with a copy of the Defendants' then-current arbitration
policy. The Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs each logged onto the
Defendants' PeopleSoft Human Resources Management System and
electronically acknowledged receipt of, and agreement to, that
arbitration policy, by clicking on the "I accept" button.
The Defendants periodically revise their arbitration policy, and on
Jan. 1, 2016, while the Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs were still
employed with them, the Defendants "issued" the most recent version
of their arbitration policy. The 2016 Policy states that it is a
binding contract between UnitedHealth Group and its employee, that
acceptance of employment or continuation of employment with
UnitedHealth Group is deemed to be acceptance of this Policy, and
that it supersedes any and all prior versions and has been revised
effective Jan. 1, 2016.
On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced the instant action by
filing her First Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint to
recover overtime compensation from Defendants. The Plaintiff brings
collective claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class
action claims under New Mexico law, on behalf of herself and Opt-in
Plaintiffs, who have consented to join the action (collectively,
"Plaintiffs").
Arguing that this lawsuit violates the 2016 Policy, which requires
arbitration of the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint and
which prohibits collective and class claims, the Defendants filed
the instant motion to compel the Plaintiffs to individually
arbitrate their claims. The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing
that the 2016 Policy is not enforceable against them because there
is no evidence that any of them signed, read or even knew about
this Policy. Rather, the Plaintiffs explained, each of them
indicated acceptance only to prior versions of the Defendants'
arbitration policy (collectively, the "Earlier Policies"), each of
which lacked valid consideration under New Mexico law and thus were
not valid, enforceable arbitration agreements.
In a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered March 18, 2019, the Court
agreed with the Plaintiffs that they electronically agreed to
Earlier Policies and that, under New Mexico law, each of the
Earlier Policies contained provisions that would render them
unenforceable for lack of valid consideration. The Court, however,
explained that its conclusion that the Earlier Policies are
unenforceable did not end the inquiry.
Specifically, the Court pointed to the Defendants' representation
that, on Jan. 1, 2016, while the Plaintiffs were still employed
with the Defendants, the Defendants "issued" the 2016 Policy. In
turn, the 2016 Policy states that it is a binding contract between
UnitedHealth Group and its employee, that acceptance of employment
or continuation of employment with UnitedHealth Group is deemed to
be acceptance of this Policy, and that it supersedes any and all
prior versions and has been revised effective Jan. 1, 2016.
Accordingly, the Court found that the relevant question, thus,
remained as to whether, despite the unenforceability of the Earlier
Policies, the 2016 Policy was applicable and enforceable as to the
Plaintiffs.
The Court, however, decided that it was not authorized to answer
this question, because the 2016 Policy specifically delegates the
threshold issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The Court found
that the controversy over whether the 2016 Policy is applicable and
enforceable as to the Plaintiffs falls squarely within this
delegation provision. Accordingly, and applying what it interpreted
as controlling, on point authority, the Court granted the
Defendants' request that the Court enforce the delegation provision
and, in keeping with that provision, compel the Plaintiffs to
arbitrate the issue of the applicability and enforceability of the
2016 Policy. The Court, thus, compelled arbitration and entered a
judgment dismissing the case.
The Plaintiff appealed the March 2019 Opinion and Judgment, arguing
that the Court impermissibly compelled arbitration before first
finding that she and UHC had indeed formed the arbitration
agreement underlying the district court's decision. The Tenth
Circuit agreed, concluding that the issue of whether an arbitration
agreement was formed between the parties must always be decided by
a court, regardless of whether the alleged agreement contained a
delegation clause or whether one of the parties specifically
challenged the clause.
Applying this principle to the facts in the case, the Court found
that, because the Plaintiff claims "that neither she nor the other
class members read or accepted the 2016 arbitration agreement, she
raised an issue of formation which cannot be delegated to an
arbitrator." The Court also rejected the Defendants' "arguments to
affirm on the alternate grounds that the prior arbitration
agreements were valid and that the plaintiffs implicitly agreed to
arbitrate any claims against UHC by commencing employment with the
company," explaining that "because affirmance on these grounds
would enlarge UHC's rights, UHC could have raised them only through
cross-appeal." The Court vacated the Judgment and remanded "for the
district court to determine if Fedor and UHC formed the 2016
arbitration agreement."
In accordance with the Tenth Circuit's directive, the Court entered
an Order on Oct. 20, 2020, noting that, on remand, the question
before the Court is whether, despite the unenforceability of the
prior versions of the Defendants' arbitration policies to which the
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs agreed, the Plaintiff and/or the
Opt-in Plaintiffs "formed" the 2016 Arbitration Policy such that
the 2016 Arbitration Policy is applicable and enforceable as to the
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs.
Discussion
The Plaintiff argues that neither she nor the Opt-in Plaintiffs can
be compelled to arbitrate her claims against the Defendants,
because the Defendants cannot meet their burden of showing that the
2016 Policy is a legally binding contract formed between the
parties. The Defendants disagree, arguing that the 2016 Policy
formed an agreement to arbitrate between each Plaintiff and United
Healthcare and that, even if it did not, the Plaintiffs should be
compelled to arbitrate either under the Earlier Policies or in
accordance with the letters that offered them employment ("Offer
Letters").
With the exception of Opt-in Plaintiff Hays, who undisputedly has
now signed the 2016 Policy, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff
that neither she nor the remainder of the Opt-in Plaintiffs can be
compelled to arbitrate her claims against the Defendants.
The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Hays has been rehired by
the Defendants and, in connection with her rehire, agreed to the
2016 Policy on June 26, 2017. The Defendants argue that Hays, thus,
must be compelled to arbitrate her claims. She does not appear to
disagree. The Court, thus, will compel Hays to arbitrate her claims
against the Defendants.
The Defendants contend that the 2016 Policy was "formed" as to the
Plaintiffs because they received notice thereof "in accordance with
the procedure agreed to by Plaintiffs" and subsequently "accepted"
"the new terms" of the 2016 Policy by continuing their employment.
But as the Court has already found, the Earlier Policies are
neither valid nor enforceable. It follows that the Plaintiffs
cannot be bound by the terms of those Earlier Policies. And because
they cannot be bound by the terms of those Earlier Policies, there
is no basis to find that, by continuing employment after receiving
notice of the modified 2016 Policy, the Plaintiffs agreed to be
bound by the terms of the 2016 Policy.
The Defendants, however, ask the Court to revisit its determination
that the Earlier Policies lacked valid consideration and, thus,
were unenforceable. The Court recognizes that it is entitled to
reconsider its determination. Upon such reconsideration, however,
the Court does not reach a different conclusion.
Accordingly, the Court declines to find that Defendants' initial
offer of employment to Plaintiffs constituted valid consideration
for their agreement to submit to arbitration.
District Judge Martha Vazquez opines that because the Defendants'
offer of new employment does not constitute consideration, and
because the Earlier Policies are not otherwise supported by valid
consideration, there is no basis for the Court to reverse its prior
determination that the Earlier Policies are unenforceable. And
because the Defendants' argument as to the formation of the 2016
Policy depends entirely on the enforceability of those Earlier
Policies, that argument necessarily must fail. The Defendants,
thus, have provided no basis for the Court to find that the 2016
Policy was formed as to the Plaintiffs. The Judge adds, among other
things, that the Offer Letter provides no basis for the Court to
compel the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against the
Defendants.
