/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210614.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 14, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 112 Headlines ACADIA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 18 Deadline AMIGOFOODS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ARCIMOTO INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of June 18 Deadline ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 13 Deadline ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Deadline ARS NATIONAL: Ostrozynski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ATERIAN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 12 Deadline ATHLETA LLC: Barnett Suit Removed to M.D. Florida BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Reopen EDD Debit Card Fraud Claims BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Files Suit in E.D. Missouri BEND MEMORIAL: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due Oct. 15 BOILER SEAFOOD: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Smith Suit Claims BORO CONCRETE: Flores et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BP PLC: Dutch Courts Do Not Have Jurisdiction in Class Action Case BUSH ROSS: Steele Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Harp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CARDINAL MULTI: FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Action Cert. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Breda TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Affirms $11.5 Million Lease Deals CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline CIGNA HEALTH: Negron Seeks to Amend Class Certification Sched Order COMME DES: Misclassifies Managers, Abbott et al. Suit Claim CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Invalidates Wesson Oil Class Settlement CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 16 Deadline CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 16 Deadline CORIZON HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 30 CVS HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Workers Fund's RICO Suit D. HOUSTON INC: Court Strikes 3 Consent to Join Forms in McMinn DALLAS JONES: Bid to Dismiss McClurg Amended Complaint Tossed DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Laptop Ads E-3 SYSTEMS: $125K Class Action Deal in Franco Suit Gets Final Nod EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Seeks to Certify Class of Cash Buyers FLANDERS CORP: Court Stays Wyllie BIPA Class Suit Until August 23 FOOTPRINT ACQUISITION: Underpays Retail Merchandisers, Street Says FREQUENCY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Destination Charges GENERAL MOTORS: Wiretapping Class Action Transferred to Delaware GLOBAL TRUST: Mao Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia GSK CONSUMER: Settlement Deal in Swetz Class Suit Initially OK'd GW PHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline HAWAII: Nash Suit Removed to District of Hawaii HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due Oct. 6 HONDA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Drained Batteries HU PRODUCTS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HUNAN MANOR: Denial of Chen Class Certification Bid Endorsed ICAN BENEFIT: Not Covered for $60M TCPA Ruling, 11th Cir. Says INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Connecticut, Texas Franchisees Join Suit JOHN HANCOCK: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $14 Million JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Ellenberger et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Seat Belt Problems KIA MOTORS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 17, 2022 KNACK LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York KROGER COMPANY: Conditional Cert. of Supervisor Collective Sought KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Federal Shareholder Class Action Dismissed LABORATORY CORP: Bouffard Has Until July 16 to File Class Cert. Bid LHOIST NORTH: Fuapau, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclass LLR INC: Van Seeks to Strike Expert's Declaration LNN INC: Insurer Says Not on the Hook for BIPA Class Action LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Farah Suit Wins Conditional Certification LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Children's Mental Health Can Proceed LOVE PRESSED: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Davis Suit Claims MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Green County Files Suit in N.D. California MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Pembroke City Suit Removed to N.D. California MDL 2999: JPML Rejects Bid to Centralize 10 Acthar Gel Suits MERCATO INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Houman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Plastics Files Suit in E.D. Texas MOLAOI RESTURANT: Faces Villada Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MONTANA: Tribal Members Eligible for Class Action Payment MYRIAD GENETICS: LAFPP Seeks to Certify Class of Investors NATIONAL INTEGRATED: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California NAUTILUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Walker Suit NCAA: Walker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana NEC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Kennedy Files Suit in D. South Carolina NOOM INC: Deracleo Sues Over Deceptive Autorenewal Policies NURTURE INC: Gothot Suit Transferred to S.D. New York NVR INC: Conditional Cert. of Loan Employee FLSA Collective Sought OMNI SPECIALTY: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Allicks Class Suit ONITY INC: Misclassifies Trainers & Installers, Boggs Claims OREGON DOC: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due August 17 OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Parducci Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass PALISADES ACQUISITION: McCrobie Seeks to Certify Class Action PALM BEACH, FL: May Spend Up to $850K to Defend Class Action PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 28 Deadline PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 28 Deadline PEPPERIDGE FARM: Continues to Face Suit Over Mislabeled Crackers PRECISION CASTPARTS: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Class Suit PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces New TCPA Class Action Over Robotexts PROVENTION BIO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 20 Deadline PURECYCLE TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ROBERT BAFFERT: Federman & Sherwood Discloses Class Action Lawsuit ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 15 Deadline S-L DISTRIBUTION: July 19 Extension of Opposition Brief Sought SAFECO INSURANCE: Montana Court Certifies 2 Classes in Dow Suit SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd SANTANDER BANK: Bray Files Class Suit in District of South Dakota SAPPI PAPER: Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination SDI INT'L: Stay of Ruling on Conditional Certification Bid Sought SEATTLE CHOCOLATE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Discovery Completion Due Sept. 13 SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Magistrate Judge Tosses ERISA Class Action SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach SKYLINE APARTMENT: Faces Suit From Tenants Over Property Management SOUTH AFRICA: NGOs Mull Class Action Over Cop-Smuggled Firearms SUMMER WWK: July 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response Sought SUPERPLASTIC INC: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind TAHOE RESOURCES: July 1 Filing Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought TYRO PAYMENTS: May Face Second Class Action Over Summer Outage UBIQUITI INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline ULTA SALON: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages UNITED STATES: "Unlawful" Live Export Ban Suit Could Hit $800M VALE S.A.: CAAT Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class VIRGIN GALACTIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Alvarado Seeks to Certify Class of Employees WASHINGTON DOC: Court Tosses Hudson Bid for Class Certification WASHINGTON PRIME: Rosen Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline WASHINGTON TRUST: Court Certifies Class of Account Holders WFM PRIVATE: Parties to Narrow Scope of Kellman Discovery Dispute WORTHY FLAVORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Claims ********* ACADIA PHARMA: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia") (NASDAQ: ACAD) between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 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/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16551&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. Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. NEWS - ACAD NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) the materials submitted in support of the pimavanserin supplemental new drug application (sDNA) contained statistical and design deficiencies; (ii) accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Food and Drug Administration Agency was unlikely to approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Acadia, you have until June 18, 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 Acadia securities between June 15, 2020 and April 4, 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/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16551&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. [GN] AMIGOFOODS CORP: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amigofoods Corp. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Amigofoods Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-05072 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Amigofoods -- https://www.amigofoods.com/ -- is the largest online grocery store offering a wide variety of hard to find and freshly imported foods and drinks from all over Latin America and Spain.[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 ARCIMOTO INC: Zhang Investor Reminds of June 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Arcimoto, Inc. (NASDAQ: FUV) between February 14, 2018 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). To join the class action, go to http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=arcimoto-inc&id=2697 or call Sophie Zhang, Esq. toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action. http://zhanginvestorlaw.com/join-action-form/?slug=arcimoto-inc&id=2697 If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court before the JUNE 18, 2021 DEADLINE. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, (1) the preorders of Arcimoto's Fun Utility Vehicles ("FUVs") were fabricated or never completed, with only 19 units delivered out of an alleged preorder of 422; (2) Arcimoto failed to disclose to customers that nearly 100% of its vehicles delivered were under safety recall; (3) Arcimoto's largest customer, R-Key-Moto, was an undisclosed related party owned by insider FOD Capital, LLC; (4) Arcimoto's partnership with HULA was an undisclosed related party transaction; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Lead plaintiff status is not required to seek compensation. You may retain counsel of your choice. You may remain an absent class member and take no action at this time. Zhang Investor Law represents investors worldwide. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.[GN] ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Array Technologies, Inc. ("Array" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ARRY): (a) securities between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with (1) the October 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"); or (2) the December 2020 secondary public offering (the "December 2020 SPO"); or (3) the March 2021 secondary public offering (the "March 2021 SPO," and together with the IPO and the December 2020 SPO, the "Offerings"). Array investors have until July 13, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. In October 2020, Array completed its initial public offering, selling 7 million shares at $22 per share. On May 11, 2021, after the close of trading, Array announced first quarter 2021 results, reporting lower revenues year-over-year and lower margins as a result of increased steel and shipping costs. The Company also announced that Peter Jonna had resigned from the Board of Directors effective May 10, 2021. On this news, Array's stock price fell $11.49 per share, or 46%, to close at $13.46 per share on May 12, 2021, significantly below the IPO price. The complaint filed alleges that in the registration statements for the Offerings and 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) dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain commodities such as steel was in the process of more than doubling, and Array was facing increasing freight costs; (2) the increases in commodity and freight costs had been negatively impacting the Company's business and operations; 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 Array securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 13, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Array securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 2 disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. KDMN Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16471&wire=1 DOX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amdocs-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=16471&wire=1 ARRY Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/array-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16471&wire=1 * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW * Kadmon Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:KDMN) KDMN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 1, 2020 - March 10, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16471&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kadmon Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Amdocs Limited (NASDAQ:DOX) DOX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased December 13, 2016 - March 30, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 8, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/amdocs-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=16471&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Amdocs Limited made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Amdocs overstated its profits, cash, and liquidity, while understating its debt; (ii) Amdocs concealed its large borrowing; (iii) while Amdocs' reported results showed that its North American business was stable, that business was actually deteriorating annually, in part because the Company was losing AT&T as a customer; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. 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 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/array-technologies-inc-information-request-form?prid=16471&wire=1 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. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines 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. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Eduard 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] ARS NATIONAL: Ostrozynski Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services Inc. The case is styled as Isaac Ostrozynski, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. ARS National Services Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03250 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS National Services, Inc. -- https://www.arsnational.com/ -- accounts receivable management services. The Company provides collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ATERIAN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) securities between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Tate v. Aterian, Inc., No. 21-cv-4323, and is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero. The Aterian class action lawsuit charges Aterian 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 Aterian securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Aterian 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 Aterian class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Aterian class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Aterian class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Aterian class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Aterian class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Michael Albert of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Aterian class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 12, 2021. Aterian is a "technology-enabled consumer products platform that builds, acquires and partners with e-commerce brands." Aterian predominantly operates through online retail channels such as Amazon and Walmart, Inc. On December 1, 2020, Aterian announced that it had acquired the assets of "leading e-commerce business brands Mueller, Pursteam, Pohl and Schmitt, and Spiralizer" from 9830 Macarthur LLC, ZN Direct LLC, and Reliance Equities Group, LLC. The Aterian class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Aterian's organic growth was plummeting; (ii) Aterian's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software was a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian used rebate programs and paid for artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result, Aterian's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 4, 2021, analyst Culper Research published a scathing report entitled: "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to You." In this report, Culper wrote that Aterian "has ties to convicted criminals and is promoting what we believe is an overhyped 'AI' narrative and a string of garbage acquisitions to mask the failure of its already ill-conceived core business." Culper continued 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. We think that Aterian's underlying business has failed, forcing [Aterian] to obscure its poor performance with a series of questionable acquisitions." Culper further wrote: "We believe that there are serious problems with Aterian's claims to maintain strong organic growth and to drive M&A synergies: to us, neither of these appears to be the case . . . . In our view, this suggests not only that Aterian is unable to grow EBITDA at acquired businesses, but that its core business is also failing to produce." On this news, the price of Aterian stock fell by approximately 24% the following two trading days, damaging investors. 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 Michael Albert, 800-449-4900 malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ATHLETA LLC: Barnett Suit Removed to M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Jillian Barnett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Athleta LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-21863 was removed from the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on June 8, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00587-MMH-MCR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Athleta -- https://athleta.gap.com/ -- designs clothing that integrates performance and technical features for active women and girls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Elizabeth Bruce Trehan, Esq. Jordan D. Maglich, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 2400 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 222-2083 Fax: (813) 222-8189 Email: jordan.maglich@bipc.com - and - Jennifer Olmedo-Rodriguez, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33136-1822 Phone: (305) 347-5900 Fax: (305) 347-4089 Email: jennifer.olmedo-rodriguez@bipc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Reopen EDD Debit Card Fraud Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Finney and Renee Koury, writing for abc7News, report that a victory on June 1 for legions of jobless workers in California. Thousands reported that fraudsters had drained the money off their EDD debit cards -- and Bank of America denied them a refund. But on June 1 a federal judge ordered the bank to stop automatically denying their claims for refunds, as required by law. The court required the bank to reopen possibly tens of thousands of claims that were automatically denied as fraud swept through the EDD system. The judge ruled the bank likely was violating federal law by failing to investigate each of the claims before shutting them down and often freezing EDD accounts of legitimate workers. This is a huge victory for struggling workers who found hundreds or even thousands of dollars missing from their accounts. They say the bank denied their claims with no explanation and in some cases, froze their EDD benefits entirely. The June 1 order requires Bank of America to reopen all claims that were denied using an automated fraud filter and not an actual investigation. The judge also ordered the bank to stop using filters to freeze all benefits when someone reports fraud on their cards. Hundreds of workers have contacted 7 On Your Side after finding fraudsters stole their EDD benefits -- saying Bank of America simply closed their claims with no explanation. It left many with nothing to live on in the pandemic. The June 1 order is part of a class-action lawsuit that claims Bank of America failed to prevent fraud, did not put security chips on the debit cards, then denied claims when the fraudsters attacked. A class action attorney says the judge realized the urgency of getting folks their money right away. "The court recognized the serious impact that Bank of America's practices have had on unemployed Californians, and that immediate relief is necessary," said Brian Danitz, class action attorney. "People are living out of their cars, they're late, they don't have money for food or medicine." Bank of America said it has always provided a way for cardholders to reopen their claims simply by asking. And thousands have done so. However, it said the June 1 order provides yet another avenue for relief. The bank is required to notify everyone who's entitled to a new review of their claim. [GN] BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Duncan Files Suit in E.D. Missouri ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayer CropScience L.P., et al. The case is styled as Darren Duncan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayer CropScience Inc., Corteva Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF Corporation, a Delaware limited company for corporate parent BASF USA Holding LLC, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives Ltd., CHS Inc., Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., Tenkoz Inc., Case No. 4:21-md-02993-SRC (E.D. Mo., June 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust Litigation. Bayer Crop Science -- https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/ -- is working to help farmers grow food more sustainably.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Connor P. Lemire, Esq. Derek Y. Brandt, Esq. Leigh M. Perica, Esq. MCCUNE, WRIGHT, AREVALO, LLP 231 North Main Street, Suite 20 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 307-6116 Fax: (618) 307-6161 Email: cpl@mccunewright.com DYB@mccunewright.com lmp@mccunewright.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. Edwin G. Harvey, Esq. Sharon B. Rosenberg, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St Louis One US Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6159 Fax: (314) 552-7000 Email: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com eharvey@thompsoncoburn.com srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Erick E. VanDorn, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - Belleville 525 W. Main Street, Suite 300 Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: (618) 277-4700 Fax: (618) 236-3434 Email: evandorn@thompsoncoburn.com - and - Michael J. Nester, Esq. DONOVAN AND ROSE 15 N. 1st St.. Suite A Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: (618) 212-6500 Fax: (618) 212-6501 Email: mnester@drnpc.com - and - Donald M. Flack, Jr., Esq. ARMDTRONG TEASDALE LLP 115 N. Second Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 800-4141 Fax: (618) 659-9530 Email: dflack@atllp.com - and - Eric J. Mahr, Esq. FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP 700 13th Street NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005-3960 Phone: (202) 777-4545 Fax: (202) 777-4555 Email: eric.mahr@freshfields.com - and - Adam C. Hemlock, Esq. David J. Lender, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL ET AL. - New York, NY 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8281 Fax: (212) 310-8007 Email: adam.hemlock@weil.com david.lender@weil.com - and - Lara Bueso Bach, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP - Miami 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33129 Phone: (305) 577-3100 Fax: (305) 374-7159 Email: lara.bach@weil.com - and - Troy A. Bozarth, Esq. HEPLER BROOM LLC - Edwardsville 130 N. Main Street P.O. Box 510 Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510 Phone: (618) 656-0184 Fax: (618) 656-1364 Email: tab@heplerbroom.com - and - Brian Chang, Esq. Nathan P. Eimer, Esq. Eimer Stahl LLP, Esq. Sarah H. Catalano, Esq. Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Esq. Michael L. McCluggage, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 660-7600 Fax: (312) 692-1718 Email: bchang@eimerstahl.com neimer@eimerstahl.com scatalano@eimerstahl.com vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com - and - Paul S. Mishkin, Esq. DAVIS, POLD ET AL. 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 450-4292 Fax: (212) 701-5292 Email: paul.mishkin@davispolk.com - and - Craig C. Martin, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK - Chicago 2 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Phone: (312) 923-2776 Fax: (312) 840-7776 - and - Matt D. Basil, Esq. WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER LLP - IL 300 North LaSalle Street, 50th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 728-9020 Fax: (312) 728-9199 Email: mbasil@willkie.com - and - Barack S. Echols, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP - Chicago 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Phone: (312) 862-2000 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: barack.echols@kirkland.com - and - Colby A. Kingsbury, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP - Chicago-2 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60606-6622 Phone: (312) 212-6500 Fax: (312) 212-6501 Email: colby.kingsbury@faegredrinker.com - and - Kathy L. Osborn, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP - IN-2 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 237-8261 Fax: (317) 237-1000 Email: kathy.osborn@faegredrinker.com - and - Travis Herbert Campbell, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER - St. Louis One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Phone: (314) 259-2933 Fax: (314) 522-8933 Email: travis.campbell@bclplaw.com - and - Barry S. Noeltner, Esq. HEYL ROYSTER PC - Edwardsville 105 W. Vandalia Street, Suite 100 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 656-4646 Fax: (309) 420-0402 Email: bnoeltner@heylroyster.com - and - James R. McGibbon, Esq. Lee A. Peifer, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3996 Phone: (404) 853-8122 Fax: (404) 853-8806 Email: jimmcgibbon@eversheds-sutherland.com leepeifer@eversheds-sutherland.com - and - Timothy J. McCaffrey, Esq. EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 900 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 724-9006 Fax: (312) 724-9322 Email: timmccaffrey@eversheds-sutherland.com BEND MEMORIAL: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due Oct. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fulkerson, et al., v. Bend Memorial Clinic, et al., Case No. 6:20-cv-01579 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered an order granting stipulated motion for extension of discovery & PTO deadlines as follows. -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by Aug. 9, 2021. -- Pretrial Order is due by Aug. 9, 2021. -- Class certification discovery shall be completed by Oct. 15, 2021. -- Expert reports as to class certification are due by Oct. 19, 2021. -- Depositions of class certification experts shall be completed by Dec. 28, 2021. -- Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification/Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by Jan. 14, 2022. -- Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification/Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment shall be filed by Feb. 18, 2022. -- Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum in support of class certification/Defendants' Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by March 9, 2022. -- Non-dispositive motions, excluding trial and trial related motions shall be filed by April 29, 2022. -- Dispositive Motions are due by June 17, 2022. The suit alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bend Memorial Clinic operates multi-specialty clinic in Central Oregon with imaging and lab services.