/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210609.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 9, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 109
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Dowler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Davis Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Fluke Suit Over Toxic AFFF Products
ADVOCARE INT'L: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ranieri Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Arbitration Demands Amid Class Action Suit
ANADARKO E&P: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought
ARCIMOTO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ARIZONA: Satzman Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
ARRAY TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: Conspires to Control the Interest Rates, Suit Says
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Class Action Suit Filed Over Cornering Lights
BOINGO WIRELES: July 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
CANAAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 14 Plaintiff Deadline
CANAAN INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
CANOO INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
CAPIO PARTNERS: Gruberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
CAPITAL ONE: Carr Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
CARSHIELD LLC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CENTENE CORP: June 11 Response to Renewed Certification Bid Sought
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plans
CONAGRA FOOD: 9th Cir. Overturns Class Action Settlement Approval
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Hoang Suit Over Drop in Share Price
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: June 11 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. OK'd
CREDIT SUISSE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
DELTA FAUCET: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
ELECTRONIC DEALS: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EMERGENT BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: U.S. Pastor Council Seeks to Certify Two Classes
ERIE INSURANCE: HTH Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Opposition to Class Cert. Due June 29
FIBROGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 11 Deadline
FISHER PRINTING: Employee Sues Over COVID-19 Expenses & Violations
FLAVORGOD LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 11
GARCIA FAMILY: Contreras Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
GILES COUNTY, TN: Court Okays $2MM Class Action Settlement
GLOBAL PLASMA: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Ionizers
GOOGLE LLC: Judge Certifies Gender Pay Discrimination Class Action
GRANITE SERVICES: Lawrence Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Heilmeier Suit Over Proposed Just Eat Merger
GRUBHUB INC: Plaintiffs in Competing Lawsuit Challenge Settlement
GUILD MORTGAGE: Purcell Files Suit in District of Hawaii
HEALTH PLAN: Adams Files Suit in California Superior Court
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang Wins Bid for Class Certification
INGEROLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Cackin Suit Removed to C.D. California
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
KIM KARDASHIAN WEST: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
LASER FOOT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dragula Alleges
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 7
NCAA: Butler Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
NCAA: Geerlings Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Henderson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NEW DOMINION: Earthquake Class Action Lawsuit in Oklahoma Certified
NEW DOMINION: Faces Cooper Suit Over Rights on Insurance Agreement
NEW INDY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Graffiti Removal Program
PARKMOBILE LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Georgia
PARKMOBILE LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, George Alleges
PATTERN BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Alleges
PELICAN WASTE: March 19 Order Denying Class Cert. Bid Vacated
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PEMBER COMPANIES: Filing of FLSA Class Cert. Bid Due August 20
PHOENIX, AZ: Police Dep't Sued for Falsely Arresting Protesters
PINTEREST INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PROVENTION BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 20 Deadline
RENEW LIFE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESORT SALES: Court Junks Albin Bid for Class Certification
ROMEO POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
ROMEO POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
RXR 810 FULTON: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCHAKOLAD CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCHEELS ALL: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Graciano Claims
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Opris Sues Over Patients' Disclosed Info
SMG HOLDINGS: McCarthy Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
SN SERVICING: Grenadyor Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 13
STATE STREET: Faces Gomes Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
STERLING BANCORP: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
STRAIGHT SMILE: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TARGET CORPORATION: Cinnamon Mills Seeks to Certify Employee Class
TH EXPLORATION: Southern Country Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
THERMO TECH: Court Terminates Bid for Conditional Collective Cert.
TOMS KING: 6th Circuit Affirms FACTA Class Action Dismissal
TRUEACCORD CORP: Mautner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
UBIO LABS: Graciano Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
UTILIQUEST LLC: Madrigal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VEOLIA NORTH: Jones Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
VILLAGE HEALTH: Estate of Ericka Suit Removed to D. Montana
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 27 Deadline
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Sued by Investor Over SPAC's Accounting Issues
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 29 Deadline
VOLKSWAGEN AG: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 29 Deadline
WAGEWORKS INC: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WASHINGTON, DC: Settles Class Action Over Foster Care System
WESBANCO BANK: Luckett Sues Over Overdraft Fees
WEST AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Stolen Wages Suit Goes to Mediation
WOLLBORG-MICHELSON: De Vries Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WORLD FINANCIAL: Jordan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
ZINGERMANS.COM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Canadian Court Tosses Class Action v. Ice-Hockey Leagues
*********
3M COMPANY: Dowler Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CLARK DOWLER, 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-01631-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 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 severe personal injuries 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 was diagnosed with kidney and prostate cancer, 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
3M COMPANY: Faces Davis Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY RALPH DAVIS, 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-01630-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 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.
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 alleges.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney and bladder cancer.
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
3M COMPANY: Faces Fluke Suit Over Toxic AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVEN A. FLUKE, 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-01632-RMG
(D.S.C., June 2, 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 severe personal injuries 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 was diagnosed with kidney cancer, the suit says.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
- 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
ADVOCARE INT'L: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Ranieri Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RANIERI and MEGAN
CORNELIUS, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, v. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P. Case No.
3:17-cv-00691-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
certifying the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes
only:
"All AdvoCare Distributors who paid Annual Fees, purchased a
Distributor Kit, and/or purchased products from AdvoCare between
March 9, 2013, and May 17, 2016, who lost money from their
participation in the AdvoCare scheme, and whose
distributorships
were suspended without reinstatement or terminated by May 17,
2016. Distributors who made no purchases from AdvoCare after May
17, 2016, and paid no dues after May 17, 2016, will be
considered terminated as of May 17, 2016. Distributors are
determined to have lost money if the difference between (a) the
amount they paid AdvoCare over the course of their full
experience with AdvoCare (not just during the Class Period) is
greater than (b) the amount AdvoCare paid them plus 65% of the
amount they paid AdvoCare for product."
AdvoCare is an American dietary supplement company and former
multi-level marketing company that was determined by the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission to be operating a pyramid scheme.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pu6fO6 at no extra charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Arbitration Demands Amid Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
companies have spent more than a decade forcing employees and
customers to resolve disputes outside the traditional court system,
using secretive arbitration proceedings that typically don't allow
plaintiffs to team up and extract big-money payments akin to a
class action.
Now, Amazon.com Inc. is bucking that trend. With no announcement,
the company recently changed its terms of service to allow
customers to file lawsuits. Already, it faces at least three
proposed class actions, including one brought May 18 alleging the
company's Alexa-powered Echo devices recorded people without
permission.
The retail giant made the change after plaintiffs' lawyers flooded
Amazon with more than 75,000 individual arbitration demands on
behalf of Echo users. That move triggered a bill for tens of
millions of dollars in filing fees, according to lawyers involved,
payable by Amazon under its own policies.
Amazon's decision to drop its arbitration requirement is the
starkest example yet of how companies are responding to plaintiffs'
lawyers pushing the arbitration system to its limits.
Arbitration agreements are buried in the contracts consumers sign
to do everything from buying a cellphone to using a ride-hailing
app. Many employers also require arbitration for adjudicating
issues like pay disputes or discrimination claims. The U.S. Supreme
Court has repeatedly upheld and strengthened the rights of
companies to mandate arbitration. [GN]
ANADARKO E&P: Extension of Class Cert-Related Deadlines Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC; C C
OPEN A, LLC; and GUEST FAMILY TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F.
GUEST, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC; ANADARKO LAND
CORPORATION; and KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Case No.
1:20-cv-02352-CMA-SKC (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline related to Class
Certification by four months, and to amend the Scheduling Order as
follows:
Event Original Proposed Amended
Deadline Deadline
Class Certification Motion June 4, 2021 October 4, 2021
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
isclosures:
Class Certification Response Sept. 3, 2021 January 3, 2022
filed with all supporting
evidence, including expert
disclosures:
Deadline to serve class Sept. 17, 2021 January 17,
2022
certification discovery
Class Certification Reply Nov. 5, 2021 March 4, 2022
filed with any rebuttal
evidence, including rebuttal
expert disclosures, if any:
Class Certification Discovery Nov. 26, 2021 March 25, 2022
Cutoff:
Motion for Oral Argument Nov. 26, 2021 March 25, 2022
on class certification:
This class action was first filed in August, 2020, and a First
Amended Complaint was filed in October 2020.
A copy of the Parties motion dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34UUarJ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, are:
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
Larkin E. Walsh, Esq.
Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
SHARP LAW, LLP
4820 W. 75th Street
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 901-0505
Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
lwalsh@midwest-law.com
sbradshaw@midwest-law.com
The Attorneys for the Defendants are:
Carlos R. Romo, Esq.
Ezekiel J. Williams, Esq.
Spencer R. Allen, Esq.
WILLIAMS WEESE PEPPLE &
FERGUSON PC
1801 California Street, Suite 3400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-2828
Facsimile: (303) 861-4017
E-mail: zwilliams@williamsweese.com
cromo@williamsweese.com
sallen@williamsweese.com
- and -
Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq.
Anthony N. Kaim, Esq.
Shannon N. Smith, Esq.
GIBBS & BRUN LLP
1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 650-8805
Facsimile: (713) 750-0903
E-mail: breasoner@gibbsbruns.com
akaim@gibbsbruns.com
snsmith@gibbsbruns.com
ARCIMOTO INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV) investors
that acquired shares between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021.
Investors have until June 18, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click
https://portnoylaw.com/arcimoto-inc/ to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Arcimoto made false and
misleading statements to the market. Out of 422 alleged pre-orders
for Arcimoto's Fun Utility Vehicles, only 19 units were delivered
to customers. Arcimoto failed to disclose to its customers that
almost all of its FUVs were subject to a safety recall. R-Key-Moto,
Arcimoto's largest customer, was actually an undisclosed related
party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC. In addition, Arcimoto's
partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party transaction.
Arcimoto's public statements were false and materially misleading,
based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when the market
learned the truth about Arcimoto.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 18,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
ARIZONA: Satzman Bid for Class Certification Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stacy Satzman, et al., v.
David Shinn, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02402-SPL-JFM (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order that :
1. The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn as to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and the Motion is
denied without prejudice.
2. Deadlines for class discovery and filing a renewed motion for
class certification will be set by separate order.
The Court said, "The Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s
commonality requirement. Because Plaintiffs have not met the
commonality requirement, it is not necessary for the Court to
resolve whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the numerosity,
typicality, and adequate-representation requirements. Accordingly,
the Court will deny without prejudice Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. Because it appears that Plaintiffs, with additional
discovery and evidence, may be able to present significant proof
that the CFM is not kosher and nutritionally deficient, the Court
will permit Plaintiffs to engage in limited discovery for purposes
of class certification according to a schedule that will be set
forth in a separate Order."
The Plaintiffs Stacy Satzman, Daniel Brinauer, and Bonnie Huffman,
who are each confined in an Arizona Department of Corrections,
Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) prison and are represented by
counsel, filed a Complaint concerning the ADCRR's policy that
replaced the kosher religious diet with a "common fare meal," which
Plaintiffs contend is not kosher.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 25, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cpxQL3 at no extra charge.[CC]
ARRAY TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Array Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY)
from October 14, 2020 through May 11, 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
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Array securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Array Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877)
779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants' public offering
materials failed to adequately disclose the then-existing rise of
costs related to certain supplies such as steel, as well as the
Company's freight costs and that these were likely to have, and
were having, an adverse effect on the Company's business and
operations. The complaint also alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements in press releases and
conference calls because defendants omitted and otherwise failed to
disclose that dating back to Q1 2020, prices of certain commodities
such as steel were increasing dramatically, and that Array was
facing increasing freight costs, and as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's positive statements about its business and operations
lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 11, 2021, after the close of trading, Array shocked the
market by reporting lower revenues year-over-year and lower margins
as a result of increased steel and shipping costs in a press
release and a Form 8-K filed with the SEC. Array also announced
that Peter Jonna had resigned from the Board of Directors effective
May 10, 2021.
On this news, Array's stock price dropped $11.49 per share to close
at $13.46 on May 12, 2021 on unusually high trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 13, 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 Array securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/arraytechnologiesinc-arry-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-400/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.
Contact Information
Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Seidman@bernlieb.com [GN]
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm announces that class action complaints have been
filed on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. There
is no cost to participate in the suit. If you suffered a loss, you
have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY)
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased ARRY: (a)
between October 14, 2020, and May 11, 2021, inclusive and (b)
pursuant, or traceable, or both, to: (i) the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 2020
initial public offering; or (ii) the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2020
offering; or (iii) any combination of the initial public offering,
December 2020 offering, or March 2021 offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially
misleading picture of the Company's business and prospects that did
not reflect rising steel and freight costs. After the October 2020
initial public offering, the December 2020 offering and the March
2021 offering, and subsequent to the class period, Array disclosed
that it was experiencing increases in steel prices and substantial
increases in the cost of both ocean and truck freight that in turn
were having a material impact on its margins for the foreseeable
future. This caused Array to miss profit expectations and withdraw
its full-year outlook. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, shareholders have suffered significant losses
and damages.
Learn about your recoverable losses in ARRY:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/array-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=16321&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 1 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATER) (f/k/a
Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc.) from December 1, 2020 through May 3,
2021 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.
All investors who purchased shares of Aterian, Inc. and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in your investment in shares of
Aterian, Inc. you may, no later than July 12, 2021, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Aterian, Inc.
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.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Conspires to Control the Interest Rates, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS,
ACTING AS THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANC OF AMERICA
SECURITIES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK,
N.A., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
LIMITED, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P.
MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY
LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC.,
THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO FUNDS MANAGEMENT, LLC,
and WELLS FARGO SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04893
(S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for breaches of contractual obligations and fiduciary duties,
conspiracy, and violations of the California Unfair Competition
Law, California Cartwright Act, and Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to
unlawfully conspire to set and reset the interest rates of variable
rate demand obligations (VRDOs) issued by the Plaintiff and Class
members. The Plaintiff and Class members contract with, and hire,
financial institutions to manage the issuance, sale, repurchase,
and resetting of interest rates of VRDOs. The Defendants' actions
resulted in the Plaintiff and the Class members not receiving the
services for which they had paid and paying higher rates of
interest than they should have; and ultimately, the Defendants'
actions led to less money being available to a multitude of
California public entities to finance their projects, initiatives,
and operations, says the suit.
Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services holding company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Bank of America, N.A. is a banking company, headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Banc of America Securities LLC is an investment banking company
based in New York, New York.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated is an investment
banking company based in New York, New York.
Barclays Bank PLC is a British multinational universal bank,
headquartered in London, England.
Barclays Capital Inc. is a brokerage firm and investment advisor
based in New York, New York.
Citigroup Inc. is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services corporation headquartered in New York, New
York.
Citibank, N.A. is the consumer division of financial services
multinational Citigroup, headquartered in New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is an investment bank and financial
services corporation headquartered in New York, New York.
Citigroup Global Markets Limited is an international broker-dealer
based in London, England.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based
in New York, New York.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is an American national bank
headquartered in Manhattan, New York, New York.
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company
based in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC is a brokerage firm and investment
advisor headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company
headquartered in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. is a financial services company
headquartered in New York, New York.
The Royal Bank of Canada is a multinational financial services
company based in Toronto, Canada.
RBC Capital Markets, LLC is a global investment bank based in
Toronto, Canada.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is an American multinational financial
services company, headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Wachovia Bank, N.A. is a banking company based in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
Wells Fargo Funds Management, LLC is an investment management firm,
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Securities LLC is a capital market company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan J. Hochman, Esq.
Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
Ryan Q. Keech, Esq.
Noah S. Helpern, Esq.
Jason Y. Kelly, Esq.
James L. Michaels, Esq.
BROWNE GEORGE ROSS O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 274-7100
Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
E-mail: nhochman@bgrfirm.com
croth@bgrfirm.com
rkeech@bgrfirm.com
nhelpern@bgrfirm.com
jkelly@bgrfirm.com
jmichaels@bgrfirm.com
- and –
Joachim B. Steinberg, Esq.
BROWNE GEORGE ROSS O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY & ELLIS LLP
5 Penn Plaza, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 413-2600
Facsimile: (212) 413-2629
E-mail: jsteinberg@bgrfirm.com
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Bid for Class Cert. Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, and all others
similarly situated, v. GREGORY SCOTT STEPHEN, BARNSTORMERS
BASKETBALL, INC. d/b/a BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL OF IOWA, AMATEUR
ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., and ADIDAS AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00005-JAJ-SHL (S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge
John J. Jarvey entered an order:
1. denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
without prejudice:
"All minor Barnstormer Basketball, Inc. participants
(including those who attended Barnstormer Basketball, Inc.'s
organized tryouts and were offered a spot on the Iowa
Mavericks) in the United States from 2005 to present who have
been identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Iowa Department of Criminal Investigations, and/or the United
States Attorney's Office, as victims of the crimes to which
Gregory Scott Stephen has admitted his guilt, and suffered
damages as a result of Gregory Scott Stephen's intrusion upon
seclusion;"
2. directing the Plaintiff to revise the proposed class and
submit new briefing based on the revised class within 30 days
of the issuance of this order;
3. directing the Defendant BBI to respond to Plaintiff's updated
class and briefing within 10 days of the filing of the
Plaintiff's updated class and briefing.
The Court concludes the Plaintiff's proposed class is overbroad and
denies Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification without
prejudice. The Plaintiff shall have the opportunity to recraft his
proposed class. In revising his proposed class, the Plaintiff shall
keep the following in mind. First, the Court will not certify a
class that includes minor basketball players who played for the
Iowa Mavericks but did not play on a BBI team. Second, the Court
will not certify a class that includes minor basketball players who
tried out for a BBI team but did not actually play on a BBI team.
Third, the Court will not certify a class that includes minor
basketball players who only played on a BBI team at a time when
Stephen was not coaching for BBI. Meaning, the class cannot include
minor basketball players who only played on a BBI team during
Stephen's two-season absence or after BBI terminated him. Finally,
the Court will not define the class based on a list of victims who
were identified by the FBI, the Iowa Department of Criminal
Investigations, or the U.S. Attorney's Office in the criminal case
against Stephen. The Court will not certify a class based on a list
that the parties may not be entitled to receive and that the Court
may not be inclined or have the power to produce.