Conclusion
Opt-in Plaintiff Hays has agreed to the 2016 Policy, and, thus, is
bound by the 2016 Policy to submit her claims against the
Defendants to arbitration. The 2016 Policy was not formed as to the
Plaintiff or any of the other Opt-in Plaintiffs, and thus neither
the Plaintiff nor any of the other Opt-in Plaintiffs may be
compelled pursuant to the 2016 Policy to submit their claims
against the Defendants to arbitration.
Judge Vazquez holds that the Earlier Policies are unenforceable for
lack of consideration, and, thus, neither the Plaintiff nor any of
the Opt-in Plaintiffs may be compelled pursuant to the Earlier
Policies to submit their claims against the Defendants to
arbitration. The Offer Letters sent to the Plaintiff and Opt-in
Plaintiffs prior to their employment do not constitute separate,
enforceable agreements to arbitrate, and thus neither Plaintiff nor
any of the Opt-in Plaintiffs may be compelled pursuant to the Offer
Letters that they received to submit their claims against
Defendants to arbitration.
It is, therefore, ordered that the Motion to Dismiss, Strike Class
and Collective Action Claims, and Compel Arbitration, or, in the
Alternative, Stay Proceedings is granted in part and denied in
part, as follows: Opt-in Plaintiff Cindy L. Hays must submit her
claims against the Defendants to arbitration, but neither the
Plaintiff nor the remaining Opt-In Plaintiffs must submit their
claims against Defendants to arbitration. As to the Plaintiff and
all Opt-in Plaintiffs other than Hays, the Defendants are not
entitled to any of the relief sought in their Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 6, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/8z2bu45d from
Leagle.com.
USA 1 WIRELESS: Faces Al-Ali Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA AL-ALI (F/K/A JESSICA FIGUEROA), GERALDINE RONCAL and
MARITZA SOTELO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. USA 1 WIRELESS, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 1,
INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 2, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 3, INC., USA 1
WIRELESS 4, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 5, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 6, INC.,
USA 1 WIRELESS 7, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 8, INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 9,
INC., USA 1 WIRELESS 10, INC., MICHAEL J. YONO, and DANI SCHAMMAMI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02797 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago
Minimum Wage Ordinance, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated sales associates appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek.
Plaintiffs Al-Ali, Roncal, and Sotelo worked for the Defendants as
sales associates from January 2019 to April 2021, from October 2020
to April 2021, and from October 2019 to April 2021, respectively.
USA 1 Wireless, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro PCS/T-Mobile
cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago and surrounding
suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 1, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 2, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 3, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 4, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 5, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 6, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 7, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 8, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 9, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois.
USA 1 Wireless 10, Inc. is an owner and operator of Metro
PCS/T-Mobile cell phone retail stores located throughout Chicago
and surrounding suburbs in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John W. Billhorn, Esq.
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
V SHRED: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against V Shred, LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. V Shred, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04590
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
V Shred -- https://vshred.com/ -- is a brand encompassing online
fitness, nutrition, personalized training products and related
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VALVE CORPORATION: Colvin Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sean Colvin, Everett Stephens, Ryan Lally,
Susann Davis, Hope Marchionda, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Valve Corporation, CD Projekt SA, CD
Projekt Inc., Ubisoft Entertainment SA, Ubisoft Inc., Ubisoft LA
Inc., kChamp Games Inc., Rust LLC, Devolver Digital Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-00801, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington on May 13, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00650-JCC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.
Valve Corporation, also known as Valve Software --
https://www.valvesoftware.com/ -- is an American video game
developer, publisher, and digital distribution company
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kara M. Mundy, Esq.
Kenneth J. Rubin, Esq.
Timothy B. McGranor, Esq.
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
52 East Gay Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 464-5669
Fax: (614) 719-4709
Email: kmmundy@vorys.com
kjrubin@vorys.com
tbmcgranor@vorys.com
- and -
Thomas N. McCormick, Esq.
VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
4675 MacArthur Court Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 526-7903
Fax: (949) 383-2384
Email: tnmccormick@vorys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles B Casper, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
123 S BROAD ST 24TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19109-1099
Phone: (215) 772-1500
Email: ccasper@mmwr.com
- and -
Gavin William Skok, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP (SEATTLE)
1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 4500
SEATTLE, WA 98154
Phone: (206) 624-3600
Email: gskok@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Mhare Ohan Mouradian, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 598-4150
Fax: (310) 556-9828
Email: mmouradian@foxrothschild.com
- and -
Marc Ellis Mayer, Esq.
MITCHELL SILBERBERG AND KNUPP LLP
2049 Century Park East 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 312-2000
Fax: (310) 312-3100
Email: mem@msk.com
- and -
Todd W Bonder, Esq.
ROSENFELD MEYER AND SUSMAN LLP
232 North Canon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 858-7700
Fax: (310) 860-2430
Email: tbonder@rmslaw.com
- and -
Teresa Harrold Michaud, Esq.
BAKER AND MCKENZIE
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-4725
Fax: (310) 201-4721
Email: teresa.michaud@bakermckenzie.com
VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of June 22 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Verus International, Inc. (OTC:
VRUS) between June 17, 2019 through October 8, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important June 22, 2021 lead plaintiff
deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Verus securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Verus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2084.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 22, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan
of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Verus lacked the requisite
resources, infrastructure and/or expertise to exploit its Big
League Foods brand and its Major League Baseball (MLB) license; (2)
the Company issues in production ramp-up were not fully resolved to
enable Verus to fulfill customer orders; (3) as a result, the
Company's prospects and outlook were not as represented; (4) the
Company's internal controls for financial reporting and accounting
were not sufficient with specific respect to stock-based
compensation and classification of equity instruments; (5) as a
result, the Company's financial results, outlook and prospects were
materially worse than represented; and (6) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
To join the Verus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2084.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
VERVENT INC: Aliff Must File Class Certification Bid by July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JODY ALIFF, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., v. VERVENT,
INC., et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00697-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Allison H. Goddard entered an order:
1. directing the parties to further meet and confer regarding
the discovery referenced in the instant motion. The court
sets a telephonic, counsel-only Discovery Conference for May
26, 2021 at 3:30 p.m. before the Honorable Allison H.
Goddard.
2. directing fact and class discovery are not bifurcated, but
class discovery must be completed by June 30, 2021.
"Completed" means that all discovery requests governed by
Rules 30-36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
discovery subpoenas under Rule 45, must be propounded
sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off date so that
they may be completed by that date, taking into account the
time permitted in the Rules for service, notice, and
responses.
3. directing the Plaintiff(s) to file a motion for class
certification by July 30, 2021.
No further extensions will be granted. All other dates, deadlines,
and procedures set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order, the Court
says.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bSVb7l at no extra charge.[CC]
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Shiflett Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SHIFLETT, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01880-JSM-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Classes and Subclass:
-- Cancelled Event Class:
"All persons residing in the United States or its
territories who: 1) used Viagogo to purchase tickets to an
event originally scheduled to take place on or after March
1, 2020 that Viagogo later classified as "cancelled"; and
2) did not receive a cash refund within 30 days after
Viagogo classified the event as cancelled;"
-- Postponed Event Class:
"All persons residing in the United States or its
territories who, prior to April 1, 2020, used Viagogo to
purchase tickets to an event: 1) that was originally
scheduled to take place on or after March 1, 2020; 2) that
did not occur within 90 days of the originally scheduled
date; and 3) that Viagogo did not classify as "cancelled"
within 90 days of the originally scheduled date;"
-- Florida Subclass:
"All Florida residents who are members of either the
Cancelled Event Class or Postponed Event Class"
2. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; and
3. setting deadlines for the parties to meet and confer and
submit proposals regarding the notice required under Rule
23(c)(2).