[CC] BOILER SEAFOOD: Underpays Restaurant Workers, Smith Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMAL SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE BOILER SEAFOOD SE, LLC d/b/a THE BOILER 65, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01144-PAB (N.D. Ohio, June 7, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to challenge its alleged unlawful practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bar back from approximately January 2020 to approximately March 2021. The Plaintiff claims that although he and other similarly situated restaurant workers worked significant amounts of overtime for the Defendant, frequently 41 to 50 hours a week, the Defendant deprived them of their overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours they worked over 40. Instead, the Defendant allegedly manipulated their pay stubs to show that they worked only 40 hours per week and only compensated them for 40 hours regardless of the number of hours they have worked. Moreover, the Defendant has failed to maintain accurate and complete records of its employees' time worked and amounts paid, the Plaintiff asserts. The Boiler Seafood SE, LLC d/b/a The Boiler 65 operates a seafood restaurant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44115 Tel: (216) 912-2221 Fax: (216) 350-6313 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com BORO CONCRETE: Flores et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ELMER FLORES, CESAR REYES-ARGUETA, MELVIN VIGIL MEJIA, MAURICIO PEREIRA, JOSE SERRANO GUZMAN, HECTOR CALERO AGUILAR and JAIME MEJIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BORO CONCRETE CORP., and MARTIN J. MOORE, and ERIC CHAVEZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05006 (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendants to recover damages and other injunctive relief for egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants to work as either carpenters, cement mason, or labor-worker, bring this complaint alleging the Defendants of failing to properly compensate them for all hours they worked. Purportedly, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay despite regularly working over 40 hours per week. In addition, the Defendants allegedly failed to keep accurate and complete records for all hours worked by their workers, and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the both the FLSA and NYLL. Boro Concrete Corp. is a company that provides construction services that is owned and operated by Martin J. Moore. Eric Echavez is a manager or executive of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 BP PLC: Dutch Courts Do Not Have Jurisdiction in Class Action Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mijke Sinninghe Damste, Huib Schrama , Abdel Attaïbi and Michel Bosman, of Loyens & Loeff, in an article for Mondaq, report that what does the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 12 May 2021 in VEB v BP mean for the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts in respect of (class action) claims for purely financial loss? Class actions in the Netherlands For many years, the Netherlands has presented itself as the European jurisdiction for collective redress. Since the 1990s, claim organizations have had the option of starting class actions before the Dutch courts to obtain a declaratory relief. Since 2005, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal can declare a collective settlement universally binding. With the entry into force of the Settlement of Mass Damage in Collective Actions Act (Dutch acronym WAMCA) on 1 January 2020, it is now also possible to bring a collective action for damages. Foreign defendants regularly challenge the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts to hear this type of class action. The CJEU now clarifies in its judgment that damage that has occurred in an investment account held in the Netherlands does not, in itself, provide sufficient grounds for the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts on the basis of Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis. This judgment potentially has significant consequences for collective redress through the Dutch courts. Background: Deepwater Horizon On 20 April 2010, an explosion occurred in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-loaded Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Following this oil spill, BP stocks showed a significant price drop. In 2015, the Dutch Association of Stockholders (Vereniging van Effectenbezitters, VEB) summoned BP - with its registered office in London - to appear before the District Court of Amsterdam and brought a collective action on behalf of investors who had bought, held or sold 'BP ordinary shares' through an investment account held in the Netherlands between 16 January 2007 and 25 June 2010. In brief, the VEB took the position that BP had acted unlawfully vis-à-vis these investors by providing incorrect, incomplete and misleading information about (the scope and role of BP in) the oil disaster, as a result of which investors suffered losses due to the a fall in BP's share price. Prejudicial questions from the Dutch Supreme Court The central question in these proceedings is whether the Dutch courts have jurisdiction to hear VEB's claims on the basis of the Erfolgsort (Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis: 'the court of the place where the damage occurred shall have jurisdiction'). The Dutch Supreme Court submitted preliminary questions to the CJEU on 20 September 2019 ( ECLI:NL:2019:1400). The gist of these questions was whether the damages claimed by the VEB as a result of investment decisions taken under the influence of widely disseminated, but incorrect, incomplete and misleading information of an international listed company, provides for a sufficient connection factor for international jurisdiction of the Dutch courts under the Erfolgsort. If not, what additional circumstances are required that (do) justify the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts? Answers CJEU The CJEU reiterates the main rule: the courts of the Member State where the defendant is domiciled have jurisdiction. By way of exception, the defendant may be sued in another Member State's court under Article 7 Brussels I-bis. The CJEU emphasizes that Article 7 Brussels I-bis must be interpreted restrictively and that it must be foreseeable for a defendant where it may be sued. The investment account in which the shares are administered does not provide a sufficient connection factor to justify such exception, according to the CJEU. The CJEU considers it possible that the courts of the Member States in which a listed company complies with its statutory reporting obligations may assume jurisdiction by virtue of the occurrence of the damage. Only in those Member States is it reasonably foreseeable for a listed company that an investment market exists and that it can be held liable. What does this mean for collective redress? The decision of the CJEU not only has consequences for the VEB class action against BP, but also for other class actions that have been (or will be) instituted in the Netherlands. After all, the Dutch courts will not automatically be competent to hear class actions for purely financial loss that has occurred on investment accounts in the Netherlands. Going forward, additional connecting factors will be required. [GN] BUSH ROSS: Steele Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bush Ross, P.A. The case is styled as Rosemary Steele, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Bush Ross, P.A., Case No. 8:21-cv-01300-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Bush Ross, P.A. -- http://www.bushross.com/-- is one of the preeminent law firms in Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC 7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (561) 826-5477 Fax: (561) 961-5684 Email: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com CALIFORNIA CEMETERY: Harp Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against California Cemetery and Funeral Services. The case is styled as Scott Harp, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. California Cemetery and Funeral Services, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. BCV-21-101299 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 8, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." The California Cemetery & Funeral Bureau -- https://www.cfb.ca.gov/ -- is the licensing and regulatory agency for all funeral establishments, funeral directors, and embalmers in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 1635 Pontius Ave., 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 323-302-9675 Fax: 323-549-0101 CARDINAL MULTI: FLSA Suit Seeks Conditional Collective Action Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCISCO MENDOZA, MIGUEL MARTINEZ and KEVIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARDINAL MULTI SERVICES LLC and WILSON O. AGUILAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00685-AJT-TCB (E.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and to facilitate the issuance of notice to all potential class members. Cardinal Multi Services is a residential and commercial asphalt and concrete cutting firm that proudly serves both residents and general contractors. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x77ZiG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Hanna, Esq. Roseann R. Romano, Esq. MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC 1401 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 223-2620 Facsimile: (202) 296-9600 E-mail: mhanna@murphypllc.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Breda TCPA Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN BREDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Case No. 1:16-cv-11512-DJC (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification with respect to her claim that Verizon violated the prerecorded robocall restriction of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Verizon is an American wireless network operator. The mobile network previously operated as a separate division of Verizon Communications under the name of Verizon Wireless. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2RIfxtm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq. Keith Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: tsostrin@keoghlaw.com - and - Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) investors that acquired shares between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021. Investors have until July 6, 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/chemocentryx/ to join the case. It is alleged in this complaint that ChemoCentryx made misleading and false statements to the market. ChemoCentryx designed the study of its Phase III ADVOCATE trial in a manner that created issues relating to the interpretability of trial data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan. This trial data presented serious safety concerns in relation to avacopan. These problems combined to form a deep concern in regard to the viability of ChemoCentryx's New Drug Application for avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Throughout the class period, ChemoCentryx's public statements were false and materially misleading based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the truth about ChemoCentryx. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 6, 2021. 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] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Schall Law Reminds of July 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against ChemoCentryx, Inc. for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. ChemoCentryx designed the study of its Phase III ADVOCATE trial in a manner that presented issues of trial data interpretability to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan. The trial data presented serious safety concerns for avacopan. These problems combined to form a deep concern over the viability of the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for avacopan for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about ChemoCentryx, investors suffered damages. [GN] CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Affirms $11.5 Million Lease Deals ---------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Texas judge has affirmed $11.5 million in bankruptcy court settlements between Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Pennsylvania oil and gas leaseholders with underpaid royalty claims, finding on June 3, 2021, that the deals were fair and reasonable. In his opinion, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal dismissed an appeal of the bankruptcy court's approval of the class action settlements by dissenting leaseholders, rejecting their arguments that the settlements needed more scrutiny than the bankruptcy court gave them. "The settlement is their only practical vehicle for any recovery," he said. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Opinion is available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210608818 Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Chesapeake Energy Corporation's (NASDAQ: CHK) operations are focused on discovering and responsibly developing its large and geographically diverse resource base of unconventional oil and natural gas assets onshore in the United States. Chesapeake Energy and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-33233) on June 28, 2020, after reaching terms of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization to eliminate approximately $7 billion of debt. Chesapeake Energy successfully concluded its restructuring process and emerged from Chapter 11 after winning confirmation of its Chapter 11 plan in January 2021. Chesapeake emerged from bankruptcy with about $3 billion in new financing, a $7 billion reduction in debt, and $1.7 billion cut from gas processing and pipeline costs. CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Churchill Capital Corp IV for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 6, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Lucid Motors ("Lucid") was not ready to produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021 production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle production target touted in the period before its merger with Churchill Capital. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Churchill Capital, investors suffered damages. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com URL: http://www.schallfirm.com[GN] CIGNA HEALTH: Negron Seeks to Amend Class Certification Sched Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY A. NEGRON, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01702-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order amending the scheduling order, to permit them to file an amended motion for class certification narrowing the class definitions to address specific issues that the Court identified. Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Completion of all discovery: Expert discovery Same Fact and expert was adjourned. Amended Motion for Class None 30 days from Certification entry of the Order on this motion Defendant's Opposition None 30 days from to Motion for filing of Class Certification Amended Motion for Class Certification Cigna, a global health service company, offers health, pharmacy, dental, supplemental insurance and Medicare plans to individuals, families, and businesses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/353sYHp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Craig A. Raabe, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Telephone: 860-493-6292 Facsimile: 860-493-6290 E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com craabe@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - William H. Narwold, Esq. Mathew Jasinski, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1681 Facsimile: (860) 882-1682 E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com mjasinski@motleyrice.com COMME DES: Misclassifies Managers, Abbott et al. Suit Claim ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ABBOTT, ELIZABETH AMMERMAN, AMIR AZARCON, SEAN CONWAY, CURTIS HENNAGER, GABRIEL HERRERA, RYAN INWARDS, BLAKE MARTIN, MADISON MURPHY, CARLIN ROLLENHAGEN, WINSTON TOLLIVER, DAVID UNICH, FNAN YSAHAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMME DES GARCONS, LTD., DOVER STREET MARKET NEW YORK LC, ELAINE BEUTHER, and JAMES GILCHRIST, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04929 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful practices and policies that willfully and intentionally violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs, who have worked as either "Sales Managers", "Assistant Floor Managers" and "Floor Managers" for the Defendants, allege that the Defendants misclassified hundreds of rank-and-file employees in order to deprive them of overtime by proliferating fraudulent managerial titles to the point where a single retail store location would have 20-40 "managers" at a given point in time. Despite they regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Defendants did not pay their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate and unadulterated time records, the Plaintiffs allege. Comme Des Garcons, Ltd. is a global luxury fashion brand. Dover Street Market New York LC is a multi-brand retailer. Elaine Beuther is the Chief Financial Officer of Comme des Garcons, Ltd., while James Gilchrist is the General Manager of Dover Street Market New York, LLC. Both Individual Defendants were personally involved in the Corporate Defendants' failure to pay its workers' overtime pay. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Alexander Bernstein, Esq. JOSH BERNSTEIN, P.C. 160 Varick Street, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10013 Tel: (646) 308-1515 E-mail: jbernstein@jbernsteinpc.com CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Invalidates Wesson Oil Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 1 invalidated the settlement of a class action against ConAgra over its allegedly false claim that Wesson Oil was "100% Natural," finding that the District Court inadequately securitized the accord for possible collusion between class members and their counsel as to fees. Class counsel were to receive $5.8 million in fees (plus $978,671 in costs) while claims filed by consumers amounted to only $993,919. The opinion by Circuit Court Judge Kenneth K. Lee faults U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California for approving the settlement without applying Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that a hearing be held to determine, based on enumerated factors, whether the proposed settlement is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." That determination must be made, Lee said, where a settlement is made after class certification, as well as before. In lively prose, he derided the representation by the parties that the value of the injunctive relief that the lawyers obtained was $27 million, saying it was actually nil. The litigation started in 2011. Putative class actions were filed in 11 states claiming that the "100% Natural" label on bottles of Wesson Oil misrepresented the content because genetically modified ingredients were used. The Ninth Circuit in 2017 affirmed class certification in the consolidated actions; ConAgra removed the disputed claim from labels that year; in 2018, a settlement was reached; in 2019, that settlement received judicial approval; and ConAgra sold Wesson to Richardson International in 2019. Lee's Opinion In his opinion reversing the approval, Lee wrote: "We can perhaps sum up this case as 'How to Lose a Class Action Settlement in 10 Ways.' The parties crammed into their settlement agreement a bevy of questionable provisions that reeks of collusion at the expense of the class members: Class counsel will receive seven times more money than the class members; an injunction touted by an expert as worth tens of millions of dollars appears worthless: the defendant agrees not to challenge the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees amount: any reduction in those fees by the court reverts to the defendant; and on and on. "While courts should not casually second-guess class settlements brokered by the parties, they should not greenlight them, either, just because the parties profess that their dubious deal is 'all right, all right, all right.' We reverse the district court's approval of the class settlement because the agreement raises a squadron of red flags billowing in the wind and begging for further review. We hold that under the newly revised Rule 23(e)(2) standard -- courts must scrutinize settlement agreements -- including post-class certification settlements -- for potentially unfair collusion in the distribution of funds between the class and their counsel." Post-Certification Settlements Lee noted that traditionally, settlements that come after a class is certified receive less scrutiny than pre-certification resolutions because there is less of a chance that the lawyers were simply out to get "a quick buck" to the detriment of the interests of class members. But, he said, "class certification does not cleanse all sins, especially when it involves potential collusion over divvying up funds between class counsel and the class (rather than the size of the settlement fund or relief)," adding: "Even after a court has certified a class, class counsel still has the incentive to conspire with the defendant to reduce compensation for class members in exchange for a larger fee. A defendant goes along with this collusion because it cares only about the total payout, not the division of funds between class and class counsel." He declared that a district court must apply "heightened scrutiny to post-class certification settlements in assessing whether the division of funds between the class members and their counsel is fair and 'adequate,' " under Rule 23(e)(2). Value of Injunction Scoffing at the parties' representation that the injunctive relief had a value of $27 million, Lee said: "Under the settlement, ConAgra agreed to refrain from marketing Wesson Oil as '100% Natural.' That sounds great, except that ConAgra already abandoned that strategy in 2017 -- two years before the parties hammered out their agreement -- for reasons it claims were unrelated to this or any other litigation. Even worse, ConAgra's promise not to use the phrase '100% Natural' on Wesson Oil appears meaningless because ConAgra no longer owns Wesson Oil. In reality, this promise is about as meaningful and enduring as a proposal in the Final Rose ceremony on the Bachelor." ("The Bachelor" is an ABC-TV dating show in which a man, after dating several women, chooses the one with whom he desires a relationship with, by presenting her with a rose.) Lee continued: "Simply put, Richardson -- the new owner of Wesson Oil -- can resume using the '100% Natural' label at any time it wishes, thereby depriving the class of any value theoretically afforded by the injunction. ConAgra thus essentially agreed not to do something over which it lacks the power to do. That is like George Lucas promising no more mediocre and schlocky Star Wars sequels shortly after selling the franchise to Disney. Such a promise would be illusory." 'Red Flags' The judge said that three "red flags" -- which the Ninth Circuit counseled in its 2011 opinion in In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation that District Court judges should be on the look-out for in deciding whether to approve the settlement of a class action -- are all present in the proposed settlement with ConAgra. He pointed out that under the agreement, the lawyers would receive "[t]he lion's share of the money -- almost $7 million…while the class receives relative scraps, less than a million dollars"; there is a "clear sailing arrangement" under which ConAgra would not contest the attorney fees sought; and ConAgra would retain, rather than class members receiving, any sums earmarked for attorney fees which the court found excessive. The settlement was opposed by M. Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago, the only class member who opted out of the settlement. The case is Briseño v. Henderson, 19-56297. [GN] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WISH) common stock: (1) between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (2) pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued on connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about December 16, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). ContextLogic investors have until July 16, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your ContextLogic 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/contextlogic-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 December 2020, ContextLogic completed its initial public offering ("IPO") in which it sold 46 million shares at $24 per share. On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, disclosing that by the time of its December 2020 IPO, ContextLogic's monthly active users ("MAUs") had already "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million, primarily in some emerging markets outside of Europe and North America where Wish temporarily de-emphasized advertising and customer acquisition as the company worked through logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year." On this news, ContextLogic's common stock price fell $1.83, more than 10%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021, thereby injuring investors. On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic reported its first quarter 2021 financial results and disclosed that MAUs had declined another 7% to just 101 million. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36 per share, or approximately 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 12, 2021, significantly below the IPO price of $24 per share. 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) ContextLogic's fourth quarter 2020 MAUs had declined materially and were not then growing; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, defendants materially overstated the Company's business metrics and financial prospects. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ContextLogic common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and/or during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 16, 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] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-contextlogic-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html) announces that purchasers of ContextLogic Inc. (NASDAQ: WISH) common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public stock offering ("IPO") and purchasers during the period between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021 (the "Class Period") have until July 16, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ContextLogic class action lawsuit, Boehning v. ContextLogic Inc., No. 21-cv-03671 (N.D. Cal.), which is assigned to Judge James Donato. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased ContextLogic common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with ContextLogic's IPO and ContextLogic common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the ContextLogic 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 ContextLogic class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the ContextLogic class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the ContextLogic class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the ContextLogic class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the ContextLogic class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact Mary K. Blasy of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 631-454-7719 or via e-mail at mblasy@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the ContextLogic class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 16, 2021. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-contextlogic-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html. The ContextLogic class action lawsuit charges ContextLogic and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or violations of the Securities Act of 1933. ContextLogic is a San Francisco-based, global mobile e-commerce company that operates the Wish platform that connects its value-conscious user base to merchants. The ContextLogic class action lawsuit alleges that in the Registration Statement and Prospectus used to conduct the IPO 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. On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed its IPO in which it issued and sold 46 million shares of its Class A common stock at $24 per share, raising more than $1.1 billion in proceeds. In the IPO Registration Statement, ContextLogic claimed to have had 108 million MAUs as of September 30, 2020, the end of the last interim quarter prior to its IPO. ContextLogic stated there that it "define[d] MAUs as the number of unique users that visited the Wish platform, either on [its] mobile app, mobile web, or on a desktop, during the month," emphasizing the materiality of the metric to investors by stating: "We view the number of MAUs as key driver of revenue growth as well as a key indicator of user engagement and awareness of our brand." Yet when ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020 on March 8, 2021, ContextLogic disclosed that in reality, by the time of its December 2020 IPO, ContextLogic's MAUs had already "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million, primarily in some emerging markets outside of Europe and North America where Wish temporarily de-emphasized advertising and customer acquisition as the company worked through logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year." On this news, the market price of ContextLogic common stock declined on March 8, closing down more than 10% at $15.94 per share on unusually high trading volume of more than 10 million shares trading. Yet the market price of ContextLogic common stock remained artificially inflated based on ContextLogic's statements that day about its continued strong demand and its providing first quarter 2021 ("1Q21") sales guidance of $735 to $750 million, representing year-over-year growth of 67% to 70%. Then on May 12, 2020, when ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial results for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, ContextLogic disclosed that its MAUs had declined another 7% to just 101 million. ContextLogic's forward sales guidance also fell short, with its second quarter 2021 revenue guidance of just $715 million to $730 million coming in significantly less than the $759 million the market had been led to expect and far less than the guidance of $735 to $750 million provided for 1Q21. On this news, the market price of ContextLogic common stock declined $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021, on even more unusually high trading volume of more than 42 million shares trading, or more than 7 times the average daily volume over the preceding 10 trading days. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities 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. [GN] CORIZON HEALTH: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fritz, et al., v. Corizon Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:19-cv-03365 (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order granting an extension of time until and including June 30, 2021, to file their forthcoming motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Corizon formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately held prison healthcare contractor in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] CVS HEALTH: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Workers Fund's RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Caremark, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuits styled SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND, and INDIANA CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00046-WES; PLUMBERS WELFARE FUND, LOCAL 130, U.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00447-WES, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Providence. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and five pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)- Defendant Caremark, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc., OptumRx, Inc., Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and MedImpact Healthcare Systems, Inc. - engaged in a nationwide scheme and conspiracy to overcharge third-party payors (TPPs), in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that CVS defrauded and overcharged the health plans in failing to treat its Health Savings Pass (HSP) membership prices as its "Usual and Customary" (U&C) prices when reporting U&C prices to the PBMs. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that CVS and the PBMs conspired to conceal from the TPPs that the HSP prices were not included in its U&C prices. The Defendants are seeking a review of the Court's Order in these consolidated cases, dated May 18, 2021, granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The appellate case is captioned as Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare & Benefit Fund, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-8019, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on May 25, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners CVS PHARMACY, INC. and CAREMARK, LLC are represented by: Timothy K. Baldwin, Esq. WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP 100 Westminster St. Ste 710 Providence, RI 02903-2319 Telephone: (401) 270-4500 E-mail: tbaldwin@whelancorrente.com - and - Robert Belden, Esq. William T. Burke, Esq. Grant A. Geyerman, Esq. Kathryn E. Hoover, Esq. Frank Lane Heard, III, Esq. Enu Mainigi, Esq. Craig D. Singer, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12th St, NW Washington, DC 20005-0000 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 E-mail: rbelden@wc.com wburke@wc.com - and - Robert Clark Corrente, Esq. Christopher N. Dawson, Esq. WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP 100 Westminster St. Ste 710 Providence, RI 02903-2319 Telephone: (401) 270-4500 E-mail: rcorrente@whelancorrente.com Plaintiffs-Respondents SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND; INDIANA CARPENTERS WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; and PLUMBERS WELFARE FUND, Local 130, U.