BBI is an Iowa, nonprofit organization that was founded in 2004 by
Jamie Johnson, who serves as the organization's director. BBI has
several club basketball teams for youth athletes ranging from 4th
grade to 11th grade. BBI hosts yearly tryouts to select youth
athletes for its teams. BBI basketball teams travel to various
tournaments across the country to compete against other club
basketball teams.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34To1AH at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Class Action Suit Filed Over Cornering Lights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a BMW class action lawsuit alleges
2021 BMW 430i and 2021 BMW 430i xDrive vehicles have problems with
the LED headlights.
According to the lawsuit, the LED headlights are supposed to be
"cornering lights" to help BMW drivers when driving around corners
at night.
The plaintiff who sued alleges the 2021 BMW 430i and 430i xDrive
vehicles are marketed and sold as equipped with LED cornering
lights when in fact the vehicles don't have cornering lights.
"According to BMW, a Cornering Light serves as 'an extra source of
brightness around dark curves. They are activated when the front
wheels are turned, increasing visibility around corners and
illuminating otherwise hidden objects like curbs or street signs.'"
-- BMW class action lawsuit
The BMW lawsuit alleges the LED cornering lights are marketed as a
safety feature for the vehicles and drivers may rely on the
cornering lights when they don't exist.
The BMW class action alleges the Monroney stickers (window
stickers) for the 2021 BMW 430i and 430i xDrive vehicles
specifically say the LED headlight cornering lights are a standard
safety feature. And according to the plaintiff, the cornering
lights are listed under the "Safety and Security" section of the
window stickers.
The BMW class action lawsuit was filed after Florida plaintiff
Garry Porter, Jr., received a letter from the automaker.
The plaintiff purchased a 2021 BMW 430i in December 2020 believing
the vehicle was equipped with LED cornering headlights. But in
January 2021, the plaintiff received the BMW letter which said his
vehicle did not have cornering lights.
Contrary to the window sticker, the BMW vehicle is equipped with
standard LED headlights and not the cornering lights listed on the
window sticker.
The class action alleges the plaintiff contacted BMW in April about
the missing cornering lights feature but the plaintiff says, "BMW
refused to provide any assistance to him."
The plaintiff says his LED headlights will not provide the
advertised and promised brightness around dark curves.
BMW designed and manufactured the vehicles and allegedly knew or
should have known the 2021 BMW 430i and BMW 430i xDrive vehicles
did not contain LED cornering headlights.
The BMW class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey: Garry Porter, Jr., v. BMW of North
America, LLC. [GN]
BOINGO WIRELES: July 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on June 1 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, David Normand v. Boingo Wireless,
Inc. et al, Docket No. 2:21-cv-03626, on behalf of public common
shareholders of Boingo Wireless, Inc., who held Boingo securities
as of the record date April 16, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have
been harmed by Boingo's and its board of directors' alleged
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") regarding the acquisition of
Boingo by Digital Colony Management, LLC (the "Merger"). Under the
terms of the Merger, each share of Boingo common stock will be
canceled and converted into the right to receive $14.00 in cash
(the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger
Consideration harms Boingo shareholders by providing less than the
inherent value of the Company and that the Proxy Statement filed by
the Company to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger misleads
shareholders about the Company's financials and the Merger in
violation of the Exchange Act. The special meeting of Boingo
stockholders to vote on the Merger is currently scheduled for June
1, 2021.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 9, 2021. 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.
Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
and consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions of
dollars for shareholders and is committed to protecting investors
and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates
lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect
investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct.
Mr. Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has been
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017- 2019 an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017- 2020 Top Rated Lawyer.
Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave, Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
URL : http://monteverdelaw.com[GN]
BOSCH SOLAR: Rojas Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE R. ROJAS and ANDREA
N. ROJAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BOSCH SOLAR ENERGY CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-05841-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class defined as
follows (also to include a California subclass for unjust
enrichment):
"All persons or entities in the United States who are the
consumers, final customers, end users, subsequent buyers, and
subsequent owners of Bosch solar panels module number NA3Oll9."
The Plaintiffs Steve and Andrea Rojas seek to certify a nationwide
class of end users and 4 subsequent purchasers of ground- and
roof-mounted Bosch NA3O 119 Solar Modules.
This case arises from Bosch's manufacture of defective solar
modules; Bosch's refusal to include ground-mounted 119 modules in
their product recall; and Bosch's unprincipled rejection of the
Plaintiffs' legitimate warranty claim regarding 42 ground-mounted
119 modules installed at the Plaintiffs' residence.
Bosch Solar manufactures silicon-based photovoltaic products and
solar cells.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34Q7DB4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David M. Birka-White, Esq.
Steven T. Knuppel, Esq.
BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES
178 E. Prospect Avenue
Danville, CA 94526
Telephone: (925) 362-9999
E-mail: dbw@birka-white.com
sknuppel@birka-white.com
- and -
JohnD. Green, Esq.
Russell E. Taylor, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: jgreen@fbm.com
rtaylor@thm.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
CALIFORNIA RENEWABLE: Naiman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Renewable
Energy Program, LLC. The case is styled as Sidney Naiman, Michele
Dernay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. California Renewable Energy Program, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-04239-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
California Renewable Energy Program -- https://www.care.green/ --
is a California based company that assists homeowners in reducing
electric bills through energy efficient upgrades.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
Todd M. Friedman, 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: abacon@toddflaw.com
mgeorge@toddflaw.com
twheeler@toddflaw.com
tfriedman@toddflaw.com
CANAAN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 14 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Canaan Inc. ("Canaan") (NASDAQ: CAN) between February
10, 2021 and April 9, 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/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16435&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.
Canaan Inc. NEWS - CAN NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: 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.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Canaan,
you have until June 14, 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 Canaan securities between February
10, 2021 and April 9, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/canaan-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16435&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
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 80 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]
CANAAN INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 14 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Canaan, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAN) investors
that acquired shares between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021.
Investors have until June 14, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Canaan issued misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Before the market opened on April 12, 2021,
Canaan announced fourth quarter 2020 and financial results for
fiscal year 2021. Canaan disclosed $5.9 million in revenue for its
fourth quarter and $68.6 million for the full year of 2020.
Canaan's fourth quarter revenue represents a year-over-year decline
of more than 93%. Shares of Canaan dropped sharply, harming
investors, based on this news.
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 14,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
CANOO INC: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on June 2 disclosed that a shareholder class action
lawsuit has been filed against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ:GOEV) ("Canoo"),
formerly known as Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ:
HCAC) ("Hennessy Capital"), on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired GOEV or HCAC securities between August 18, 2020 and March
29, 2021 (the "Class Period").
On August 18, 2020, Hennessy Capital, a publicly traded Special
Purpose Acquisition Company, announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement to merge with Canoo. According to the
complaint, in connection with and following the Hennessey Capital -
Canoo merger, defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements to investors, and failed to disclose that (i) Canoo had
decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers
through a subscription model; (ii) Canoo would deemphasize its
engineering services business; (iii) contrary to prior statements,
Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment
manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced
partnership with Hyundai; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On March 29, 2021, Canoo held an earning conference call with
investors to discuss the Company's Fourth Quarter 2020 financial
and operational results. During the call, defendant Tony Aquila - a
director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger - revealed that
Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering services line. Also
on March 29, 2021, Canoo reported that defendant Paul Balciunas,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), had resigned.
Following this news, shares of Canoo's stock fell over 21% in
value, to close on March 30, 2021 at $9.30 per share, on heavy
trading volume.
Canoo investors who purchased or acquired GOEV or HCAC securities
prior to October 27, 2020are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC
(D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484) 258 - 1585, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/case/canoo-inc/, for additional information
about this action and their legal rights and options.
Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities
fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.
For additional information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit
www.kaskelalaw.com
CONTACT:
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(484) 258 - 1585
(888) 715 - 1740
www.kaskelalaw.comskaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]
CAPIO PARTNERS: Gruberger Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capio Partners, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Esther Gruberger, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capio Partners, LLC, CF
Medical, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-11687-BRM-DEA (D.N.J., May 24,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Capio Partners -- https://capiopfw.com/ -- is a medium-sized debt
collection agency located in Duluth, Georgia.[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
CAPITAL ONE: Carr Files Suit in Northern District of Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A. The case is styled as Jeffrey N. Carr, Sr., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Bank
(USA), N.A., a National Banking Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-02300-AT-JKL (N.D. Ga., June 3, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.
Capital One Bank (USA), National Association --
https://www.capitalone.com/ -- operates as a bank. The Bank offers
checking accounts, credit and debit cards, loans, insurance,
payment protection, phone banking, bill pay, lending, and online
banking services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
909 Davis St., Suite 500
Evanston, IL 60201
Phone: (312) 729-5288
Email: ABurke@Burkelawllc.com
- and -
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 & 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
CARSHIELD LLC: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carshield LLC. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Carshield LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04930-AJN (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
CarShield -- https://carshield.com/ -- specializes in shielding
their members from the high cost of automobile repairs and offers a
wide range of vehicle service 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
CC-PALO ALTO: Cork Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA COLLINS CORK, an
individual; GEORGIA L. MAY, an individual; THOMAS MERIGAN, an
individual; and JANICE R. ANDERSON, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CC-PALO ALTO,
INC., a Delaware corporation; CLASSIC RESIDENCE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, an Illinois limited partnership; and CC-DEVELOPMENT
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class defined as:
"All current and former residents of the Vi at Palo Alto who
entered into a residency contract which states that some
portion of the entrance fee is repayable at the earlier of
resale of the unit or ten (10) years after termination of the
contract; and where the repayable portion of the entrance fee
has not yet been repaid;"
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives, and
3. appointing Anne Marie Murphy and Sarvenaz J. Fahimi of
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP as counsel for the Class
pursuant to Rule 23(g).
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in February 2014. The Court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that Plaintiffs
did not have Article III standing. The Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended complaint, and Defendants moved to dismiss. In its order on
the motion to dismiss, the Court rejected Defendants' argument that
the Plaintiffs' residency contracts were not "refundable contracts"
under Section 1771, finding that "[a]ccording to the plain
language" of the contracts "residents are entitled to the
refundable portion of their entrance fee regardless of whether
their unit.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3guhv99 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
Sarvenaz J. Fahimi, Esq.
Kevin J. Boutin, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: amurphy@cpmlegal.com
sfahimi@cpmlegal.com
kboutin@cpmlegal.com
CENTENE CORP: June 11 Response to Renewed Certification Bid Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENASHA OLIVER,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CENTENE CORP., a Delaware Corporation, and CENTENE MANAGEMENT
CORP., Case No. 4:21-cv-00199-RLW (E.D. Mo.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order that their response to the Plaintiff's
renewed motion for pre-discovery conditional certification be due
no earlier than June 11, 2021.
In February 2021, the Plaintiff Oliver commenced this putative
nationwide class and collective action against Centene Corp., by
filing a complaint asserting 142 separate paragraphs of
allegations.
In March 2021, the Plaintiff filed her initial Motion for
Pre-Discovery Conditional Certification, comprising 146 pages of
documents.
On April 23, 2021, Centene Corp filed its opposition to the
Conditional Cert Motion, including its legal argument and
evidence.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 21, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uXbneM at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Churchill
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.
Interested CCIV investors have until July 6, 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/Churchill
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]
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Action Over Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irie Sentner, writing for Columbia Spectator, reports that Columbia
settled for $13 million in a class-action lawsuit over the
management of its employee retirement plans six days before the
case was set to go to trial. In Cates, et al. v. Trustees of
Columbia University, et al., one of the first cases scheduled to go
to trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York
following the lockdown, the plaintiffs alleged that the
University's 403(b) retirement plan—the nonprofit version of a
401(k)—breached its fiduciary duties.
In August 2016, a Jane Doe plaintiff and Chandra Cates, an
administrative assistant at the Columbia School of Nursing, filed
separate complaints against the University seeking equitable relief
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal labor
law regulating pension and retirement plans. The lawsuit alleged
that Columbia's retirement plan allowed for prohibited transactions
"by including numerous unnecessarily expensive and underperforming
investment options" and "paying unreasonable recordkeeping fees to
the Plans' recordkeepers." The University denies these
allegations.
The trial was set to begin on April 12, but on April 6, both
parties came to a tentative settlement. The plaintiffs were
represented by Jerome Schlichter, founding and managing partner of
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, a St. Louis-based law firm.
According to the law firm's press release, "The settlement terms
include the creation of a $13 million settlement fund for [the
entire class], as well as substantial non-monetary relief involving
changes in the 403(b) plan."
Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP has filed similar lawsuits against
20 universities including Brown University and the University of
Pennsylvania. The suits represent the retirement benefits for at
least 470,000 nationwide university employees and over $64 billion
in plan assets.
Columbia is the latest in a long list of these universities to
settle, with similar concessions being made at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology for $18.1 million, Vanderbilt University
for $14.5 million, and Johns Hopkins University for $14 million.
Only one case, which was brought against New York University, went
to trial, and the judge ruled against the plaintiffs.
The University continues to deny any breach of fiduciary duty
regarding its retirement plans. After the initial lawsuit was filed
alleging unfairly high administrative rates, the University capped
administrative costs to a flat fee and returned any surplus funds.
"Although the University does not agree with any of the allegations
made in this case, we are pleased to be able to put this litigation
behind us and to continue to focus on providing University
employees with quality plans that provide them the opportunity to
build individualized retirement portfolios that are diversified and
suit their individual needs," the University said in a statement to
Spectator.
In order for the plaintiffs to receive the settlement, the court
first must undertake a preliminary approval, send notice to the
entire class, and perform a hearing for final approval—a process
that will likely extend into the next year. However, Schlichter
said he believes the proposed changes to the University's 403(b)
plan—including continuing to use an independent consultant to
make recommendations and prohibiting the recordkeeper from selling
plan participants other investment services—are even more
valuable than the $13 million settlement fund.
"The changes for the future we expect will go on for many, many
years and will create significant value over a period of far more
than the past years," Schlichter said.
Schlichter has led his firm's crusade for more equitable retirement
plans. He attributes his work to a paradigm shift in the American
retirement system, where the 401(k) and 403(b) replaced the pension
plan as the preeminent retirement model. Under this structure, the
employee's money holds more risk, while the employer is more
protected.
"So if a market, for example, goes down, there's nobody making [up]
that difference," Schlichter said. "That's just less money for the
employee."
In 2016, after a slew of 401(k) cases were brought against
corporations, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP transitioned to
pursuing legal action against the retirement plans of some of the
nation's largest and wealthiest private universities. Nearly five
years later, nine have settled for over $75 million combined.
"We're pleased that the employees and retirees of Columbia will be
compensated for the past and have a very strong plan for the future
that will enable them to build their retirement investments,"
Schlichter said.
Chandra Cates, the plaintiff, and Brantley Webb and Michelle
Webster, members of the University's legal council, could not be
reached for comment at the time of publication. [GN]
CONAGRA FOOD: 9th Cir. Overturns Class Action Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Ninth Circuit on June 1 overturned a
judge's approval of a class action settlement with ConAgra Food
Inc. over its labeling on oil products, saying the parties crammed
into the deal "a squadron of red flags" including attorney fees of
$7 million that are much larger than what consumers were awarded.
[GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Hoang Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
YEN HOANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC.; PETER SZULCZEWSKI; RAJAT
BAHRI; BRETT JUST; JULIE BRADLEY; ARI EMANUEL; JOE LONSDALE;
TANZEEN SYED; STEPHANIE TILENIUS; HANS TUNG; JACQUELINE RESES;
GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; BOFA
SECURITIES; INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK
SECURITIES INC.; UBS SECURITIES LLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS; LLC;
CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC;
OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., STIFEL; NICOLAUS & COMPANY; L.L.C.; ACADEMY
SECURITIES, INC.; LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; and R. SEELAUS & CO.;
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-03930 (N.D. Cal., May 25, 2021)
is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class who purchased
securities between December 16, 2020 to May 12, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Exchange
Act Class").
According to the complaint, in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus used to effectuate its IPO and throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about: (1) the "differentiated user experience,"
ContextLogic repeatedly credited as driving the wide-adoption of
the Wish platform by customers who are offered access to
high-quality merchants, selling affordable, high-quality products,
and merchants who are offered reliable logistical services; (2) the
Company's sales and marketing engine, which ContextLogic said it
would "continue to invest in" and that purportedly serves as a
competitive advantage in attracting new users and increasing user
engagement on the Wish platform; and (3) the Company's monthly
active user (MAU) growth, which it considered "a key indicator of
user engagement and awareness of [its] brand."
On May 12, 2021, after ContextLogic announced its 1Q21 financial
results which revealed that its monthly active user had declined
another 7% to just 101 million, ContextLogic's stock cratered
again, closing on May 13, 2021 at $8.11 per share, or down over
29%, on unusually high trading volume.
ContextLogic Inc., doing business as Wish.com, provides e-commerce
services. The Company helps merchants to reach customers, as well
as enable users to personalize shopping and find the products. Wish
serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: June 11 Extension to Oppose Class Cert. OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN C. HINES, and
JOSEPH NORRIS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Case No.
5:21-cv-00109-PRW (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Patrick Wyrick
entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion for
extension of time to File its response in opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification and to
facilitate notice to class members and brief in support.
Accordingly, the Defendant shall file its response in opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and to
Facilitate Notice to Class Members and Brief in Support no later
than June 11, 2021.
Continental Resources is a petroleum and natural gas exploration
and production company based in the Continental Oil Center in
Oklahoma City.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gh9jss at no extra charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS)
investors that acquired shares between October 29, 2020 and March
31, 2021. Investors have until June 15, 2021 to seek an active role
in this litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Credit Suisse issued
materially false and misleading statements in regard to their
business metrics and financial prospects. Specifically, Credit
Suisse concealed material defects in Credit Suisse's risk policies
and procedures, as well as compliance oversight functions and
efforts to allow high-risk clients to take on excessive leverage,
which exposed Credit Suisse to billions of dollars in losses. As a
result of Credit Suisse's false statements, their ADRs traded at
artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of $14.95 per ADR by
February 2021. Subsequently, Credit Suisse revealed billions of
dollars in losses in relation to the collapse of its
Greensill-linked funds, as well as the implosion of total return
swap positions the company had entered into with Archegos. Grave
deficiencies were revealed by these corporate scandals in Credit
Suisse's risk and compliance activities, which caused the price of
Credit Suisse ADRs to plummet, by March 31, 2021 reaching a low of
just $10.60 per ADR.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 15,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from
corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered
over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of June 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 1 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE:CS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/credit-suisse-group-ag-loss-submission-form?prid=16394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 15, 2021
Class Period: October 29, 2020 - March 31, 2021
Allegations against CS include that: defendants concealed material
defects in the Company's risk policies and procedures and
compliance oversight functions and efforts to allow high-risk
clients to take on excessive leverage, including Greensill Capital
("Greensill") and Archegos Capital Management ("Archegos"),
exposing the Company to billions of dollars in losses.
Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased WISH pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public
stock offering or between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021.
In the registration statement and prospectus used to conduct the
initial public offering and throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about the strength
of ContextLogic's business operations and financial prospects by
overstating its then-present monthly active users ("MAUs") and MAU
growth trends.
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16394&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021
Allegations against UI include that: (1) the Company had downplayed
the data breach in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained
administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to,
among other things, all databases, all user database credentials,
and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as
a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely
access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
DELTA FAUCET: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta Faucet Company.
The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Delta Faucet Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-04937 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Delta Faucet brand -- https://www.deltafaucet.com/ -- delivers
well-made, stylish faucets, shower heads and other kitchen and
bathroom accessories.[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
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Romero Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Discover Financial
Services Inc., et al. The case is styled as Marlon Romero,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Discover Financial Services Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them Case No. 5:21-cv-00942 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Discover Financial Services -- https://www.discover.com/company/ --
is an American financial services company that owns and operates
Discover Bank, which offers checking and savings accounts, personal
loans, home equity loans, student loans and credit cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, 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
ELECTRONIC DEALS: Faces Rodriguez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JARMIRIAN BATISA RODRIGUEZ, SAILYN PENA, JORDANNIS COSME BATISTA,
OLGA JAIME, ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ and RAMON LUIS SOTO, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ELECTRONIC DEALS, INC., S & V TRADING OF NY, LTD., VOVOYA, INC. and
GUY J. ESSES a/k/a JOEY G. ESSES a/k/a GUY ASSIS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03110 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 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 overtime
and straight wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to issue wage statements, failure to issue wage notices,
failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in New York at any time
between 2017 and 2021.
Electronic Deals, Inc. is a company that refurbishes and sells
electronics with a warehouse located at 1654 McDonald Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York.
S & V Trading of NY, Ltd. is a company that refurbishes and sells
electronics products based in Brooklyn, New York.
Vovoya, Inc. is a company that refurbishes and sells electronics
products based in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven J. Moser, Esq.
MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
5 E. Main Street
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (516) 671-1150
E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com
EMERGENT BIO: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
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. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS)
Class Period: July 6, 2020 - March 31, 2021
Deadline: June 18, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/ebs
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Emergent BioSolution's Baltimore plant had a
history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for
massive contaminations; (2) these longstanding contamination risks
and quality control issues at Emergent BioSolution's facility led
to a string of FDA citations; (3) the Company previously had to
discard the equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines
after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing
standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public
statements about Emergent BioSolution's ability and capacity to
mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore
manufacturing site were materially false and/or misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
Deadline: June 28, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/cciv
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by
spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557
vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up
to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)
Class Period: September 11, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Deadline: June 28, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/pton
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child,
Peloton's Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and
pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (2) safety
was not a priority to Peloton as 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+; (3) 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+; (4) the CPSC also
found a safety threat to Tread+ users if they lost their balance;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, 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 true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Gross Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of Emergent Biosolutions
Inc.
Shareholders who purchased shares of EBS 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/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=16448&from=5
CLASS PERIOD: July 6, 2020 to March 31, 2021
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued 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.
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 [GN]
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT: U.S. Pastor Council Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as U.S. Pastor Council, et
al., v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00824-O (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order certifying two classes under Rule 23(b)(2) of the federal
rules of civil procedure.
The first class is represented by plaintiffs Bear Creek Bible
Church and Braidwood Management Inc., and it consists of:
"Every employer in the United States that opposes homosexual or
transgender behavior for sincere religious reasons."
The second class is represented by plaintiffs Bear Creek Bible
Church and Braidwood Management Inc., and it consists of:
"Every employer in the United States that opposes homosexual or
transgender behavior for religious or non-religious reasons."
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal
agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace
discrimination.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fXgrLF
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes, are:
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles W. Fillmore, Esq.
H. Dustin Fillmore, Esq.
THE FILLMORE LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
1200 Summit Avenue, Suite 860
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-2351
Facsimile: (817) 870-1859
E-mail: chad@fillmorefirm.com
dusty@fillmorefirm.com
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LAW PLLC
111 Congress Avenue, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Facsimile: (512) 686-3941
E-mail: jonathan@mitchell.law
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin T. Takemoto, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
P.O. Box No. 883, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 532-4252
Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
E-mail: benjamin.takemoto@usdoj.govs
ERIE INSURANCE: HTH Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as High Tech Hair, LLC; CAPUCINNO PIZZERIA
RISTORANTE trading as LAVILLA; Rose Glam Hair Studio, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ERIE
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 2:20-cv-02895, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on June 3, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00731-MPK to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Insurance
Contract.
Erie Insurance -- https://www.erieinsurance.com/ -- is a publicly
held insurance company, offering auto, home, commercial and life
insurance through a network of independent insurance agents.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY
Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Kenneth P. Abbarno, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
7556 Mentor Ave.
Mentor, OH 44060
Phone: (440) 953-8888
Email: kabbarno@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Jeffrey P. Goodman, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Robert J Mongeluzzi, Esq.
Samuel B. Dordick, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
1650 Market St., Ste. 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-2963
Email: jgoodman@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
rmongeluzzi@smbb.com
sdordick@smbb.com
- and -
Marni Berger, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY P.C.
1650 Market St. FL 52
One Liberty Place
1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-2998
Fax: (215) 587-1444
Email: MBerger@smbb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristin A. Shepard, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 239-3277
Fax: (202) 239-3333
Email: kristin.shepard@alston.com
- and -
Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 210-9400
Fax: (212) 210-9444
Email: adam.kaiser@alston.com
- and -
Matthew Malamud, Esq.
Robert T. Horst, Esq.
TIMONEY KNOX LLP
400 Maryland Drive
Fort Washington, PA 19034
Phone: (215) 646-6000
Fax: (215) 591-8268
Email: mmalamud@timoneyknox.com
rhorst@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Robert M. Runyon, III, Esq.
NELSON LEVINE DE LUCA & HORST
518 Township Line Road, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone: (215) 358-5100
Email: rrunyon@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Tiffany L Powers, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-4249
Email: tiffany.powers@alston.com
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC regarding the Esperion
Therapeutics Securities Settlement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KEVIN L. DOUGHERTY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Plaintiff,
vs.
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al.
Defendants.
Civ. No. 2:16-cv-10089-AJT-RSW
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
ESPERION THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("ESPERION" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON
STOCK FROM AUGUST 18, 2015 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, INCLUSIVE
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS"), AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 23,
2021, at 3:00 p.m., before the Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow at the
Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI
48226, or at such other location or via telephonic or video
appearance as determined by the Court, to determine whether: (1)
the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned
action as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation")1 for $18,250,000 should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation should be entered to dismiss the above-captioned
action with prejudice; (3) to award Class Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) the
Class Representatives' request for reimbursement in connection with
their representation of the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(4) should be approved and, if so, in what amounts; and (5)
the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate.
This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons or entities who purchased or acquired Esperion common
stock during the period between August 18, 2015 and September 28,
2015, inclusive, against Esperion and Tim Mayleben (collectively,
"Defendants") for, among other things, allegedly misstating and
omitting material facts about information concerning the drug
approval process for Esperion's cholesterol-lowering drug. The
Class Representatives allege that these purportedly false and
misleading statements inflated the price of Esperion stock,
resulting in damage to Class Members when the truth was revealed.
Defendants deny all of the Class Representatives' allegations.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED ESPERION COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST
18, 2015 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 28, 2015, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September
24, 2021) or electronically (no later than
September 24, 2021). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
September 24, 2021, will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Member of the Class and
do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation,
including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the
Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents,
as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things,
contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary
Notice) and other Settlement documents, online at
www.EsperionSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to:
Esperion Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43390
Providence, RI 02940-3390
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or a Proof of Claim,
may be made to Class Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
ALEXANDER BURNS
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163
Toll-Free: 1-866-467-1400
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY AUGUST 2, 2021,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. CLASS MEMBERS WHO
HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY CLASS COUNSEL
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 32.5% OF THE
$18,250,000 SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000
INCLUDING THE PAYMENT TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES IN CONNECTION
WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 IN THE
AGGREGATE. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO
CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY
AUGUST 2, 2021, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: May 6, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.EsperionSecuritiesSettlement.com. [GN]
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Opposition to Class Cert. Due June 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS A. SHIELDS, MICHAEL
C. ANDREW, and KATINKA HOSSZU, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE
NATATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-07393-JSC (N.D. Calif,), the Hon. Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order that deadline for the
Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification shall be extended to June 29, 2021, and the deadline
for the Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification shall be extended to July 30, 2021.
FINA is the international federation recognised by the
International Olympic Committee for administering international
competitions in water sports.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uX1GNk at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs Shields, Andrew, Hosszu, and the
Proposed Class, are:
Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
Caitlin M. Nelson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
efastiff@lchb.com
cnelson@lchb.com
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff ISL, Plaintiffs Shields, Andrew,
Hosszu, and the Proposed Class ,are:
Neil A. Goteiner, Esq.
C. Brandon Wisoff, Esq.
Joshua W. Malone, Esq.
Hilary C. Krase, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: ngoteiner@fbm.com
bwisoff@fbm.com
jmalone@fbm.com
hkrase@fbm.com
FIBROGEN INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 1 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who
purchased FibroGen, Inc. ("FibroGen") (NASDAQ: FGEN) between
October 18, 2017 and April 6, 2021.
If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/fibrogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16436&wire=5
Allegations against FGEN include that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company's prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular
safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program for the
treatment of anemia certain safety analyses submitted in connection
with CKD included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors;
(ii) FibroGen's analyses with the pre-specified stratification
factors result in higher hazard ratios (point estimates of relative
risk) and 95% confidence intervals; (iii) based on these analyses
the Company could not conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of
(or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in
incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa; (iv) as a result, the
Company faced significant uncertainty that its NDA for roxadustat
as a treatment for anemia of CKD would be approved by the FDA; and
(v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you suffered a loss in FibroGen you have until June 11, 2021 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
FISHER PRINTING: Employee Sues Over COVID-19 Expenses & Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that spotlight on COVID-19 related
workplace litigation involves a persistent trend: a plaintiff
bringing a class action alleging that she and her fellow employees
were not properly reimbursed for necessary business expenses. The
plaintiff further alleges that she and her fellow employees were
not provided with lawful meal breaks, lawful rest breaks, accurate
itemized wage statements, and payment of wages upon termination.
This complaint is yet another chapter in the same old story -- a
plaintiff combining COVID-19 related allegations with unrelated
wage and hour allegations.
In Gonzalez v. Fisher Printing, Inc., the plaintiff brought a class
action on behalf of herself and all non-exempt employees. With
regard to COVID-19, the plaintiff alleges the defendant pressured,
encouraged, and required employees to purchase masks to prevent
transmission from COVID-19 and to perform their jobs, but failed to
reimburse employees for the expense. According to the plaintiff, by
not reimbursing employees for this purported business expense, the
defendant violated the California Labor Code.
Unrelated to the COVID-19 claims, again on behalf of a putative
class of non-exempt employees, the plaintiff also brings a host of
California state law wage and hour violations, including meal break
and rest break violations, inaccurate wage statements, and failure
to pay employee wages upon termination.
Over the last year, we have seen how COVID-19 claims can expose
employers to potential liability for all kinds of other workplace
employment issues. As COVID-19 restrictions begin to change,
employers should be engaging counsel to review their employment
policies and practices to avoid similar jams.
Iqra Mushtaq, a summer associate with Barnes & Thornburg LLP
contributed to this article.[GN]
FLAVORGOD LLC: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 11
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dyland Sullivan v.
Flavorgod LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10882-VAP-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order setting trial
dates as follows:
Last date for hearing motions to Sept. 6, 2021
amend pleadings or add parties:
Last date to conduct settlement Sept. 20, 2021
conference:
Last date for filing motion for Oct. 11, 2021
class certification:
Opposition to motion for class Nov. 15, 2021
certification deadline:
Reply to motion for class Dec. 13, 2021
certification deadline
Hearing on motion for class Jan. 17, 2022
certification deadline
A copy of the Court's civil minutes -- general dated May 21, 2021
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RtDC74 at no
extra charge.[CC]
GARCIA FAMILY: Contreras Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARILIN J. CONTRERAS, DENILSON L. PINEDA, FRANCISCO L. PINEDA, and
JOSE A. PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. GARCIA FAMILY CONTRACTORS LLC, MYGO2 LLC,
ERVIN D. GARCIA, and DORIS L. GARCIA, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00433-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., June 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to compensate the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated construction workers
appropriate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek and for retaliatory discharge in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were construction employees and painters from
September 02, 2020 to January 28, 2021.
Garcia Family Contractors LLC is a contractor in Fort Myers,
Florida.
MYGO2 LLC is a professional service company that specializes in
kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities sales and installation based in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
GILES COUNTY, TN: Court Okays $2MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Wadhwani, writing for Tennessee Lookout, reports that Karen
McNeil was arrested in 2015 for the misdemeanor offense of driving
on a revoked license in Giles County. What happened next nearly
broke her.
Sentenced to four months of probation under the supervision of a
private, for-profit company, McNeil's life soon revolved around the
demands of her probation officer.
Charged fees she could not afford, McNeil was threatened with
re-arrest if she did not pay. She lost her home after paying fees
instead of rent. Then she sold even the tent she was living in.
McNeil relies solely on disability payments and food stamps for
income. The officer insisted on in-person check ins. McNeil often
had to walk the three miles from her home to the probation office.
When she missed monthly payments, her probation officer had her
rearrested. Convicted of violating probation, she was sentenced to
more months of probation -- a cycle that was on repeat. McNeil was
also subject to repeated random drug testing, often in an open
bathroom in the presence of a male probation officer. Each drug
test came with a price tag that McNeil was also expected to pay.
The four months of probation stretched to more than two years.
"I never thought I'd ever be off it," said McNeil, who is now 56.
She cried at times as she recalled the experience. "Every time I
was supposed to be off, they'd find something to violate me. It was
something I'll never forget.
"It hurt me, my mind, the rest of my life because of the
humiliation I went through, the shame. People would see me walking
to probation on my oxygen. What really bothered me was having male
officers when I got drug tested."
Giles County officials have now agreed to end the use of private
probation companies as part of a $2 million settlement over claims
in a 2017 lawsuit that their tactics amounted to an "illegal
extortion scheme."
The class action lawsuit, with McNeil named as one of the
plaintiffs, said the two companies operating in the county
"transformed the county's misdemeanor probation system into a
machine for generating their own profit on the backs of Giles
County's most impoverished residents."
When people could not afford the fees, they faced re-arrest for
probation violations that often came with the requirement to post
even more money for bail to secure release. They also faced
extended probation sentences or additional conditions, raising
their debts even more. Probationers were routinely threatened with
jail time if they could not pay. People sold their possessions,
went without medications, skipped rent and -- like McNeil -- became
homeless.
The 18-page agreement between Giles County and attorneys with Civil
Rights Corps -- representing about 4,000 county residents who were
subject to the misdemeanor probation system -- still needs approval
from the federal judge in the case, which is expected.
Once approved, the agreement waives all debt incurred by Giles
County residents for misdemeanor probation and requires the county
to immediately halt enforcing any outstanding warrants for
misdemeanor probation violations.
It also requires the county to stop drug testing misdemeanor
offenders not charged with drug offenses.
It requires any misdemeanor probation sentence to include an
evaluation of an individual's ability to pay fees and fines. The
county can no longer keep people on supervised probation solely due
to their inability to pay.
And the agreement prohibits Giles County from running its own
probation department funded solely on user-fees from people on
probation.
The agreement "is a recognition that the whole system was poisoned
by these probation practices," said Elizabeth Rossi, senior
attorney with Civil Rights Corps, which brought the suit.
When people could not afford fees charged by the private probation
company, they faced re-arrest for probation violations that often
came with the requirement to post even more money for bail to
secure release. Probationers were routinely threatened with jail
time if they could not pay. Female probationers were subjected to
repeated random drug testing, often in an open bathroom in the
presence of a male probation officer.
An attorney for Giles County returned a reporters' phone messages
but ultimately could not be reached for comment before
publication.
While the suit ends the reign of private probation companies in
Giles County, 25 companies continue to supervise misdemeanor
probationers in 19 other Tennessee counties, according to the
Department of Commerce & Insurance, which licenses the companies.
A lawsuit in Rutherford County, also brought by Civil Rights Corps,
resulted in a $14 million settlement and a requirement that county
cease using private probation companies in 2018.
The for-profit probation companies in Giles, Rutherford and other
Tennessee counties share a similar business model. They enter into
contracts, often with cash-strapped counties, to take on
misdemeanor probation services at no cost to the county. They
perform drug testing and require regular monitoring of probationers
and coordinate court mandated classes for treatment -- the cost of
which is shouldered entirely by probationers.
The companies typically agree to collect court costs of
probationers, further relieving counties of administrative and
collection responsibilities.
The companies are solely funded by the fees and charges they pass
onto probationers, incentivizing the practice of charging
additional fees and extending probation time.
"For counties in economic distress, this is attractive to them,"
said Jasmine Heiss, a project director for the Vera Institute of
Justice, which advocates for criminal justice reforms.
What counties often don't take into consideration is the cost to
them of rearresting and jailing individuals who cannot meet the
financial conditions of the private probation company, which
continues to make a profit, she said
"100 percent of the profit for these companies comes directly from
fees," she said. "It's a private industry that's essentially a
parasite."
McNeil has since gotten married and now lives with her husband in a
home inherited from her late sister. She said the probation
companies operated the way they did because "they knew they can get
by with it."
The settlement, she said, "ain't never going to make up for what
they did to me and so many of my friends."
McNeil aided lawyers with Civil Rights Corps to identify others who
were ensnared in the private probation system in Giles County. She
knew many personally, including Tanya Mitchell and her daughter,
Indya Hilfort, who lived together along with Mitchell's four
grandchildren in a mobile home in Giles county.