The Plaintiff Shiflett moves for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 and specifically under Rule 23(b)(3). She seeks to
represent two classes of consumers who, like her, purchased event
tickets using Defendant Viagogo Entertainment, Inc.'s platform, and
later: 1) did not receive refunds after their events were
cancelled, and/or 2) received nothing to compensate them for the
lengthy periods of time Viagogo classified events as "postponed" or
"rescheduled," while retaining buyers' payments.
In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a subclass of Florida
residents affected by these practices for purposes of pursuing a
claim under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Viagogo operates an online ticket marketplace that facilitates the
"secondary" sale of event tickets between independent sellers, and
consumer buyers like the Plaintiff.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oSGl6n
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
ncolella@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
VINOVEST INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vinovest, Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Vinovest, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04589
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vinovest -- https://www.vinovest.co/ -- is a team of world-class
wine experts and the best technology talent.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VIVINT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vivint, Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Vivint, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04724
(S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Vivint Smart Home, Inc. -- https://www.vivint.com/ -- is a public
smart home company in the United States and Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VIZ MEDIA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viz Media, LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Viz Media, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-04603
(S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
VIZ Media LLC -- https://www.viz.com/ -- is an American
manga-publishing and anime-dubbing and company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Failed to Disclose Water Pump Defect, Zhao Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zhao and Dean Marriott, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a
New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. and AUDI
OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AG, a German Corporation, and AUDI AG,
a German Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-11251-MCA-MF (D.N.J., May
14, 2021), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure, despite
its longstanding knowledge since at least June 28, 2016, to
disclose to the Plaintiffs and other consumers that the Class
Vehicles contain a defectively manufactured thermoplastic water
pump module--consisting of a water pump, thermostat (or engine
temperature control actuator N493) and integrated sensors--that
causes it to prematurely fail.
According to the complaint, The class action arises from a latent
defect found in the model year 2015-2020 Audi A3, MY2015-2019 Audi
A3 Quattro, MY2017-2019 Audi A4, MY2017-2019 Audi A4 Allroad,
MY2017-2019 Audi A4 Quattro, MY2018-2019 Audi A5 Quattro,
MY2018-2019 Audi A5 Sportback, MY 2015-2018 Audi A6, MY 2015-2018
A6 Quattro, MY2015-2018 Audi Q3, MY2015-2018 Audi Q3 Quattro, MY
2018-2020 Audi Q5, MY2016-2020 Audi TT Quattro, MY2017-2019 Audi
Q7, MY2015-2019 Audi S3, MY2016-2020 Audi TTS Quattro, MY2019-2020
Volkswagen Arteon, MY2018-2020 Atlas, MY2015-2019 Volkswagen
Beetle, MY2015-2018 Volkswagen Golf, MY2017-2019 Volkswagen Golf
Alltrack, MY2015-2019 Volkswagen Golf R, MY2015-2019 Volkswagen
Golf SportWagen, MY2015-2020 Volkswagen GTI, and MY2018 2020
Volkswagen Tiguan ("Class Vehicles").
When the Defect manifests, it may cause the engines in the Class
Vehicles to overheat, resulting in sudden and catastrophic engine
failure. The sudden and unexpected catastrophic engine failure
causes the Class Vehicles to unexpectedly stop, posing a danger to
the drivers and occupants of the Class Vehicles, and others who
share the road with them, as other vehicles can collide with the
Class Vehicles after they suddenly stop moving. Not only did
Defendants actively conceal the fact that the Class Vehicles were
prone to the Defect, which could result in sudden and unexpected
slowing and stopping events and other dangerous situations (and
require costly repairs to fix), they did not reveal that the
existence of this Defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale
value of the Class Vehicles.
Many owners and lessees of Class Vehicles have communicated with
the Defendants and their agents to request that they remedy and/or
address the Defect at the Defendants' expense. The Defendants have
failed and/or refused to do so, often conveying to owners and
lessees that the Class Vehicles are operating as intended and
therefore cannot be repaired under warranty or otherwise. Once the
Class Vehicles fall outside the warranty period, Defendants then
charge the owners and lessees for the costly repairs necessitated
by the Defect.
The Defendants have also refused to take any action to correct this
concealed defect when it manifests in the Class Vehicles outside of
the warranty period. Because the defect can manifest shortly
outside of the warranty period for the Class Vehicles—and given
the Defendants' knowledge of this concealed, safety-related
defect—the Defendants' attempt to limit the warranty with respect
to the engine defect is unconscionable and unenforceable here. As a
result of the Defendants' unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent
business practices, owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles,
including the Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of
money and/or property and/or loss in value. The unfair and
deceptive trade practices committed by the Defendants were
conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating
circumstances, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased one of the Class Vehicles in one of the
Defendants' authorized Volkswagen dealership in California.
Volkswagen USA is a "wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, one
of the world's leading automobile manufacturers and the largest
carmaker in Europe."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
1109 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Phone: (610) 200-0581
Facsimile: 610-421-1326
Email: mds@sstriallawyers.com
jbk@sstriallawyers.com
WABASH COUNTY, IN: Copeland Renewed Bid for Class Cert. OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY COPELAND, JOHN
WHITT, and JAMES DUTTON, on behalf of themselves and a class of
those similarly situated, v. WABASH COUNTY, INDIANA; and the WABASH
COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official, Case No. 3:20-cv-00154-JD-MGG
(N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Jon E. Deguilio entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification defined as:
"all persons currently confined, or who will in the future be
confined, in the Wabash County Jail."
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Jerry Copeland and John Whitt as
representative plaintiffs of the class so certified;
3. appointing their current counsel as counsel for the class;
and
4. directing class counsel to provide notice of this
certification to each individual member of the class who can
be identified through reasonable effort.
On February 19, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
for declaratory and injunctive relief, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983, seeking to enjoin the practices of Wabash County Jail
and the Wabash County Jail Sheriff in his official capacity.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated individuals, have sued Wabash County and the Wabash County
Sheriff, alleging that the conditions of confinement resulting from
the overcrowded and understaffed Wabash County Jail violate the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 10, 2021 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3bUSQJg at no
extra charge.[CC]
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Sharoubim Sues to Seek Compensatory Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raouf Hanna Sharoubim, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-02903 (E.D.N.Y., May 24, 2021), is brought to recover
statutory damages for violation of New York Labor Law and to seek
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensatory damages, liquidated
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other appropriate
relief.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff "on a weekly basis and
not later than seven calendar days after the end of the week in
which the wages are earned" as required by the frequency of payment
provision of the NYLL. Instead, Defendant paid Plaintiff on a
bi-weekly pursuant to its payroll policy in violation of the NYLL,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
maintenance worker at its store located in East Setauket, New York
from 2003 to January 2021.
The Defendant sells grocery and retail items throughout its stores
located in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Highway
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
Email: promero@romerolawny.com
WALGREENS CO: Court Grants Mau Leave to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in
the lawsuit titled THEDA JACKSON MAU, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS CO., Defendant,
Case No. 18 Civ. 4868 (FB) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiff's action brings individual and class claims against
Defendant Walgreens alleging violations of New York General
Business Law Section 349 and breach of contract. In brief, the
Plaintiff alleges that she purchased a bottle of Glucosamine
Sulfate ("GS") at Walgreens in 2018 that laboratory tests later
showed did not contain GS.