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq. Steve Fimmel, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. Barbara Mahoney, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 2nd Ave., Ste 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 500 Grant St., Ste 2900 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 515-1529 E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com - and - Elizabeth Anne Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S Wacker Dr. 24th Flr Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com - and - Ben M. Harrington, Esq. Benjamin Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave. Ste 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: benh@hbsslaw.com - and - Daniel John Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL & SHAPIRO LLP 455 N Cityfront Plaza Dr. Ste 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert S. Parker, Esq. Stephen M. Prignano, Esq. MCINTYRE TATE LLP 50 Park Row West, Suite 109 Providence, RI 02903-0000 Telephone: (401) 351-7700 E-mail: smp@mtlesq.com - and - William N. Riley, Esq. PRICEPRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue Hammond Block Building Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-8787 E-mail: wriley@rileycate.com D. HOUSTON INC: Court Strikes 3 Consent to Join Forms in McMinn --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KELLY McMINN a/k/a CAMILLA/KAYMA, Plaintiff, v. D. HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a TREASURES, ALI DAVARI, HASSAN DAVARI, and BILL DOE, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-20-1246 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division: (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike Untimely Consent to Join Forms and Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs for Improper Joinder; and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff McMinn filed the action against the Defendants for damages resulting from them violating the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. Alleging that from approximately May 2019 through July 2019 she worked as an exotic dancer at Treasurers, where the Defendants wrongfully misclassified her as an independent contractor not entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff filed the action on April 8, 2020, "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated." In the Joint Discovery/Case Management Plan filed on July 21, 2020, in response to the directive to "describe class-action issues," the parties represented that the "Plaintiff will move for conditional certification." On July 24, 2020, the court entered the Docket Control Order ("DCO"), which sets Oct. 2, 2020, as the deadline for filing motions to amended pleadings and motions to add parties; June 11, 2021, as the deadline for completing discovery; and Aug. 13, 2021, as the date for Docket Call. On Nov. 12, 2020, over one month after the deadline for motions to add new parties, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a "Consent Form for Wage Claim" on behalf of Mary Stumbaugh, which stated that "to the best of my knowledge, I meet the following criteria: I worked for Treasures as a dancer at some point between September 2019 and July 2020." On Dec. 4, 2020, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a second "Consent Form for Wage Claim" on behalf of Kiersten Middaugh, which stated that "to the best of my knowledge, I meet the following criteria: I worked for Treasures as a dancer at some point between 2015 through 2019." Both Stumbaugh and Middaugh also stated that "if my consent form is stricken or if I am for any reason not allowed to participate in this case, I authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to use this Consent Form to re-file my claims in a separate or related action against my employer." On March 30, 2021, over five months after the deadline for motions to add new parties, the Plaintiff's counsel filed a "Consent Form for Wage Claim" on behalf of Lorenza Lombana, which stated that "to the best of my knowledge, I meet the following criteria: I worked for Treasures as a dancer at some point between July 2017 through 2018." Like Stumbaugh and Middaugh, Lombana states that "if my consent form is stricken or if I am for any reason not allowed to participate in this case, I authorize Plaintiffs' counsel to use this Consent Form to re-file my claims in a separate or related action against my employer." The Defendants urge the Court to strike all three consent forms, and to dismiss the opt-ins from the action without prejudice as improperly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. The Plaintiff responds by asking the Court to deny the Defendants' Motion to Strike, and by filing the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint joining the three opt-ins as additional Plaintiffs in the case. Citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 20(a)(1), the Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to allow her amendment and that there is no evidence that the Defendants will be prejudiced by any delay that may result from the late joinder of these Plaintiffs, particularly in light of the fact that the parties have recently agreed to a 45-day extension of the discovery deadline and other pretrial deadlines to allow the parties to complete outstanding discovery. Analysis The Plaintiff filed the pending motion to amend on April 30, 2021, in response to the Defendants' pending Motion to Strike. Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add three additional plaintiffs, Stumbaugh, Middaugh, and Lombana. She argues that there is good cause for her late amendment because the joinder deadline passed in the months leading up to the issuance of the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Swales v. KLLM Transportation Services, L.L.C., 985 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir. 2021), which rejected the commonly accepted standard for conditional certification under the FLSA established in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987). The Defendants argue that neither the Plaintiff's indecision, the scheduling order's lack of a certification deadline, the Fifth Circuit's issuance of the Swales opinion, nor the Plaintiff's failure to pursue discovery constitutes "good cause" for the Plaintiff's untimely motion to file an amended complaint to add new parties. They argue that she cannot show good cause to amend because she has no reasonable explanation for her delay in seeking to amend, and she has had more than enough time to weigh and execute her procedural options. Judge Lake concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause as required by Rule 16(b)(4) to amend her pleadings after the deadline for doing so established by the Court's scheduling order has expired because she has failed to establish a reasonable explanation for the delay, that the proposed amendments are important, that the Defendants will not be prejudiced, or that a continuance would cure the prejudice to the Defendants. The case will proceed as an individual action by Plaintiff McMinn. Conclusion For the reasons he stated, Judge Lake granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike and denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7h3xnh8e from Leagle.com. DALLAS JONES: Bid to Dismiss McClurg Amended Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY MCCLURG v. DALLAS JONES ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a Clay's Trucking, Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The Court notes some concern about McClurg's ability to represent a collective of "similarly situated" employees. FLSA collective actions implicating the MCA exemption typically involve a collective of truck drivers among whom the employer indiscriminately assigned job duties. In those situations, judges can consider the MCA exemption collectively because all drivers performed the same work. Here, however, McClurg premises his allegations on the fact that "Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that [interstate] assignments would not be indiscriminately shared by Plaintiff and Defendant's other drivers." The Court adds that the individualized assignment system seems inconsistent with a collective action because it will require a case-by-case inquiry into the drivers' routes. Even if other drivers had similar medical exemption cards, McClurg must show the drivers all performed similar work to be "similarly situated" for the FLSA. At this stage, however, the Court will credit McClurg's assertions that he will "tailor his motions for conditional and class certification to the group of employees who were similarly situated to Plaintiff" and save this decision for a later date. A copy of the Court's order memorandum opinion and order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gqnyv9 at no extra charge.[CC] DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 13 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 13, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer Scientific Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR) securities between October 5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Danimer 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/danimer-scientific-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On Saturday, March 20, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean? Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer's claims that Nodax, a plant-based plastic that Danimer markets, breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The article alleges that according to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." According to the article, Jason Locklin, the expert who co-authored the study touted by Danimer as validating its material, stated that Danimer's marketing is "sensationalized" and that making broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not accurate" and is "greenwashing." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or roughly 13%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021. On April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a research report entitled "When the Tide Goes Out, What Will Wash Ashore?" In addition to the concerns about Danimer's product biodegradability claims, the report found "multiple conflicting sources of Danimer's facility sizes and production capacity" and "inconsistencies between reported figures and city filings for Kentucky facility capital costs." The report also raised doubts about the strength of the Company's purported partnerships with Pepsi and Nestlé because Pepsi recently sold its equity stake in Danimer and "both the top Pepsi and Nestlé executives with close relationships to Danimer recently resigned." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $2.01, or 8%, to close at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. On May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published a follow-up report. Citing information obtained via a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request from the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection, the report alleged that "Danimer's production figures, its pricing, and rosy financial projections are wildly overstated" and that its Kentucky facility received a notice of compliance violations from the Division for Air Quality. Moreover, "Danimer's PHA average selling price appears to be 30% - 42% below management's claims." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.48, or 20%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $17.66 per share on May 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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: (1) that biodegradable materials such as Nodax could take years to break down; (2) that, as a result, the Company's marketing claims that Nodax products could biodegrade within months were exaggerated and misleading; (3) that monthly biopolymer production and natural gas usage at the Company's Kentucky and Georgia facilities were materially overstated; (4) that Danimer faced compliance violations for its Kentucky facility from the Division of Air Quality; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The first-filed case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Rosencrants v. Danimer Scientific, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02708. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 13, 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] DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Danimer Scientific, Inc. for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before July 13, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Danimer failed to maintain effective internal controls. The Company mischaracterized the size of its operations and its regulatory compliance. The Company overstated the biodegradability of its Nodax product in both landfills and the ocean. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Danimer, investors suffered damages. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com URL: http://www.schallfirm.com[GN] DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Laptop Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Jimenez and Wes Fenlon at pcgamer.com reports that in a class action lawsuit filed in the US district court of Northern California, the owner of an Alienware Area 51M R1 gaming laptop alleges that Dell knowingly misled him with advertisements over the laptop's "unprecedented upgradeability." The 20-page complaint claims that Alienware was "falsely misrepresenting characteristics and qualities of the Area 51M that it knew did not exist," alleging breach of contract and warranty, false advertising and unlawful business practices under the California civil code. The core of the complaint, filed by plaintiff Robert Felter, is that Alienware's advertising gave the impression that owners of a 2019 Area 51M R1 laptop could upgrade to future Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs, like the then-upcoming Intel 10th gen and Nvidia RTX Super GPUs. Neither was possible with the Area 51M R1. Because the 10th gen Intel CPUs moved to a new socket, they weren't compatible with the Alienware Area 51M R1's Z390 motherboard. Dell did later sell GPU upgrade kits for the R1, but they maxed out with the RTX 2080, rather than the faster 'Super' models—meaning anyone who had already purchased the laptop with an RTX 2080 had no way to upgrade it. Felter's lawsuit alleges that Dell knew when it made its promise of "unprecedented upgradeability" that the 51M's upgradeability would be limited by factors like that Z390 motherboard, and that it was a marketing ploy to help sell the 51M before newer hardware showed up. "Dell knew it had to address consumers' hesitation to purchase the Area 51M R1 shortly before its Core Components became outdated," reads the complaint. A lawyer for the plaintiff told Tom's Hardware that "Dell's advertisement to the public didn't place any restrictions on the upgradeability of the laptop" and that Dell "never disclosed that those with the highest spec CPU and/or GPU that their device would not be upgradeable." We reached out to Dell; the company said that it does not comment on legal matters. A copy of the complaint can be found here. [GN] E-3 SYSTEMS: $125K Class Action Deal in Franco Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE FRANCO v. E-3 SYSTEMS, Case No. 4:19-cv-01453-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting the motion for final approval of class action settlement and the motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award: -- The Court approves the settlement amount of $125,000; administrator fees not to exceed $4,999.11; attorneys’ fees in the amount of $41,666.67; and costs in the amount of $7,404.96. The Court further awards named Plaintiff an incentive award of $5,000. 2. directing the parties and settlement administrator to implement this Final Order and the settlement agreement in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement; 3. directing the parties to file a short stipulated final judgment of two pages or less within 14 days from the date of this order. The Defendant E-3 Systems is a California corporation with its headquarters in Union City, California that provides installations of network and telecom infrastructures. The Plaintiff worked as a telecommunications technician, a non-exempt hourly position, for Defendant from August 18, 2014 to May 15, 2018. On February 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this putative labor class action alleging causes of action against Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay wages and overtime; and meal and break liability under the Labor Code. E-3 Systems supports ILECs, CLECs, the Bell Companies and Cable Service providers with Equipment Enclosures, Engineer, Furnish and Install (EF&I). A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/355Jg2q at no extra charge.[CC] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 18 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS) ("Emergent") investors that the firm has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against Emergent on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Emergent common stock between April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Roth v. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01189-PX (the "Roth Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Southern Division). To view a copy of the Roth Action complaint, please click here. Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 18, 2021 Website: https://www.ktmc.com/emergent-biosolutions-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=emergent Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435 Toll free (844) 887-9500 Emergent is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. The Roth Action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore facility had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (2) the Baltimore facility had received a series of Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") citations as a result of these contamination risks and quality control issues; (3) Emergent had been forced to discard millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the facility deviated from manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore facility were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Emergent investors may, no later than June 18, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). 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] FIDELITY NATIONAL: Haines Seeks to Certify Class of Cash Buyers --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN P. HAINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 8:19-cv-02995-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all cash buyers who used the same FARBAR form (and selected Section 9(c)(i)), but who were charged a Closing Services Fee (CSF)." 2. appointing John P. Haines as class representative; and 3. appointing Seth M. Lehrman of Edwards Pottinger, PLLC, Joshua H. Eggnatz and Michael J. Pascucci of Eggnatz Pascucci, P.A., and Richard Feinberg of Florida Legacy Law, LLC as class counsel; 4. providing him 21 days to file a proposed class notice plan, and providing the Defendant 14 days to file any objections to the proposed class notice; and 5. directing the Defendant to produce to him, within 14 days, an updated Notice Class List of all transactions that potentially meet the class definition, which includes the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses (if available), for all transactions and/or order numbers on the list. The Plaintiff contends that the proposed class meets the requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) (and alternatively 23(b)(1)). The Plaintiff seeks return of the CSF collected from Class Members, and to stop Fidelity's business practice to protect Florida home buyers. The Plaintiff alleges that Fidelity breached its fiduciary duty to cash buyers by charging them a CSF without regard to the express and plain language of the FARBAR. While Fidelity's business practice is on-going, discovery to-date shows that Fidelity has improperly collected a CSF from thousands of Florida home buyers. FARBAR, a Fortune 500 company, is a provider of title insurance and settlement services to the real estate and mortgage industries. FNF generated approximately $8.469 billion in annual revenue in 2019 from its title- and real estate-related operations. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3graBRH at no extra charge.[CC] Trial Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ ǀ PASCUCCI 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: 954-889-3359 Facsimile: 954-889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com - and - Seth M. Lehrman, Esq. EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-524-2820 Facsimile: 954-524-2822 E-mail: seth@epllc.com - and - Richard B. Feinberg, Esq. FLORIDA LEGACY LAW, LLC E-mail: ricfeinberg@hotmail.com 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 313 Clearwater, FL 33755 Telephone: 727 231-6400 Trial Counsel for Fidelity National Title of Florida, Inc., are: Mary Ellen R. Himes, Esq. Jeffrey N. Golant, Esq. FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP 200 West Cypress Creek Road, Suite 210 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Telephone: (954) 414-2111 Facsimile: (954) 414-2101 E-mail: maryellen.himes@fnf.com pleadingsfl@fnf.com FLANDERS CORP: Court Stays Wyllie BIPA Class Suit Until August 23 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, stays the case, MICHAEL WYLLIE, Plaintiff v. FLANDERS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-3078 (C.D. Ill.), for 90 days until Aug. 23, 2021. Plaintiff Wyllie brings the action against his former employer Flanders for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). He filed the action in Sangamon County, Illinois, Circuit Court. Flanders removed the action to the Court. Mr. Wyllie alleges that Flanders required Wyllie to provide Flanders with his fingerprints because Flanders required employees to use their fingerprints to clock in and out of work. He alleges Flanders thereby violated BIPA by failing to create written policies, make them publicly available, establish a retention schedule and destruction guidelines for retained biometric information (Count I); failing to provide required notices to Wyllie and securing his written consent before capturing his fingerprints (Count II); disseminating Wyllie's fingerprints without his consent (Count III). Mr. Wyllie brings the action on behalf of himself and the other employees of Flanders in Illinois. He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. He seeks $1,000 in statutory damages for each negligent violation of BIPA and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, plus prejudgment interest. Wyllie does not seek any compensatory damages. Flanders filed a Motion to Dismiss and argued that Wyllie fails to state a claim and, alternatively, that Wyllie's claims are preempted by the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act (IWCA), 820 ILCS 305/1. S. Flanders now asks the Court to stay the proceedings and wait for decisions in four appeals now pending: Cothron v White Castle System, Inc., Case No. 20-3202 pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals; Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., Case No. 1-20-0562, pending before the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District; Marion v. Ring Container Techs., LLC, No. 3-20-0184, pending before the Illinois Appellate Court for the Third District; and McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, No. 126511, pending before the Illinois Supreme Court. The Cothron case is considering whether a cause of action under BIPA accrues when the defendant first captures the biometric information, or whether a new cause of action accrues every time a person used such biometric information, such as each time an employee used his fingerprint to clock in or out. The Tims and Marion cases address which statute of limitations applies. The McDonald case addresses whether the IWCA preempts employees' claims against employers under BIPA. Wyllie opposes the proposed stay. Analysis Mr. Wyllie urges the Court to apply the standard for stays pending appeal in the case. A stay pending appeal stays a proceeding while a party in that proceeding seeks to challenge a lower court decision in that proceeding. The standard for a stay pending appeal tracks the standard for a preliminary injunction because such a stay effectively enjoins the effect of lower court's decision. In the case, Flanders does not seek to stay an adverse decision in the case. The question is how to manage the course of the case. The standard for stays pending appeal does not apply. Judge Schanzle-Haskins addresses the appropriateness of a stay pending the outcome of the McDonald, Tims, Marion, and Cothron cases. A. McDonald In McDonald, The Illinois Supreme Court will address whether the IWCA preempts BIPA actions by employees against employers. The Illinois Appellate Court, lower Illinois courts, and federal district courts have consistently found that the IWCA does not preempt claims for statutory damages. The Illinois Appellate Court decision in McDonald is currently authoritative and controlling on this issue. Judge Schanzle-Haskins holds that the Illinois Supreme Court could disagree with these courts and find an IWCA preemption. If so, the instant matter would be resolved. Such an outcome is unlikely given authoritative decision from the Illinois Appellate Court and the persuasive authority from the other Illinois courts and federal district courts. Under these circumstances, Judge Schanzle-Haskins finds that a stay to wait for a decision in McDonald is not likely to simplify the issues, streamline the trial, or reduce the burden of litigation on the parties. He will not grant a stay to wait for a decision in McDonald. B. Tims and Marion The Tims and Marion decisions could also materially affect the case by determining the appropriate statute of limitations. The applicable statute of limitations could also affect whether Wyllie has a claim, depending on when he worked for Flanders. The Complaint does not allege his dates of employment. The five-year catchall statute would also include more employees in the potential class than the one-year rights to privacy statute. The size of the class could materially affect the scope of discovery. Knowing whether Wyllie's claim is barred and knowing the scope of the possible class claims would simplify issues and streamline the trial. Greater certainty about Wyllie's claim and the scope of the possible class would also reduce the burden of litigation on the parties. Judge Schanzle-Haskins holds that unlike the IWCA preemption issue, no Illinois Appellate Court has issued a decision on the applicable statute of limitations in BIPA cases. In light of the lack of an Illinois Appellate Court decision, the Judge concludes that a stay is appropriate. Further, the potential delay from waiting for a decision in Tims, at least, may be minimal because the case was fully briefed by the time the Varnado decision was issued in January 2021. C. Cothron Judge Schanzle-Haskins opines that the Cothron decision could also materially affect whether Wyllie's cause of action accrued. If the Seventh Circuit determines that a BIPA cause of action accrues once when a defendant initially collected biometric data, then the statute of limitations in the case ran from the day Wyllie allegedly first provided his fingerprint to Flanders when he started work. If the Seventh Circuit determines that a new violation occurs every time an employee clocks in or out with a fingerprint, then Wyllie accrued a new cause of action each day he worked at Flanders. Wyllie's claim would not be entirely barred as long as his last day of work was within the statute. The Cothron decision could also materially affect the scope of the possible class claims. If the cause accrued only once when the employee first provided his or her fingerprint, then the class would be limited to persons hired within the statute of limitations. If a new cause accrued every time the employee clocked in or out, then the class could include every person who worked for Flanders during the limitations period, even employees hired before the limitations period. The scope of the possible class will materially affect the size of the class, the scope of discovery on class claims, and the trial of class claims. In light of these considerations, staying the matter until a decision in Cothron will provide clarity that will simplify the issues, streamline the trial, and reduce the burden of litigation on the parties. Given the lack of any claim for compensatory relief, Wyllie's speculation is not sufficient to outweigh the benefits to the stay to further the litigation. Conclusion Judge Schanzle-Haskins allowed in part Defendant Flanders' Motion to Stay. The matter is stayed until Aug. 23, 2021. The parties are directed to inform the Court when decisions are entered in the Tims, Marion, and Cothron cases. The parties are also directed to file a status report by Aug. 13, 2021, informing the Court of the status of the Tims, Marion, and Cothron cases and the parties' positions on the appropriateness of continuing the stay. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvvanx24 from Leagle.com. FOOTPRINT ACQUISITION: Underpays Retail Merchandisers, Street Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LORRI STREET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOOTPRINT ACQUISITION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02975 (N.D. Ill., June 3, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from April 2019 until March 2021 as an hourly-paid Retail Merchandiser, primarily responsible for attaching security tags to items for the Defendant's customers. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated Retail Merchandisers were required by the Defendant to drive between stores during their shifts for about 15 to 45 minutes, and to upload photos of the project and fill out a survey that usually took between 15 minutes to an hour each survey/photo upload. However, the Defendant did not compensate them for the first hour of drive time as well as for the time spent uploading the photos and complete survey. In addition, the Defendant failed to reimburse them for the first 50 miles driven per week while using their personal vehicles in the course of their employment with the Defendant. As a result, the Defendant has deprived them of proper minimum wage for all hours they have worked, the suit says. Footprint Acquisition, LLC provides retail merchandising services to retail stores throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (800) 615-4946 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com FREQUENCY INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Frequency, Inc. ("Frequency" or "WPG") (NASDAQ: FREQ) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency publicly traded securities between November 16, 2020, and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Frequency is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322," which the Company has long promoted as a potential treatment for patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL"). The Complaint alleges that Frequency and CEO Lucchino misled investors about the Phase 2a study of FX-322. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Frequency during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the August 2, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) common stock between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Evans v. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-cv-10933, and is assigned to Judge William G. Young. The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit charges Frequency Therapeutics and Chief Executive Officer and President David L. Lucchino with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Frequency Therapeutics common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Frequency Therapeutics 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 Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Frequency Therapeutics 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 Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 2, 2021. Frequency Therapeutics is a pharmaceutical company developing a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322," which Frequency Therapeutics has promoted as a potential treatment for patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL"). Frequency Therapeutics has conducted multiple clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant of which was a Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019. The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit alleges that, shortly after launching the Phase 2a trial, Frequency Therapeutics and CEO David L. Lucchino, learned that the Phase 2a trial results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and the placebo. The Frequency Therapeutics class action lawsuit further alleges that, while Frequency Therapeutics' stock price remained artificially inflated, defendant Lucchino sold over 350,000 Frequency Therapeutics shares, receiving over $10.5 million in proceeds. Then, on March 23, 2021, Frequency Therapeutics disclosed deeply disappointing interim Phase 2a results, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency Therapeutics' stock price fell by nearly 78%, damaging investors. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litigation. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services 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 securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Destination Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors by disgruntled customers who claim the automaker's destination charges are misleading and deceptive. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of California, involves two plaintiffs who allege they were not aware that GM made a profit off of the destination fees it charges customers. According to Car Complaints, the plaintiffs are California resident Robert Romoff, who recently purchased a new 2021 Chevrolet Equinox with a $1,195 destination charge, and New Jersey resident Joe Siciliano, who purchased a new 2019 Cadillac Escalade with a $995 destination charge. The suit claims General Motors makes a "significant amount of profit" off of the destination charges that it applies to its new vehicles and "deceives customers into paying far more than the actual cost of vehicle delivery." The plaintiffs also say that a destination charge has very little to do with how much it costs to ship a vehicle from the assembly plant to a dealership and is instead a way for GM to sneak "hidden markups" into its vehicle transactions. "Destination fee is generally understood in the automotive industry to reflect the manufacturer's average cost of delivering one of its vehicles to a dealership," the filing says, as quoted by Car Complaints. "That destination fee is charged to the dealer and passed on to the purchaser or lessee of that vehicle. Consumers similarly have the expectation that they are covering an automotive manufacturer's cost for the delivery of the manufacturer's vehicles when paying the 'destination fee' as part of their new-vehicle lease or purchase." General Motors destination charges usually range from $995 for smaller vehicles like the Chevy Spark and Chevy Malibu to $1,695 for larger vehicles like the Chevy Silverado HD. An article published by Consumer Reports earlier this year attempted to shine a light on rising destination freight charges in the automotive industry. The report indicated that destination fees had risen from an average of $839 in 2011 to $1,244 in 2020 -- more than 2.5 times the rate of inflation. David Friedman, CR's vice president of advocacy, said the auto industry's "relative silence on the rise of destination charges is a bit deafening," and called on automakers to be more transparent with regard to delivery costs. "If they had a valid reason beyond just driving up the price, they would actually be able to point us toward specific examples of costs that have gone up within the shipping process," Friedman said. An independent consultant that spoke to CR for its story, Dan Bedore, claimed destination charges are indeed a way for automakers to increase profitability. "[Destination] ends up being another lever the business can pull to increase revenue," Bedore explained. "It does not take a mathematician to understand the value of a $100 increase to a company that sells 2 million units a year." [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Wiretapping Class Action Transferred to Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Bardash, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal class action claiming that General Motors and a software provider's tracking of website users' activity qualifies as illegal wiretapping has been transferred to the District of Delaware. The transfer of the case against GM and Decibel Insight Inc., originally filed in November in the Eastern District of California, was ordered May 25. [GN] GLOBAL TRUST: Mao Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Virginia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Trust Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Solina Mao, James Barclay, Samantha Harvey, Anahi Estrada, Mary Rolon, Melissa Croxford, Kayci Staddon, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Global Trust Management, LLC, Jeffrey Pusateri, Paramount Assets Protection Services, LLC d/b/a Paramount Processing Group, LLC, Reel Time Capital, LLC, Direct Recovery Services, LLC, John Does 1-15, Case No. 4:21-cv-00065-RCY-LRL (E.D. Va., May 27, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Global Trust Management, LLC -- http://www.gtmcorporation.com/index.html-- is a fully Licensed & Bonded accounts receivable firm located in Tampa, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Phone: (757) 930-3660 Fax: (757) 930-3662 Email: craig@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7576 Fax: (703) 591-0167 Email: aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com kkelly@kellyguzzo.com GSK CONSUMER: Settlement Deal in Swetz Class Suit Initially OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN SWETZ, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. GSK Consumer Health, Inc., Case No. 7:20-cv-04731-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order granting preliminary approval to class action settlement, provisionally certifying settlement class, directing notice to the settlement class, and scheduling final approval hearing. -- Preliminary Settlement Approval The provisions of the Settlement Agreement are hereby preliminarily approved. The Court preliminarily approves the settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement as being within the range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. -- Preliminary Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only The Court preliminarily finds, based on the terms of the settlement described in the Settlement Agreement and for settlement purposes only. The Court hereby provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3): "All individuals who purchased Benefiber Healthy Shape Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Original Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Sugar-Free Powder Fiber Supplement, Benefiber Prebiotic Powder Fiber Supplement On-The-Go Stick Packs (Flavored or Unflavored), and/or Benefiber Prebiotic Fiber Supplement Chewables for personal or household use, and not for resale, in the United States during the Class Period. Specifically excluded from the Class are (i) GSK, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, employees, successors, and assigns, and entities in which GSK has a controlling interest; (ii) judges presiding over the Litigation; and (iii) local, municipal, state, and federal governmental entities. -- Co-Lead Class Counsel and Class Representatives. The Court appoints Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer Law Group; Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP; Douglas J. McNamara of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Gary E. Mason of Mason Lietz & Klinger LLP; Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman; Ryan J. Clarkson and Katherine A. Bruce of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.; and Christopher D. Moon of Moon Law APC. as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs Susan Swetz and Phillip White are hereby appointed as Class Representatives. -- Final Approval Hearing A Final Approval hearing shall take place before this Court, via teleconference* on the day of November 18, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., details of which to be provided before the Final Approval Hearing on the Settlement Website. -- Creation of Settlement Fund Within seven days after the Preliminary Approval Date, GSK will deposit or cause to be deposited into the Settlement Escrow Account the cash sum of $500,000. -- Requests for Exclusion from the Settlement Class Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class may elect to opt out of the settlement, relinquishing his or her rights to monetary compensation under the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class Members who opt out of the settlement will not release their claims that accrued during the Class Period. To The Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval before the Court on May 10, 2021, with the consent of GSK. On June 19, 2020, the Plaintiff Susan Swetz filed a Class Action Complaint against GSK Consumer Health, Inc. based on its alleged false and misleading labeling and packaging of its Covered Products. On November 3, 2020, GSK Consumer Health, Inc. served Plaintiff with a motion to stay or dismiss the Complaint and a motion to transfer or in the alternative to strike nationwide class allegations. On December 16, 2020, an Amended Complaint was filed. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gpoAaN at no extra charge.[CC] GW PHARMA: Monteverde & Associates Reminds of Aug. 3 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Monteverde & Associates PC has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Ziegler v. GW Pharmaceuticals, PLC et al, Docket No. 3:21-cv-01019, on behalf of holders of American Depositary Shares of GW Pharmaceuticals, PLC, ("GW" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: GWPH) who held GW securities as of the record date, March 10, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have been harmed by GW'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 GW (the "Merger") by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, PLC (Nasdaq: JAZZ). On May 5, 2021, each GW ADS was canceled and converted into $200 in cash and 0.120360 Jazz Ordinary Shares (the "Merger Consideration"). The complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration harmed GW shareholders by providing them with less than the inherent value of the Company and that the Proxy Statement GW filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to solicit shareholder approval of the Merger misled shareholders about the Company's financials and the Merger in violation of the Exchange Act. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, you must move the Court no later than August 3, 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. Click here for more information: http://monteverdelaw.com/case/gw-pharmaceuticals-plc.It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. 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. [GN] HAWAII: Nash Suit Removed to District of Hawaii ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned Brenon Nash, Robert Gibson, Chauncy Hata, Garth Coleman, Wayne J. Ancheta, Francisco Alvarado, Robert Walsh, Jonathan Carter, Duane Bertlemann, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety; David Y. Ige, Josh Green, Nolan Espinda, Max N. Otani, Individually; Does 1-50; Case No. 1CCV-21-0000541 was removed from the First Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii on June 8, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Public Safety (PSD) -- https://dps.hawaii.gov/ -- has a mission to uphold justice and public safety by providing correctional and law enforcement services to Hawaii's communities with professionalism, integrity and fairness.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Seitz, Esq. Gina May Szeto-Wong, Esq. Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq. Kevin A Yolken, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ 820 Mililani St Ste 714 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: (415) 532-6946 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: eseitzatty@yahoo.com szetogina@gmail.com jloo33138@yahoo.com KevinYolken@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Caron M. Inagaki, Esq. Kendall J. Moser, Esq. Skyler G. Cruz, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL-State of Hawaii 425 Queen Street, Ste. 220 Honolulu, HI 96813 Phone: 586-1494 Fax: 586-1369 Email: Caron.M.Inagaki@hawaii.gov Kendall.J.Moser@hawaii.gov skyler.g.cruz@hawaii.gov HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Opposition to Class Status Bid Due Oct. 6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOLANDA SANCHEZ, PABLO SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties propose the following amended briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- Plaintiffs' Initial Brief: Due August 23, 2021 -- Defendant's Opposition: Due October 6, 2021. -- Plaintiff's Reply: Due November 3, 2021. Hearst Communications, Inc., often referred to simply as Hearst, is an American multinational mass media and business information conglomerate based in the Hearst Tower in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. A copy Parties motion dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPoiyo at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert Ottinger, Esq. Andrew Mailhot, Esq. THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C. 535 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 262-0096 Facsimile: (212) 571-0505 E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com andrew.mailhot@ottingerlaw.com HONDA MOTOR: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Drained Batteries -------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood at carcomplaints.com reports that battery drain has caused a Honda class action lawsuit that alleges 2017-2019 Honda CR-V and 2016-2019 Honda Accord vehicles shut down from battery problems. The class action lawsuit says parasitic battery drain causes multiple failures of safety functions, including the headlights and emergency hazard lights an owner needs if the vehicle stalls. The Honda class action lawsuit also alleges multiple incidents of a drained battery causes the alternator to work too hard and fail. Honda Accord and CR-V Battery Problems The lawsuit alleges Honda first mentioned the battery problems in February 2017 when it filed an "Engineering Request for Investigation" with the government. Honda said it was "investigating certain 2016-2017 Accord V6s with a customer complaint of a no-start condition that requires the 12V battery to be replaced." Honda also issued more dealer messages in 2017 regarding "customer complaint[s] of a no-start condition that requires the 12V battery to be replaced" in 2016-2017 Accords. Additionally, a "Tech Line Summary Article" said the automaker conducted an "investigation" into 2017 CR-Vs being brought in for weak or dead batteries, yet the vehicles and batteries "check out ok." Honda "found that a software bug in the VSA [Vehicle Stability Assist] system may be keeping it awake when the ignition is turned to OFF. This can cause a 350 mA parasitic draw that may result in a weak or dead battery." Honda "found that this issue appears to happen only when a certain shut down procedure is done, and it's rare when it does." Honda allegedly didn't have a fix but warned, "this parasitic draw can be avoided by setting the electric parking brake before turning the ignition to OFF." Honda also issued technical service bulletin 17-03265 which warned dealerships 2017 CR-Vs "may have an intermittent 350mA current draw after the vehicle is shut off[,]" in which case "[t]he vehicle does not start due to a low battery." "The VSA software logic may not allow the VSA modulator-control unit to shut down correctly and go into sleep mode after the vehicle is shut off. This can happen if the electronic parking brake (EPB) is applied within 3 to 4 seconds of the vehicle being shut off or if the EPB switch is held for a 3 to 4 second duration when the vehicle is off." - TSB 17-03265 Honda was to "[u]pdate the VSA modulator-control unit, do the VSA sensor neutral position memorization (ALL SENSOR), set the tire pressures to the driver's door jamb label cold inflation values, and do the TPMS calibration procedure." In 2018, Honda announced it had launched a battery collection program for 2017-2018 CR-Vs. Then in March 2019 Honda issued TSB 19-039, warning 2019 CR-Vs may "fail[] to start after being parked for an extended period." "After the vehicle is parked for an extended period, the PCM begins an evaporative system leak check after meeting certain criteria. Under certain conditions, it may not return to sleep mode, causing the battery to discharge." -- TSB 19-039 The Honda class action lawsuit argues multiple additional actions occurred due to battery problems, including product updates and a CR-V owner notification program. "After the vehicle is parked for an extended period, the powertrain control module (PCM) begins an evaporative system leak check after meeting certain criteria. Under certain conditions, the PCM will not return to sleep mode, and may ultimately result in a dead battery. This is not an indication of a leak in the evaporative system." Continued battery drain problems caused updates to service bulletins, messages to dealerships, battery collection programs and additional TSBs. The Honda class action lawsuit references multiple complaints about Accord and CR-V drained batteries, including complaints filed with CarComplaints.com. In one case, the owner of a 2019 CR-V complained her vehicle "stall[ed] out" at least three times in a matter of weeks. Her SUV first stalled when she was driving 10-15 mph in her work parking lot. Three weeks later as she was driving 60 mph on a highway, the CR-V "completely died with no warning lights or indication." The Honda owner said the vehicle lost power steering and the engine couldn't be restarted. Then a week later and after dropping off her SUV at the Honda dealership, the CR-V "completely stalled out again" while driving, "leaving [her] in danger of" getting hit by other vehicles. The Honda class action lawsuit over battery problems was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa: George Jones, v. American Honda Motor, Co., Inc. The plaintiff is represented by Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC, and Fegan Scott LLC. [GN] HU PRODUCTS: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hu Products, LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Hu Products, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05073 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hu Products, LLC -- https://hukitchen.com/ -- provides food products. The Company offers organic, paleo, and vegan chocolate products.[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 HUNAN MANOR: Denial of Chen Class Certification Bid Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHI MING CHEN, et al., v. HUNAN MANOR ENTERPRISE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00802-GBD-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommends that the following motions be denied: -- the plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for their New York Labor Law (NYLL) claims; and -- a purported cross-motion to dismiss brought by defendants A Taste of Mao, Inc., and Zhenqi Xiao. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have 14 days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections. A party may respond to any objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be directed to Judge Daniels. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to this Report and Recommendation on appeal. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class: "All individuals who were employed or are currently employed by Defendants in any tipped or non-tipped non-exempt positions during the six years immediately preceding the initiation of his action up to the date of the decision on this motion." The Plaintiffs Shi Ming Chen, Lianhe Zhou, Yong Kang Liu, Jixiang Wang, Wei Min Zhu, Baojun Tian, Xinlong Liu, Qifang Chen, and Pingjin Fan are former employees of defendants' restaurants who brought suit seeking unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and NYLL. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated June 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zalQXj at no extra charge.[CC] ICAN BENEFIT: Not Covered for $60M TCPA Ruling, 11th Cir. Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that Liberty Mutual isn't required to pay a $60.4 million Telephone Consumer Protection Act judgment stemming from a marketing campaign that pelted customer cellphones with repeated texts, leaving a Florida insurance brokerage on the hook. In a published opinion issued on June 1, the Eleventh Circuit upheld a ruling that an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual didn't cover the invasion of privacy claims brought in the class action against broker iCan Benefit Group. [GN] INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Connecticut, Texas Franchisees Join Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Mcauley at nola.com reports that hotel franchisees from Connecticut and Texas have joined the Louisiana hotelier who sued the world's largest hotel franchise operator, InterContinental Hotels Group, alleging an array of fraudulent and anti-competitive practices. The Aaron Hotel Group, which owns a Holiday Inn Express in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, and PH Lodging Tomball, which has a Holiday Inn franchise in Tomball, Texas, have joined the class action filed last month in Louisiana by Vimal Patel, who owns Holiday Inn Express franchises in LaPlace and Donaldsonville, as well as a Candlewood Suites in Houma and a Staybridge Suites in Lake Charles, all of which are brands owned by IHG. The latest two lawsuits make similar allegations as Patel's. Specifically, they allege that IHG and its subsidiaries aren't treating franchisees fairly by requiring them to make regular refurbishments and to purchase goods and services only from IHG-approved suppliers, which charge inflated prices for poor quality products. The lawsuits further allege that IHG receives rebates or kick-backs from these companies, which amounts to hidden royalties and fees for the franchisees which are not part of their contracts. The complaints also alleges that IHG's loyalty points scheme operates solely for the benefit of IHG and its companies, and leaves the franchisees with loss-making rates for their rooms. Andrew Bleiman, an attorney at Marks & Klein in Chicago, the law firm that is leading the lawsuit nationally, said the lawsuits express long-standing franchisee grievances that have been exacerbated during the pandemic, with IHG trying to make up for lost revenue. Bleiman said he expects many more IHG hotel franchisees to join the class action. "We expect more folks to join and for more issues to be uncovered," he said. "We expect at least a dozen more cases to be filed over the next several weeks." IHG didn't answer a request for comment on the new lawsuits. In addition to the Holiday Inn brands, IHG's franchises include the InterContinental, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hotel Indigo, Crowne Plaza and Regent and Kempton. The publicly-listed company reported in February that revenue halved last year, to about $2.4 billion, and its operating profit swung to a $153 million loss, compared to a $630 million profit in 2019. IHG describes itself as an "asset light" operation, which means that the vast bulk of its hotels -- more than 5,000 out of the total of around 6,000 hotels worldwide -- are owned by franchisees but controlled by strict agreements by IHG and its subsidiaries. More than half of its hotel revenue is generated in the Americas, most of which is from the U.S. One practice the lawsuits focus on is the operation of the IHG Rewards Club loyalty program. The lawsuits claim that IHG offers these points to guests for cash payment and then pockets most of the value when they're redeemed, leaving the franchisees to pay sales tax on the full value of the room while only getting loss-making rates of $30-to-$35 per room. The class action does not make any legal claims of racial discrimination, though all the lawsuits have noted that owners of the franchises in the U.S. are predominantly either immigrants or second-generation Americans of Indian or other South Asian origin. The owners of the Texas and Connecticut hotels are both immigrants from India. Patel and lawyers involved in the cases have said that IHG's practices exploit these family-owned businesses, basically leaving them in the position of being employees of the brand rather than business partners who have the opportunity to build wealth. "It's similar to a labor dispute in terms of all franchisees being similarly situated, all being subject to the same mandates and directives and all are left having to deal with these non-competitive policies with little power to fight back," said Bleiman. [GN] JOHN HANCOCK: Settles 401(k) Class Action for $14 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that John Hancock will pay $14 million to settle a class action claiming it cost investors in its 401(k) plan tens of millions of dollars through bad management and the selection of high-free, underperforming funds, according to a June 1 filing. In addition to the settlement amount, John Hancock Life Insurance Co. has agreed to hire a third-party investment consultant to monitor the plan for five years and bring a separate outside consultant to negotiate plan fees. [GN] JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE: Ellenberger et al. Sue Over Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH ELLENBERGER and CAITLAN SHOOP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUSTICEWORKS YOUTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00732-MJH (W.D. Penn., June 3, 2021) brings this class and collective action complaint against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs Ellenberger and Shoop have worked for the Defendant as case management employees from approximately March 2018 to November 2018 and from approximately March 2019 to April 2020, respectively. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant misclassified them and other similarly situated Case Management Employees as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and PMWA. Although the Defendant suffered and permitted them to work over 40 in one or more individual workweeks throughout their employment with the Defendant, the Defendant did not compensate their overtime hours worked at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week, the Plaintiffs added. Justiceworks Youthcare, Inc. provides social services. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joshua Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 766-1455 Fax: (412) 766-0300 - and – Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (281) 572-0727 Fax: (281) 572-0728 E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com - and – Jack Siegel, Esq. Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Tel: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: www.4overtimelawyer.com KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Vehicles' Seat Belt Problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Kia Soul class action lawsuit alleges the seat belts aren't available to occupants on the rear passenger's side of the vehicles when the split rear seats are folded down. The 2020-2021 Kia Souls are equipped with 60/40 split folding rear bench seats, advertised as capable of fitting "your friends and their luggage." But the Kia class action alleges the seat belt for the rear passenger isn't accessible when the driver's side of the split rear seat is folded down. The California 2020 Kia Soul owner who filed the class action lawsuit says Kia never warned him or other owners or lessees the rear seat belts couldn't be used if the rear seats are folded down. This means customers had no way of knowing about the alleged problem until after they purchased or leased the Kia Souls. Although the vehicles are still under their warranties, the class action alleges Kia dealers refuse to repair the alleged problem which prevents rear occupants from wearing their seat belts. A Kia Soul hasn't been issued and the plaintiff says Kia apparently has no clue what to do about the seat belts and the automaker hasn't offered to refund any costs associated with the seat belts and rear folded seats. Rear Kia Soul occupants are in danger without access to the seat belts, all because of using the folding split seat feature promoted by Kia. In addition to losing the use of one of the rear seat belts, the Soul class action lawsuit alleges the vehicle values have decreased due to Kia's "wrongful conduct." According to the Kia Soul class action, the automaker should have known it was misrepresenting the vehicles since it was Kia that manufactured the Souls. The Kia Soul class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: James Javier Maurico, v. Kia Motors America, Inc., et al. The plaintiff is represented by the Veen Firm, P.C., and Bisnar | Chase LLP. [GN] KIA MOTORS: Filing of Class Certification Bid Due June 17, 2022 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yandery Sanchez v. Kia Motors America, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order setting a Rule 23 class certification briefing schedule: Last Day to File a Motion to Add Parties July 27, 2021 or Amend Pleadings: Fact Discovery Cutoff: May 20, 2022 Last Day to File a Motion for June 17, 2022 Class Certification: Last Day to File Opposition to Motion August 12, 2022 for Class Certification: Later Day to File Reply in Support of October 7, 2022 Motion for Class Certification: Last Day to File Motions April 21, 2023 (Excluding Daubert Motions and all other Motions in Limine): Last Day to Conduct Settlement June 16, 2023 Proceedings: Expert Discovery Cutoff: November 4, 2022 Last Day to File Daubert Motions: June 30, 2023 Last Day to File Other Motions July 21, 2023 in Limine (Excluding Daubert Motions): A copy of the Court's Civil Minutes -- General dated May 25, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SidqfZ at no extra charge.