Mitchell, who was unemployed and in poor health, borrowed money
from friends and family to pay the $45 monthly probation fee after
her misdemeanor arrest. She was still under supervision of the
private probation company when the suit was filed.
She died before it was settled. McNeil said she wanted Mitchell
acknowledged in this story. Mitchell braved being named in the
lawsuit even as her freedom remained in the hands of her private
probation officer. [GN]
GLOBAL PLASMA: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Ionizers
------------------------------------------------------
Renae Cassimeda, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
in the interest of reopening schools as soon as possible, hundreds
of K-12 school districts, private schools, and universities across
the US have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in federal relief
funding provided by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to purchase
Needle Point Bipolar Ionizers (NBPIs), supposedly to clean indoor
air and kill coronavirus particles.
Despite their lofty claims to neutralize virus particles, recent
independent studies show that NBPIs do not improve indoor air
quality. A recently filed class action lawsuit consolidates the
science by air quality experts and puts forward strong refutations
against the claims made by manufacturers, and echoed by hundreds of
districts and campuses across the country, that NBPIs are safe and
remove pathogens including SARS-CoV-2 from the air.
Michael Mills, one of the attorneys on the case, told the World
Socialist Web Site, "The evidence is overwhelming. We are convinced
we are right. I don't know how districts can continue to use these
products. If teachers or students get sick, these districts have
zero protection."
The lawsuit was filed last month against Global Plasma Solutions
(GPS), a top selling manufacturer of NBPIs. The suit charges the
company with fraud and claims the company used false, deceptive and
misleading claims to sell its products and capitalize from the
COVID-19 pandemic.
As part of the mad dash to reopen schools, ionizers have been
installed in classrooms, school buses, offices, gymnasiums and
cafeterias, providing a false sense of protection from COVID-19.
Furthermore, harmful byproducts produced by the technology place
the health and safety of millions of students and staff at
heightened risk.
GPS and other manufacturers of NBPIs claim that their ionizers
remove over 99 percent of SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air.
However, a recent peer reviewed study led by three universities
revealed that NBPIs had an entirely negligible effect on removing
the airborne particles of coronavirus and only reduced 20-30
percent of the virus from surfaces.
Dr. Delphine Farmer, a leading researcher in the study, recently
explained to the WSWS that ionizers do not actually accomplish
their "bold claims" in real world settings. GPS based its claims of
a 99 percent removal of coronavirus from the air on a
company-funded study conducted in a shoe box-sized container (not a
room or classroom). Instead of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 particles in
the air, the devices instead produce volatile organic compounds
(VOCs).
According to the lawsuit, independent studies cited in the case
documents show that the products are not only ineffective at
cleaning the air in real world conditions, but byproducts from the
devices include the following harmful toxins:
Acetone: long-term exposure can produce damage to kidneys, liver,
skin, central nervous system and reproductive system.
Ethanol: chronic intermittent ethanol vapor exposure produces
widespread significant tissue injury including hepatic, pulmonary,
and cardiovascular changes.
Toluene: long-term inhalation of toluene can cause permanent damage
to the brain, muscles, heart, and kidneys.
Butyraldehyde: inhalation of Butyraldehyde can irritate the lungs,
causing coughing and shortness of breath, while higher exposures
can cause a pulmonary edema.
In addition to the above toxins, Dr. Marwa Zaatari, a mechanical
engineer, expert on indoor air quality and member of the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) epidemic task force, also warns that ionizers have been
shown to produce ozone and formaldehyde.
GPS and other companies selling these "snake oil" ionizer devices
have profited tremendously off of the COVID-19 pandemic. According
to the lawsuit documents, GPS, which was founded in 2008, had a
previous focus on "providing energy savings solutions. However,
when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the company's focus shifted, and in
CEO Glenn Brinckman's words, 'it's all about pathogens and
coronavirus and COVID-19.'"
ActivePure Technology, which employs former Trump adviser
Dr. Deborah Birx as its chief medical and science adviser, is
another company profiting from ionizers. A recent LinkedIn job ad
for the company recruiting salespeople stated, "Make Tons of Money
with this COVID-killing Technology!! . . . We have reps [who] made
over 6-figures in 1 month selling to 1 school district." Foaming at
the mouth over the profits to be made, the ad exclaims, "By the
way, the company is expanding by triple digits each month and this
is just the tip of the iceberg!"
These technologies are being utilized by districts to provide a
false sense of security and reassurance to concerned students,
staff and parents who have faced a relentless barrage of propaganda
to send them back to unsafe classrooms. Significantly, when a
recent statement from Columbia County School District in Georgia
announced masks are no longer a requirement in classrooms,
officials sought to reassure their community that the continued use
of ionizers in classrooms and on buses would provide adequate
protection from COVID-19.
The installation of ionizers also solves another issue for
districts, as they are far less costly and have no industry
standards compared to proven mitigation strategies for improving
indoor air quality, such as updating Heating, Ventilation and
Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems, using Merv-13 filters, and
operating HVAC systems at high efficiency in order to ensure at
least five complete air exchanges per hour.
The lawsuit itself shows that opposition among parents, educators,
and students has emerged in response to haphazard reopening
campaigns which have allowed schools and workplaces to transform
into sites of spread and infection of the virus.
Concerned parents of Montclair Public Schools in New Jersey
expressed opposition to the use of GPS ionizers in classrooms
during an April school board meeting. Parents cited independent
scientific papers, articles and letters from experts in air
quality, and in response the district disconnected the devices
until further notice.
Superintendent Mark Triplett of Newark Unified School District in
California recently announced the district will turn off all 556
ionizers it installed from GPS until further notice. According to
local news media, Triplett sent an email to the entire district on
June 1, saying the district had "been made aware" of a proposed
class action lawsuit filed against Global Plasma Solutions in
Delaware.
The San Diego Educators Rank-and-File Safety Committee has called
for ionizers to be shut off in the Sweetwater Union High School
District, and urges educators, parents and students across the US
and globally to form similar committees to fight for safety and the
defense of public education. All educators and workers concerned
with placing the highest levels of safety in classrooms and
workplaces should contact the WSWS today to build a committee in
your schools and district. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Judge Certifies Gender Pay Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblat, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
Alphabet Inc.'s Google failed to persuade a judge to block
class-action status for a gender-pay disparity lawsuit brought on
behalf of almost 11,000 women.
A San Francisco state judge certified the class action on May 27,
allowing the four lead plaintiffs to represent 10,800 women over
claims that Google pays men more for doing the same job. A
previously disclosed analysis showed that the case seeks more than
$600 million in damages. The women allege violations of
California's Equal Pay Act, one of the strongest measures of its
kind nationwide.
"This is a significant day for women at Google and in the
technology sector, and we are so proud of our brave clients for
leading the way," Kelly Dermody, a lawyer representing the women,
said in an email. "This order shows that it is critical that
companies prioritize paying women equitably over spending money
fighting them in litigation."
Dermody said the next move is to get the case to trial, which she
expects could start in 2022.
Google said that for the past eight years it has conducted an
analysis to ensure salaries, bonuses and equity awards are fair.
"If we find any differences in proposed pay, including between men
and women, we make upward adjustments to remove them before new
compensation goes into effect," the company said in an emailed
statement.
Last year, 2,352 employees were paid more "across nearly every
demographic category," according to Google.
The decision follows a similar ruling last year in a case against
Oracle Corp. Women at other technology companies who have turned to
the courts to transform their pay and treatment in the workplace
have faced difficulty gaining traction, just like their female
counterparts in more traditional industries, from retail to
finance. The U.S. Supreme Court set a high bar in its 2011 decision
that blocked 1.5 million female workers at Walmart Inc. from
pursuing their discrimination claims as a group.
Female engineers at both Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. failed to
win class-action status for their gender-bias cases and those
rulings were upheld on appeal.
The women leading the Google suit said in a July court filing that
the company paid female employees approximately $16,794 less per
year than "the similarly-situated man," citing an analysis by David
Neumark, an economist at University of California at Irvine.
"Google paid women less base salary, smaller bonuses, and less
stock than men in the same job code and location," they said.
Google is also accused in the lawsuit of violating the state's
Unfair Competition Law with a policy from 2011 to 2017 of asking
job candidates for prior salaries, perpetuating lower pay and
seniority for women. The suit was filed in 2017. The company sought
to dismiss the case but a judge denied the request in 2018.
Google argued that defending itself against Equal Pay Act claims in
a class-action case requires "boundless individualized testimony"
for different kinds of work performed by more than 33,000
employees.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng disagreed. For
work to be "substantially similar" under the Equal Pay Act, Cheng
wrote, "jobs do not need to be identical or require exactly the
same duties."
In February, Google agreed to pay almost $2.6 million to settle
U.S. Labor Department allegations that the technology company
potentially underpaid thousands of female workers in software
engineering positions, and discriminated against women and Asian
job applicants.
The case is Ellis v. Google Inc., CGC-17-561299, California
Superior Court, San Francisco County.
With assistance from Max Abelson and Malathi Nayak. [GN]
GRANITE SERVICES: Lawrence Labor Class Suit Removed to N.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW LAWRENCE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GRANITE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and FIELDCORE SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 002416/2021, was
removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Onondaga, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York on June 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-00636-FJS-TWD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law including unpaid overtime wages and noncompliant
wage notices and wage statements.
Granite Services International, Inc. is a renewables and
environment company based in Florida.
Fieldcore Service Solutions, LLC is an independent industrial field
services company based in Florida. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
Zheyao Li, Esq.
1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30309-3958
Telephone: (404) 885-1500
Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
E-mail: bbartlett@seyfarth.com
zyli@seyfarth.com
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Heilmeier Suit Over Proposed Just Eat Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAX HEILMEIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB INC.; KATRINA LAKE; MATTHEW MALONEY;
BRIAN MCANDREWS; DAVID FISHER; DAVID HABIGER; LINDA JOHNSON RICE;
LLOYD FRINK; GIRISH LAKSHMAN; and KEITH RICHMAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04687 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021) is an action arising
from the Defendants' attempt to merge the Company with Just Eat
Takeaway.com N.V. ("Just Eat Takeaway.com") through Checkers Merger
Sub I, Inc. ("Merger Sub I") and Checkers Merger Sub II, Inc.
("Merger Sub II") (the "Proposed Transaction"), alleging violation
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
According to the complaint, on June 10, 2020, Grubhub announced
that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Just
Eat Takeaway.com (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") pursuant to
which Grubhub shareholders will receive newly issued American
depositary shares ("ADS") of Just Eat Takeaway.com common stock,
representing 0.6710 shares of the share capital of Just Eat
Takeaway.com, for each Grubhub common share that they own (the
"Merger Consideration").
On May 12, 2021, Grubhub filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. The Proxy is materially
deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose
material information regarding: (i) the financial projections for
Grubhub and Just Eat Takeaway.com, as well as the financial
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Evercore
Group L.L.C. ("Evercore"); and (ii) potential conflicts of interest
faced by the Company's additional financial advisor, Centerview
Partners LLC ("Centerview"). Without additional information, the
Proxy is materially misleading in violation of the federal
securities laws, the suit says.
Grubhub Inc. provides food services. The Company offers mobile
platform for restaurant pick-up and delivery orders, as well as
assists diners in searching for local restaurant, tracking the
order, and re-order for convenience. Grubhub operates within the
United States and the United Kingdom. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
-and-
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
580 California Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 568-2124
Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com
GRUBHUB INC: Plaintiffs in Competing Lawsuit Challenge Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Veeneman, Esq. -- cveeneman@ecjlaw.com -- of Ervin Cohen
& Jessup LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a proposed
class action settlement pending in the District Court of Colorado
involving Grubhub, Inc. has been called into question by would-be
intervenors from a similar action against Grubhub pending in the
Northern District of Illinois. The Colorado case, CO Craft LLC dba
Freshcraft v. GrubHub Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-01327 (D. Colo) was
filed by plaintiff Freshcraft on May 11, 2020, alleging a single
cause of action against Grubhub for violation of the Lanham Act.
Freshcraft alleges that Grubhub falsely advertised on its platform
that certain restaurants not partnered with Grubhub were either
closed or not accepting online orders so as to steer customers to
competing restaurants that were partnered with Grubhub. Freshcraft
initially sought to recover both damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of a class of similarly situated restaurant owners.
In October 2020, a parallel lawsuit, Lynn Scott, LLC et al. v.
Grubhub Inc., Case No. 20-6334 (N.D. Ill), was filed against
Grubhub in the Northern District of Illinois by Lynn Scott, LLC and
The Farmer's Wife, LLC, restaurant owners in North Carolina and
California respectively. Similar to the Freshcraft action, the
Scott plaintiffs allege a single cause of action for violation of
the Lanham Act. Unlike the Freshcraft action, however, the Scott
plaintiffs took a trademark angle, alleging that Grubhub violated
the Lanham Act by adding popular local restaurants to their site
and using the restaurants' names and logos without permission. The
Scott plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief.
In early 2021, Freshcraft and Grubhub announced that they had
reached a class-wide settlement and would seek approval of the
settlement from the court. The proposed settlement provides
injunctive relief only. Specifically, Grubhub would agree to
institute a self-help page for affected restaurants to claim
ownership over their restaurant's page on Grubhub by either
requesting alterations to the information included on the page or
removal from Grubhub's site entirely. Additionally, Grubhub would
alter the language of each restaurant's landing page to clarify
that the restaurant does not accept orders through Grubhub, as
opposed to not accepting orders at all. Grubhub also agreed to add
a disclaimer on each landing page. In return, the putative class
would release all equitable claims under the Lanham Act. The
settlement expressly excludes claims for actual damages from the
release.
Upon reaching a settlement agreement in the Freshcraft matter,
Grubhub promptly filed and obtained a stay of the Scott action
pending resolution of the Colorado action. The Scott plaintiffs
have now filed a motion to intervene in the Freshcraft action,
arguing that, in light of the fact that the putative class in
Freshcraft was only recently expanded to include their trademark
claims, further discovery was necessary to determine whether the
settlement fairly considers such claims. The Scott plaintiffs have
also filed an opposition to the Freshcraft parties' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.
The court in Freshcraft has yet to rule on either the Motion to
Intervene or the Motion for Preliminary Approval. A positive
outcome for the Scott Plaintiffs could signal a reluctance by the
court to approve a settlement with a release significantly broader
in scope than the claims in the original complaint. [GN]
GUILD MORTGAGE: Purcell Files Suit in District of Hawaii
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guild Mortgage
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Zachary Purcell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Guild Mortgage
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00260-LEK-KJM (D. Haw., June 3,
2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Guild Mortgage -- https://www.guildmortgage.com/ -- is a leading
mortgage lender and advisor serving across the United States and
specializing in residential home loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandee J. Faria, Esq.
PERKIN & FARIA
841 Bishop Street, Suite 506
Honolulu, HI 96813
Phone: 523-2300
Fax: 6975304
Email: bjkfaria@perkinlaw.com
HEALTH PLAN: Adams Files Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Plan of San
Joaquin. The case is styled as Thomas Adams, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Plan of San
Joaquin, Case No. STK-CV-UCC-2021-0005054 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., June 3, 2021).
The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil
Unlimited."
Health Plan of San Joaquin (HPSJ) -- https://www.hpsj.com/ -- is
the leading Medi-Cal managed care provider in San Joaquin and
Stanislaus counties.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Branden Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Ste. 308
San Diego, CA 92108-3611
Phone: 866-219-3343
Fax: 866-219-8344
Email: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
ICHIBAN GROUP: Zhang Wins Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XUE HUI ZHANG, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, YUE HUA CHEN, and GUI
YONG ZHANG, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant d/b/a Takara, ICHIBAN FOOD , INC., d/b/a, Ichiban
Japanese & Chinese Restaurant d/b/a Takara, CHEN & JU, INC., d/b/a
Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant d/b/a Takara, DAVID L IP,
LIPING JU, and TYNG QUH JU, Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mae A. D'Agostino entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. appointing the Plaintiffs Xue Hui Zhang and Yue Hua Chen as
class representatives
3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as Class Counsel;
4. directing the parties to confer and then submit to the Court
a joint proposed notice to all class members within 30 days
of the date of the Memorandum-Decision and Order; and
5. directing the Clerk of the Court to serve a copy of the
Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance
with the Local Rules.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify their state law unpaid wages,
overtime, spread of time, and non-provision of notice claims as a
Rule (b)(3) opt-out class.
The Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other employees
similarly situated, filed an amended complaint on April 2, 2019,
alleging numerous claims, including violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
A copy of the Court's Memorandum-Decision and Order dated May 21,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ikbs9q
at no extra charge.[CC]
INGEROLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Cackin Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARLOWE CACKIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INGEROLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC.;
and DOE 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01185140-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 1,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-00982-JVS-JDE 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 all wages, failure to provide meal
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize or
permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
necessary business expenses, and failure to pay all wages due upon
separation from employment.
Ingeroll-Rand Industrial U.S., Inc. is a company that offers vacuum
systems, bottle blowers, pumps, and air and gas compressors,
headquartered in Davidson, North Carolina. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Amberly A. Morgan, Esq.
Jennifer Hinds, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
300 South Grand, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 337-6550
Facsimile: (213) 337-6551
E-mail: Amberly.Morgan@huschblackwell.com
Jennifer.Hinds@huschblackwell.com
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Direct Purchasers Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE: KEURIG SINGLE SERVE
COFFEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. certifying the Direct Purchaser Class pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. appointing Kenneth B. Burkley, Roger Davidson, James G.
Long,
Sally Rizzo, Henry Rocker, and Todd W. Springer as Class
Representatives for the Direct Purchaser Class; and
3. appointing Michael M. Buchman of Motley Rice LLC, Robert G.
Eisler of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and William V. Reiss of
Robins Kaplan LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Direct
Purchaser Class pursuant to Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., formerly Keurig Green Mountain and
originally Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, is a publicly traded
American beverage and beverage-maker conglomerate with headquarters
in Burlington, Massachusetts. Its east-coast division sells coffee
and other beverages, and Keurig brewers.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated May 24, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3ppQdEK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and Interim Co-Lead
Counsel for the Proposed Direct Purchaser Plaintiff Class, are:
Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
Michelle C. Clerkin, Esq.