In the instant motion, the Plaintiff represents that a company
named International Vitamin Corporation ("IVC") supplied the false
GS to Walgreens; she moves to add IVC as a Defendant along with
clarifying language to her previous allegations.
Defendant Walgreens and non-party IVC oppose the motion and the
Plaintiff replies. The Court held a conference on the motion and
the parties subsequently supplemented the record.
Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon notes that this is the Plaintiff's
first motion for leave to amend; such a motion should be freely
granted unless there is a good reason for denying it, such as
futility, bad faith, undue delay or undue prejudice to the opposing
party, citing Jin v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 310 F.3d 84, 101 (2d
Cir. 2002).
IVC argues that the Plaintiff's proposed amendment should be denied
because it is duplicative of two putative nationwide class actions
that the Plaintiff's counsel is litigating against IVC in the
Central District of California. One of these was filed in 2019 and
alleges that Defendants Walmart and IVC violated various California
laws in connection with Walmart's sale of defective IVC-supplied
GS, and the parties there are litigating a motion to dismiss
(Diamos v. Walmart Inc., No. 19 Civ. 5526 (SVW) (GJS) (C.D. Cal.)
(filed June 25, 2019)).
The second was filed in 2020 against defendants Nutra
Manufacturing, LLC and IVC (Nutra's majority owner) alleging that
non-party GNC's sale of defective Nutra-supplied GS violated
various California laws, and the parties there are litigating a
summary judgment and class decertification motion (Amavizca v.
Nutra Mfg., LLC, No. 20 Civ. 1324 (RGK) (MAA) (C.D. Cal.) (filed
July 22, 2020)).
Against this backdrop, according to IVC, the Plaintiff's motion
appears designed to permit her to relitigate any claims against IVC
that might be dismissed by the Diamos and/or Amavizca courts.
The Court disagrees. Judge Scanlon opines that IVC has not shown
and it is not self-evident (i) that the defective IVC-sourced GS
product bought at Walgreens was identical to the IVC-and/or
Nutra-sourced GS products bought at the different sales outlets at
issue in Diamos and Amavizca, or (ii) why dismissal of claims made
against IVC under California law in Diamos and Amavicza would
necessarily mean that the Plaintiff cannot sustain her theory of
liability against IVC under New York law.
For similar reasons, the Court finds an absence of bad faith, undue
delay and undue prejudice in connection with the Plaintiff's
motion. Although the Plaintiff could have made her motion sooner,
discovery in this action has not yet closed, and the parties have
acknowledged that certain IVC discovery could be efficiently and
expeditiously cross-produced in this action, Diamos and Amavizca.
In addition, to the extent that the Plaintiff's amended pleading
includes additional allegations regarding how the GS she purchased
was less than what she was promised (for example, by alleging that
its actual glucosamine formulation had not demonstrated clinical
effectiveness with respect to conditions for which the GS was
sold), the Court does not find prejudice in allowing the Plaintiff
to more specifically articulate a theory of liability that is
consistent with what has been the premise of her action.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file her proposed amended complaint within 14 days of the
date of this Order, and to serve the complaint on the new defendant
within 45 days of the date of this order.
On or before June 1, 2021, the parties must file a joint letter
with a revised joint proposed scheduling order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/humykhvu from Leagle.com.
WALMART INC: Security Checks Didn't Push Workers to Skip Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner at Reuters reports that a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals panel considered Walmart Stores Inc's bid to undo a $6
million jury verdict in a class action claiming that security
checks at a California distribution center discouraged workers from
leaving the facility during meal breaks.
Theane Evangelis of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, who represents Walmart,
told the three-judge panel during remote oral arguments that a
class should never have been certified in the 2017 lawsuit because
there was no proof that a significant number of workers were
actually deterred from taking breaks.
"It would be improper to allow this classwide verdict to stand
where we know this sweeps in uninjured members," Evangelis said.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say it was impractical for them to
leave the Chino, California, facility where they worked during
their 30-minute meal breaks, because it would take several minutes
to walk to the security checkpoint and potentially wait in line.
The workers accused Arkansas-based Walmart of unlawfully
discouraging them from taking full breaks through its security
policy.
The California Supreme Court last year in Frlekin v. Apple Inc held
that state law requires that workers be paid for time spent waiting
in security checks. But that case involved workers who went through
checks at the end of their shifts, rather than during unpaid meal
breaks.
The case against Walmart went to trial in 2019 after U.S. District
Judge Andre Birotte in Los Angeles certified the class, rejecting
the company's claim that individual inquiries were required to
determine whether specific workers were discouraged from leaving
the warehouse to take breaks.
Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon told Evangelis that she seemed to be
conflating a claim that an employer made it difficult to take a
break, such as by assigning a heavy workload, with the claim that
Walmart's policies were eating up part of employees' unpaid break
times.
"If the meal break requires you to go through a security check that
takes more than a zero amount of time and it's under the control of
the employer, why is that not the end of the story? Why do we have
to worry if (workers were) annoyed by it or whatever?" Berzon
asked.
Evangelis said that California law only requires employers to
relieve workers of duty and provide breaks, and that Walmart did
so.
Kenneth Yoon, who argued for the plaintiffs, countered that by
requiring the security check, Walmart was depriving workers of the
"reasonable opportunity" to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break
required by California law.
The panel included Circuit Judge Jay Bybee and U.S. District Judge
Kathleen Cardone of the Western District of Texas, who sat by
designation.
The case is Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, No. 19-56161. [GN]
WASHINGTON PRIME: Slipher Sues Over Decline in Value of Securities
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Slipher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WASHINGTON PRIME GROUP, INC., LOUIS CONFORTI, and MARK
E. YALE, Case No. 2:21-cv-02757-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, May 24, 2021),
is brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired WPG securities between November 5, 2020 and
March 4, 2021, inclusive; and to pursue claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities.
According to the complaint, on February 16, 2021, WPG disclosed
that its operating partnership, WPG L.P., had "elected to withhold
an interest payment of $23.2 million due on February 15, 2021 with
respect to WPG L.P.'s outstanding Senior Notes due 2024," and that
"WPG L.P. has a 30-day grace period to make the interest payment
before such non-payment constitutes an 'event of default.'" The
Company further advised that, in an event of default, certain
counterparties to the senior notes "could accelerate the
outstanding indebtedness due . . . making such indebtedness due and
payable, which would result in a cross-default with respect to some
of WPG L.P.'s or the Company's other indebtedness." On this news,
the Company's stock price fell $4.59, or 38%, to close at $7.49 per
share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy volume.
Then, on March 4, 2021, Bloomberg reported that WPG "is preparing a
potential bankruptcy filing as time runs out to avert default after
it skipped an interest payment on its debt, according to people
with knowledge of the plans." On this news, the Company's stock
price fell $3.77, or 60%, to close at $2.51 per share on March 4,
2021, on unusually heavy volume. On March 16, 2021, after the
market closed, WPG disclosed that it had entered into a forbearance
agreement with respect to the Senior Notes due in 2024 and stated
there was substantial doubt as the Company's ability to continue as
a going concern. The Company confirmed that it had engaged in
discussions for a financial restructuring.
The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that WPG's
financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) that, as a
result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's
ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became
due; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased WPG securities during the Class Period.