Jacob O. Onile-Ere, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
777 Third Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 577-0050
E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
mclerkin@motleyrice.com
jonileere@motleyrice.com
- and -
Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
Deborah Elman, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
delman@gelaw.com
- and -
William V. Reiss, Esq.
David B. Rochelson, Esq.
Matthew Geyer, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
399 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com
drochelson@robinskaplan.com
mgeyer@robinskaplan.com
KIM KARDASHIAN WEST: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Regular, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramirez, and Christopher Ramirez, individuals and in their
representative capacity; Andrew Ramirez, Jr., a minor, by Andrew
Ramirez, his guardian ad litem; Aron Cabrera, Rene Ernesto Flores,
Jesse Fernandez, and Robert Araiza, individuals; on behalf of
themselves v. KIM KARDASHIAN WEST, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV19439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles, Cty., May 24, 2021), is brought for the Defendants'
Failure to Pay Wages and/or Overtime, Failure to Provide Meal
Periods, Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Failure to Reimburse
Expenses, in violation of the California Labor Code.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked full-time in a
crew that performed daily and ongoing cleaning and maintenance
tasks for Defendant Kim Kardashian West at her residence in Hidden
Hills, California. The Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they
were employees and withheld 10% of their gross wages for taxes. In
reality, however, the Defendants never remitted the Plaintiffs'
withholdings to the tax authorities. In fact, the Plaintiffs were
treated as independent contractors despite being told that they
were employees of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs never received any
paystubs, were not paid on regular pay periods, were not given
their required meal and rest breaks, were not provided a means to
record all their hours, were not paid all their hours, were not
reimbursed for employment expenses, were not paid all their
overtime wages, and were not paid their wages upon termination of
employment.
The Plaintiffs were cleaning and maintenance workers for
Defendants.
Kim Kardashian West is and was an individual residing in the State
of California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Frank H. Kim, Esq.
Helen U. Kim, Esq.
KIM LEGAL, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (323) 482-3300
Facsimile: (866) 652-7819
Email: fkim@kim-legal.com
helen@helenkimlaw.com
LASER FOOT: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laser Foot Surgery
Centers LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Laser Foot Surgery Centers LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and
each of them Case No. 2:21-cv-04579 (C.D. Cal., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Laser Foot Surgery Centers -- https://laserfootsurgerycenters.com/
-- provide a full range of clinical podiatry care and all types of
foot and ankle surgeries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, 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
MIDLAND CREDIT: Johnson Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Shaianna Johnson, Terri M.
Hayes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., a Kansas corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00451 (M.D.N.C., June 3, 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
MOUNTAIN VALLEY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dragula Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LEE DRAGULA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIZZA INC. d/b/a
Domino's; and GEORGE MACKPATTERSON, Defendants, Case No.
5:21-cv-00233-FL (E.D.N.C, May 25, 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 Dragula was employed by the Defendants a delivery
driver.
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIZZA INC. owns and operates Domino's Pizza
franchise stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jake Modla, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR P.C.
115 Elk Ave
Rock Hill, SC 29730
Telephone: (803) 328-0898
E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com
-and-
Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
400 N. St. Paul St. Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com
MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 7
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a
Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") ("MultiPlan" or the
"Company") (: MPLN) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired MultiPlan
securities between July 12, 2020 and November 10, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period") and on behalf of all holders of Churchill III
Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger
with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated
subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which merger was
consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mpln.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts to investors.
GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Signs with MultiPlan Corp MPLN.
MPLN 30-Year Financial Data
The intrinsic value of MPLN
Peter Lynch Chart of MPLN
This complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars
in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of
MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened
up to 35% of MultiPlan's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by
2022; (2) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to
the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as
represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in
demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition, as
payors developed competing services and sought alternatives to
eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (3) MultiPlan was facing
significant pricing pressures for its services and had been forced
to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by
insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the price and
quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced billing practices,
causing MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to half in some cases;
(4) as a result, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from
revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and
deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (5)
consequently, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth
and to improve its competitive positioning through pricey
acquisitions, including through the purchase of the healthcare
technology company HST for $140 million at a premium price from a
former MultiPlan executive only one month after the Merger; and (6)
as such, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the
acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business
was worth far less than represented to investors.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/mpln or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
MultiPlan 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.[GN]
NCAA: Butler Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Athletic Association. The case is styled as Lessie Butler,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01497-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind., June 3, 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 L. 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: Geerlings Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Todd Geerlings, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01200, 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 June 3,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02944 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as 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
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se:
National Collegiate Athletic Association
PO Box 6222
Indianapolis, IN 46206
PRO SE
NCAA: Henderson Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Ronaldo
Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01500-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., June 3, 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 L. 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.
NEW DOMINION: Earthquake Class Action Lawsuit in Oklahoma Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens of Oklahoma that owned a residence or business real estate
property in Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma, Cleveland,
Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee, or Creek counties in Oklahoma
between November 5th and 8th, 2011, and which property or
properties suffered earthquake damages from earthquakes near
Prague, Oklahoma on November 5th, 6th, and 8th, of 2011, are
members of a class certified only for the trial of particular
issues. The particular issues include, among others, whether New
Dominion, LLC's wastewater disposal operations caused the
earthquakes.
A class action lawsuit was filed in Lincoln County alleging that
earthquakes caused by nearby oil and gas wastewater disposal well
operations occurred near Prague, Oklahoma, on November 5th, 6th,
and 8th of 2011. More specifically, the case alleges that New
Dominion, LLC ("New Dominion") and Spess Oil Company, among others,
were responsible for these earthquakes, and alleges that the
earthquakes caused damage to properties in Lincoln, Payne, Logan,
Oklahoma, Cleveland, Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee, or Creek
counties. New Dominion denies that its operations caused these
earthquakes.
District Judge Lori Walkley, sitting by assignment for the District
Court of Lincoln County, is the presiding Judge. Judge Walkley has
not made any decisions on the merits of this case. A trial is
scheduled to begin on the particular issues that the class has been
certified for on October 18, 2021, in Judge Walkley's Courtroom at
the District Court of Cleveland County, in Norman, Oklahoma.
The trial on the particular issues will not result in an award of
damages for any member of the class or provide for punitive
damages. Instead, the purpose of the class action trial is to
determine, among other issues, whether the earthquakes near Prague
in 2011 were caused or contributed to by New Dominion. There is no
money available now and no guarantee that there ever will be.
If you are included in the lawsuit, you have the following legal
rights: (a) If you are included in the lawsuit and wish to remain a
member of the Class, you do not have to do anything; (b) you may
exclude yourself as a member of the Class, but you must do so by
August 27, 2021; (c) if you choose not to exclude yourself as a
member of the Class by August 27, 2021, then any determinations
finally entered by the Court in the action on the particular issues
certified by the Court for the Class, favorable or not, will be
binding on you; and (d) if you choose not to exclude yourself as a
member of the Class, you may enter an appearance in the case either
through yourself or through an attorney of your own choosing at
your own expense.
For more information visit www.Oklahomaearthquakeslawsuit.com, call
the Notice Administrator at 1-844-915-2150, or contact Class
Counsel Scott Poynter at scott@poynterlawgroup.com or 501-812-3943.
http://www.poynterlawgroup.com[GN]
NEW DOMINION: Faces Cooper Suit Over Rights on Insurance Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER COOPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW DOMINION, LLC and NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants, Case No.
CJ-2021-530 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Cleveland Cty., June 1, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for declaratory judgment to
determine the rights of the Plaintiff and Class members regarding
an insurance agreement entered by the Defendants on July 7, 2011
and for a policy period of July 1, 2011 through July 1, 2012, which
was to provide a $10 million excess layer of insurance coverage for
claims asserted against New Dominion for personal injury or
property damage.
New Dominion, LLC is an oil and natural gas company, with its
principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, is an
insurance company, with its principal place of business in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Poynter, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
407 President Clinton Ave., Ste. 201
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
- and –
David A. Poarch, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BAILEY & POARCH
301 E. Eufaula
Norman, OK 73069
Telephone: (405) 329-6600
E-mail: dpoarch@baileyandpoarch.com
NEW INDY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
myfox8.com reports that a new version of a class-action lawsuit
against the New Indy paper mill in Catawba has been filed. It
provides more names of more plaintiffs and more details on the
hydrogen sulfide emissions emitting from the plant.
The lead attorney Gary Mauney, Esq. explains the essence of the
nuisance claim in simple terms, "if you can't open your door
without getting sick, you can't enjoy the use of your property ."
And he says property values are plummeting for his clients because
with the houses within the radius of the odor "you can't open the
door because of the smell."
Mauney also explains how the invisible hydrogen sulfide works
saying it's "toxic" and "it doesn't take very much to get a very
substantial reaction from a human." He says his clients have
experienced naseau, migraines and those with asthma have worsened
conditions.
Still, the smell isn't the only problem. He showed us pictures of
his clients porch where it appears a foam from the hydrogen sulfide
formed appearing ash or snow-like. The SC DHEQ and EPA are
investigating the plant and ordering remediation but neither agency
is immune from potential danger.
Mauney says it's been documented that, "the teams that DHEQ and the
EPA sent out, the engineers, the scientific teams to evaluate the
degree and location of the smell, they got sick too."
New Indy has yet to respond to the lawsuit and has yet to reply to
FOX46′ request for comment on the lawsuit. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Graffiti Removal Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York City Police Department street
cleanup program is unconstitutionally wiping away graffiti without
asking property owners if they actually want the art buffed, an
artist said in a putative federal court class action on June 1.
Michael McLeer, an internationally known New York City street
artist, said in his complaint that the department's graffiti
removal program is violating the Visual Rights Act pertaining to a
willful destruction of a work of visual art, as well as the First
and Fourteenth Amendments. [GN]
PARKMOBILE LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Carmel, writing for BoiseDev, reports that if your data
was compromised through Boise's parking app, someone is fighting
for you in court.
At the end of May, a Vermont customer of Atlanta-based parking
company ParkMobile filed suit in a Georgia federal court over a
data breach that impacted 21 million customers nationwide,
including 80,000 users in Boise. The suit alleges the breach was a
"direct and proximate result" of ParkMobile failing to implement
"basic security procedures" to protect customer information,
according to classaction.org.
The company announced the hack at the end of March, which
compromised customer email addresses, license plate numbers, phone
numbers and vehicle nicknames, if provided by the user. Hackers
also breached mailing addresses in "a small percentage of cases",
according to a company spokesman. Encrypted account passwords were
stolen during the attack, but not the keys required to read the
passwords themselves.
The company does not collect driver's license numbers, social
security numbers, or birthdays. Attackers did not steal credit card
information or parking history.
No action necessary
In the filing, the plaintiff said she spent "valuable time"
changing passwords and the hack led to numerous fraudulent emails
trying to obtain more of his personal information.
The suit hopes to represent anyone in the United States whose
personal information was breached in the incident. If the case
moves ahead and ParkMobile reaches a settlement, customers impacted
will have an opportunity to claim some compensation if the court
decides it is appropriate.
There is no action needed to join the suit. [GN]
PARKMOBILE LLC: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, George Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM GEORGE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-02252-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 1, 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 properly secure and
safeguard highly-valuable, protected personally identifiable
information (PII) of its customers, including the Plaintiff,
following a data breach. On March 26, 2021, ParkMobile announced
that it had been subject to a cybersecurity incident related to a
vulnerability in a third-party software vendor that ParkMobile
uses. As a result of the Defendant's alleged failure to implement
and follow basic security procedures, the Plaintiff and Class
members have had to spend, and will continue to spend, significant
time and money in the future to protect themselves due to
ParkMobile's actions.
ParkMobile, LLC is a company that owns and operates mobile
applications that provide parking services to users throughout the
United States, with its principal place of business 1100 Spring
Street, NW Atlanta, Georgia. [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 –
Gary F. Lynch, 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
- and –
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and –
Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
Caroline Thomas White, Esq.
MURRAY LAW FIRM
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4250
New Orleans, LA 70139
Telephone: (504) 593-6473
Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com
PATTERN BRANDS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS J. OLSEN, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PATTERN BRANDS, INC. d/b/a Open
Spaces, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04658 (S.D.N.Y., May 25, 2021)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, www.getopenspaces.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
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 Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Pattern Brands, Inc. is a consumer goods holding company. The
company was founded by Emmett Shine and Nicholas Ling in 2018 and
is headquartered in New York, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10017-6705
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
PELICAN WASTE: March 19 Order Denying Class Cert. Bid Vacated
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON VERRETT,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. PELICAN
WASTE AND DEBRIS, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-01035-GGG-KWR (E.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order vacating the
March 19, 2021 order which denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Certification of Collective Action and Request for Notice to
Putative Class Members.
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiff may resubmit his
Motion for Certification 15 days following the close of preliminary
class-wide discovery as set forth by the Chief Magistrate Judge in
her recent orders allowing discovery for the purpose of identifying
what facts and legal considerations will be material to determining
whether a group of "employees" is "similarly situated," and setting
forth the parameters of preliminary discovery to make such a
determination pursuant to Swales, 985 F.3d at 441 (R. Docs. 78, 89
and 92).
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RnEqKH at no extra charge.[CC]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Kahn Swick Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ:DOX)
Class Period: 12/13/2016 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 8, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-dox/
FibroGen, Inc. (NASDAQ:FGEN)
Class Period: 10/18/2017 - 4/6/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 11, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fgen/
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 28, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pton/
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
Class Period: 1/11/2021 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ui/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the
"Company")(NASDAQ: PTON) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02925, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Peloton between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Peloton securities during
the Class Period, you have until June 28, 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.
Peloton provides interactive fitness products such as the Peloton
Bike and the Peloton Tread+ and Tread, which include touchscreens
that stream live and on-demand classes. Peloton also provides
connected fitness subscriptions and access to live and on-demand
classes.
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) in addition to the tragic death
of a child, Peloton's Tread+ 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 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; (viii)
issues with the Tread+ and Tread were not patchable via software
updates; (ix) Defendants were not fully cooperating with the CPSC;
(x) as opposed to Defendants' statements, CPSC statements were not
misleading or inaccurate; and (xi) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Peloton's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
On April 17, 2021, a day the market was closed, the CPSC issued a
press release entitled "CPSC Warns Consumers: Stop Using the
Peloton Tread+" alerting the public to dangers, including death,
associated with the Peloton Tread+.
That same day, Peloton issued a press release entitled "PELOTON
REFUTES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION CLAIMS: CPSC PUBLISHES
MISLEADING, INACCURATE BULLETIN ON TREAD+ PRODUCT SAFETY" which
attempted to rebut the CPSC's warnings.
Following these disclosures, 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.
Then, on May 5, 2021, during market hours, the CPSC issued a
statement entitled "Statement of Acting Chairman Robert Adler on
the Recall of the Peloton Tread + and Tread" which announced that
the CPSC and Peloton had come to an agreement to protect users of
the Peloton Tread+ and Tread products, which required Peloton to
immediately stop selling and distributing both the Tread+ and Tread
products in the United States and refund the full purchase price to
consumers who wish to return their treadmills.
That same day, Peloton posted an article entitled "CPSC and Peloton
Announce: Recall of Tread+ Treadmills After One Child Death and 70
Incidents; Recall of Tread Treadmills Due to Risk of Injury" to its
website, which, among other things, acknowledged that Peloton made
a mistake in its initial response to the CPSC's request that
Defendants recall the Tread+ and should have engaged more
productively with the CPSC from the outset.
Following these disclosures, Peloton's stock price fell $14.08 per
share, or 14.56%, to close at $82.62 per share on May 5, 2021,
further damaging investors.
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]
PEMBER COMPANIES: Filing of FLSA Class Cert. Bid Due August 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY O'BRYAN, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PEMBER COMPANIES,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00664-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered an Amended Scheduling Order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary August 20, 2021
certification of the FLSA class:
(Briefing will proceed on a 21/10
response/reply cycle)
2. Disclosure of all experts: To be Determined
by the Parties
3. Motions & Briefs To Certify/ Feb. 18, 2022
Decertify Classes:
(Briefing will proceed on
a 28/14 response/reply cycle)
4. Deadline for filing dispositive August 19, 2022
motions:
(Briefing will proceed on a
21/10 response/reply cycle)
5. Settlement Letters: December 16,
2022
6. Discovery Cutoff: December 16,
2022
7. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all January 6, 2023
motions in limine:
8. Objections: January 20, 2023
9. Final Pretrial Conference: February 1, 2023
10. Jury Selection and Trial: February 13,
2023
Pember resides in Menomonie, Wisconsin and specializes in
construction, concrete and excavating work.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fUCzGu at no extra charge.[CC]
PHOENIX, AZ: Police Dep't Sued for Falsely Arresting Protesters
---------------------------------------------------------------
This past Friday, May 28, 2021, legendary trial civil rights
attorney William "Billy" Murphy Jr. of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy,
Martell Harris of the Trial Law Firm, and Steve Benedetta of The
People's Law Firm of Phoenix announced the filing of a lawsuit on
behalf of community organizations and activists including Black
Lives Matter Phoenix Metro and social justice activist Maxima
Guerrero.
"For years, Phoenix PD has engaged in mass human rights violations
to silence, intimidate, and attempt to disappear those demanding
change. With this lawsuit, that stops now," said Steve Benedetta,
The Peoples Law Firm.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona alleges that Phoenix PD unconstitutionally arrested and
used excessive force against innocent citizens for decades,
identifying several instances, including a recent incident where
Phoenix PD shot pepper spray or rubber bullets into crowds of
peaceful protestors. The lawsuit alleges that on May 30, 2020,
consistent with its pattern and practice, Phoenix PD officers
arrested activist Maxima Guerrero and hundreds of individuals in
downtown Phoenix and falsely charged them with committing a felony,
using manufactured evidence.
"In my many years of experience handling civils right protest
cases, this abuse against demonstrators ranks as some of the worst.
We will seek justice on their behalf, BLACK LIVES MATTER," said
William "Billy" Murphy Jr.