WPG is a self-managed and self-administered real estate investment
trust ("REIT") that owns properties and conducts operations through
Washington Prime Group, L.P.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and –
Andrew Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Phone: (513) 715-8711
Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
WAWA INC: E.D. Pennsylvania Narrows Claims in Data Security Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss
in the lawsuit captioned IN RE WAWA, INC. DATA SECURITY LITIGATION,
Case No. 19-6019 (E.D. Pa.).
Wawa, Inc., which operates a chain of convenience stores and gas
stations throughout the eastern United States, experienced a data
security incident in March 2019, when hackers accessed Wawa's
point-of-sale systems and installed malware that targeted in-store
payment terminals and gas station fuel dispensers. The hackers
obtained customer payment card information over the next several
months. This information was later made available for purchase on
the "dark web." Wawa disclosed the data breach in December 2019.
Lawsuits followed. The Court's case management plan created three
distinct tracks for the litigation: the Consumer Track, the
Employee Track, and the Financial Institution Track. This
Memorandum addresses the Financial Institution Track.
The Financial Institution Track Plaintiffs ("Institutions") assert
three causes of action, all of which arise from alleged losses from
the data breach related to notifying customers of potential fraud,
investigating claims of fraudulent activity on customer accounts,
and canceling and reissuing customer payment cards. Wawa moves to
dismiss all three causes of action.
Background
The Institutions initially were Inspire Federal Credit Union,
Insight Credit Union, and the Greater Cincinnati Credit Union. They
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2004, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
alleging that at least one class member is of diverse citizenship
from Wawa, there are more than 100 potential class members, and the
aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. In their
Amended Complaint, the Institutions bring suit on behalf of
financial institutions, who allegedly sustained financial losses as
a result of the Wawa data security breach, including reimbursing
payment card account holders for fraudulent or unauthorized
charges, canceling and reissuing cards, and investigating and
monitoring the compromised accounts.
The Institutions state that financial institutions and credit card
processing companies have issued rules and standards governing the
basic measures and protections that merchants must take to ensure
consumers' valuable data is protected. Thus, they argue that Wawa
had a duty to reasonably comply with these requirements and
safeguard payment card data. Moreover, the Institutions allege that
Wawa was on notice regarding potential security vulnerabilities in
its point-of-sale systems and the risk that payment card
information could be improperly accessed because other stores
across the United States had previously experienced high-profile
data breaches, and Visa had alerted merchants about potential
vulnerabilities.
Consequently, the Institutions argue that Wawa's deficient security
measures and vulnerable point-of-sale systems led to a data breach
that went undetected for almost nine months. The Institutions bring
claims for negligence (Count I), negligence per se (Count II), and
declaratory and injunctive relief (Count III).
Discussion
Wawa asks the Court to dismiss all three counts in the
Institutions' Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). As to negligence,
Wawa argues that the parties are bound by contract and that the
economic loss doctrine bars recovery in tort because no duty
independent of contract exists. As to negligence per se, Wawa
asserts that Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 45(a), which these plaintiffs invoke for their Count
II, does not provide for a private cause of action, and the
Institutions do not qualify as consumers, the group of people that
the FTC Act was designed to protect. Lastly, regarding declaratory
and injunctive relief, Wawa contends that this claim should be
dismissed because it duplicates the Institutions' negligence
claims.
Wawa argues that the Institutions' negligence claim is barred by
the economic loss doctrine. Wawa states that so-called "Payment
Card Rules" set forth the rights and responsibilities of payment
card network participants, including card issuers, like the
Institutions, and merchants, like Wawa. Accordingly, Wawa claims
all members of these financial networks agree to be bound by these
rules, thus, thwarting a negligence suit.
The parties dispute whether the Court can consider these rules.
Wawa refers to them in its motion and also attaches several
exhibits from Visa and Mastercard. The Institutions argue that, at
most, they make only a "cursory" reference to the existence of
these Rules in their Amended Complaint and this is not enough to
consider them incorporated by reference.
Although the Amended Complaint does not refer to specific rules by
name, it does mention (1) the requirement that card issuers
reimburse cardholders for unauthorized charges and (2) "the rules
and standards issued by financial institutions and credit card
processing companies governing the basic measures and protections
that merchants must take to ensure consumers' valuable data is
protected."
The Court finds that the Institutions' Amended Complaint makes more
than a mere cursory reference to these Rules. Thus, the Court can
consider the function these Rules serve. Although the Court is
cognizant of Wawa's argument regarding the potential dispositive
effect of these Payment Card Rules, now is not the time to address
that full-blown argument. Rather, the Court finds that the
Institutions have set forth a plausible negligence claim based on
the argument that Wawa owed them an independent duty in light of
recent Pennsylvania case law as described below, given that, as
these plaintiffs correctly argue, "at best, Wawa's reference to
such 'contracts,' even if properly considered at this procedural
stage, raise fact issues which cannot be resolved" at this stage.
The Court also finds that the Institutions have sufficiently pled a
claim for negligence based on their allegations that Wawa's
affirmative conduct, in collecting payment card information and
storing it in an insecure manner, created a risk of foreseeable
harm from third parties and led to a data breach that proximately
caused the Institutions' alleged injuries.
The Institutions also allege negligence per se, claiming that Wawa
violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter notes that the Institutions'
negligence per se claim is beset by a larger issue, namely that
under Pennsylvania law, negligence per se is not a separate cause
of action, but is instead of theory of liability that supports a
negligence claim, citing Sipp-Lipscomb v. Einstein Physicians
Pennypack Pediatrics, No. 20-cv-1926, 2020 WL 7353105, at *3 (E.D.
Pa. Dec. 9, 2020). Thus, because the Court finds that the
Institutions have sufficiently pled a claim for negligence, it will
dismiss Count II of the Institutions' Amended Complaint without
prejudice.
It is not lost on the Court that dismissal without prejudice of the
Institutions' negligence per se claim does not resolve the issue of
whether they can in fact utilize Section 5 of the FTC Act as the
basis for a negligence per se theory. Wawa argues that the
Institutions' negligence per se claim must be dismissed because the
FTC Act does not provide a private right of action. Wawa contends
that under Pennsylvania law, if a statute does not provide for a
private cause of action, a negligence per se claim based on that
statute will not lie.
But the Court agrees with the approach taken by the court in In re
Rutter's Inc. Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 20-cv-382, 2021 WL
29054, at *10 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2021). There, after dismissing the
plaintiffs' negligence per se claim while finding that their
negligence claim could proceed, that court declined to "reach a
decision on the viability" of an alternative theory of negligence
at the motion to dismiss stage. Instead, it noted that a motion for
summary judgment or pre-trial motion practice would be a more
appropriate vehicle "to analyze the applicability of the FTC Act as
a predicate for a Pennsylvania negligence per se claim."
Judge Pratter also opines that a dismissal of the Institutions'
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief at this stage would
curtail the Court's broad equity powers to fashion the most
complete relief possible, and even though the Court may ultimately
agree that claims for injunctive relief are inappropriate,
dismissal at this stage of the proceedings would be premature,
citing In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F.Supp.2d 517, 550 (D.N.J.
2004). Accordingly, the Court will deny Wawa's motion to dismiss
the Institutions' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Court grants in
part and denies in part Wawa's motion to dismiss. An appropriate
order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/c8v9y8bn from Leagle.com.
WELCH FOODS: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Extended to Oct. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CURTIS HANSON v. WELCH
FOODS INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02011-JCS (N.D. Calif.), the Hon.
Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order that:
1. The further case management conference currently set for May
14, 2021, is continued to June 18, 2021, at 2:00 PM by Zoom
video. This proceeding will be held by Zoom Webinar.
2. Updated joint case management conference statement due June
11, 2021.
3. The deadline to file Motion for Class Certification is
extended to October 8, 2021.
The Parties to meet and confer and submit a stipulated briefing
schedule with the reply brief to be due four weeks, or more, before
the scheduled hearing date, says the Court.
Welch is an American company, headquartered in Concord,
Massachusetts. It has been owned by the National Grape Cooperative
Association, a co-op of grape growers, since 1956.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vp6hsu at no extra charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Conditional Certification Granted in Droesch Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California grants the motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit titled DENISE DROESCH, et
al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Denise Droesch and Shakara Thompson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this wage and
hour action against their former employer Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Wells Fargo has moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Droesch
and certain Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims and the Court has granted the
Defendant's motion by separate order.
Plaintiff Thompson's motion for conditional certification under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act is now pending
before the Court. After carefully considering the parties' briefs
and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that oral
argument is unnecessary, vacates the May 13, 2021 hearing.
The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the FLSA
collective:
All individuals currently or formerly employed by Wells
Fargo as a Telephone Bankers in the United States at any
time from three years before the filing of the initial
Complaint through resolution of this action, and: (a) who
did not file a timely consent to join form with the court in
Singer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (W.D. Tex. Case No.
5:19-cv-00679) or (b) who did not file a timely consent to
join form in Harris, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(D. Ariz. Case No. CV-17-01146-PHXDMF, consolidated with
Kerness v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (D. Ariz. Case No.
CV17-02516-PHX-DMF) or who filed a timely consent to join
form in Harris, but whose claims here nonetheless accrued
after the settlement period in that case (i.e., after
December 31, 2019); (c); or who filed a timely consent to
join form in Harris/Kerness, but whose claims here
nonetheless accrued after the settlement period in that case
(i.e. after December 5, 2015).
Ms. Thompson worked as a telephone-dedicated employee at Well
Fargo; in particular, as a Financial Crimes Specialist III at Wells
Fargo's Charlotte, North Carolina Fraud Department Call Center. The
Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, were required
and/or permitted to perform unpaid work before and after their
scheduled shift times, including booting up computers, initializing
several software programs, reading company issued emails and
instructions at the beginning of their shifts, and completing
customer service calls, securing their workstations, locking their
desk drawers, and securing any customer or proprietary information
at the end of their shifts. Wells Fargo disciplines telephone-based
employees if they are not logged into their phones and ready to
handle calls prior to the start of their scheduled shift time.
Wells Fargo's managers and supervisors on the call center floor
were aware that telephone based employees arrived at their work
stations before the start of their scheduled shift time, logged
into Wells Fargo's computers, and began working on their computers
prior to the start of their scheduled shift time and that employees
worked past the end of their scheduled shift time handling phone
calls and securing their work stations. Wells Fargo nonetheless
failed to make any effort to stop or otherwise disallow the pre—
or post-shift work and instead allowed and permitted it to happen.
Wells Fargo, thus, maintains a policy and practice of failing to
pay employees, such as the Plaintiff, for all hours worked
especially time spent on work tasks before and after shifts.
Plaintiffs Droesch and Thompson filed this action in Sept. 2020.
The Plaintiffs allege violation of: (1) the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. (failure to pay minimum,
regular, and overtime wages); (2) N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 95-25.6,
95-25.7 and 95-25.13 (failure to pay as promised); (3) California
Labor Code Sections 510 and 1194 (failure to pay overtime wages);
(4) Violation California Labor Code Sections 1182.12, 1194, 1197,
1194.2 and 1198 (failure to pay minimum wage); (5) Violation
California Labor Code Sections 221-223 (failure to pay regular
wage); (6) Violation California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203
and 256 (failure to pay all wages upon termination); (7) Violation
California Labor Code Section 226 (failure to provide accurate wage
statements); and (8) California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq. (unlawful or unfair competition law violations).
The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of a proposed
nationwide collective of all individuals working in the non-exempt
position of "Telephone Banker" from three years prior to the filing
of this complaint onward, under the FLSA. After this action was
filed, Opt-in Plaintiffs Taishia Bell, James Galligan, Tavares
Speer, Johnathan Harrison, Jennifer Whitsitt, Shannon
Crenshaw-Gilkey, Rihab El Talawi, LaKeiva Harris, and Adam Kimo
filed Consents to join pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
At the Initial Case Management Conference, the Court set a schedule
for the Plaintiffs to move for conditional certification. The day
before the conditional certification motion was filed, the
Defendant moved to compel arbitration as to Ms. Droesch and the six
of the Opt-In Plaintiffs' claims. The Court granted that motion by
separate Order, staying Ms. Droesch and the Opt-in Plaintiffs'
claims pending arbitration. This leaves Ms. Thompson as the sole
Plaintiff.
Judge Corley opines that Ms. Thompson has adequately alleged that
she is similarly situated to other telephone-based employees, who
because of the Defendant's policies and practices are required to
perform off-the-clock work in contravention of the FLSA.
Accordingly, Ms. Thompson has satisfied her "light" burden of
demonstrating that conditional certification is appropriate.
Judge Corley notes that the Plaintiff appears to request that they,
rather, than a third-party administrator issue the notice and that
to this end, they be provided with class members names, job titles,
addresses, telephone numbers, email address, dates of employment,
and date of birth, to effectuate notice by mail and email. The
Plaintiff seeks this information for "all current and former
Telephone Bankers who work or have worked for Wells Fargo, at any
time from September 28, 2017 through the present date."
There are a number of issues with the Plaintiff's notice plan,
Judge Corley holds. First, the Plaintiff has not submitted a copy
of the proposed notice. The Plaintiff first represented that the
proposed notice was attached to the motion for conditional
certification--but it was not--and then, on reply, the Plaintiff
stated that she would provide a copy of the proposed notice prior
to the hearing on this motion--but she has yet to do so.
Second, the Plaintiff proposes issuing notice to a larger group of
individuals than those in the conditional class. Despite excluding
members of the Harris and Singer settlement classes from the
collective here, the Plaintiff seeks to send notice to "all current
and former Telephone Bankers who work or have worked for Wells
Fargo, at any time from September 28, 2017 through the present
date" including those who released their claims as part of the
Harris and/or Singer settlements. The Plaintiff appears to allege
improprieties with respect to the settlement of those actions. To
the extent that the Plaintiff so alleges, the proper vehicle for
raising those concerns is with the district court's presiding over
those actions--not via a collateral attack in this action, Judge
Corley holds.
Third, the Plaintiff fails to respond to the Defendant's objection
to producing personal information such as dates of birth and email
addresses. The Plaintiff likewise fails to address the Defendant's
objection to her counsel, rather than a third-party administrator,
providing notice.
Finally, to the extent that the Defendant objects to notice being
provided to employees whose claims may be barred by arbitration
agreements, the Court declines to so rule at this stage.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is ordered to file a proposed form of
notice within seven days of the Order. The parties will then meet
and confer via videoconference regarding the notice issues
discussed in the Order and any others raised by the Plaintiff's
proposed form of notice. The parties will then file a joint
statement, which attaches the proposed form of notice and discusses
any disputes that remain.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification is granted. The Plaintiff will file the proposed form
of notice within seven days. Following the parties meet and confer,
the parties will then file a joint statement attaching the proposed
form of notice by June 1, 2021.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 29.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2mhwssz3 from Leagle.com.
WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Labor Suit Goes to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERIC SHADINGER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WESCO DISTRIBUTION, INC. and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00298583, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on May 24,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-at-00486 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 unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not paid
timely, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
WESCO Distribution, Inc. is a company that distributes electrical
products, with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel C. Whang, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
E-mail: dwhang@seyfarth.com
- and –
Elizabeth J. MacGregor, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: emacgregor@seyfarth.com
WESLEY COLLEGE: Faces D'Antonio Suit Over Asset Transfer to DSU
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA D'ANTONIO, JAMES WILSON, VICTOR GRETO, FRANK FIEDLER, E.
JEFFREY MASK, JACK BARNHARDT, MIKA SHIPLEY, DAVID LAGANELLA, RON
DOUGLAS, JESSICA JAMES, SUSAN REDINGTON BOBBY, RANDALL CLACK, YU
TIAN, and MALCOLM D'SOUZA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESLEY COLLEGE, INC. and ROBERT
E. CLARK II, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0455 (Del. Ch., May 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for fraudulent
transfer and breach of contract.
The case arises from the Defendants' action to transfer Wesley
College's purchased assets to Delaware State University (DSU). The
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated tenured faculty at
Wesley College seek an order to preliminarily enjoin the transfer
of assets which is scheduled to take place on June 30, 2021. Wesley
College's agreement to such a transfer would result in its breach
of its contractual obligations owed to the Plaintiffs and the
Class. Wesley College has never discussed, explained, negotiated
with the tenured faculty the terms and conditions of their
employment after June 30, 2021, the suit says.
Wesley College, Inc. is a liberal arts college located in Dover,
Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary W. Aber, Esq.
704 N. King Street, Suite 200
P.O. Box 1675
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 472-4900
WEST ROAD: Extension to File Motion for Class Certification Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Samantha Calhoun, On
behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. West Road Pizza
Stop, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-12661-JEL-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of 90 days to file for Rule 23 Class Certification after
the parties reach an agreement on Defendants' production
obligations; and Defendants produce the relevant data.
The Plaintiff certifies that she conferred with Defendants' Counsel
via email, who indicated he will not oppose the page extension.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34jHXwk
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Krzeski, Esq.
Bradley K. Glazier, Esq.
BOS & GLAZIER, P.L.C.
990 Monroe Ave., N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 458-6814
E-mail: bglazier@bosglazier.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
WILD ABOUT MUSIC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wild About Music,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Wild About Music, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04600 (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wild About Music Inc. -- https://wildaboutmusic.com/ -- is the
world's first and only art and gift gallery dedicated entirely to
music.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
WOMEN'S CARE: Faces Malcolm Suit Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tierra Malcolm, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOMEN'S CARE OF BEVERLY HILLS MEDICAL GROUP, an unknown
entity; WOMEN'S CARE OF BEVERLY HILLS, an unknown entity; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV17734 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., May 11, 2021), is brought under the Fair Employment
and Housing Act which prohibits discrimination on account of a the
Plaintiff's disability and/or perceived disability, which includes
any conditions that limit any life activities, including the
ability to work, thus the Defendants violated the FEHA.
According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's employment, she
was eventually promoted to Team Lead/Supervisor. The Plaintiff
supervised approximately 10 employees. In March 2020, the Plaintiff
suffered a back injury which prevented the Plaintiff from working.
Pursuant to the Plaintiff's physician's orders, the Plaintiff
requested to take a medical leave of absence from March 18, 2020,
to June 18, 2020, which the Defendant granted. When the Plaintiff
returned from her medical leave of absence, the Defendant began
unlawfully retaliating against the Plaintiff.
First, the Plaintiff was demoted from her Team Lead/Supervisor
position. Second, Plaintiff was moved to a different work station
at the patient front desk. The Defendant could have had Plaintiff
resume her duties as Team Lead/Supervisor, given that the position
was vacant upon Plaintiff's return, but Defendant instead chose to
retaliate and discriminate against the Plaintiff on account of her
disability and/or perceived disability and for requesting a medical
leave of absence.
The Plaintiff subsequently suffered another back injury in October
2020, which again prevented the Plaintiff from working. The
Plaintiff's physician placed Plaintiff off work due to her injury.
Plaintiff therefore requested a medical leave of absence from
October 13 2020, through November 13, 2020. As the Plaintiff was
still unable to work, the Plaintiff's physician extended the
Plaintiff's medical leave to January 14, 2021, and then again to
February 15, 2021. The Plaintiff had provided all of her
physician's notes placing her off work to the Defendant throughout
this time. The Plaintiff has confirmations of receipt of these
physician's notes, which the Defendant had accepted throughout the
Plaintiff's employment. Nevertheless, on January 15, 2021, the
Defendant then sent the Plaintiff a request for medical
documentation for a leave under the California Family Rights Act.
This form, however, was erroneously addressed to "Teresa Malcolm"
at the Plaintiff's old address. Plaintiff requested a corrected
form from the Defendant, but the Defendant never sent the Plaintiff
a corrected form with the Plaintiff's actual name and updated
address. Instead, the Defendant then sent the Plaintiff a
termination letter on February 10, 2021, effectively terminating
her employment for the purported reason that Plaintiff had
allegedly exhausted her medical leave and because she purportedly
did not return the medical certification. The Plaintiff, however,
had sent her doctor's note on January 13, 2021, extending her
medical leave of absence to February 15, 2021, and had fax
confirmation regarding same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired to work for the Defendant to work at its
facility located in Beverly Hills, California.
The Defendant is a healthcare facility/provider located in Beverly
Hills, Los Angeles County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Howard L. Magee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun (State Bar No. 224240)
HYUN LEGAL, APC
550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
WOODS COFFEE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Woods Coffee,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. The Woods Coffee, Inc., Case
No. 1:21-cv-04733 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Woods Coffee -- https://woodscoffee.com/ -- is a local, family
owned and operated coffee chain in the Pacific Northwest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
X FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Chen Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in
the putative class action suit entitled, Xiangdong Chen v. X
Financial, et al., No. 19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB, is pending.
On December 9, 2019 a putative class action complaint captioned
Xiangdong Chen v. X Financial, et al., No. 19-cv-06908-KAM-SJB, was
filed in the Eastern District of New York against the Group and
certain officers and directors, asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on the Group's September 2018 initial
public offering.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2020.
The Group filed a motion to dismiss the AC on December 7, 2020.
The court has referred the motion to the magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation.
X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial
serves customers in China.
X FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Putative Securities Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
X Financial said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in
the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re X
Financial Securities Litigation, No. 657033/2019, is pending.
On November 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint captioned
Shivakumar Ningappa v. X Financial, et al., No. 657033/2019, was
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County against the Group, certain of officers and directors, and
the underwriters of initial public offering, asserting violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on the Group's September 2018
initial public offering.
Two additional lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court,
containing substantially identical allegations.
On February 5, 2020, all three lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption "In re X Financial Securities Litigation," No. 657033/2019,
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 14,
2020.
On May 11, 2020, the Group filed a motion to dismiss the CAC in its
entirety.
A new judge will be assigned to the Action.
X Financial provides financial services. The Company offers
personal finance, loans, and other related services. X Financial
serves customers in China.