Two days before the day in question, Phoenix PD, unprovoked and
without cause, declared the peaceful assembly of protestors to be
unlawful and began shooting the protestors with pepper balls,
pepper spray, tear gas, and rubber-coated bullets. All but eight
protestors disbursed, but the protestors returned the following day
for a second peaceful protest. Once again, unprovoked and without
cause, Phoenix PD declared the assembly unlawful and shot pepper
balls and tear gas to disburse the crowds. The following day,
protestors returned again. But this time, Phoenix PD did not let
the crowds disburse. They began to chase the protestors down,
rounding up and arresting 124 people for committing the crime of
being in downtown Phoenix while exercising their First Amendment
rights. The arrestees were held for hours in poorly ventilated or
unventilated transport vehicles (during a worldwide pandemic)
without access to water or restrooms, and they also spent time in
jail. All 124 individuals were charged with felony rioting with
cut-and-paste statements of probable cause. Ultimately, these
statements of probable cause were all thrown out by the judges in
front of whom the 124 individuals initially appeared.
"This department demonstrated that it has no boundaries when it
comes to abusive tactics and excessive use of force. This lawsuit
is a first step to remedying all the trauma that has been caused by
the department. But it doesn't end there. We are going to continue
to use our people power to challenge what safety really means --
because Phoenix PD doesn't keep us safe," said
Maxima Guerero.
About Murphy, Falcon & Murphy
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy is a Baltimore-based law firm specializing
in complex civil, criminal, and civil rights litigation. Our
powerhouse legal team has a history of unrelenting dedication to
its clients in Baltimore and across the country. Our team of
seasoned trial lawyers has extensive experience in a wide variety
of cases with success rates that dwarf national averages and is
dedicated to providing smart strategies and creative approaches to
complex litigation. Our team is driven and strategy-focused
—characteristics that have helped us secure more than $900
million in verdicts and settlements, including over $75 Million in
police cases throughout the country. Our attorneys have won some of
the largest verdicts in high-profile, high-stakes cases in some of
the toughest jurisdictions around the country. The firm represented
Freddie Gray, Jr. and William H. Green, achieving historic
settlements of $6.4 million and $20 million, respectively, for
federal and state civil rights violations that led to their
deaths.
*Each case is different. Past success does not guarantee a
favorable result in any future case.
Media Contact: Zachary McDaniels | zach.mcdaniels@murphyfalcon.com
| 410-951-8750; Heather Hamel | media@the-plf.com | 602.456.1901
[GN]
PINTEREST INC: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of June 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on June 1
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against Pinterest, Inc. (NYSE: PINS) ("Pinterest") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Pinterest securities
between February 4, 2021 and April 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 28, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/pinterest-inc-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pinterest
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500
Pinterest operates a platform that provides inspiration for its
users' lives. Monthly active users ("MAUs") are the number of
Pinterest users who interact with Pinterest at least once during
the 30-day period ending on the date of measurement.
Throughout the Class Period, the defendants touted its user
engagement and growth. However, the truth was revealed on
April 27, 2021 when, after the market closed, Pinterest announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results and reported that global
monthly active users grew only 30% year-over-year to 478 million, a
decline from the prior quarter's 37% year-over-year growth.
Pinterest further announced that, "[i]n Q2, we expect global MAUs
to grow in the mid-teens and US MAUs to be around flat on a
year-over-year percentage basis."
Following this news, Pinterest's share price fell $11.25, or 14.5%,
to close at $66.33 per share on April 28, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) user growth
was already slowing; (2) as a result, Pinterest expected user
engagement to slow in the second quarter of 2021; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
Pinterest's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Pinterest investors may, no later than June 28, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in
this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.
For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Provention Bio, Inc. ("Provention" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRVB)
securities between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Provention investors have until July 20, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Provention investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/provention-bio-inc/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
In November 2020, Provention completed the rolling submission of a
Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for teplizumab for the delay or prevention
of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals (the "teplizumab BLA").
On April 8, 2021, the Company published a press release
"announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2,
2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of
the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of
clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time."
On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or
17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the teplizumab
BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require
additional data to secure FDA approval; (2) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (3) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; 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 or otherwise acquired Provention securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 20,
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 wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]
RENEW LIFE: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renew Life Holdings
Corporation. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Renew Life
Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-04942-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 3,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
ReNew Life -- https://www.renewlife.com/ -- offers the Highest
Potency Probiotics & highest quality Herbal Cleanses, Digestive
Enzymes, Fish Oil & Fiber Supplements on the market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: nyjg@aol.com
michael@gottlieb.legal
RESORT SALES: Court Junks Albin Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORREST ALBIN, et al., v.
RESORT SALES MISSOURI, INC., et al., Case No. 20-03004-CV-S-BP
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court in its discretion finds that Plaintiffs have not
satisfied the numerosity requirement of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a).
Because numerosity is a prerequisite to class certification, this
is an independent reason to deny their motion.
The Defendants Resort Sales Missouri and Spinnaker Resorts together
comprise a real estate development and timeshare sales company.
Some of the properties for which Defendants sell timeshares are
located in Branson, Missouri. The Plaintiffs Forrest Albin and
Katherine Albin executed a purchase agreement for a timeshare at
Defendants' property in Branson. Along with the price for the
timeshare -- totaling $22,500.00 –- thev Defendants charged
Plaintiffs a "processing fee of $400," which was purportedly to
cover "the recording of the deed, [and] the legal fees and
administrative fees to process the closing documents." The
Plaintiffs later learned that Defendants charged the same
Processing Fee to all timeshare purchasers.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TNniyL at no extra charge.[CC]
ROMEO POWER: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on June 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Romeo Power, Inc. ("Romeo" or the "Company")
(f/k/a RMG Acquisition Corp.) (NYSE: RMO) 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-04058, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded securities of Romeo between October 5, 2020
through March 30, 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 Romeo 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.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
represented that for 2020 Romeo estimated revenue of $11 million,
and for 2021 Romeo estimated revenue of $140 million. Defendants
further represented that Romeo had "key partnerships" and close
relationships with LG Chem, Samsung, Murata and SK Innovation,
which manufacture battery cells, a key component in Romeo's battery
modules and packs and that they were supplying Romeo with battery
cells. Furthermore, Defendants represented that Romeo had the
capacity and supply to meet end-user demand for Romeo's products,
that Romeo was not beholden "to any level of the value chain", that
its supply was hedged, and that it did not see any material
challenges that would hamper growth.
Unknown to investors, Romeo was suffering from an acute shortage of
high quality battery cells, which are key raw materials for Romeo's
battery packs and modules, because of supply constraints. Contrary
to Defendants' representations: (i) Romeo had only two battery cell
suppliers, not four; (ii) the future potential risks that
Defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had
already occurred and were already negatively affecting Romeo's
business, operations, and prospects; (iii) Romeo did not have the
battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up
production in 2021; (iv) Romeo's supply constraint was a material
hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth; and (v) Romeo's supply chain
for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk
and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market
for their 2021 inventory. Given the supply constraint that Romeo
was experiencing during the Class Period, Defendants had no
reasonable basis to represent that the Company had the ability to
meet customer demand and that it would support growth in revenue in
2021.
On March 30, 2021, after the market closed, Romeo issued a press
release and filed a report with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on Form 8-K that disclosed its financial
results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2020, and
conducted a conference call with investors and analysts. Defendants
shocked investors by disclosing that the Company's production had
been hampered by a shortage in supply of battery cells and that its
estimated 2021 revenue would therefore be reduced by approximately
71-87%.
During a conference call with investors after the disclosure of
Romeo's financial results and projected results, Defendant Lionel
E. Selwood, Jr. ("Selwood, Jr.") disclosed that the Company had
been relying solely on Samsung and LG for its supply of power
cells.
On March 31, 2021, Morgan Stanley issued a research report in which
it downgraded Romeo's target price per share from $12 to $7.
Also on March 31, 2021, Romeo shares declined from a closing price
on March 30, 2021 of $10.37 per share to close at $8.33 per share,
a decline of $2.04 per share, or almost 20%, on heavier than usual
volume of over 20 million shares.
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
www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN]
ROMEO POWER: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of June 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Romeo Power, Inc.
(NYSE:RMO). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage.
Investors who purchased RMO stock or other securities between
October 5, 2020 and March 30, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/RomeoPower for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/RomeoPower
The case alleges that Romeo Power and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i)
Romeo Power had only two battery cell suppliers, not four; (ii) the
future potential risks that defendants warned of concerning supply
disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already
negatively affecting Romeo Power's business, operations, and
prospects; (iii) Romeo Power did not have the battery cell
inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in
2021; (iv) Romeo Power's supply constraint was a material hindrance
to Romeo Power's revenue growth; and (v) Romeo Power's supply chain
for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk
and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market
for their 2021 inventory. It is alleged that given the supply
constraint Romeo Power had no reasonable basis to represent that it
had the ability to meet customer demand and that it would support
growth in revenue in 2021.
Interested Romeo Power investors have until June 15, 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/RomeoPower
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/RomeoPower [GN]
RXR 810 FULTON: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RXR 810 Fulton Owner
LLC. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. RXR 810 Fulton Owner LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04926 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
RXR 810 Fulton Owner LLC -- https://www.rxrrealty.com/ -- owns and
develops real estate properties. The Company offers property
management, development, design, construction, leasing, and
financing 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
SCHAKOLAD CORP: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schakolad Corp., et
al. The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Schakolad Corp., Schakolad
International Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-04941 (S.D.N.Y., June 3,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Schakolad Chocolate Factory -- https://www.schakolad.com/ -- is the
internationally acclaimed brand for fresh, handmade European style
chocolates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SCHEELS ALL: Blind Consumers Can't Access Website, Graciano Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHEELS ALL SPORTS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-04852-VEC (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.scheels.com/, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that
contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Scheels All Sports, Inc. is a company that operates the Scheels
online retail store across the United States, with its principal
executive office located at 4550 15th Avenue S., Fargo, North
Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@gottlieb.legal
SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Opris Sues Over Patients' Disclosed Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIMONA OPRIS, ADRIAN ADAM and BRITNEY RICHARDSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SINCERA
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, formerly known as and operating as ABINGTON
REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 210502726 (Pa. Ct.
Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, and declaratory judgment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to protect the
personally identifying information (PII) or protected health
information (PHI) of its customers following a data breach that
occurred between August 10, 2020 and September 13, 2020. Moreover,
the Defendant failed to notify the Plaintiffs and Class members of
the data breach within 60 days as required by law. As a result of
the Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach of its
duty to handle PII and PHI with reasonable care, the Plaintiffs'
and Class members' PII and/or PHI has been accessed by hackers and
exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, the suit
alleges.
Sincera Reproductive Medicine, formerly known as and operating as
Abington Reproductive Medicine, P.C., is a provider of reproductive
health services, with a principal place of business at 1245
Highland Avenue, Suite 404 in Abington, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Richard Golomb, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
- and –
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Kelly Iverson, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
1133 Penn Ave., Fl. 5
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
SMG HOLDINGS: McCarthy Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN MCCARTY, an
individual, FABIAN GUERRERO, an individual, and DAVID BABCOCK, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. SMG HOLDINGS I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SMG HOLDINGS II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; SMG, a general partnership; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-06232-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
action
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3);
2. certifying the following Classes:
-- Class: All non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in San
Francisco, California during the period of October 27,
2013 through the date of the order granting class
certification (Class Period).
-- Class: All non-exempt employees of Defendant SMG in
Stockton, California during the Class Period.
3. certify the following Subclasses:
-- San Francisco Class:
Rounding Subclass: All non-exempt employees of the
Defendant SMG in San Francisco who were not paid for all
time they were clocked in during the Class Period.
Meal Period Subclass: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in San Francisco who worked one or more shifts over
five hours during the Class Period.
Rest Break Subclass: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in San Francisco who worked one or more shifts over 3.5
hours during the Class Period.
Reimbursement Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in San Francisco who were not reimbursed by
Defendants for the cost of the use of their personal cell
phones for SMG's business purposes incurred during the
Class Period.
Wage Statement Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in San Francisco who received a wage
statement during the Class Period.
Waiting Time Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in San Francisco who separated from their
employment during the Class Period.
-- Stockton Class:
Rounding Subclass: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in Stockton who were not paid for all time they were
clocked in during the Class Period.
Meal Period Subclass: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in Stockton who worked one or more shifts over five
hours during the Class Period.
Rest Break Subclass: All non-exempt employees of Defendant
SMG in Stockton who worked one or more shifts over 3.5
hours during the Class Period.
Reimbursement Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who were not reimbursed by
Defendants for the cost of the use of their personal cell
phones for SMG's business purposes incurred during the
Class Period.
Wage Statement Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who received a wage statement
during the Class Period.
Waiting Time Subclass: All non-exempt employees of
Defendant SMG in Stockton who separated from their
employment during the Class Period.
4. appointing the Plaintiffs Shawn McCarty, Fabian Guerrero, and
David Babcock as representatives for the proposed Classes;
and
5. appointing Matern Law Group, PC, Matthew J. Matern, Mikael H.
Stahle, and Irina A. Kirnosova as Class Counsel for the
proposed Classes.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the classes and subclasses for
the following claims alleged in the operative complaint: (a)
failure to provide required meal periods; (b) failure to provide
required rest breaks; (c) failure to pay overtime wages; (d)
failure to pay minimum wages; (e) failure to pay all wages due to
quitting employees; (f) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements; (g) failure to indemnify employees for necessary
business expenditures incurred in discharge of duties; and (h)
violation of the Unfair Competition Law.
SMG Holdings offers venue management and development services.
A copy of the Court's order the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
dated May 21, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2S3iZyW at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
Irina A. Kirnosova, Esq.
MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 531-1900
Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
SN SERVICING: Grenadyor Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SN Servicing
Corporation. The case is styled as Yury Grenadyor, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SN Servicing
Corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02980 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Sn Servicing Corporation -- https://www.snsc.com/ -- is located in
Eureka, California and is part of the Mortgage Banking
Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH P. DOYLE, LLC
105 South Roselle Road, Suite 203
Schaumburg, IL 60193
Phone: (630) 460-7655
Email: jdavidson@fightbills.com
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shea v. Specialized Loan
Servicing, LLC, Case No. 8:20-cv-01935 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
James S. Moody, Jr entered an endorsed order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time.
The Plaintiff's deadline to file his class certification motion is
extended to August 13, 2021, says Judge Moody.
The nature of suit involves restrictions of use of telephone
equipment.
Specialized Loan Servicing operates as a financial company. The
Company offers residential mortgages.[CC]
STATE STREET: Faces Gomes Suit Over Retirement Plan Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH GOMES; EVA M. CONNORS; JENNIFER BOWEN; KATISHA SHOULDERS;
KENNETH N. MARENGA; PAMELA PRISCO CARPENTER; STEVEN PETERS; and
ZHANNA KARP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE STREET CORPORATION; STATE STREET BANK
& TRUST COMPANY; NORTH AMERICA REGIONAL BENEFITS COMMITTEE OF STATE
STREET CORPORATION; INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF STATE STREET
CORPORATION; and JANE and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-10863 (D. Mass., May 25, 2021) alleges violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
According to the complaint, the Defendants were required by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA") to act solely in the interest of the Plan's participants
and beneficiaries ("Participants") when making decisions with
respect to selecting and monitoring the Plan's investments, and the
fees and expenses associated with those investments.
Rather than fulfilling these fiduciary duties, among the "highest
duties known to the law," by offering the Plaintiffs and the other
investors in the Plan only prudent investment options at reasonable
cost, the Defendants allegedly selected for the Plan and repeatedly
failed to remove or replace imprudent proprietary investment funds
("State Street Funds") managed and offered by the Defendant State
Street Corporation ("State Street" or "Company") and its
subsidiaries or affiliates. These funds were not selected and
retained as the result of an impartial or prudent process, but were
instead selected and retained because the Defendants benefited
financially from their inclusion in the Plan to the detriment of
the Participants.
By choosing and then retaining these proprietary investment funds,
to the exclusion of alternative investments available in the
401(k)-plan marketplace, the Defendants enriched themselves at the
expense of their own employees. The Defendants also breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to monitor the Plan's administrative
fees, and likewise failing to consider the prudence of retaining a
poorly performing money market fund. The Defendants committed
further statutory violations by engaging in conflicted transactions
expressly prohibited by ERISA, the suit added.
State Street Corporation services institutional investors and
manages financial assets worldwide. The Company's products and
services include custody, accounting, administration, daily
pricing, international exchange services, cash management,
financial asset management, securities lending, and investment
advisory services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
E-mail: alawrence@scott-scott.com
-and-
Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
8068 East Del Acero Drive
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: (480) 889-3514
E-mail: gwotkyns@scott-scott.com
-and-
Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Ave., 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: tkorkhov@scott-scott.com
-and-
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Daniel J. Carr, Esq.
Kevin P. Conway, Esq.
Jamie L. Falgout, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY
A Professional Law Corporation
1519 Robert C. Blakes Sr. Drive
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: jpeiffer@peifferwolf.com
dcarr@peifferwolf.com
kconway@peifferwolf.com
jfalgout@peifferwolf.com
STERLING BANCORP: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
STERLING BANCORP, INC.; GARY JUDD; THOMAS LOPP; MICHAEL MONTEMAYOR;
SCOTT SELIGMAN; BARRY ALLEN; JON FOX; SETH MELTZER; SANDRA
SELIGMAN; PETER SINATRA; BENJAMIN WINEMAN; LYLE WOLBERG; PIPER
SANDLER COMPANIES; AND AMERICAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.
Case 5:20-cv-10490-JEL-EAS
SUMMARY Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,
Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
TO:
All Persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Sterling Bancorp,
Inc. (SBT) common stock during the period from November 17, 2017,
through and including March 17, 2020 (the "Settlement Class
Period"), including shares sold in the initial public offering that
commenced on November 17, 2017 (the "Settlement Class")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS
COURT.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, STERLING BANCORP, INC., OR ANY
OTHER DEFENDANT OR THEIR COUNSEL, REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR
ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT
INFORMATION IS PROVIDED BELOW. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE
SETTLEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON THE SETTLEMENT WEBSITE:
www.SterlingBancorpSecuritiesLitigation.com.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Settlement
Class in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been
preliminarily certified for the purposes of the proposed settlement
only.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and the proposed
Settlement Class, and the Defendants have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action for $12,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement
Amount"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action
(the "Settlement").
A hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held before the
Honorable Judith E. Levy, United States District Judge for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
either via telephonic or video conference, or in Courtroom 100,
Federal Building, 200 E. Liberty Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
at 2:00 p.m. on September 16, 2021, to, among other things,
determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action
should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants, as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), dated April
16, 2021; (iii) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Settlement Fund, and any interest earned thereon, less Taxes,
Notice and Administration Costs, Litigation Expenses awarded by the
Court, attorneys' fees awarded by the Court, and any other costs,
expenses, or amounts as may be approved by the Court (the "Net
Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
(iv) the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved.
The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing
another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Final Approval
Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement
Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received (i)
the printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed
Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses ("Notice"), or (ii) the
Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Claim Form"), you can obtain a
copy of those documents on the website
www.SterlingBancorpSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Claims Administrator:
Sterling Bancorp Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173130
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Please refer to the website for more detailed information and to
review the Settlement documents. Inquiries other than requests for
information about the status of a claim may also be made to Lead
Counsel:
Kristin J. Moody
Berman Tabacco
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund you must
timely submit a valid Claim Form, which can be found on the website
listed above, postmarked no later than August 10, 2021.
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
If you are a potential Settlement Class Member, but wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Notice, which can also be found on the website, postmarked
no later than August 26, 2021. If you are a potential Settlement
Class Member and do not timely exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or
Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses must be submitted to the Court in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice, received or postmarked no
later than August 26, 2021.
DATED: May 10, 2021
THE HONORABLE JUDITH E. LEVY
District Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan
URL : http://www.bermantabacco.com[GN]
STRAIGHT SMILE: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Straight Smile, LLC.
The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Straight Smile, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04923 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
StraightSmile Solutions -- https://www.straightsmilesolutions.com/
-- is the first online portal to provide doctor-to-doctor
orthodontic consulting solutions.[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
TARGET CORPORATION: Cinnamon Mills Seeks to Certify Employee Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINNAMON MILLS,
individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01460-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., Filed: June 10, 2020), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. determining that a class action is proper as to the first
through third causes of action in the operative Second
Amended Complaint on the grounds that: (1) the class is
sufficiently numerous, (2) common questions of law and fact
predominate over individual issues, (3) the class
representative’s claims are typical of the class, (4) the
class representative will adequately represent the interests
of the class, and (5) class treatment is superior.
2. certifying a class defined as follows:
"All former non-exempt 14 employees that were employed by the
Defendants in the State of California that, from June 10,
2016 to the present, (a) received shift differential pay
during the last workweek worked, (b) had vested vacation owed
upon separation of employment, and (c) upon separation of
employment, were paid for vested vacation at a rate that did
not include the shift differential pay;"
3. Finding the Plaintiff Cinnamon Mills to be an adequate
representative and certifying her as the Class
representative; and
4. finding the Plaintiff's counsel and their firms, namely Brian
J. Mankin and Peter J. Carlson of Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP
and Deepak Gupta and Neil Sawhney of Gupta Wessler PLLC, as
adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel.
Target Corporation is an American retail corporation. The
eighth-largest retailer in the United States, it is a component of
the S&P 500 Index.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated May 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fYAoBQ
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff, on a representative basis and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are:
Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
LAUBY, MANKIN & LAUBY LLP
4590 Allstate Drive
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: (951) 320-1444
Facsimile: (951) 320-1445
E-mail: brian@lmlfirm.com
peter@lmlfirm.com
- and -
Deepak Gupta, Esq.
Neil K. Sawhney, Esq.
GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
1900 L Street NW, Suite 312
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 888-1741
E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com
neil@guptawessler.com
TH EXPLORATION: Southern Country Files Suit in N.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TH Exploration, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Southern Country Farms, Inc., a West
Virginia Corporation, individually, and on behalf of all
individuals and legal entities similarly situated v. TH
Exploration, LLC, TH Exploration II, LLC, Tug Hill Operating, LLC,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00084-JPB (N.D.W. Va., June 3, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of
Contract.
Tug Hill Operating -- https://tughilloperating.com/ -- is a
privately held, independent oil & gas exploration company focused
on drilling and producing oil and clean-burning natural gas in the
continental United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Kepple, Esq.
BAILEY & WYANT, PLLC
1219 Chapline St.
Wheeling, WV 26003
Phone: (304) 233-3100
Fax: (304) 233-0201
Email: mkepple@baileywyant.com
- and -
Robert L. Redfearn, Esq.
Robert L. Redfearn, Jr., Esq.
SIMON, PERAGINE, SMITH & REDFEARN
1100 Poydras Street, #3000
New Orleans, LA 70163
Phone: (504) 569-2994
Fax: (504) 569-2999
Email: robert@spsr-law.com
robertjr@spsr-law.com
- and -
Thomas E. White, Esq.
WHITE LAW OFFICE
604 Sixth St
Moundsville, WV 26041
Phone: (304) 845-7008
Fax: (304) 845-7016
Email: twhite@lawyer.com
THERMO TECH: Court Terminates Bid for Conditional Collective Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the class, v. THERMO TECH
MECHANICAL INC., et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-09113-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order terminating the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective certification.
The Court says that no response to the motion is required unless a
reinstatement application is granted, in which case the time to
respond of any adverse party will be calculated from the date of
service of the order of reinstatement and in accordance with Local
Civil Rule 6.1 of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Furthermore, the Court directs Defendants'
attention to S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rules 6.1(b), 7.2, and 12.1.
Thermo Tech specializes in Sales, Installation and Maintenance of a
wide range of heating and air conditioning equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fQ1r2e at no extra charge.[CC]
TOMS KING: 6th Circuit Affirms FACTA Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Hahn, Esq. -- chahn@mauricewutscher.com -- of
Maurice Wutscher, disclosed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a consumer's claims
that a retail food store violated the federal Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act of 2003's "truncation requirement" by
printing more digits of the consumer's credit card than permissible
by statute.
In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit held that the alleged violation did
not establish an increased risk of identity theft, and thus, did
not satisfy Article III's injury in fact requirement to establish
standing for her FACTA claim, agreeing with the majority of the
other federal appellate courts on this issue.
The case is Thomas v. TOMS King (Ohio), LLC.
A consumer made a purchase at a fast-food restaurant location
operated by a franchisee that owns over 130 locations of the
prominent burger chain, where she allegedly received an
electronically printed receipt containing the first six and last
four digits of her credit card number.
As you may recall, FACTA was enacted in 2003 as an amendment to the
Fair Credit Reporting Act aimed to prevent identity theft, and
provides that "no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards
for the transaction of business shall print more than the last five
digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt
provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction." 15
U.S.C. § 1681c(g)(1) (the "truncation requirement").
The consumer filed a putative class action complaint against the
restaurant and its related corporate entities ("restaurant") on
behalf of all similarly situated customers who received allegedly
noncompliant receipts from the restaurant within two years of the
suit's filing date, alleging violations of FACTA's truncation
requirement.
The trial court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the
basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
consumer's claims because she failed to demonstrate any harm to her
identity based upon the restaurant's technical violation of FACTA,
and that allegations of hypothetical future injury were
insufficiently concrete to confer standing under Article III. The
instant appeal followed.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit noted that, to satisfy Article III
standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an
injury in fact, (2) caused by defendants, that (3) is redressable
by a judicial decision (Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547
(2016)). The appellate court further noted that the injury-in-fact
requirement is not automatically satisfied by a statutory violation
(Id., at 1549) but requires a "concrete injury even in the context
of a statutory violation." Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 140 S. Ct.
1615, 1620–21 (2020) (quoting Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549).
Here, the consumer contended that she suffered a concrete injury
based on a congressional grant of a statutory right and remedy. The
Sixth Circuit acknowledged that "the violation of a procedural
right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to
constitute injury in fact . . . [and] a plaintiff in such a case
need not allege any additional harm beyond the one Congress has
identified" (Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549).
However, the Sixth Circuit rejected the consumer's claim that the
risk of identity theft here constituted a concrete injury, as
consistent with the findings of other circuits presented with
identical facts (disclosure of the first six and last four digits
of the consumer's credit card). See Muransky, v. Godiva
Chocolatier, Inc., 979 F.3d 917, 928-29 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc);
Katz v. Donna Karan Co., LLC, 872 F.3d 114, 116 (2d Cir. 2017);
Noble v. Nevada Checker Cab Corp., 726 F. App'x 582, 583 (9th Cir.
2018) (first and last four digits); see also Kamal v. J. Crew Grp.,
Inc., 918 F.3d 102, 113 (3d Cir. 2019) (Clarification Act enacted
after FACTA, which limited liability for printing the expiration
date, "also expresses Congress's judgment that not all procedural
violations of FACTA will amount to concrete harm").
The consumer further claimed that the increased risk-of-injury
constituted real harm, arguing that FACTA creates a concrete
interest "vest[ing] consumers with an interest in using their
credit and debit cards without facing an increased risk of identity
theft." See Jeffries v. Volume Servs. Am., Inc., 928 F.3d 1059,
1064 (D.C. Cir. 2019). In Jeffries, the D.C. Circuit held that the
plaintiff did suffer an injury in fact because the receipt which
contained all 16 digits and the expiration date "contained enough
information to defraud [the plaintiff]." Id., at 1067.
The Sixth Circuit reasoned that the Jeffries court found standing
because the complaint alleged sufficient fats to establish that a
violation of the statute actually caused harm or risk of harm, but
that no such risk existed here, because the consumer's complaint
failed to aver how "whether the challenged violation of [the
plaintiff's] statutory right harmed or created a ‘risk of real
harm' to the concrete interests protected by FACTA." Id., at 1065.
Moreover, the consumer here did not allege that the receipt was
lost, stolen, or seen by a third set of eyes, and while forcing her
to safeguard her receipt can be a legitimate injury, such a
hypothetical future harm is not a concrete injury. Muransky, 979
F.3d at 931 (internal quotation omitted).
Lastly, the Sixth Circuit considered the consumer's arguments that
the intangible harm caused by the purported FACTA violation was
analogous to common law torts of breach of confidence and invasion
of privacy. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in
Spokeo, "it is instructive to consider whether an alleged
intangible harm has a close relationship to a harm that has
traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
English or American courts." 136 S. Ct. at 1549.
The Jeffries court concluded that a FACTA violation resembles a
common law breach of confidence because the truncation requirement
establishes a similar relationship of trust between consumer and
merchant by requiring the merchant to safeguard a customer's card
information (Jeffries, at 1064–65), but other circuit courts have
found no resemblance.
The Third Circuit in Kamal rejected the analogy because there was
no allegation of disclosure of the consumer's information to a
third party (Kamal, 918 F.3d at 114) while the Eleventh Circuit
found any analogy lacking based on the absence of disclosure to a
third party and lack of a confidential relationship that typically
exists between a consumer and retailer. (Muransky, at 932).
Noting that the receipt was not disclosed to a third party causing
injury or increased risk of harm, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the
Third and Eleventh Circuit's view rejecting the consumer's breach
of confidence analogy, as well as her invasion of privacy analogy
on the same basis.
Because the consumer failed to satisfy Article III's injury in fact
requirement, the trial court's dismissal of her FACTA claim was
affirmed. [GN]
TRUEACCORD CORP: Mautner Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Tessa Mautner, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SN Servicing Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-01489-JPH-MPB (S.D. Ind., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is a digital debt
collection agency that is reinventing the collections
experience.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy L. Cueller, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW
43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
Email: acueller@lemberglaw.com
UBIO LABS: Graciano Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store
--------------------------------------------------------------
SANDY GRACIANO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBIO LABS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-04853-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.ubiolabs.com/, allegedly contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links that
contain no text, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Ubio Labs, Inc. is a company that operates the Ubio Labs online
retail store across the United States, with its principal executive
office located at 2821 Northup Way, Suite 250, Bellevue,
Washington. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@gottlieb.legal
UTILIQUEST LLC: Madrigal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Utiliquest LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Saul Madrigal, Jr., on behalf of himself.
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public
v. Utiliquest LLC, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00301302-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
UtiliQuest, LLC -- https://utiliquest.com/ -- provides facility
location and infrastructure protection services. The Company
locates and marks underground infrastructure for electric, gas,
telecom, and cable utility companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio N., Ste. 205
San Diego, CA 92108-1631
Phone: 619-234-2833
Fax: 619-234-4048
Email: jvecchi@maralawfirm.com
VEOLIA NORTH: Jones Class Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Melvin Jones, Jr. v.
Veolia North, Case No. 5:21-cv-10937-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees
and costs is granted and his case is dismissed with
prejudice.
-- All pending motions are denied as moot.
-- No further filings or proceedings shall take place in this
matter without prior approval of the Court.
On April 27, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the
Defendant Veolia North, and the case was assigned to the Honorable
Arthur J. Tarnow. That same day, the Plaintiff applied to proceed
in forma pauperis.
A copy of the Court's order dated May 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vYmPrJ at no extra charge.[CC]
VILLAGE HEALTH: Estate of Ericka Suit Removed to D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned The Estate of Ericka Iva Trusty, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated; Amy Fettig, Wendy
Plute, individually and as the personal representative of The
Estate of Ericka Iva Trusty v. VILLAGE HEALTH CARE, INC., John Does
1-100; Village Health and Rehabilitation, an assumed business name
of VILLAGE HEALTH CARE, INC.; The Goodman Group, LLC; The Goodman
Group, an assumed business name of THE GOODMAN GROUP, LLC;
COMMUNITY NURSING INC.; John Does I-XXX; Case No. DV-32-2021-
0000089-NE was removed from the Montana Fourth Judicial District
Court, Missoula County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Montana on June 3, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:21-cv-00069-DLC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury.
Village Health -- https://villagehc.com/ -- is a Gresham, OR
Post-Acute Care and Rehabilitation facility helps patients recover
from surgery, injury or illness.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael C. Doggett, Esq.
DOGGETT LAW OFFICE
2120 S. Reserve St., #130
Missoula, MT 59801
Phone: (406) 442-1160
Fax: (406) 442-8076
Email: mike@doggettlawoffice.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Natasha Prinzing Jones, Esq.
Tyler M. Stockton, Esq.
BOONE KARLBERG, P.C.
201 West Main Street, Suite 300
PO Box 9199
Missoula, MT 59807-9199
Phone: (406) 543-6646
Fax: 549-6804
Email: npjones@boonekarlberg.com
tstockton@booneKarlberg.com
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on June 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Virgin
Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) securities between October 26,
2019 and April 30, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 27, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops
human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the
U.S.
On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed via a
business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings
Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and
the Company's then-private predecessor ("Legacy Virgin Galactic"),
after which SCH changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings,
Inc." and its ticker symbol to "SPCE" (the "Business
Combination").
On April 12, 2021, the SEC issued guidance advising that SPAC
warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy
additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as
liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which
had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals.
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) for
accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as
liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company improperly
accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the
Business Combination; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced "that it
has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the
first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on
Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference
call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day
at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company
is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by
the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of
warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the
‘SEC Statement')." The press release further advised that
"following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its
advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial
statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely
to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital
Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the
Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company
expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference
call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental
non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019."
On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share,
or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 2021.
If you purchased SPCE securities during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa
Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 27 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 1 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:SPCE) securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Lavin v.
Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc., No. 21-cv-03070, and is assigned to
Judge Allyne R. Ross. The Virgin Galactic class action lawsuit
charges Virgin Galactic and certain of its top executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Virgin Galactic securities during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Virgin Galactic
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with
the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the
putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Virgin Galactic class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Virgin Galactic class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Virgin Galactic class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Virgin Galactic class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the Virgin Galactic class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins
Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Virgin
Galactic class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later
than July 27, 2021.
Virgin Galactic is an integrated aerospace company that develops
human spaceflight for private individuals and researchers in the
U.S. On October 25, 2019, Virgin Galactic was formed via a business
combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.
("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") and Virgin
Galactic's then-private predecessor, after which SCH changed its
name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to
"SPCE."
The Virgin Galactic class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) for accounting purposes, SCH's
warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than
equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls
and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii)
consequently, Virgin Galactic improperly accounted for SCH warrants
that were outstanding at the time of the business combination; and
(iv) as a result, Virgin Galactic's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On April 30, 3021, Virgin Galactic announced that Virgin Galactic
was rescheduling its reporting of its financial results for the
first quarter 2021 "due to the recent statement issued by the [U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission] on April 12, 2021 relating to
the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose
acquisition companies (the ‘SEC Statement')." Virgin Galactic
further advised that "following its review of the SEC Statement and
consulting with its advisors, the Company will restate its
consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The
restatement is due solely to the accounting treatment for the
warrants of [SCH] that were outstanding at the time of the
Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company
expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference
call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental
non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019." On this news, Virgin
Galactic's stock price fell more than 9%, damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. ISS
Securities Class Action Services has ranked Robbins Geller as one
of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered and
total number of class action settlements for shareholders every
year since 2010. The SCAS 2020 Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller
first for recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more
than double the amount recovered by any other plaintiffs' firm.
Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and
have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded
investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing
corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial
markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are
consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and
the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Sued by Investor Over SPAC's Accounting Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zeke Faux at bloomberg.com reports that Virgin Galactic Holdings
Inc. was sued by an investor who claims he lost money when the
space-tourism company announced that it would restate its results
due to regulatory guidance about the accounting treatment of
warrants.
The Las Cruces, New Mexico-based company said on April 30 that it
would have to restate its 2020 results because of accounting
guidance of regulators related to special purpose acquisition
companies, or SPACs. The next trading day, its shares fell 9%. The
company combined with Social Capital Hedosophia, run by former
Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya, and went public in October
2019.
The Securities and Exchange Commission set forth new guidance in
April that warrants, which are issued to early investors in the
deals, might not be considered equity instruments and may instead
be liabilities for accounting purposes. In a SPAC, early investors
buy units, which typically includes a share of common stock and a
fraction of a warrant to purchase more stock at a later date.
They're considered a sweetener for backers and many companies
treated them as equity instruments for accounting purposes.
The investor, Shane Lavin, said in the lawsuit filed in federal
court in Brooklyn, New York, that Virgin Galactic and its
executives knew that the results they were reporting were wrong.
They are seeking class-action status for their lawsuit. Many other
SPACs have made or are considering similar restatements due to the
accounting treatment of warrants.
Virgin Galactic's stock has been volatile. Since May 3, the day of
the price drop that Lavin is suing over, its shares have climbed
55%.
Representatives of Virgin Galactic didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.