XFIT INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against XFit, Inc. The case
is styled as Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. XFit, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04257-VSB
(S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
XFit, Inc. doing business as -- https://nexersys.com/ -- Nexersys
and Cross Body Trainer offer interactive health and focused fitness
through HIIT workouts at home.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
XILINX INC: Nunez Amended Complaint Voluntarily Discontinued
------------------------------------------------------------
Xilinx, Inc. said in its 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2021, that the amended complaint filed in Nunez v. Xilinx,
Inc., et al., was voluntarily discontinued.
On October 27, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 26, 2020 with
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), a Delaware corporation, and
Thrones Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD, under
which, subject to the satisfaction or (to the extent permissible)
waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company, and the Company will survive the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD.
On December 11, 2020, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class-action complaint in the New York Supreme Court
against Xilinx, the members of its board of directors, AMD and
Throne Merger Sub (Nunez v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No.
656971/2020).
The complaint alleges that the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the transaction,
agreeing to purportedly preclusive deal protection terms and
engaging in an allegedly flawed process that did not involve an
adequate market check or approval by a committee of disinterested
and independent directors.
The complaint also alleges that the Company's board of directors
"caused to be filed" the registration statement issued in
connection with the proposed merger between the Company and AMD
that purportedly omitted material information with respect to the
merger.
The registration statement allegedly omits information regarding
the sale process, AMD's and the Company's financial projections,
certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by each
of Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and DBO and
certain details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley. Finally,
the complaint alleges that the Company and AMD aided and abetted
the Company's board of directors in their breach of fiduciary
duties.
The complaint seeks certification of a class action, injunctive
relief enjoining the merger, damages and costs, among other
remedies.
On March 1, 2021, the purported stockholder amended his complaint
to remove certain allegations regarding allegedly misleading
disclosures and class allegations.
On March 22, 2021, the amended complaint was voluntarily
discontinued.
Xilinx, Inc. is an American technology company, primarily a
supplier of programmable logic devices. It is known for inventing
the field-programmable gate array and as the semiconductor company
that created the first fabless manufacturing model. The company is
based in San Jose, California.
XILINX INC: Stanisci Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xilinx, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Stanisci v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-01108, has been
voluntarily dismissed.
On October 27, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 26, 2020 with
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), a Delaware corporation, and
Thrones Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD, under
which, subject to the satisfaction or (to the extent permissible)
waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company, and the Company will survive the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD.
On February 13, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a putative class-action complaint in the Northern District of
California against the Company and the members of its board of
directors (Stanisci v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:21-cv-01108).
The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and
alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued
in connection with the proposed merger between the Company and AMD
omitted material information with respect to the merger, including
information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial
projections, certain details regarding the financial analyses
performed by Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, and certain
details regarding compensation for Morgan Stanley.
The complaint seeks certification of a class, injunctive relief
enjoining the merger, damages and costs, among other remedies.
On April 19, 2021, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed.
Xilinx, Inc. is an American technology company, primarily a
supplier of programmable logic devices. It is known for inventing
the field-programmable gate array and as the semiconductor company
that created the first fabless manufacturing model. The company is
based in San Jose, California.
XILINX INC: Stein Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xilinx, Inc. said in its 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2021, for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Stein
v. Xilinx, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00393, has been
voluntarily dismissed.
On October 27, 2020, the Company announced that it had entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 26, 2020 with
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), a Delaware corporation, and
Thrones Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD, under
which, subject to the satisfaction or (to the extent permissible)
waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company, and the Company will survive the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AMD.
On January 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class-action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and the
members of its board of directors (Stein v. Xilinx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00393).
The complaint raises federal securities disclosure claims and
alleges, among other things, that the registration statement issued
in connection with the proposed merger between the Company and AMD
omitted material information with respect to the merger, including
information regarding AMD's and the Company's financial projections
and certain details regarding the financial analyses performed by
Morgan Stanley and Bank of America.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages
and costs, among other remedies.
On March 10, 2021, the complaint was voluntarily dismissed.
Xilinx, Inc. is an American technology company, primarily a
supplier of programmable logic devices. It is known for inventing
the field-programmable gate array and as the semiconductor company
that created the first fabless manufacturing model. The company is
based in San Jose, California.
XTRATYME TECHNOLOGIES: Wolch Files FLSA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xtratyme Technologies
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesse Wolch, on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated individuals v. Xtratyme
Technologies Inc., Kyle Ackerman, Case No. 0:21-cv-01203-WMW-LIB
(D. Minn., May 12, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.
Xtratyme Technologies -- http://www.xtratyme.com/-- offers
internet service within the state of Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
APOLLO LAW, LLC
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 927-2969
Email: adam@apollo-law.com
YOUNGS HEALTHCARE: Osman Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nasra Osman, on behalf of those similarly situated v. Youngs
Healthcare, Inc., and Young Shin Lee, Case No. 1:21-cv-00639 (E.D.
Va., May 24, 2021), is brought alleging that Defendants
intentionally and willfully violated the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked at least 96 hours per week for the Defendants.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours a week while
employed by the Defendants but was never paid the proper amount of
overtime wages. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff for
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendants manipulated the pay stubs to hide the true
regular rate and hours worked. The Defendants' failure to properly
pay the Plaintiff for overtime wages was intentional and willful,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from 2016 until December
23, 2019 as personal care aide, giving companionship, care, and
assistance to daily activities including rides and feeding food.
Youngs was in the business of adult day care services, and adult
home care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
(Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
Vienna VA 22180
ZEDAN RACING: Federman & Sherwood Files Lawsuit Over Steroid Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of horseplayers who placed bets on the 2021 Kentucky Derby
filed a purported class action lawsuit against Robert Baffert, the
trainer of the horse who finished first in the race, Medina Spirit,
and against the owner of the horse, Zedan Racing Stables.
It was announced on May 8th that Medina Spirit tested positive in a
post-race test for the banned drug, betamethasone, an
anti-inflammatory steroid.
In 2020, Robert Baffert had four different post-race drug tests
come back positive.
If Medina Spirit is disqualified, then the 2nd place horse in the
race, Mandaloun, will be placed 1st and the 3rd place finisher
placed 2nd and each horse will move up. The owners of those horses,
as well as the trainers and jockeys, will be given the appropriate
shares of the purse. Unfortunately, the bettors who wagered on the
actual winning horses that did not dope will once again be left
with nothing.
This lawsuit has been filed with the intent to help clean up the
sport of racing, protect the horses, and to represent the
horseplayers and fans who are completely ignored. Without the
horseplayers, the sport of horseracing would not exist.
On November 4th of last year, Robert Baffert issued the following
press release:
"I want to raise the bar and set the standard for equine safety and
rule compliance going forward. For those of you that have been
upset over the incidents of the past year, I share your
disappointment. I humbly vow to do everything within my power to do
better. I want my legacy to be one of making every effort to do
right by the horse and the sport."
The public should be able to rely on these types of statements and
assume trainers and owners will play by the rules. [GN]
ZWANGER & PESIRI: Sali Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NILGUN SALI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZWANGER & PESIRI
RADIOLOGY GROUP, LLP, VANVORST LAW FIRM, PLLC; and JOHN DOES 1-50,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00275-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying the case to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Zwanger-Pesiri specializes in diagnostic radiology, internal
medicine, neuroradiology, and nuclear medicine.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated May 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tn18TX
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis R. Greene, Esq.
GREENE CONSUMER L AW
1954 1 st St No. 154
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (312) 847-6979
Facsimile: (312) 847-6978
E-Mail: francis@greeneconsumerlaw.com
- and -
Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
Telephone: (516) 522-2621
Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.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 ***