The case is Lavin v. Virgin Galactic Holdings Inc., 21-cv-03070,
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 29 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 29, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Volkswagen AG ("Volkswagen" or the "Company")
(OTC: VWAGY) securities between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Volkswagen investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/volkswagen-ag/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On March 29, 2021, Volkswagen published a draft press release
announcing its American subsidiaries' supposed name change to
"Voltswagen." Media outlets reported that they confirmed with the
Company that the name change was real. As reported by CNBC,
"Volkswagen accidentally posted a press release on its website a
month early on May 31 announcing a new name for its U.S.
operations, Voltswagen of America, emphasizing the German
automaker's electric vehicle efforts." On this news, Volkswagen
AG's share price sharply rose.
On March 30, 2021, however, The Wall Street Journal published an
article titled "No, Volkswagen Isn't Rebranding Itself Voltswagen:
German car maker says announcement by its U.S. operation was
supposed to be an April Fools' gag." The article noted that
"[i]nvestors have been clamoring for shares of companies involved
in electric vehicles and have recently been pouring money into the
stocks of established car makers with solid EV plans." Other
outlets reported that the Associated Press was repeatedly assured
by Volkswagen that its U.S. subsidiary planned a name change, which
was false.
On this news, Volkswagen AG's share price fell more than 5% over
the next two trading days, thereby injuring investors.
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) "Voltswagen"
was never going to be used by the Volkswagen, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. ("VWoA"), or on any relevant vehicle; (2) Volkswagen,
VWoA, and their spokespeople purposefully misled reporters
regarding the now-purported "joke" and/or "promotion"; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Volkswagen securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June 29,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reported that on
May 20, 2021, Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed with prejudice
a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a car manufacturer and
certain of its current and former Board members. Mucha v.
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2021 WL 2006079
(E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2021). Plaintiffs alleged the company engaged in
anticompetitive conduct which rendered a number of statements in
the company's SEC filings false or misleading. The Court held that
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that the alleged
misstatements were false, and therefore dismissed the complaint in
its entirety.
As a threshold issue, the Court considered defendants' arguments
that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual
defendants and that Germany was a more appropriate forum. As for
personal jurisdiction, the Court explained that due process
requires both that a particular defendant has sufficient contacts
with the forum to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction and
that the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable in that
specific instance. Id. at *4. Because the Exchange Act provides for
worldwide service of process, the Court noted that the "minimum
contacts" requirement turns on whether the defendant should
"reasonably anticipate being hailed into court" in the United
States. Id. Although the individual defendants had not signed any
SEC filings, the Court held that the exercise of personal
jurisdiction was proper because they signed Board reports and other
materials that were posted to company websites in English, "thus
suggesting that [they] knew that U.S. investors would rely upon
them." Id. at *6. However, the Court agreed that it lacked
jurisdiction as to one individual defendant who had not been served
and did not appear in the action, and whom plaintiffs conceded they
would be unable to serve. Id. at *5.
The Court also rejected defendants' motion for dismissal based on
forum non conveniens. The Court first considered various factors
regarding the litigants and found they did not weigh heavily one
way or the other. For example, the Court declined to accord any
deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum, explaining that
plaintiffs had failed to allege their residence and therefore the
Court could not determine if they were United States citizens, and
there were also indications that plaintiffs had engaged in "forum
shopping" to gain access to comparatively favorable law in New York
courts regarding class action litigation and discovery. Id. at
*8-10. Moreover, the Court noted that the majority of the evidence
and witnesses were in Germany, and that plaintiffs conceded that
Germany was an adequate forum, id. at *9-10, but that, on the other
hand, the company's resources "may mitigate" the extent of any
burden and the company had "not identified any witnesses who would
be unwilling to appear in New York," id. at *10. However, the Court
determined that the fact that the company sponsored American
Depository Shares in the United States "weighs heavily in favor in
finding that this Court is an appropriate forum." Id. at *9. The
Court thus concluded that, on balance, the "private interest
factors are neutral" and that defendants could not meet the "heavy
burden in the forum non conveniens analysis" to overcome the
"strong interest" of the "Court and the public at large" in
"ensuring a domestic means of redress for victims of fraud in the
United States securities markets." Id. at *10-11.
Turning to the challenged statements, the Court first explained
that, while plaintiffs provided detailed allegations of the
company's anticompetitive conduct in coordinating with other German
automakers, plaintiffs failed to identify any specific law that had
been violated or to allege specifically how defendants' conduct
violated that law. Id. at *14. The Court distinguished plaintiffs'
allegations from other cases in which courts had declined to
dismiss allegations based on unlawful conduct where a specific law
was alleged to be violated. Id. at *14-15. Here, in contrast,
plaintiffs merely referred generally to "competition laws
established by the European Commission and Germany," which the
Court held was insufficient. Id. Thus, the Court held that the
complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for this reason
alone.
Nevertheless, the Court examined "alternative bases for dismissal"
in the interest of "completeness." Id. at *15. While plaintiffs
claimed that certain statements regarding commodities prices were
misleading because the prices depended on the company's
anticompetitive conduct and not global economic forces, the Court
held that there were no specific facts alleged to show why the
statements were false. Id.
Further, the Court held that challenged statements regarding the
company's culture and goals, including its "compliance with
international rules" and "fair treatment of our business partners
and competitors," were quintessential examples of nonactionable
puffery. Id. at *15-16. With respect to statements that the company
had prepared its financial statements in compliance with
International Financial Reporting Standards, the Court observed
that the company was not required to disclose allegedly
anticompetitive conduct until authorities began investigating the
company's conduct, and such investigations only commenced well
after the challenged statements were made. Id. at *16. The Court
also concluded that the Company was not otherwise required to
disclose the alleged unlawful conduct prior to these
investigations. Id. at *17.
Nevertheless, the Court concluded that certain other challenged
statements were potentially actionable and could create a duty to
disclose illegal conduct inconsistent with those statements, even
if there was otherwise no independent duty to disclose such
conduct. Id. For example, the Court determined that statements that
the company faced challenges from the "difficult market
environment" and "fierce competition," but was nonetheless "in a
good position globally compared to [its] competitors," were
potentially actionable because they referred to overcoming specific
pressures from competition but did not "tell the whole truth"
regarding alleged anticompetitive activities with its competitors.
Id. at *18.
The Court next evaluated plaintiffs' allegations with respect to
scienter for this category of challenged statements. The Court
rejected plaintiffs' suggestion that an anonymous email sent at an
unknown time and referencing a "‘secret' meeting" supported
allegations of conscious misbehavior or recklessness because, if
anything, the email suggested the meeting at issue might not be
secret. Id. at *19. In addition, the Court explained that media
reports describing unsourced communications speculating about the
risk of a finding of anticompetitive behavior were also lacking in
detail and only suggested that some unknown individuals had
misgivings about the activities in question. Id. With respect to
allegations that the company's CEO had a reputation for being a
micromanager and that he had advocated for the company to engage in
specific improper conduct, this was not sufficient to connect the
CEO to the broader anticompetitive activities that allegedly took
place. Id.
The Court noted that plaintiffs' strongest argument was that the
company's alleged misconduct was so widespread that the company's
leadership must have known about it, particularly as to statements
occurring after the company voluntarily disclosed to the European
Commission suspected infringements of European anticompetition law.
Id. Indeed, the Court determined that it was reasonable to infer
that the company's Board knew of the disclosure and therefore there
was a strong inference of scienter for a statement thereafter
touting the company's success in "achiev[ing] a new vehicle sales
record in 2016 amid fierce competition in a market environment that
remained challenging." Id. However, for this statement, the Court
had already separately determined that plaintiffs failed to
sufficiently allege falsity and that the company's conduct was
unlawful. Id. at *21. Moreover, the Court observed that plaintiffs
failed to raise any allegations of scienter for the period prior to
the company's disclosure to the European Commission, and in
particular there were no allegations that the company's senior
leadership were involved in meetings where anticompetition concerns
were raised. Id. at *20. Thus, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Volkswagen, AG (OTC: VWAGY) investors
that acquired shares between March 29, 2021 and March 30, 2021.
Investors have until June 29, 2021 to seek an active role in this
litigation.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click https://portnoylaw.com/volkswagen/
to join the case.
It is alleged in this complaint that Volkswagen made misleading and
false statements to the market. Volkswagen and Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. had never planned to use "Voltswagen" in any form,
including as the name of vehicle. Volkswagen misled the general
public and the media in regard to the "Voltswagen" name that it
claims was either a "promotion" or a "joke." Based on these facts,
Volkswagen's public statements were materially misleading and false
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about Volkswagen, investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 29,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]
WAGEWORKS INC: August 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
regarding the WageWorks, Inc. Class Action Settlement.
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF WAGEWORKS, INC. BETWEEN MAY 6, 2016 AND MARCH
1, 2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
-OR-
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF WAGEWORKS, INC. ISSUED PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO
THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR WAGEWORKS' PUBLIC
OFFERING ON JUNE 19, 2017 (THE "OFFERING" OR "JUNE 2017 OFFERING")
AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.
(COLLECTIVELY THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division, that a settlement between Lead Plaintiffs, the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, the Government
Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands, and the Public
Employees Retirement System of New Mexico (collectively "Lead
Plaintiffs"), and WageWorks, Inc. ("WageWorks"), Joseph L. Jackson,
Colm M. Callan, Robert L. Metzger, Mariann Byerwalter, Thomas A.
Bevilacqua, Bruce G. Bodaken, Jerome D. Gramaglia and John W.
Larson (collectively "Defendants") in the amount of $30,000,000
(the "Settlement") has been proposed.
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White,
United States District Judge, on August 20, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 5 of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street,
Oakland, CA 94612 for the purpose of determining, among other
things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; (ii) whether, thereafter, this
Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 1, 2021;
(iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is
fair and reasonable and should be approved; and (iv) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of Lead Counsels' attorneys' fees and expenses, with interest,
incurred in connection with this Action. The Court has reserved the
right to reschedule the hearing without further notice.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement
thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may obtain
them from www.wageworkssettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:
WageWorks, Inc. Securities Litigation
P.O. Box 147
Warminster, PA 18974-0147
www.wageworkssettlement.com
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
STEPHEN R. BASSER
SAMUEL M. WARD
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 230-0800
or
JEFFREY A. BARRACK
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 963-0600
www.barrack.com
wageworkssettlement@barrack.com
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim
postmarked or received no later than September 14, 2021
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further
described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim,
unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 30, 2021. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no
later than July 30, 2021.
This is only a summary. For details, including information on
objecting or filing an opt-out, or to file a claim, visit the
settlement website, www.wageworkssettlement.com, or call the Claims
Administrator at 1-833-326-0773.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS
NOTICE.
ORDER DATED: May 3, 2021 [GN]
WASHINGTON, DC: Settles Class Action Over Foster Care System
------------------------------------------------------------
Lex Juarez, writing for WDVM, reports that District of Columbia
Mayor Muriel Bowser announced the end of a 31-year-old class-action
lawsuit filed on behalf of children who relied on the District's
foster care system.
"This exit from court oversight recognizes our commitment to
protecting our most vulnerable children and exemplifies our DC
values. It says that as a community, we're dedicated to making sure
our families get the services they need to keep their children safe
and well," said Mayor Bowser.
According to a press release from the Mayor's office, LaShawn A. v.
Bowser ended in a settlement with the city after an agreement was
reached by all parties. The settlement was also affirmed as fair,
reasonable and adequate by United States District Court Judge
Thomas Hogan.
Mayor Bowser said, "With a steadfast focus on family, love, and
prevention, I am proud that CFSA has transformed into a national
leader in the child welfare space. I want to thank Director Brenda
Donald and the CFSA staff for their commitment to our children, our
families and community stakeholders for their support, and also the
Office of the Attorney General and the Plaintiff's Counsel for
their partnership in getting us to today."
The District has taken steps to strengthen its child welfare system
over the past three decades, including establishing the D.C. Family
Court and the Child and Family Services Agency as a cabinet-level
agency, founding the Healthy Families/Thriving Communities
Collaboratives network and more.
Attorney General Karl Racine issued a statement following the
announcement that the lawsuit was over. He said, "Today is a
critical step for the District and our most vulnerable residents -
abused and neglected children - and I'm proud we were able to help
CFSA achieve this milestone. Just in the past year and a half, my
office has concluded two-decades-long cases involving court
administered reforms of District agencies – both of which
centered around children – allowing the District to operate
efficiently to protect and serve the District's most vulnerable
children," said AG Racine. "The reforms at CFSA will help protect
children, but the work isn't done. The agency must continue
providing robust in-home services whenever possible to help reduce
the trauma and impact on children caused by removal from their
families and placement in foster care."
If there are no concerns from the plaintiffs about CFSA's
compliance with the settlement, it will expire at the end of June
2022. [GN]
WESBANCO BANK: Luckett Sues Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------
Regina Luckett, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated brings this class action against WesBanco Bank,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-00081, (N.D. Va., May 28, 2021)
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
WesBanco for the unfair and unconscionable assessment and
collection of "overdraft fees" on accounts that were never actually
overdrawn, and more than one "insufficient funds" fee on the same
item in breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.
Lucket claims that the checking account contract documents
discussing overdraft fees promise that WesBanco will only charge OD
Fees on transactions where there are insufficient funds to cover
them, and will assess only one insufficient funds fee on the same
item or transaction.
WesBanco is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers in Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Maryland. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott S. Segal, Esq.
Jason P. Foster, Esq.
THE SEGAL LAW FIRM
810 Kanawha Blvd E
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: (855) 344-9100
Fax: (304) 344-9105
Email: scott.segal@segal-law.com
Jason.foster@segal-law.com
- and -
Taras Kick, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
815 Moraga Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Phone: (310) 395-2988
Fax: (310) 395-2088
Email: taras@kicklawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielpllc.com
WEST AUSTRALIA: Indigenous Stolen Wages Suit Goes to Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Barry, writing for ABC, reports that Gordon Marshall started
working on stations when he was just 14.
He worked at Yeeda, Waterbank and Oombagooma stations around the
Kimberley, before being called up for national service.
His family's history is steeped in the pastoral industry, with his
grandmother working on a droving team at Fraser Downs stations and
his father working as a caretaker.
Over the years, Mr Marshall and his family were subject to a West
Australian government wage policy that meant 75 per cent of their
wages could be legally withheld.
Mr Marshall was just one of hundreds of litigants who signed on to
Shine Lawyers' class action last October, calling on the state
government to repay stolen wages to former pastoral, pearling and
domestic workers.
He was notified that an order for mediation to start in earnest had
been filed in the Federal Court.
"There's a lot of people that I know that will welcome this news --
especially our Indigenous older guys," Mr Marshall said.
"They lived and breathed cattle stations . . . I can't wait to ring
a couple of them and tell them that there's negotiations going on
because they really worked hard.
"A lot of those guys are still walking around in cowboy gear."
Court dates set
The decision to move to mediation had been carefully considered by
Shine Lawyers representatives, who said they were keen to begin
thrashing out a compensation model with the government as soon as
possible.
Shine Lawyers Special Counsel Tristan Gaven said it had been a goal
of both sides to fast-track any legal proceedings.
"What's happening now is the parties are going to meet, sit down
and work together to develop a framework for allowing the matter to
resolve without the need to go to trial," he said.
"We've been really encouraged by the state government's attitude
. . . trials are costly and quite drawn out and resolving it by
way of agreement or settlement is obviously the quickest way and
the cheapest way to resolve these issues.
"That invariably means good outcomes for people that are part of
the case."
A mediation mention date has been set down for June 16, while the
mediation hearing itself is set to take place on July 2.
Mr Gaven said while it was a quicker process than a trial, there
were still myriad issues that needed to be worked through to find
an acceptable compensation scheme.
"We're still not in a position where we have all the information we
need to really have comfort around what a reasonable settlement
would look like, and I'm sure the state's in a similar position,"
he said.
"I do think there will be more mediations, this is really just
getting an understanding of what each of the parties need to come
to an agreement."
State government comes to table
A spokeswoman for WA Attorney General John Quigley's office said
the government was taking a similar approach to the proceedings.
"Over the coming months, the government will look to achieve a
mediated outcome, with an acknowledgement of the impact that
historical government policies have had on Aboriginal people and
their families over many years," she said.
"To enable the parties to mediate the matter, no other court dates
have been set."
Mr Marshall said while it was good to hear the state government had
come to the table around compensation, he hoped particular
attention would be given to the families of workers who had since
died.
"I really do hope they do compensate families for what their
mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers did out on cattle
stations," he said.
"I think compensating the families for what their elders have done
in building the pastoral industry in the Kimberley is [so
important]." [GN]
WOLLBORG-MICHELSON: De Vries Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wollborg-Michelson
Personnel Service, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Heather De
Vries, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wollborg-Michelson Personnel Service, Inc., Health Net of
California, Inc., Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00301282-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May 24, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".
Wollborg Michelson Recruiting -- https://www.wmjobs.com/ -- is one
of the most progressive, quality-oriented staffing services in
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, A PROFFESIONAL LAW CORPORATION
777 S Alameda St., Fl. 2
Los Angeles, CA 90021-1657
Phone: 213-358-7046
Website: www.lebelaw.com
WORLD FINANCIAL: Jordan Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA ELENA JORDAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG21097126, 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 June 1, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04158 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Unfair Competition Law
including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay hourly wages and overtime, failure to
timely pay all final wages, failure to indemnify business expenses,
and unfair competition.
World Financial Group, Inc. is a multi-level marketing company
based in Johns Creek, Georgia. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael W. Kelly, Esq.
G. David Godwin, Esq.
Lilah J. Sutphen, Esq.
Katie A. Sharpless, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 954-0200
Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
E-mail: michael.kelly@squirepb.com
david.godwin@squirepb.com
lilah.sutphen@squirepb.com
katie.sharpless@squirepb.com
ZINGERMANS.COM: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zingermans.Com, LLC.
The case is styled as Evelina Calcano, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Zingermans.Com, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-04943 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Zingermans -- https://www.zingermans.com/ -- ships great food
anywhere in America from Zingerman's Mail Order including gift
boxes of bread, cheese, meat, pastry and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
[*] Canadian Court Tosses Class Action v. Ice-Hockey Leagues
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Masson, writing for Global Competition Review, reports that
a Canadian court has dismissed a class action claim against several
major North American ice-hockey leagues accused of conspiring to
restrict opportunities for junior players, confirming that criminal
cartel rules do not apply to buyer-side agreements. [GN]
*********
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 ***