[CC] KNACK LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knack, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Knack, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03238-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Knack -- https://knackshops.com/ -- is modernizing gift giving by making it easy and fun to give distinctive, meaningful gifts by allowing customers to customize any curated gift box or create their own.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com KROGER COMPANY: Conditional Cert. of Supervisor Collective Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY KIBLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; DILLON COMPANIES, LLC d/b/a KING SOOPERS/CITY MARKET, a Kansas limited liability company, Case No. 1:21-cv-00509-PAB-KMT (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective of: "all Supervisors (regardless of actual title) who were classified as exempt and who were employed by Kroger at any time during the last three years plus any period of tolling; 2. authorizing the Plaintiff to act as collective representative; 3. authorizing Paul F. Lewis and Andrew E. Swan to act as counsel for the collective; 4. directing Kroger to produce the names, mailing addresses, dates of employment, job title, job location, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all putative members of the FLSA collective in an electronically readable format within 14 days; 5. approving notice to the collective members, and allowing collective members 90 days from mailing within which to return an opt-in form; and 6. directing Kroger to prominently post the approved notice in each of its locations for the duration of the opt-in period. Kroger brands itself as "America's grocer" and, in that role, operates approximately 3,000 locations throughout the United States including through its wholly owned subsidiaries. Doing business as King Soopers/City Market, the Dillon Companies, LLC is one such subsidiary. Within Colorado alone, Kroger owns and operates over 100 King Soopers and City Market grocery stores. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Supervisors frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek. For example, the Plaintiff worked over 55 hours per workweek for the weeks starting on June 7, 2020, June 14, 2020, and June 21, 2020. Kroger classifies certain of its Supervisors as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and does not pay them overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w7tj7J at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Paul F. Lewis, Esq. LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC 620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 Telephone: (719) 694-3000 E-mail: plewis@ll.law aswan@ll.law KUSHCO HOLDINGS: Federal Shareholder Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- KushCo Holdings, Inc. (OTCQX:KSHB) ("KushCo" or the "Company"), a premier provider of ancillary products and services to the legal cannabis and CBD industries, has announced that a putative shareholder class and derivative action filed on October 1, 2020, in the United States District Court, Central District of California ("the Court"), Case No. 8:20-cv-01904-JLS-KES, against the Company and its directors has been dismissed, bringing the case to an end. Rather than challenge the Company's and directors' motions to dismiss the action, the plaintiff stipulated to voluntarily dismiss the case in its entirety. "We are encouraged by the voluntary dismissal of this lawsuit, and to see the Court close this matter," said Nick Kovacevich, KushCo's Co-founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer. "We will continue to defend the Company against what we believe to be meritless allegations, and are pleased to see another litigation come to an end without any payment made to the plaintiff by the Company." About KushCo Holdings, Inc. KushCo Holdings, Inc. (OTCQX: KSHB) (www.kushco.com) is a premier provider of ancillary products and services to the legal cannabis and CBD industries. KushCo Holdings' subsidiaries and brands provide product quality, exceptional customer service, compliance knowledge and a local presence in serving its diverse customer base, which consists of leading multi-state-operators (MSOs), licensed producers (LPs), and brands. Founded in 2010, KushCo Holdings has now sold more than 1 billion units to growers, brand owners, processors and producers across North America, South America, and Europe, specializing in child-resistant compatible and fully customizable packaging, exclusive vape hardware and technology, and complementary solvents and natural products. As a pioneer in the industry, KushCo continues to work to create a positive impact on the environment, society, and community through CSR and ESG initiatives, such as: offering sustainable and compostable packaging; donating PPE supplies to healthcare workers on the frontline fighting the COVID-19 pandemic; partnering with organizations such as Mission Green to offer social equity programs for industry inclusion; being one of the first in the industry to award paid time-off for all employees on November 3, 2020 ("Election Day"); and working to incorporate industry-leading corporate governance practices and a more diverse board makeup. For more information on KushCo's commitment to CSR and ESG initiatives, please visit the Company's #KushCares page at www.kushco.com/kushcares. KushCo has been featured in media nationwide, including CNBC, Fox News, Yahoo Finance, Cheddar, Los Angeles Times, TheStreet.com, and Entrepreneur, Inc Magazine. For more information, visit www.kushco.com or call (888) 920-5874. [GN] LABORATORY CORP: Bouffard Has Until July 16 to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOUFFARD, et al., v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00193 (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order granting in part Motion for extension of time To file motion for class certification and to serve any expert reports. The Plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent they shall have up to and including July 16, 2021, within which to file their motion for class certification and to serve any expert reports, says the Magistrate Judge. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as Labcorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of 36 primary laboratories.[CC] LHOIST NORTH: Fuapau, et al., Seek to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIONE FUAPAU, ALFREDO GODINEZ, GABRIEL MENDOZA, MANUEL VACA, MICHAEL NAU, ANTONIO GUZMAN, JESUS GUERRERO, IVAN PACHECO, and MIGUEL REYES, JR., v. LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF ARIZONA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 20-cv-04404-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 24, 2021, to enter an order: 1. determining that a class action is proper as to the Fourth Cause of Action contained in the Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that (1) the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class, (3) the class representatives’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class, and (4) the class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class; 2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); 3. certifying the following Class and subclass: a. All current and former employees of Defendants in the State of California who were paid any wages at any time beginning one year before the commencement of this action through the present (the "Class" or "Class 21 Members"); i. All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California who were paid shift differential wages, including, but not limited to, "Shift 2" and "Shift 3" wages, at any time beginning one year before the commencement of this action through the present (the "Shift Differential Subclass"); 4. Finding the Plaintiffs to be adequate representatives and certifying them as the class representatives; and 5. Finding the Plaintiffs' counsel and their respective firms, namely B. James Fitzpatrick and Laura L. Franklin of Fitzpatrick & Swanston and Larry W. Lee and Max W. Gavron of Diversity Law Group, P.C., as adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel. This case presents an alleged undisputed class-wide policy and practice engaged in by the Defendant Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc., which can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. The Defendant's undisputed class-wide policies and practices of failing to specify the applicable hourly rate of pay and number of hours worked for its shift premium wages and failing to identify the accurate address of the employer present a question perfect for class-wide adjudication. Lhoist North is located in Peach Springs, Arizona and is part of the nonmetallic mineral mining & quarrying industry. sA copy of Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SqeeQ3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: B. James Fitzpatrick, Esq. Charles Swanston, Esq. Laura L. Franklin, Esq. FITZPATRICK & SWANSTON 555 S. Main Street Salinas, CA 93901 Telephone: (831) 755-1311 Facsimile: (831) 755-1319 - and - Larry W. Lee, Esq. Max W. Gavron, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 LLR INC: Van Seeks to Strike Expert's Declaration ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE VAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LLR, INC. d/b/a LuLaRoe, and LULAROE, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-00197-HRH (D. Alaska), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order striking the expert declaration of Brian Fitzpatrick, Esquire as the declarant improperly asserts legal opinions and his opinions fail to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 702. LLR Partners operates as a private equity firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wb6DDC at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Davis, Jr., Esq. Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 310 K Street, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 264-6634 Facsimile: (866) 813-8645 E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com jdavis@njp-law.com - and - Kelly K. Iverson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: kiverson@carlsonlynch.com LNN INC: Insurer Says Not on the Hook for BIPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that Society Insurance has brought owners of Wingstop restaurants to Illinois federal court, seeking a declaration that it is not on the hook for an underlying employee proposed class action alleging violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Society said on June 1 that it has no duty to defend or indemnify LNN Inc., MNN Inc. and Wing Brothers Inc. in the underlying BIPA suit because the policy's employment liability, confidential information and privacy rights exclusions bar coverage. [GN] LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS: Farah Suit Wins Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMAD FARAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-00578-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order that: 1. the following collective is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "all current and former In Network Transportation Providers who, individually or through their companies, were issued 1099 payments from Logisticare for providing non-emergency medical transportation services for Defendant for the time period agreed to by the parties"; 2. (a) the inclusion of a bolded statement that Logisticare denies the Plaintiff's allegations in the section of the notice describing the lawsuit; (b) the removal of reference to Rule 23 class certification; (c) the inclusion of a statement advising potential plaintiffs of their right to hire their own lawyer or proceed without counsel; 3. issues concerning form, content, dissemination, and period shall be handled as proposed by the Plaintiff. The Court says that its analysis is limited to the notice step, or first step in the process. Applying a lenient standard, and after consideration of the record and arguments before it, the Court finds that at this stage of the litigation, Plaintiff has established a colorable basis for her claim that the putative class members were the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan by the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff's allegations and evidence indicate Defendant may have made a uniform, company-wide decision to classify every class member as an independent contractor and that Defendant had a uniform, company-wide practice of failing to pay them federal minimum wage and overtime in violation of the FLSA. Therefore, the Court grants conditional certification. LogistiCare Solutions LLC provides non emergency medical transportation management services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3viQKtH at no extra charge.[CC] LOUISIANA: Class Action Over Children's Mental Health Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabbii King, writing for WDSU News, reports that a class-action lawsuit on behalf of children with mental health needs in Louisiana has moved forward in federal court. The lawsuit describes how Louisiana has failed in providing care needed for mental health patients in accordance with federal law. According to a press release, "The lawsuit, filed in November 2019 following a multi-year investigation, describes how the state's failure to provide these services forces children to unnecessarily cycle in and out of hospitals, psychiatric facilities and the juvenile justice system for extended periods of time, often far away from the places they call home." The advocacy groups representing the children in the lawsuit released a statement saying, "The Court's decision will ensure that the results of the lawsuit will have a far-reaching impact for tens of thousands of children to receive the services they need, when and where they need them." [GN] LOVE PRESSED: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Davis Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOVE PRESSED JUICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04911 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA and NYCHRL. The Plaintiff claims that when he visited the Defendant's website, www.smartpressedjuice.com, on or around May 2021, using a popular screen reading software called NonVisual Desktop Access, with the intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase, he was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual despite his efforts. The Plaintiff added that the Defendant's website lacks a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which could help the Plaintiff and other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals to independently navigate the Defendant's website and able to complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do. Allegedly, the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to maintain its website to be accessible by the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired individuals. Love Pressed Juice, Inc. is a nutritionist-formulated juice products company that owns and operates the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Green County Files Suit in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, et al. The case is styled as Green County Fiscal Court, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Kentucky County Fiscal Courts; Breckinridge County Fiscal Court, Hardin County Fiscal Court, Menifee County Fiscal Court, Nelson County Fiscal Court, Washington County Fiscal Court, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated Kentucky County Fiscal Courts; Meade County Fiscal Court; Ohio County Fiscal Court; City of Henderson, Kentucky, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated Kentucky Home Rule Cities v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States, McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C., Case No. 3:21-md-02996-CRB (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other organizations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq. Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq. GRABHORN LAW OFFICE 2525 Nelson Miller Parkway. Suite 107 Louisville, KY 40223 Phone: (502) 244-9331 Fax: (502) 244-9334 Email: a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com - and - William D. Nefzger, Esq. BAHE COOK CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC 1041 Goss Avenue, Louisville, KY 40217 Phone: (502) 587-2002 Fax: (502) 587-2006 Email: will@bccnlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Amanda M. Lockaby, Esq. Kara M. Stewart, Esq. Lindsey Walker West, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 100 West Main Street, Suite 900 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: (859) 425-1000 Fax: (859) 425-1099 Email: amanda.lockaby@dinsmore.com kara.stewart@dinsmore.com lwest@dinsmore.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Pembroke City Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned The City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-60305 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 8, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04384-CRB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other organizations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Debra Potter Klauber, Esq. Eugene K. Pettis, Esq. HALICZER PETTIS & SCWAMM PA 100 SE 3rd Avenue, 7th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: (954) 523-9922 Fax: 522-2512 Email: dklauber@haliczerpettis.com EPettis@hpslegal.com - and - James Dennis Young, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN 76 S. Laura St., Suite 1100 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: (904) 361-0012 Email: jyoung@forthepeople.com - and - Mark Dearman, Esq. Paul Jeffrey Geller, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com pgeller@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISLEBERG GILBERT 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 384-7270 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com - and - Scott Jason Weiselberg, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FIRM PA 200 SW 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Fax: (954) 525-4300 Email: weiselberg@kolawyers.com - and - Juan Martinez, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 393-5463 Email: juanmartinez@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew Browne, Esq. BROWNE PELICAN PLLC 7007 Shook Avenue Dallas, TX 75214 Phone: (405) 642-9588 Email: mbrowne@brownepelican.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian C. Frontino, Esq. STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086 Phone: (310) 556-5800 Fax: (310) 556-5959 Email: bfrontino@stroock.com MDL 2999: JPML Rejects Bid to Centralize 10 Acthar Gel Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Karen K. Caldwell, Chair of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied a request to centralize these actions in the Northern District of Illinois or, alternatively, the District of New Jersey: Central District of California HUMANA, INC. v. MALLINCKRODT ARD LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-06926 Northern District of California HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP. v. MALLINCKRODT ARD LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21-00165 District of Delaware INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 542 v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21-00647 Northern District of Georgia CITY OF MARIETTA v. MALLINCKRODT ARD LLC, C.A. No. 1:20-00552 Northern District of Illinois CITY OF ROCKFORD v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-50107 MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, ET AL. v. MALLINCKRODT ARD INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-50056 District of New Jersey UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 322 OF SOUTHERN NEW JERSEY v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00188 Eastern District of Pennsylvania STRUNCK, ET AL. v. QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., C.A. No. 2:12-00175 STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 420 v. MALLINCKRODT ARD, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-03047 Western District of Tennessee ACUMENT GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES v. MALLINKRODT ARD, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21-02024 Plaintiff in the Northern District of California action supports the motion. The Express Scripts defendants suggest Section 1407 centralization in the District of Delaware. The Express Scripts defendants are Express Scripts, Inc.; Evernorth Health Inc. f/k/a Express Scripts Holding Co.; CuraScript, Inc. d/b/a CuraScript SP Specialty Pharmacy; Priority Healthcare Corp.; Priority Healthcare Distribution, Inc. d/b/a CuraScript SD Specialty Distribution; Accredo Health Group, Inc.; and United BioSource LLC f/k/a United BioSource Corp. The Central District of California plaintiff opposes centralization. Common defendants Mallinckrodt ARD LLC (f/k/a Mallinckrodt ARD Inc.) and Mallinckrodt plc oppose Section 1407 centralization in favor of allowing transferor courts to rule on pending motions to transfer most of the pending actions to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1412 or 1404. Mallinckrodt alternatively suggests Section 1407 centralization in the District of Delaware. The United States -- intervenor in the Eastern District Pennsylvania Strunck qui tam action -- opposes including Strunck in centralized proceedings. In reply, moving plaintiffs agree that Strunck should remain in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. "[W]e are not persuaded that centralization is necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at this time," Judge Caldwell said. "These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Mallinckrodt unlawfully raised Acthar's price and marketed and sold the drug at inflated prices. The actions variously allege a complex and multi-faceted scheme by defendants, including (a) contracting with the Express Scripts defendants to be the exclusive distributor of Acthar, (b) buying and shelving a competing drug, (c) bribing doctors to prescribe Acthar and aggressively promoting it for off label uses, and (d) improperly funneling copays through a charitable organization. Some complaints allege just one or two components of this scheme, while others include all of them. And some actions name the Express Scripts defendants, while others do not. But almost all parties agree that there is factual and legal overlap among all actions and that coordination or consolidation of some kind is appropriate. "Despite this overlap, the uncertainty about the timing and outcome of related bankruptcy proceedings makes Section 1407 centralization premature at this time. Common defendants are the debtors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the District of Delaware, ongoing since October 2020, and the claims against all defendants are stayed in their entirety. Furthermore, there are motions for transfer under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1412 or 1404 pending in eight of the actions. . . . Therefore, it is unclear where these claims will be pending or whether Section 1407 centralization will be necessary once the stay is lifted." The case is, In re Acthar Gel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2999. A copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 Order is available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20210609859 About Mallinckdrodt PLC Mallinckrodt -- http://www.mallinckrodt.com/-- is a global business consisting of multiple wholly owned subsidiaries that develop, manufacture, market and distribute specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies. The company's Specialty Brands reportable segment's areas of focus include autoimmune and rare diseases in specialty areas like neurology, rheumatology, nephrology, pulmonology and ophthalmology; immunotherapy and neonatal respiratory critical care therapies; analgesics and gastrointestinal products. Its Specialty Generics reportable segment includes specialty generic drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients. As of March 27, 2020, the Company had $10.17 billion in total assets, $8.27 billion in total liabilities, and $1.89 billion in total shareholders' equity. On Oct. 12, 2020, Mallinckrodt plc and certain of its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection in Delaware in the U.S. (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 20-12522) to seek approval of a restructuring that would reduce total debt by $1.3 billion and resolve opioid related claims against the Company. Mallinckrodt plc disclosed $9,584,626,122 in assets and $8,647,811,427 in liabilities as of Sept. 25, 2020. Latham & Watkins LLP, Ropes & Gray LLP and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz are serving as counsel to the Company, Guggenheim Securities, LLC is serving as investment banker and AlixPartners LLP is serving as restructuring advisor to Mallinckrodt. Hogan Lovells is serving as counsel with respect to the Acthar Gel matter. Prime Clerk LLC is the claims agent. MERCATO INC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercato, Inc. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Mercato, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05074 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mercato -- https://www.mercato.com/ -- is a grocery company that builds tech to help grocers sell more and stay in business.[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 MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Assad Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MHR Fund Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as George Assad Jr., On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. MHR Fund Management LLC, Howard Draft, John Harkey, Mark H. Rachesky, MHR Advisors LLC, MHR Capital Partners (100) LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, MHR Holdings, LLC, MHR Institutional Advisors II LLC, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHRC II LLC, MHRC LLC, Michael Weiser, Timothy McInerney, Timothy Rothwell, New Castle County, Sheriff, Case No. 2021-0502-JRS (Del. Chancery Ct., June 8, 2021). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." MHR Fund Management -- https://www.mhrfund.com/ -- is a private equity firm focusing on leveraged buyout and distressed securities transactions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Phone: (212) 554-1408 Fax: (212) 554-1444 New Castle County, Sheriff is represented by: Sheriff New Castle County Phone: (302) 395-8457 Fax: (302) 395-8460 MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Houman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MHR Fund Management LLC, et al. The case is styled as Eliot Houman, Jack Barouh, Kenneth Novick, Nicolae Barbulescu, Robert K. Brennan, on behalf Of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. MHR Fund Management LLC, Howard Draft, John Harkey, Mark H. Rachesky, MHR Advisors LLC, MHR Capital Partners (100) LP, MHR Capital Partners Master Account LP, MHR Holdings, LLC, MHR Institutional Advisors II LLC, MHR Institutional Partners II LP, MHR Institutional Partners IIA LP, MHRC II LLC, MHRC LLC, Michael Weiser, Timothy McInerney, Timothy Rothwell, Defendants; Emisphere Technologies, Frank Funds, Interested Parties; New Castle County, Sheriff; Inc. Case No. 2021-0497-JRS (Del. Chancery Ct., June 8, 2021). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." MHR Fund Management -- https://www.mhrfund.com/ -- is a private equity firm focusing on leveraged buyout and distressed securities transactions in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP-Wilmington 500 Delaware Ave Ste 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 364-3600 Email: Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com - and - David A. Jenkins, Esq. Phone: (302) 652-8400 Fax: (302) 652-8405 - and - Julie M. O'Dell, Esq. Phone: (302) 652-8400 Fax: (302) 652-8405 - and - Joel E. Friedlander, Esq. Phone: (302) 573-3500 Fax: (302) 573-3501 The Defendants are represented by: Kevin G. Abrams, Esq. Phone: (302) 778-1000 Fax: (302) 778-1001 - and - April M. Kirby, Esq. Phone: (302) 778-1000 Fax: (302) 778-1001 - and - Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. Phone: (302) 658-9200 Fax: (302) 658-3989 - and - Megan W. Cascio, Esq. Phone: (302) 658-9200 Fax: (302) 658-3989 Matthew R Clark, Esq. Phone: (302) 658-9200 Fax: (302) 658-3989 Blake Rohrbacher, Esq. Phone: (302) 651-7700 Fax: (302) 651-7701 Andrew L Milam, Esq. Phone: (302) 651-7700 Fax: (302) 651-7701 Interested Parties are represented by: Bradley R Aronstam, Esq. Phone: (302) 576-1600 Fax: (302) 576-1100 - and - Adam D Gold, Esq. Phone: (302) 576-1600 Fax: (302) 576-1100 - and - Eric Andersen, Esq. Phone: (302) 595-9102 Fax: (302) 595-9321 New Castle County, Sheriff is represented by: Sheriff New Castle County Phone: (302) 395-8457 Fax: (302) 395-8460 MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Plastics Files Suit in E.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MidAmerican Energy Service, LLC. The case is styled as J&M Plastics, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. MidAmerican Energy Service, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00206-JRG (E.D. Tex., June 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC -- https://www.midamericanenergyservices.com/ -- is a licensed competitive natural gas provider in Iowa and Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Heath Potts, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP - Houston 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 963-8881 Fax: (713) 583-5388 Email: dpotts@potts-law.com MOLAOI RESTURANT: Faces Villada Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case, CARLOS VILLADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLAOI RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a BLUE DOOR SOUVLAKIA and KYRIAKI VITALE, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03217 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) arises from the Defendants alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants to work as a line-cook, food preparer, and kitchen worker from in or around August 2017 until in or around July 2018. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 75 or more hours per week during his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not compensate him for the overtime hours he worked at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records, and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL. Molaoi Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Bue Door Souvlakia operates a restaurant owned by Kyriaki Vitale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9591 Fax: (718) 263-9598 MONTANA: Tribal Members Eligible for Class Action Payment --------------------------------------------------------- greatfallstribune.com reports that some members of the Chippewa Cree and Little Shell tribes may be eligible to receive payments from a long-standing class action lawsuit. The nearly 30-year-old case, Leslie Ann Wilkie Peltier, et al. v. Deb Haaland, et al., also known as Pembina, concerns the Pembina Band of Chippewa Indians, a tribe that entered into a treaty and agreement with the U.S. government. In 1863, the Pembina band signed a treaty selling what is now the North Dakota-Minnesota borderlands to the U.S. In the 1890s, the band entered an agreement with the federal government and sold its North Dakota-Canadian borderlands. During the mid-20th century, tribal leaders nationwide brought claims in federal court and to Congress, alleging that treaties and agreements tribes had entered into weren't fair. Congress in 1946 established the Indian Claims Commission, allowing tribes to bring claims for additional compensation recognizing that treaties and agreements were not honorable. The Pembinas brought two claims for the treaty and agreement. In 1964, the Pembinas were awarded about $300,000 in compensation for the treaty concerning the North Dakota-Minnesota borderlands, but the commission determined that the band no longer existed. Instead, at least three tribes are the modern-day successors - the Turtle Mountain Band in North Dakota, the Chippewa Cree Tribe in Montana and the White Earth Band in Minnesota. Tribal leaders distributed the payments to tribal members and Pembina descendants, awarding 21,268 individuals with about $40 each. In 1980, the claims commission issued an award of $53 million for the Pembina's 1890 agreement that ceded their North Dakota-Canadian borderlands. The same three tribes with the addition of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana were eligible for payments in this claim. The Department of the Interior determined there were 33,584 people entitled to share the $53 million award, and they began to distribute the funds in 1988, paying each person between $1,200 to $2,500. But Turtle Mountain leaders, whose members were 68% of the beneficiary population, were concerned that the government had been holding on to the $53 million for eight years. They asked for accounting and documentation of how the funds were invested. When the government did not produce that information, the four tribes filed a lawsuit with the Native American Rights Fund in 1992 against the U.S. claiming mismanagement of the Pembina funds. In 2020, President Donald Trump gave the approval to settle the Pembina claims, and the final Fairness Hearing is scheduled for June 10. If the case reaches final approval, payments from the $59-million settlement will then be distributed to living beneficiaries in the form of checks or online banking through Zelle. Depending on their relationship to the case, individuals may receive between $50 and $1,440. "The problem is, because of the passage of time, unfortunately about one-third of the some-40,000 people have passed. That puts everyone in a difficult situation," said Melody McCoy, staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund and court-appointed counsel on the case. "We can't delay that any further. These people have waited a long time for their money, and they're dying every day," she said. Claim forms by heirs and legal representatives must be filed by Sept. 28. For more information on the Pembina class action suit, visit www.pembinasettlement.com/pembina. If you'd like to listen in on the Fairness Hearing on June 10 at 2 p.m. EDT, email info@pembinasettlement.com. [GN] MYRIAD GENETICS: LAFPP Seeks to Certify Class of Investors ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), the Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of investors in Myriad Genetics, Inc.; 2. appointing Los Angeles as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLB&G) as Class Counsel. This case asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. The action arises from the Defendants' material misstatements and omissions to investors regarding GeneSight, a genetic test that purportedly predicted a patient's reaction to drugs used to treat pain, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and depression. Myriad, a molecular diagnostic company, develops and markets predictive, personalized, and prognostic medicine tests in the United States. A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TjgqbZ at no extra charge.[CC] The counsel for the Lead Plaintiff Los Angeles Fire and Police Pensions, are: Hannah Ross, Esq. Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Adam Wierzbowski, Esq. Abe Alexander, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com salvatore@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com abe.alexander@blbglaw.com - and - Andrew G. Deiss, Esq. Corey D. Riley, Esq. DEISS LAW PC 10 West 100 South, Suite 425 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Telephone: (801) 433-0226 Facsimile: (801) 386-9894 E-mail: bweinberg@deisslaw.com - and - Michael N. Feuer, Esq. Anya J. Freedman, Esq James H. Napier, Esq OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY ATTORNEY 202 West First Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90012-4401 Telephone: (213) 978-6800 NATIONAL INTEGRATED: Katz Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Integrated Healthcare Group LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Katz, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Integrated Healthcare Group LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-04379 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. National Integrated Healthcare (NIHC) Group -- https://nihcgrp.com/ -- services the Individual Provider, Provider Groups, Multiple Discipline Practices, Practice Management Companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com NAUTILUS INC: Court Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration in Walker Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ROBERT WALKER, Plaintiff v. NAUTILUS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-3414 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denies the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Mr. Walker purchased a Bowflex treadmill from Nautilus. He purchased the treadmill online on March 4, 2019, at a cost of approximately $1,500 and had it shipped to his home in Bellefontaine, Ohio. Allegedly, Walker has not received the continuous horsepower marketed and advertised by Nautilus. Mr. Walker filed a Complaint against Nautilus on July 7, 2020, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, alleging breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and Negligent Misrepresentation. Nautilus then filed the instant Motion to Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss and/or Strike, seeking primarily to compel arbitration, and alternatively to dismiss or strike. At the very bottom of the Bowflex website, in small gray font, read the words "Terms of Use." When Walker purchased the Bowflex treadmill he did not see or click on these "Terms of Use," but if he had, he would have been taken via hyperlink to a document which, if printed, amounts to 13 pages. After reaching the eleventh page of that document, a user would come upon an arbitration provision. The arbitration provision spans five paragraphs. Purchasing the Bowflex treadmill was not Walker's first interaction with Nautilus; he previously purchased a Bowflex elliptical in 2017, and in December 2018 Walker installed fitness apps including the "Max Intelligence" app. Though Walker downloaded the app, he did not subscribe to, pay for, or use the app, and he later uninstalled it. The app's "Terms of Use" include an arbitration provision identical to the arbitration provision hyperlinked to the Bowflex website. According to Nautilus, before using the app users are required to click "accept" affirming that they "agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy" hyperlinked thereto. Its declarant did not affirmatively state whether the requirement to click "accept" has always been in place. According to Walker, users of the app may not have been required to accept any terms of use when Walker downloaded the app. Video from a developer's website shows that the prototypes did not include an "accept" button, and Walker does not recall clicking any "accept" button. The app is currently on its twenty-first version and is now called the "JRNY" app. Discussion The parties have not agreed whether Ohio or Washington law applies in the case, but they each refer to Ohio and Washington law in their briefs, and they agree that the choice of law does not change the outcome. Judge Sargus agrees that the result is the same under both Washington and Ohio law. He analyzes the case under Ohio law, but refers also to Washington law. A. The Website Defendant Nautilus initially argues that the arbitration provision contained within the Bowflex website's "browsewrap" terms of use is valid and enforceable, and that the Court should thus compel arbitration. According to Nautilus, the Bowflex website's browsewrap terms of use are enforceable because they are, in its view, "easily accessible" and "prominently displayed" on the website. One of the "essential elements" of a contract is "mutual assent." Walker contends that there was no mutual assent to the asserted terms of use, and no agreement formed. He submits that due to the inconspicuous nature of the website's browsewrap terms of use, he had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of their existence and thus could not assent to them. The question is whether Walker and Nautilus agreed to arbitrate. Judge Sargus holds that they did not. He finds that rather than being prominently displayed, the terms of use are inconspicuous. And, due to their inconspicuous nature, they also are not easily accessible. The webpages are long as well, and a user viewing the treadmill webpage would have to scroll the equivalent of eight pages to reach the "Terms of Use." A reasonably prudent internet user would not have learned of these terms of use before purchasing fitness equipment on the Bowflex website. Judge Sargus concludes that Walker did not assent to the browsewrap terms of use, including the arbitration provision, hyperlinked to the Bowflex website. Accordingly, he cannot enforce that arbitration provision in the case. Because he has concluded that there was no agreement to arbitrate, the Judge need not address Walker's alternative arguments. B. The Max Intelligence App Nautilus next argues that the Court should compel arbitration in this case through another arbitration provision, this one found in the terms of use of one of Nautilus' apps. Walker responds that the arbitration clause from the terms of the app cannot be enforced to compel arbitration in the case because to do so would be unconscionable. Judge Sargus agrees. He says to require arbitration under a provision in the Terms of Use from an unrelated app that was downloaded but not used, given the totality of circumstances, would be unconscionable under either Washington or Ohio law. First, the Max Intelligence app's terms of use bear the hallmarks of an adhesion contract, and the binary "accept" or "reject" options associated with using the app indicate that the terms set by Nautilus are non-negotiable. Moreover, Nautilus did not explain the arbitration provision to Walker or require Walker to view the agreement before proceeding. Instead Nautilus buried the provision on pages 11 and 12 of its terms of use. The arbitration provision does contain a 60-day opt-out window. However, because the arbitration provision covered all future product purchases and not just use of the Max Intelligence app, the 60-day window closed before Walker purchased the treadmill at issue in the case. Setting up an opt-out provision in this manner limits its significance, and here that significance is outweighed. Second, the arbitration provision is also substantively unconscionable. Among other things, Judge Sargus holds that Nautilus' arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable because it effectively denies Walker "the right to a hearing or an adequate remedy in an efficient and cost-effective manner." The arbitration provision requires consumers to arbitrate in Clark County, Washington, it requires consumers to be responsible for their own expenses, and it requires them to split any costs and fees. The effect, especially combined with the class action waiver, is to economically preclude individual consumers from vindicating their rights. In the case, which involves a treadmill costing less than $2,000, it would be economically irrational for Walker to arbitrate his claim in Clark County, Washington. Assuming an outcome in favor of Walker, the arbitration fees and costs alone would be liable to exceed any damages award. Accordingly, Judge Sargus finds that the app's arbitration provision is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. He need not address Walker's alternative arguments. Because the arbitration provision associated with the app is unconscionable it cannot be used to compel arbitration. Disposition For the reasons he stated, Judge Sargus denies Defendant Nautilus' Motion to Compel Arbitration. Nautilus moved alternatively to dismiss or strike, which the Judge addresses in a separate Opinion and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/7wmp3de4 from Leagle.com. NCAA: Walker Files Suit in Southern District of Indiana ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Randolph Walker, Gari Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01582-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., June 8, 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 Plaintiffs are 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. NEC NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Danner at expressnews.com reports that a data breach at CaptureRx -- affecting more than 1.6 million people -- has sparked at least two proposed class-action lawsuits against the San Antonio health-care technology company. A California woman this week sued NEC Networks, which does business as CaptureRx, in San Antonio federal court seeking more than $5 million on behalf a nationwide class of plaintiffs. That follows a similar complaint filed May 25 in federal court in Kansas City, Missouri, on behalf of Missouri residents. It also seeks more than $5 million in damages. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights is investigating the breach. The agency's website shows 1,656,569 people were affected. A CaptureRx spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment Friday. CaptureRx acts as an administrator for hospitals, clinics and health centers participating in the 340B program, a government initiative requiring pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs at a discount to health care providers caring for under-served populations. The San Antonio lawsuit also names Rite Aid, which contracts with CaptureRx to process pharmacy claims. Walmart also is a defendant in the Kansas City case. CaptureRx disclosed last month that it learned of "unusual activity" in some of its electronic files in February. The company determined the files were accessed without authorization. The files contained the names, dates of birth and prescription information for certain patients of healthcare providers that CaptureRx provides services for. CaptureRx issued a May 5 statement on the data breach, though it didn't disclose how many people were affected. It provided the notice on behalf of about 170 health care providers. It doesn't appear that any of the providers are in San Antonio. In a May 5 letter to Washington state's attorney general, a Pennsylvania lawyer for CaptureRx said 124,175 Washington residents may have been affected by the security breach. The letter was attached to the San Antonio lawsuit. The San Antonio complaint was brought by Daisy Trujillo of Merced County, California, located between San Jose and Fresno. Trujillo is a longtime Rite Aid customer who received notice of the breach. Afterwards, she says in the suit, her cellphone was "inundated with spam" calls and her email was "flooded with spam emails." Trujillo's suit says personal information obtained in the breach can be sold on the "dark web." "Drug manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, hospitals and other healthcare providers often purchase" personal identifiable information and personal health information "on the black market for the purpose of target marketing their products and services to the physical maladies of the data breach victims themselves," the lawsuit alleges. "Insurance companies purchase and use wrongfully disclosed" personal health information "to adjust insureds' medical insurance premiums." Sensitive health care data can sell for as much as $363 for each record, the suit adds, citing the Infosec Institute. CaptureRx and Rite Aid are accused of failing to comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was enacted in 1996 to protect sensitive patient health information. Trujillo seeks to represent a nationwide class of plaintiffs, as well as a separate subclass of California plaintiffs. The judge overseeing the Kansas City case this week granted a motion keeping the identity of the plaintiff private. The motion for the order has been sealed. The plaintiff is only identified as D.W. of Lowry City, Missouri. Both lawsuit's causes of action include negligence, invasion of privacy and breach of implied contract. [GN] NEW-INDY CATAWBA: Kennedy Files Suit in D. South Carolina --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New-Indy Catawba LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terri Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New-Indy Catawba LLC, New-Indy Containerboard LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01704-SAL (D.S.C., June 8, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. New-Indy -- https://newindycontainerboard.com/ -- is an independent, privately-owned manufacturer and supplier of corrugated boxes, recycled containerboard and virgin linerboard in the industrial packaging industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Philip Leader, Esq. Thomas E Pope, Esq. ELORD POPE LAW FIRM 212 East Black Street PO Box 11091 Rock Hill, SC 29731 Phone: (803) 324-7574 Email: bleader@elrodpope.com tpope@elrodpope.com - and - Leonidas E Stavrinakis, Esq. STAVRINAKIS LAW FIRM One Cool Blow Street, Building 200 Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 724-1060 Fax: (843) 853-7816 Email: leon@lawleon.com NOOM INC: Deracleo Sues Over Deceptive Autorenewal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Maryanne Deracleo and Mary Ellen Douglas, on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. NOOM, INC., Case No. 653475/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York, Cty. May 27, 2021), is brought against the Defendant's unlawful practices with regard to the Company's deceptive autorenewal and cancellation policies and help restore integrity to the internet marketplace. The complaint alleges that Defendant Noom is perpetrating one of the nation's largest "free trial" autorenewal scams. Autorenewal schemes, also known as negative option scams, are classic deceptive billing schemes. Noom is a tech startup that touts itself as a "growth machine," but the reality is that its exponential growth from $12 million in revenue in 20172 to more than 400+ million in 20203 has been fueled by its deliberately underhanded practice of tricking New York consumers into buying multi-month "diet" plans they never wanted and never use. Noom offers a supposedly revolutionary diet "built on psychology and science," but where the psychology most comes into play is getting enormous numbers of consumers to hand over their credit card information for a free trial without realizing they will later be auto-enrolled into perpetually "renewing" multi-month diet plans. The autorenewal scheme works as follows. Noom makes deceptive promises that consumers can "try" its purportedly groundbreaking diet and if the consumer decides that Noom is not the right fit, she can move on with no strings attached. It is a classic pitch. Noom is so confident in its diet "based on a cognitive-behavioral approach" that it is willing to let consumers "try" the diet at Noom's financial loss. Yet not only does it turn out that Noom's trial period must be cancelled lest it turn into an automatically renewing subscription—a fact Noom hides as a trap for the unwary—but also that the trial is difficult to cancel. These two intentionally hidden features then combine with Noom's practice of charging for the full cost of the multi-month diet plan as soon as the trial ends. By imposing lump-sum charges for its entire program and extracting up to twelve months of non-refundable advance payments once the supposedly "risk-free" trial expires, Noom burdens New York consumers with the full cost of a weight-loss service they never wanted. The Plaintiffs are consumers who were victimized by Noom's auto-enrollment scheme, suffered injury in fact and lost money because of Noom's violations of New York's consumer protection statute, and thus have standing to pursue public injunctive relief to protect New York consumers from Noom's continuing violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were enrolled in Noom's trial program. Noom, Inc. is a diet company headquartered in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven L. Wittels, Esq. J. Burkett McInturff, Esq. Tiasha Palikovic, Esq. Steven D. Cohen, Esq. Jessica L. Hunter, Esq. Ethan D. Roman, Esq. WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC 18 Half Mile Road Armonk, NY 10504 Phone: (914) 319-9945 Facsimile: (914) 273-2563 Email: slw@wittelslaw.com jbm@wittelslaw.com tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com sdc@wittelslaw.com jlh@wittelslaw.com edr@wittelslaw.com NURTURE INC: Gothot Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Alyse Gothot, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nurture, Inc. doing business as: Happy Family Brands, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 7, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-04997-UA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Happy Family -- https://www.happyfamilyorganics.com/ -- is an organic baby and toddler food company in the US.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg Frederic Coleman, Esq. Rachel L. Soffin, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: gcoleman@milberg.com rsoffin@milberg.com - and - Rebecca K. Timmons, Esq. William F. Cash, Esq. LEVIN LAW 316 South Baylen Street Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7118 Email: btimmons@levinlaw.com bcash@levinlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Richard A. Chesley, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 444 W. Lake, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 368-3430 Fax: (312) 630-5330 Email: richard.chesley@dlapiper.com NVR INC: Conditional Cert. of Loan Employee FLSA Collective Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA COSSABOOM f/k/a MELISSA COLLINS, ANN ADAIR HATCH, and JOEL HUGHES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. NVR, INC. and NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC., Case No. 9:21-cv-80627-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective of Loan Employees employed by the Defendants on or after March 31, 2018; 2. requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all Loan Employees in the putative collective in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, last-known address, cell-phone number, last-known personal email address, and last four digits of their social security number; and 3. authorizing Notice be sent in the form and manner requested. The Plaintiffs say that they have met their lenient burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective members are similarly situated. The Plaintiffs conferred with the Defendants regarding the relief requested, and the Defendants oppose the Motion. On March 31, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed this putative collective action on behalf of themselves and other Loan Officers, seeking unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the FLSA from the Defendants. On April 9, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, adding Loan Processors -- additional similarly situated individuals previously and/or currently employed by Defendants. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as Loan Employees at Defendants' office locations around the country. Together, these Loan Employees allege that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of not paying them for all their time worked, denying Loan Employees overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendants are engaged in home-building and providing home mortgages to their homebuyers. The Defendants employ approximately 900 people in their mortgage banking operations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zl7i7e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Kayla M. Kienzle, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile:(612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com kkienzle@nka.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin M. Young, Esq. Barry J. Miller, Esq Hillary J. Massey, Esq SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 885-6697 E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com bmiller@seyfarth.com hmassey@seyfarth.com OMNI SPECIALTY: Final Order & Judgment Issued in Allicks Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Greg Kays of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, enters Final Approval Order and Judgment in the case, ELLEN ALLICKS d/b/a ALLICKS EXCAVATING, ROGER BIAS, ARNO GRAVES, DAVID GUEST, SHAWN HORNBECK, LARRY MUHS, RON NASH, BRIAN NELMS, WAYNE RUPE, ADAM SEVY, ANTHONY SHAW, RUSTY SHAW, TIM SULLIVAN, ROBER TTHIRY, TODD VOHS, and ROBERT WITHER, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OMNI SPECIALTY PACKAGING, LLC, O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC. d/b/a O'REILLY AUTO PARTS, and OZARK AUTOMOTIVE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01038 (W.D. Mo.). By an order dated Nov. 6, 2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement between the parties in the Action. It also provisionally certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes only, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of notice, and set a final fairness hearing to take place on May 27, 2021. Judge Kays considered all matters submitted to him at the hearing and otherwise, and it appears that notice substantially in the form approved by the Court was given in the manner that the Court ordered. He also finds that the settlement was the result of extensive arms-length negotiations between the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the counsel for the Defendants. The Judge has determined that the proposed settlement of the claims of the Settlement Class Members against the Defendants, as well as the release of the Defendants and the Released Parties, the significant relief provided to the Settlement Class Members in the form of monetary payments to the Settlement Class Members as described in the Settlement Agreement, and the award of attorneys' fees and expenses requested, and the incentive awards requested, are fair, reasonable and adequate. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Kays finally certifies the Action for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of the "Settlement Class," as defined in the Settlement Agreement, namely: "All persons and other entities who purchased O'Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid during the Class Period, as defined in the Settlement Agreement, in the United States, excluding purchases made in Missouri, and also excluding purchases made for resale." Judge Kays appoints Tom Bender and Dirk Hubbard from the law firm Horn Alyward & Bandy in Kansas City, Missouri; Gene Graham, William Carr, and Bryan White from the law firm of White, Graham, Buckley & Carr, LLC; Clayton Jones of the Clayton Jones Law Firm; Paul D. Lundberg of the Lundberg Law Firm in Sioux City, Iowa; Rhon E. Jones and Tucker Osborne of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Poprtis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama; John G. Emerson of Emerson Firm, PLLC in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas; Mark P. Bryant and N. Austin Kennedy of the Bryant Law Center, PSC in Paducah, Kentucky; John D. Robinson, Chris Ellis, Shane M. Mendenhall, Joshua G. Rohrscheib, and Zachary P. Anderson of Bolen, Robinson, & Ellis, LLP in Decatur, Illinois; and, Travis Griffith of Griffith Law Center, PLLC in Charleston, West Virginia, as the counsel for the Class The Judge designates named Plaintiffs Adam Sevy, Shawn Hornbeck, Arno Graves, Ron Nash, Todd Vohs, Wayne Rupe, David Guest, Brian Nelms, Robert Thiry, Larry Muhs, Anthony Shaw, Rusty Shaw, Tim Sullivan, Roger Bias, Robert Wither, and Ellen Allicks d/b/a Allicks Excavating as the representative of the Settlement Class. The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Release, including any and all amendments and exhibits, have been entered into in good faith and are fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, the Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members, and in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), and any other applicable law. The parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement and Release in accordance with its terms and conditions. Judge Kays declares that the Settlement Agreement and Release is binding on all parties and Settlement Class Members, and it is to be preclusive in all pending and future lawsuits or other proceedings. As described more fully in the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants have agreed to a Class Settlement Fund from which the Settlement Administrator will pay each Qualified Class Member an amount based on the member's total purchases of O'Reilly 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid during the Class Period. Pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Judge awards the lass Counsel attorney's fees in the amount of $2,105,340.28 and expenses of $25,000. He also awards incentive awards of $5,000 to each of the sixteen named Class Representatives. In addition, $100,000 of the amount awarded for the Class Counsels' attorneys' fees is to be paid to the Settlement Administrator, to be held for the benefit of the Class Counsel until the Settlement Administrator files its Final Report regarding administration of the settlement. Court approval is necessary before the Settlement Administrator will disburse these funds. The Action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs as against the Defendants and the Released Parties. Without further order of the Court, the settling Parties may agree to reasonably necessary extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Release. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Final Approval Order & Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/yje6rxvf from Leagle.com. ONITY INC: Misclassifies Trainers & Installers, Boggs Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The case, JORDAN BOGGS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-00842-MK (D. Oregon, June 3, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Oregon Wage and Hour Laws. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a trainer and installer from in or around February 2013 until his resignation on December 30, 2020, brings this class and collective action complaint against the Defendant seeking to obtain monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief resulting from the Defendant's alleged misclassification of its "installers" and "trainers" as independent contractors. According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other similarly situated trainers and installers regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant deprived them of their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the applicable overtime rate in accordance with the law. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly failed to make, keep, and preserve accurate time records of its trainers and installers, and improperly required them to pay its ordinary business expenses. Onity, Inc. provides innovative HVAC, refrigeration, fire, security and building automation technologies services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl Post, Esq. John David Burgess, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER 1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400 Portland, OR 97205 Tel: (503) 241-3617 Fax: (503) 241-2249 E-mail: carlpost@lawofficesofdanielsnyder.com johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com OREGON DOC: Completion of Class Cert. Discovery Due August 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snider, et al., v. Oregon Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00510 (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time regarding class certification deadlines as follows: -- Document discovery and class certification discovery is to be completed by August 17, 2021. -- The Plaintiff's Brief regarding class certification is due by Sept. 16, 2021. -- Defendant's Response Brief is due by Oct. 18, 2021. -- Plaintiff's Reply Brief is due by Nov. 4, 2021. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Prison Condition involving Prisoner Civil Rights. The Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency of the U.S. state of Oregon charged with managing a system of 14 state prisons.[CC] OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Parducci Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Richard P. Parducci, as conservator for and on behalf of Margarett Parducci and as Trustee of the JOHN A. PARDUCCI AND MARGARETT L. PARDUCCI SURVIVOR'S TRUST dated December 28, 1987, v. Overland Solutions, Inc., AMCO Insurance and Company and Does 1-20, Case No. 3:18-cv-07162-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting this Motion for Class Certification in its entirety and that: 1. Class and subclass be certified; 2. Plaintiff Richard P. Parducci be appointed Class Representative; and 3. the law firms of Insurance Litigators & Counselors, PLC, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, and Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. be appointed Class Counsel. The Plaintiff seeks certification of a California Class of insureds based upon his allegations that AMCO's inflation of the replacement cost value of its insureds' homes violates California's Unfair Competition Law (the UCL) and Elder Abuse Law, constitutes an intentional and negligent misrepresentation and breaches the duty of good faith and fair dealing. As a result of AMCO's practices, Plaintiff seeks certification of the following Class: "All owners of a homeowners insurance policy issued by AMCO Insurance Company that insured a dwelling in California on a replacement cost basis utilizing AMCO or its agent's survey, appraisal or inspection methodology to calculate the dwelling coverage limits and whose "Change in Coverage" following the survey, appraisal, or inspection was less than zero. The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass: "All owners 65 years of age or older of a homeowners insurance policy issued by AMCO Insurance Company that insured a dwelling in California on a replacement cost basis utilizing AMCO or its agent's survey, appraisal or inspection methodology to calculate the dwelling coverage limits, whose "Change in Coverage" following the survey, appraisal, or inspection was less than zero, and whose Coverage A Dwelling amount was not lowered as a result. Richard Parducci began handling insurance matters for his grandparents around 2008, first as power of attorney, and later, as trustee. In 2018, he was appointed conservator for his grandmother. Around 2015, he hired an attorney to review his grandparents' insurance policies and first learned that their home's replacement cost value was inflated, causing the trust to pay excessive premiums to AMCO. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35c8wUy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Attila Panczel, Esq. Joseph John Turri, Esq. INSURANCE LITIGATORS & COUNSELORS, PLC. insterminator@aol.com 419-J Talmage Road Ukiah, CA 95482 Telephone: (707) 462-6117 Facsimile: (707) 230-5525 - and - Lawrence G. Papale, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE 1308 Main Street, Suite 117 Saint Helena, CA 94574 Telephone: (707) 963-1704 E-mail: lgpapale@papalelaw.com - and - Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. Courtney C. Gipson, Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: rgm@mtattorneys.com cgipson@mtattorneys.com The Attorneys for Mark Davis Insurance Agency, Inc., are: Alex Graft, Esq. Kendall A. Layne, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP 333 Bush St., Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2872 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 Facsimile: (415) 434-0882 E-mail: alex.graft@lewisbrisbois.com kendall.layne@lewisbrisbois.com Attorneys for AMCO Insurance Company Sonia Renee Martin, Esq. Anna S. Youssefi, Esq. DENTONS US LLP One Market Plaza Spear Street Tower, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2708 Telephone: (415) 267-4000 Facsimile: (415) 267-4198 (fax) E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com anna.youssefi@dentons.com - and - Mark Lane Hanover, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 5900 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900 Chicago, IL 60606-6404 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com Attorneys for Overland Solutions, Inc. Hsiao C. Mao, Esq. Alex Holtzman, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 293-6800 Facsimile: (415) 293-6899 E-mail: mmao@bsfllp.com aholtzman@bsfllp.com PALISADES ACQUISITION: McCrobie Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MCCROBIE v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC; ASTA FUNDING, INC.; HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC; and TODD HOUSLANGER, Case No. 1:15-cv-00018-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying this case as class action against the Defendants; 2. certifying himself as the representative of the class; and 3. appointing Brian L. Bromberg and Seth Andrews as class counsel. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Palisades, H&A, and Houslanger on January 6, 2015 over collection efforts directed against him. He added class claims against all defendants, including Asta, through his Second Amended Complaint, filed on August 29, 2019. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' post-judgment collection efforts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the New York General Business Law (GBL). The Plaintiff moves for an order certifying a class, defined as follows: "(a) Consumers with New York addresses (b) Who had an income execution forwarded to their employer bearing the signature of Todd Houslanger (or any other attorney employed by Houslanger & Associates) OR (c) Who had their bank account restrained after a subpoena and/or restraining notice bearing Todd Houslanger's signature (or any other attorney employed by Houslanger & Associates) was forwarded to their bank, (d) In which Defendant Todd Houslanger represented that Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC was the “current creditor” (or employed any other substantially similar language) by way of assignment, (e) Subsequently had their wages garnished, or had money taken from their bank accounts pursuant to post judgment remedies initiated and enforced against them by Defendant Todd Houslanger, (f) From one year before August 27, 2015 to the present." Palisades is a New Jersey-based collection agency. Asta Funding is a diversified financial services company that assists consumers and serves investors through the strategic management of three complementary business segments: consumer receivables, social security disability advocacy and personal injury claims. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cr1zTw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. Joshua Tarrant-Windt, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 352 Rutland Road No. 1 Brooklyn, NY 11225 Telephone: (212) 248-7906 E-mail: brian@bromberglawoffice.com joshua@bromberglawoffice.com - and - Timothy Hiller, Esq. Seth Andrews, Esq. Kenneth Hiller, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC 6000 North Bailey Ave., Suite 1A Amherst, NY 14226 Telephone: (716) 564-3288 E-mail: thiller@kennethhiller.com sandrews@kennethhiller.com PALM BEACH, FL: May Spend Up to $850K to Defend Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Hannah Morse, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that Palm Beach County is set to spend up to $850,000 retaining outside legal help to defend itself in two lawsuits seeking class-action status. County Commissioners, except Mack Bernard, last month agreed to hire West Palm Beach-based Greenberg Traurig, which has served as national counsel for several class-action lawsuits. One lawsuit in Palm Beach County Circuit Court seeks class-action status for 1,900 property owners who say the county improperly levied interest on liens that were placed on their property for code violations. B&B Properties, the lead plaintiff, was issued a notice of violation in March 2005 for storing a double-wide trailer and putting up a canopy without the proper permits and putting up a canopy without a permit at a property in Royal Palm Beach. A special magistrate found B&B in violation a year later, and in 2007 a lien was placed on the property without the property owner's knowledge, which came with another surprise: accruing interest. "The special magistrate did not have the authority to award interest and B&B did not have the opportunity to contest the issue of interest," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit states that the county kept the interest rate at 11%, even when these rates dropped. Over a 13-year period, the interest accrued on the lien was $69,296.19. The original code fine? $50,000. The county also levied a collection charge of $22,658.51. The lawsuit contends "the collection agency did nothing to collect the alleged amounts due." While B&B Properties had partially paid for the fees to the tune of $44,761.60, the county still requested the remaining balance of nearly $100,000 and did not release the lien. The lawsuit said this practice has impacted property owners' credit scores and left them unable to buy homes or cars and incapable of selling property. Property owners hope a judge will force the county to stop this practice, deem the fines excessive and order refunds for interest, collection fees and legal fees. The second lawsuit seeking class-action status, filed in U.S. District Court, claims the county violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act by misclassifying more than 600 people as volunteers. The county uses volunteers at three of its four golf courses — Osprey Point, Okeeheelee and Park Ridge — as well as at its teaching facility at John Prince Golf Learning Center. These golf volunteers work a number of jobs, including bag drop attendant, ranger and starter's assistant, and are asked to perform tasks such as welcoming customers, retrieving and cleaning golf balls from the driving range and patrolling the course. Instead of getting paid, volunteers are compensated with discounted and free golf rounds of golf, the lawsuit said. "As a result of this 'volunteer program,' (the county's) golf facilities obtain free labor as (the county) hires volunteers to perform the same labor for which private golf facilities must pay employee proper wages," the lawsuit said. The three golf volunteers named in the lawsuit worked at Osprey Point for three to four years starting in January 2016. One volunteer alleged he was retaliated against because he questioned the legality of the volunteer program. In October, after a countywide furlough, he asked to be put on the schedule but was told "his services were no longer needed and that he was terminated." The county maintains that the golf volunteers were just that — volunteers, not county employees. The help-wanted advertisements for these positions specifically state that the county was looking for volunteers. "Plaintiffs did not, and cannot, allege that they ever expected to receive compensation for their volunteer work," the county countered in a motion to dismiss some of the counts. The county agreed to shell out up to $500,000 for legal counsel in the lien interest lawsuit, and up to $350,000 for the golf course volunteer lawsuit. County Attorney Denise Marie Nieman, who will be involved in the legal strategy for these cases, confirmed that these are the only active suits against the county seeking class-action status. [GN] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 28 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 Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) from September 11, 2020 through May 5, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Peloton securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Peloton 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 false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in addition to the tragic death of a child, Peoloton'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. 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+. On this news, Peloton's stock price fell $16.28 per share, or more than 14% over the next three trading days to close at $99.93 per share on April 21, 2021, damaging investors. On May 5, 2021, the CPSC and Peloton each issued statements in which the announced that they had come to an agreement to voluntarily recall Peloton's Tread+ and Tread treadmills. On this news, Peloton's stock price fell $14.08 per share, or 14%, to close at $82.62 per share on May 5, 2021, further damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 28, 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 Peloton securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pelotoninteractiveinc-pton-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-395/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] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of June 28 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Peloton Interactive Inc. ("Peloton" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PTON) and reminds investors of the June 28, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Peloton stock or options between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/PTON. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) 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. On this news, Peloton's stock price fell $16.28 per share, or more than 14%, over the next three trading days to close at $99.93 per share on April 21, 2021, damaging investors. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Peloton's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/86594 [GN] PEPPERIDGE FARM: Continues to Face Suit Over Mislabeled Crackers ---------------------------------------------------------------- natlawreview.com reports that two recently-filed class actions target Pepperidge Farm butter-flavored crackers and Nestle vanilla-flavored coffee creamer: Pepperidge Farm Butter Crackers: A class of consumers filed suit against Pepperidge Farm, Inc. on May 31, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois claiming that the company's "Golden Butter" crackers are misleadingly labeled because the product does not contain a meaningful amount of butter and uses primarily synthetic substitutes like vegetable oils. The claims are based on alleged violations of Illinois consumer protection law, federal warranty law, and unjust enrichment. As we previously reported, Pepperidge Farm faces a lawsuit based on similar claims in New York. Nestle Vanilla-Flavored Coffee-mate: A class of consumers filed suit against Nestle USA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 2, 2021 alleging that its natural vanilla-flavored Coffee-mate products are misleadingly labeled because the products purport to contain natural vanilla flavor when they instead contain primarily artificial vanilla flavor. The claims are based on alleged violations of California consumer protection law and unjust enrichment. Vanilla flavoring remains a popular target for class actions. Two other cases in the consumer class action space have recently settled: Pressed Juicery "Greens Juice" Settlement: Pressed Juicery, Inc. reached a $695,000 settlement agreement with a class of plaintiffs that sued claiming the company's "Greens Juices" product contained sugary fruit juices as the primary ingredients instead of the green vegetables represented on the labels. Consumers that purchased qualifying product between May 1, 2014 and May 19, 2021 are eligible to file a claim and receive $1 per product purchased for up to 10 products. Claimants need not show proof of purchase. Final approval of the settlement is scheduled for October 8, 2021. Blue Diamond Vanilla Flavoring Settlement: Blue Diamond Growers reached a $2.6 million settlement with a class of plaintiffs that sued claiming "Almond Breeze" brand nut-based dairy-alternative products that referenced vanilla flavor did not use real vanilla. Consumers that purchased qualifying products between April 15, 2014 and May 17, 2021 are eligible to file a claim and receive $0.50 per product without proof of purchase, or up to $1 per product with proof of purchase, for up to 10 products. A fairness hearing is scheduled for August 25, 2021, and claims must be submitted by November 23, 2021. [GN] PRECISION CASTPARTS: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on May 24, 2021, United States Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of defendants upon a motion for reconsideration in a putative class action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against an industrial manufacturing company and certain of its executives. Murphy v. Precision Castparts Corp., No. 3:16-CV-00521-SB, 2021 WL 2080016 (D. Or. May 24, 2021). Plaintiffs primarily alleged that defendants made misrepresentations that the company remained on target to meet earnings projections. The Court had previously granted summary judgment for defendants with respect to certain alleged misstatements, but had determined that certain statements regarding the company's progress toward its projections contained an element of present fact and were therefore actionable. On a motion for reconsideration based on the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Wochos v. Tesla, Inc., 985 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court dismissed these remaining allegations, holding that the challenged statements did not contain the "concrete" description of present facts that is required for such statements to be actionable. The Court first explained that, in Tesla, the Ninth Circuit had concluded that various statements made by the company's CEO that the company was "on track" to meet performance objectives and that the company was making "great progress" were either forward-looking statements protected by the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") or were otherwise too vague to be actionable. Id. at *2-3. The Court explained that the Ninth Circuit had determined that such statements were non-actionable because they did not include a "'concrete description' concerning the 'past and present state' of production"; thus, a general statement that a company is "on track" to meet projections is "forward-looking for the same reasons" as the original projections. Id. at *4. The Court further explained that the challenged statements before it regarding the company's performance targets -- such as "we're on that slope," "we're pretty much on that drum beat," and "we hover around that line" -- were indistinguishable from those in Tesla and did "not include sufficiently 'concrete descriptions' of present facts to fall outside the protection of the Safe Harbor." Id. The Court also held that challenged statements that "the framework is intact" regarding the company's projections could not "be false unless there was no longer any part of the framework intact." Id. While plaintiffs argued that the company's statement that it had "actually hit certain intermediate benchmarks" constituted a "concrete factual assertion about a specific present or past circumstance," the Court held that, under Tesla, such generic statements were too vague to be actionable because they did not identify any specific benchmark that had been reached. Id. Because the Court had already held that plaintiffs failed to establish loss causation with respect to challenged statements other than those relating to the projections, the Court granted summary judgment for defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims. Id. at *5–6. [GN] PREMIER MORTGAGE: Faces New TCPA Class Action Over Robotexts ------------------------------------------------------------ lexology.com reports that well the mortgage vertical is certainly in the plaintiff's bar's crosshairs these days. As we've been reporting, a string of new class actions have been filed targeting the practices of mortgage lenders with respect to their marketing text message campaigns. In the latest such suit-this one against Premier Mortgage, LLC-the Plaintiff claim she was texted 9 times after advising the lender she was not interested in any mortgage products. She also contends she never solicited information about a mortgage to begin with. This is true (allegedly) although her number was on the DNC list. Notably the complaint seeks recovery for both DNC violations and for violations of the TCPA's ATDS provisions-Plaintiff alleges an ATDS was used with the ability to store numbers using a R&SNG. We'll see how those allegations hold up. The Plaintiff seeks to represent three classes: Robocalling Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received one or more telemarketing call on their cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing, made via the same system(s) used to call the Plaintiffs. Policy Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received two or more telemarketing call on their residential landline or cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing. National Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the commencement of this litigation until trial, received two or more telemarketing call on their residential landline or cellular telephone number from or on behalf of Premier Marketing to a telephone number that was registered with the NDNCR for more than 30 days at the time of each call. The case is brought by the ever-dangerous Avi Kaufman AND the original Wolf of TCPAWorld, Anthony Paronich. [GN] PROVENTION BIO: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming July 20, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Provention Bio, Inc. ("Provention" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRVB) securities between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Provention investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. 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 if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] PURECYCLE TECH: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: New York, N.Y., June 2, 2021. Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds: (i) purchasers of the securities of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT) between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive; and (ii) all holders of Roth CH Acquisition I Co. securities entitled to participate in the March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on the merger with PureCycle (the "Class Period") of the important July 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased PureCycle securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the PureCycle class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2089.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the management team bringing PureCycle public had previously brought six other failed business public only to have each implode thereafter; (2) the management team bringing PureCycle public had characterized rank speculation as financial projections to investors in the past; (3) the primary motivation of the management team bringing PureCycle public was to complete any transaction, good or bad, to obtain tens of millions of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (4) PureCycle faces higher competition for high quality feedstock than it has led investors to believe, materially undermining the management team's financial projections; (5) PureCycle's patent is nowhere as cogent or valuable as it has led investors to believe, and the technology underlying its business operations is unproven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (6) in reality, PureCycle's flammable pressurized process is not yet functional, especially at scale, and is dangerous; (7) PureCycle purports to be advancing to commercial production scale despite still having operational issues at a lab scale; and (8) as a result, defendants' positive statements during the Class Period about PureCycle's business performance, financial and operational metrics, and financial prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the PureCycle class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2089.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ROBERT BAFFERT: Federman & Sherwood Discloses Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ On May 13, 2021, a group of horseplayers who placed bets on the 2021 Kentucky Derby filed a purported class action lawsuit against Robert Baffert, the trainer of the horse who finished first in the race, Medina Spirit, and against the owner of the horse, Zedan Racing Stables. The lawsuit is currently pending in the Central District of California. It was announced on May 8th at a Sunday press conference (via Lexington, KY., WLEX Television Station) that Medina Spirit tested positive in a post-race test for the banned drug, betamethasone, an anti-inflammatory steroid. This post-race positive drug test has now officially been confirmed by a second sample requested by Robert Baffert, setting the stage for Medina Spirit's likely disqualification from the Kentucky Derby. If Medina Spirit is disqualified, then the 2nd place horse in the race, Mandaloun, will be placed 1st and the 3rd place finisher will be placed 2nd, and so on and so forth, with each horse moving up in the final race results. The owners of those horses, as well as the trainers and jockeys, will be given the appropriate shares of the purse. Unfortunately, the bettors who wagered on the actual winning horses that did not dope will once again be left with nothing. This lawsuit has been filed with the intent to help clean up the sport of racing, protect the horses, and to represent the horseplayers and fans who are completely ignored. Without the horseplayers, the sport of horseracing would not exist. If you would like to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, contact us and reference Case Number: 2:21-cv-04045. [GN] ROMEO POWER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of June 15 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP's law firm is Romeo Power, Inc. ("Romeo") (NYSE: RMO) (NYSE: RMO.WT) f / k / a RMG Acquisition Corp. ("Romeo") (NYSE: RMO) (NYSE: RMO.WT) "RMG") (NYSE: RMG) (NYSE: RMG.U) (NYSE: RMG.WS) Investors filed in securities fraud class action on behalf of anyone who purchased or acquired Romeo securities Between October 5, 2020 And March 30, 2021, Comprehensive ("class period"). Investor Deadline Notice: Investors who have purchased or acquired Romeo Securities During class At the latest June 15, 2021Demands that he be nominated as the representative plaintiff of the group. Please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP for additional information or how to participate in this proceeding. James Malo, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrian Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; Toll free number (844) 887-9500.By email info@ktmc.com; Or click https://www.ktmc.com/romeo-powerclass-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=romeo Romeo is an energy technology company specializing in the design and manufacture of lithium-ion battery modules and packs for commercial electric vehicles.A special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) established for the purpose of a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, restructuring, or similar business combination with one or more companies in the diversified resource and industrial materials sector. RMG. On October 5, 2020, RMG has announced a final agreement on a business combination with Romeo.on December 29, 2020, Romeo announced that the business merger with RMG has been completed. The business combination was approved by RMG shareholders at a special meeting held on November 11, 2018. December 28, 2020 Completed with December 29, 2020. During the class action, the defendant is estimated to earn 2020 Romeo $ 11 million, And Romeo's estimated revenue for 2021 $ 140 million. Defendant further stated that Romeo has the capacity and supply to meet end-user demand for Romeo's products, Romeo is not bound "at any level in the value chain" and its supply is hedged. He stated that he had not seen any material. Challenges that hinder growth. The truth was revealed March 30, 2021 When Romeo issues a press release, submits a report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K, and discloses quarterly and year-end financial results after the market closes. December 31, 2020, Held a conference call between investors and analysts. Defendants shocked investors by revealing that Romeo's production was hampered by a shortage of battery cells, thus reducing estimated revenues in 2021 by about 71-87%. on March 31, 2021, Morgan Stanley sets Romeo's target price per share $ 12 To $ 7Following this news, Romeo's share price fell from its closing price. March 30, 2021 of $ 10.37 Closing price per share $ 8.33 Per share $ 2.04 Per share, or almost 20%. The complaint alleges that during the class action, the defendant concealed: (2) The potential future risks that Defendant warned about supply interruptions or shortages had already occurred, adversely affecting Romeo's business, operations and outlook. (3) Romeo did not have battery cells in stock to increase production in 2021 to meet end-user demand. (4) Romeo's supply constraints were a major obstacle to Romeo's earnings growth. (5) Romeo's battery cell supply chain was unhedged, but in reality it was completely at risk and its 2021 inventory was tied to two battery cell suppliers and the spot market. It was. Romeo Investors At the latest June 15, 2021Through, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other attorneys, you may seek to be nominated as the Group's principal plaintiff representative, or you may choose to do nothing and remain absent group members. The main plaintiff is the representative who acts on behalf of all class members in conducting the proceedings. To be nominated as the primary plaintiff, the court must determine that the claims of the members of the group are typical of the claims of other groups and that the members of the group adequately represent the group. Your ability to share recovery is unaffected by the decision to become the primary plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP has filed class actions in state and federal courts nationwide, including securities fraud, breach of trustee obligations, and other breach of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is the driving force behind corporate governance reform, recovering billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors. USA And all over the world. The company represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraud against the government and share the government's dollar recovery). The proceedings in this proceeding were not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. Learn more about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. www.ktmc.com. Contact Information: Kessler Topaz Melzer & Check, LLP James Maro Jr., Esq. Adrian Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] S-L DISTRIBUTION: July 19 Extension of Opposition Brief Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MARSTON and BELAL SAFI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02187-JEJ (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. extending the Defendant's deadline for responding to the Plaintiffs' pending Motion for Class Certification by three weeks, to enable the Defendant to pursue discovery on the new overtime claim before serving its opposition brief and to allow Defendant to address the new allegations in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in its opposition brief; and 2. extending the deadline for the Defendant's class certification opposition brief from June 28, 2021 to July 19, 2021. S-L Distribution produces and distributes food products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g5DVhU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Thomson, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. Zach Rubin, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Chad Hatmaker, Esq. J. Keith Coates, Esq. WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT, ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC Post Office Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37901 Telephone: (865) 215-1000 SAFECO INSURANCE: Montana Court Certifies 2 Classes in Dow Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SUSAN DOW, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A LIBERTY MUTUAL COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. CV 20-31-BLG-SPW (D. Mont.), Judge Susan P. Watters of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Billings Division, grants Dow's Motion for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certification. Before the Court is Plaintiff Dow's Motion for Rule 23(b)(3) Class Certification. The Defendants oppose certifying the class. The proposed class action concerns the Defendants' alleged underpayment of general contractor overhead and profit ("GCOP") on certain claims. The Plaintiff has two proposed classes: 1. Every Montana property owner with a Safeco homeowners insurance policy (a) who suffered a covered structural residential loss from Feb. 6, 2012 to the date the class is certified, (b) where Safeco accepted liability and paid GCOP on some portions of the structural loss, but (c) where Safeco did not pay GCOP on all portions of the structural loss; and 2. Every member of Class 1 from Feb. 2, 2018, to the date the class is certified (owing to the two-year statute of limitations on UTPA actions). The Plaintiff contends that Safeco systematically excluded certain line items from receiving a GCOP surcharge and therefore systematically underpaid claims. GCOP represents the "expenses incurred by a General Contractor that cannot be attributed to individual projects, and includes any and all expenses necessary for the General Contractor to operate their business" plus profit. When an insurer determines that a general contractor is likely to be required, it includes GCOP as a "component of the initial loss estimate" and, because it is included with the initial actual cash value payment, it is owed to an insured even before repairs begin, according to Dow. Plaintiff Dow's central contention is that, although Safeco generally handles GCOP appropriately, it does not include the surcharge on roof-related line items and this failure to pay represents an implicit underpayment of replacement cost value. Safeco responds that it paid Dow, and other claimants in the proposed class, the amount actually and necessarily incurred and invoiced as per the policy language Discussion For certification to be appropriate, the Plaintiff must meet the four Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) elements as well as 23(b)(3). If all five requirements are met, certification is appropriate. If any are not met, the Court must conclude that a class action is not maintainable. It has broad discretion in determining whether certification is appropriate, but it must engage in a rigorous analysis. An evaluation of whether the class is likely to succeed on the merits is inappropriate, but the Court must analyze the facts only to the extent necessary to answer the 23(a) and (b) factors. 1. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 23(a) Factors A. Numerosity The Plaintiff argues that the proposed class includes more than 100 members and possibly nearly 1,000. In discovery, Safeco admitted to paying GCOP on some but not all portions of covered losses in "hundreds" of cases. For a class that includes well over 100 members (and potentially many times more), joinder of all parties is plainly impractical, and Judge Watters finds that the proposed classes meet the numerosity requirement. B. Commonality The Plaintiff asserts that commonality is satisfied because the question raised by Dow, namely whether Safeco may deduct GCOP on roof-related losses, is common to the class as a whole and the answer to that question essentially resolves the suit. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiff has not proven there is a common question susceptible to determination by class-wide evidence whose answer will resolve the litigation because whether GCOP is owed turns on individual proof and the unique facts presented by each claim. They claim that Dow "has no generalized class-wide proof of when GCOP may be owed to establish a prima facie case of liability." Judge Watters holds that the Defendants' argument fails because the common class-wide contention is once Safeco determines that the repairs on a covered loss are likely to require the services of a general contractor, Safeco must pay GCOP on the entire structural loss, and it cannot omit GCOP on roof-related line items. Essentially the Defendants attempt to cut to the merits of the claim prematurely. The Judge finds that the common question sufficiently binds the class and the dissimilarities (precisely excised from the class question) do not impede common resolution. Defendants are free to marshal evidence showing that the policy does not require GCOP payments on every line item when it is paid on some and that whether GCOP is owed is calculated based on individualized facts in order to resolve the class questions in its favor, but that does not preclude a finding of commonality. C. Typicality The Plaintiff contends that typicality is met because Safeco handled Dow's claim the same way as the other proposed class members based on Safeco's express written policies. Therefore, her claims are typical of the class and she does not have interests adverse to the class. The Defendants respond that she is not a typical representative because she has been paid all amounts due for her completed repairs and cannot therefore show injury or damages. They also assert that typicality is not met because even if Dow could establish that she is entitled to GCOP, this would not establish GCOP is required for other customers because GCOP is an individualized question. Judge Watters finds that the alleged injury is underpayment of GCOP at the cash value stage and that claim is identical to the other proposed class members' claims. Therefore, Dow's claim is typical of the class. The Defendants' argument that Dow cannot represent the class because her contractor would capture any awarded money does not defeat typicality. D. Fairness and Adequacy The Plaintiff claims that she will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class because she and her counsel do not have any interests that potentially conflict with any member of the class and that she understands and appreciates the class claims and her responsibility to consider the interests of the class equally with her own. The Defendants claim that she cannot adequately represent a class of insureds who are allegedly owed more payments because she is not owed more payments and any additional payments would immediately go to her general contractor. Judge Watters holds that Dow meets this requirement and will fairly and adequately address and represent the interests of the class. Dow's counsel filed a declaration affirming their understanding of the requirements and duties of a class representative. Her interests coincide and do not conflict with the objectives of the proposed class and the common class question. This satisfies the adequacy requirement. 2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Factors A class action may be maintained if the Court finds that shared questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods of fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. A. Predominance The Plaintiff argues that predominance is satisfied because the same evidence will suffice for each member to demonstrate breach of contract and that this liability question is the only question this case presents. The Defendants respond that individualized issues predominate because Safeco's obligation is to pay repair costs actually and necessarily incurred and that the Plaintiff's "pay on some, pay on all" theory is incorrectly applied to the case. Judge Watters agrees with the Plaintiff on the issue of predominance. The proposed classes, by definition, only include proposed members who are impacted by the common question of fact -- whether they are owed GCOP on all repairs when they were paid GCOP on some. While Safeco may be able to demonstrate whether GCOP is owed as a matter of course, that argument is inappropriate regarding the predominance inquiry. The Court may look to facts to determine predominance -- and it has -- but to delve into the merits of the class questions would be to leapfrog the certification analysis under Wolin and Rule 23(b)(3). At trial, the Plaintiff will have to prove that GCOP is owed on all portions of a covered loss, not just some. The Defendants' arguments against certification on this element stress that GCOP is an issue of individualized proof, but that contention actually proves the existence of a predominant common factual question—namely whether GCOP is owed on all line items regardless of those individualized issues. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that predominance under Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied. B. Superiority The Plaintiff claims that a class action is superior because of the relatively small (~$5,000) individual amounts at issue in this case and a class action is the most effective way to hold Safeco accountable and divide the large litigation costs to make it worth a plaintiff's while. Additionally, a class action would prevent inconsistent outcomes and potentially prevent dozens or hundreds of similar successive suits. Judge Watters states that it does not appear that any other litigation by these class members has begun. Because of the class definition including only the issue of GCOP payment, there is little to no interest in a class member individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions. It is highly desirable to the Court to concentrate these actions, given the size of the potential class, rather than preside over hundreds of overlapping lawsuits regarding coverage and payment. This would undermine judicial efficiency by duplicating discovery and costs, as well as erode the relatively small individual claim amounts at issue. The Judge finds that a class action will be the most efficient and fair way to resolve the questions at issue. Hence, the Plaintiff has met the Rule 23(b)(3) factors. 3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) Factors Rule 23(g) requires that the Court appoints class counsel. In doing so, it must consider the work counsel has done in identifying and investigating potential claims in the action, the counsel's experience in handling class actions and complex litigation, the counsel's knowledge of the applicable law, and the resources the counsel will commit to representing the class The Plaintiff's counsel asserts that it should be appointed class counsel because they are experienced in GCOP litigation, class actions, and other forms of complex litigation. They also assert that they have the resources to litigate the case to its conclusion. Judge Watters finds that the Plaintiff's counsel meets these requirements and will be appointed class counsel. Conclusion Judge Watters concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) criteria and therefore class certification is appropriate. Accordingly, she grants the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class. The counsel for the Plaintiff and Safeco are ordered to prepare a proposed class certification order for the Court's review within two weeks of the date of the Order. A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ta8jyxjt from Leagle.com. SAN DIEGO, CA: Bloom Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL BLOOM, STEPHEN CHATZKY, TONY DIAZ, VALERIE GRISCHY, PENNY HELMS, BENJAMIN HERNANDEZ, DOUG HIGGINS, SUZONNE KEITH, GERALD STARK, ANNA STARK, and DAVID WILSON, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:17-cv-02324-AJB-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J. Battaglia entered an order: 1. granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. -- The motion to certify the Rule 23(b)(3) Main Class and Disability Sub-Class is denied. -- However, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion as to the Rule 23(b)(2) Main Class. The following class definition will apply: -- All persons in the City of San Diego who used, use, or will use an RV or other vehicle as their only form of shelter, anywhere, at any time, after November 15, 2017. -- By June 14, 2021, the parties are ordered to contact Magistrate Judge Daniel Butcher's chambers for further scheduling of this case; and 2. granting motion to withdraw Nichole Marie Mendoza as counsel of record. This action challenges Defendant City of San Diego's ticketing and impoundment of vehicles used by individuals as shelter. The Named Plaintiffs are eleven individuals seeking an order enjoining the City from enforcing its Vehicle Habitation Ordinance and Oversized Vehicle Ordinance ("OVO") until the City has in place adequate, alternate shelter options for persons inhabiting in their vehicles. The Plaintiffs also seek a restitution process to compensate class members who paid fines or had vehicles impounded under the City's challenged ordinances. The City's OVO, codified at San Diego Municipal Code section 86.0139(a), makes it unlawful "for any person to park or leave standing upon any public street, park road or parking lot, any oversized vehicle, non-motorized vehicle, or recreational vehicle between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m." A citation for nighttime recreational vehicle parking is punishable by a fine of $100 plus a $12.50 surcharge, and that fine doubles if not paid within 21 days. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TSDVcd at no extra charge.[CC] SANTANDER BANK: Bray Files Class Suit in District of South Dakota ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santander Bank, N.A., et al. The case is styled as Steele Bray, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated customers v. Santander Bank, N.A., Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions Inc., Case No. 4:21-mc-00007-KES (D.S.D., June 7, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Motion to Enforce subpoena and compel deposition and document production. Santander Bank, N. A., formerly Sovereign Bank -- https://www.santanderbank.com/ -- is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Spanish Santander Group.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: JD Haas, Esq. JD HAAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1120 East 80th Street, Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55420 Phone: (952) 345-1025 Fax: (952) 854-1665 Email: JDhaas@AttorneysForConsumers.com SAPPI PAPER: Faces Class Action Over PFAS Contamination ------------------------------------------------------- WABI reports that the owners of several paper making facilities in Maine as well as a landfill are being named in a class action suit regarding PFAS contamination. It follows a complaint filed in March by a Skowhegan man against Sappi Paper Mill, for allowing the so-called forever chemicals to contaminate his property and drinking water. This new suit was hand filed on June 2 in Skowhegan. It adds another plaintiff to the complaint - a resident from nearby Clinton whose well also tested high for PFAS. In addition to the Sappi Paper Mill, this new suit names the owners of the Madison Paper Mill, former Winslow Paper Mill, Huhtamaki in Waterville, Androscoggin Paper Mill in Jay, and the former Bucksport Paper Mill. Pine Tree Landfill in Fairfield is also listed as a defendant. The suit alleges the companies intentionally used PFAS throughout Somerset and Kennebec counties despite knowing its health risks. The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial. Sappi Paper Mill strongly denies its paper mill is a source of PFAS contamination. Huhtamaki told TV5 during a special report on PFAS contamination that the Waterville mill complies with all applicable environmental and product safety laws and regulations. [GN] SDI INT'L: Stay of Ruling on Conditional Certification Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sloben v. SDI International, Corp., Case No. 7:20-CV-04717 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court stay its decision on the Plaintiff's pending motion for conditional certification to allow them to finalize the terms of the settlement and reduce it to a written agreement. SDI is a staffing and recruiting company providing workforce and business solutions. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC] SEATTLE CHOCOLATE: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Chocolate Company, L.L.C. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz On Behalf Of Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Seattle Chocolate Company, L.L.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-05075 (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seattle Chocolate Company, L.L.C. -- https://www.seattlechocolate.com/ -- manufactures and markets 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 SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Discovery Completion Due Sept. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN WINGARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a SELECTION.COM and XPEDITE WHOLESALE CRIMINAL RESEARCH; and VERICHECK, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00030-WSS-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy entered an order that: 1. The parties shall complete class certification discovery by September 13, 2021. All interrogatories, depositions and requests for admissions and/or production of documents shall be served within sufficient time to allow responses to be completed prior to the close of fact discovery. 2. If a discovery dispute occurs, prior to filing any discovery motions, the parties shall first meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 3. If the Parties cannot or do not reach an agreement regarding certification of Plaintiff's Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, then – (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by October 15, 2021, -- (2) Defendants' respective Memoranda in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Certification and all supporting evidence shall be filed by November 5, 2021, and -- (3) Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of her Motion for Certification, if any, November 19, 2021. Selection Management offers security related services. A copy of the Court's order dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3g6pBFI at no extra charge.[CC] SEQUOIA BENEFITS: Magistrate Judge Tosses ERISA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ BloombergLaw reports that two health plan participants who accuse Sequoia Benefits & Insurance Services LLC of running a $100 million kickback scheme through a group insurance program lack standing to pursue their proposed ERISA class action, because they failed to show injury, a federal magistrate judge in California held. The participants failed to show how their employee contributions toward health coverage would be lower if Sequoia hadn't allegedly charged unlawful kickbacks to the insurers connected to the multiple employer insurance program, the magistrate judge said. [GN] SINCERA REPRODUCTIVE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Philadelphia-area fertility treatment practice has been hit with a proposed class action in Pennsylvania state court over a data breach last year that purportedly affected the personal information of more than 37,000 patients and placed them at increased risk of identity theft and fraud. Sincera Reproductive Medicine's allegedly shoddy data security practice enabled hackers to have unlimited access to patient information on its networks for nearly five weeks, including names, social security numbers and medical records. [GN] SKYLINE APARTMENT: Faces Suit From Tenants Over Property Management ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Baker, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that tenants at the Skyline Apartment building opened a class action lawsuit against the building's owners on June 1 in state Supreme Court, claiming the owners knowingly provided dangerous, dirty housing for hundreds of residents. If the case moves forward, it could allow for hundreds, maybe thousands of current and former tenants at Skyline to collect damages from the building's owners, Tim and Troy Green. It's the latest legal trouble for the Greens, who got into the low-income housing business about five years ago and have come under intense scrutiny for how their properties are managed. The City of Syracuse has taken the Greens to court over unresolved code violations several times, and has an outstanding nuisance abatement order on the Skyline building. The city has also taken the Greens to court over outstanding violations at another one of their apartment complexes, The Vincent. The Greens are currently trying to sell the Skyline building. It's been the focus of increased government and police action since a 93-year-old woman was murdered in her apartment in March. The class action lawsuit outlines complaints about Skyline that are by now well-documented: The common areas like stairwells were unsanitary; the elevators rarely worked; security in the lobby was nearly non-existent; police were called to the building about three times a day. The lawsuit claims the owners were aware of the issues, since tenants had been organizing to complain about them since at least 2018. "The Greens have failed in every aspect of building management except collecting rent," the lawsuit claims. Skyline management has addressed many of those issues in recent months, after a flurry of activity from police, code inspectors and government officials at every level. That included fixing the elevators, cleaning and painting the stairwells and hiring a security company to better patrol who comes in and out of the 364-unit building. But many tenants have said management still isn't doing enough to keep them safe and comfortable. At a hearing at city hall last month, tenants outlined complaints about the building for more than an hour. Three plaintiffs are named in the lawsuit: Martina S. Carter, Anne M. McCheyne, and Lawrence I. Fuller. The tenants are being represented by Legal Services of Central New York, a not-for-profit that helps people in need of legal aid. Carter moved into the building in February 2019. She lived two doors down from Connie Tuori, the woman who was murdered on the 12th floor. Carter said her apartment was burglarized and she was once attacked in the hallway. She said she reported the attack to management, but no one made a report and nothing was done about it. She moved out of the building in April. McCheyne said she has a mobility disability. She claims in court papers that her in-home care provider told her she would need to move out of Skyline if she wanted to keep getting care, since the building had become too dangerous for aides. Fuller said the building's previous owners, Longley Jones, regularly dealt with issues and kept the building clean and orderly. He said conditions declined when the Greens took over. The June 1 court filing asks a judge to certify the suit as a class action, which would allow other tenants to join. That would cover anyone who has lived at the Skyline since December 2016, when the Greens bought the building. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation as well as punitive damages against the Greens, though no amount is specified. [GN] SOUTH AFRICA: NGOs Mull Class Action Over Cop-Smuggled Firearms --------------------------------------------------------------- Caryn Dolley, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that a coalition of NGOs coordinated by Gunfree South Africa is working on a class action lawsuit that could see families of victims shot with firearms that were smuggled from police to gangsters take on the police service and its bosses in court. Most of the shootings occurred in Cape Flats suburbs in the Western Cape, South Africa's most gang-ravaged province, between 2010 and 2016. Daily Maverick has confirmed the pending class action and understands that by early next year the coalition dealing with it will be ready to approach a court and set out what it plans to do. It is further understood the potential legal action will focus on holding the South African Police Service (SAPS) to account and try to ensure compensation for victims' families, and survivors who were shot with the firearms. Previously it emerged, via a labour court matter involving top police officers who investigated the issue, that between 2010 and 2016 in the Western Cape, firearms smuggled from police officers to gangsters had been used in 1,666 murders and 1,403 attempted murders. Horrifically, 261 children had been shot. Jeremy Vearey, the major-general who was fired from the police service over a series of Facebook posts that certain police officers deemed disrespectful and threatening, spoke to Daily Maverick about the lawsuit late on June 2. "I understand that a class action will be embarked on by civil society and NGOs to litigate [against] the SAPS where such firearms in our custody were used to kill and maim any citizens, particularly women and children," he said. "I want to state clearly, I support that action and I will support it when it comes to court." Daily Maverick independently confirmed the pending lawsuit. Vearey, in a hard-hitting statement about his dismissal, which National Police Commissioner Khehla Sitole signed off on May 28, referred to the issue of police officers smuggling firearms, as well as other corruption he claims has been uncovered within the police service. He made it clear he was speaking as "Jeremy Vearey who has been dismissed from the South African Police Service" in response to an SAPS statement issued about his dismissal on behalf of Sitole. Vearey said that while his dismissal had been dealt with speedily via an expeditious process -- which differed from a usual disciplinary process in that no witnesses were called -- police bosses were not tackling critical issues affecting South Africa with the same vigour. One of these issues, he said, was linked to the case involving former police colonel Chris Prinsloo, who admitted to selling around 2,000 firearms that were meant to have been destroyed, allegedly to a businessman who was accused of smuggling them to gangsters. The Prinsloo case was further linked to Project Impi, an investigation that focused heavily on guns being smuggled from within the police to gangsters. Project Impi began in December 2013, launched by Vearey and his colleague Lieutenant-General Peter Jacobs, who at one stage was head of Crime Intelligence in the Western Cape. It resulted in Prinsloo's arrest and in 2016 he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the saga. (He has since become a State witness.) But in June 2016, as the investigation was still unfolding, both Vearey and Jacobs were suddenly transferred from their positions in the police service in the Western Cape. They said this effectively derailed Project Impi. Vearey and Jacobs approached the Labour Court in Cape Town and were successful in having their transfers set aside, even though they were not immediately reinstated to their positions. In his affidavit on this matter, Vearey had, in October 2016, warned: "What had [also] become obvious to us by that stage was the potential for civil liability on the part of the SAPS. They had been in possession of thousands of firearms which they were supposed to destroy. Instead, they were released to gangs. "We warned the National Commissioner and the Minister of this potential civil liability. It gave rise to an urgent need for investigation and the optimal deployment of SAPS resources. Instead, we have been transferred and [Project] Impi has been decimated on the orders of SAPS management. This has the opposite effect to what is in the interest of SAPS, their constitutional mandate and the public interest." In his affidavit, Vearey had further said police were obligated to solve crimes committed with Project Impi-identified firearms. "However, SAPS is now compromised," he said. "It has a duty to link the stolen firearms ballistically to murders committed with them. Should SAPS carry out this duty it will prove its own civil liability to inhabitants of South Africa who are killed or injured by these firearms." In 2013 -- the year Project Impi was started -- Sitole was the deputy national commissioner of police. By 2016, the time it was effectively derailed (according to Vearey and Jacobs), the acting national police commissioner was Khomotso Phahlane -- who subsequently went on to be arrested in a fraud case relating to a multimillion-rand blue lights tender. Jacob Zuma was president during this period. Speaking on June 2, Vearey said "the malfeasance involved" with gun smuggling via police officers and the failure of police bosses to act "to bring about corrective measures, is damning". He said that at the very start of Project Impi he and Jacobs explained "the crisis that we faced" and had also proposed what could be done to rectify the situation; however, this was not followed through. Vearey said that after Prinsloo was sentenced in 2016, the National Prosecuting Authority issued directions about other lines of investigation that needed pursuing. This included "firearms injected into taxi conflict in KwaZulu-Natal". However, Vearey said, when he and Jacobs were transferred in June 2016, these investigative routes ended. Vearey on June 2 also referred to how police management allegedly failed to act on "the smuggling of military firearms from the SA National Defence Force [SANDF]". These firearms, he alleged, ended up in conflict zones where the SANDF was active, but in the hands of "rebel forces who were shooting us with our own guns". Vearey's dismissal from the police force -- which the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union was dealing with on his behalf -- is the latest in what comes across as a disciplinary war within the police service. Recently, he and two other police officers from the Western Cape, all former uMkhonto weSizwe members and with deep histories in the ANC, were the focus of disciplinary proceedings. The other two officers were Jacobs and Western Cape Anti-Gang Unit head André Lincoln. Jacobs was previously national Crime Intelligence head but was suspended in December last year, then allowed to return to work in March, but in another position -- head of the police's Inspectorate. He was suspended over allegations about irregular personal protective equipment procurement and the Secret Service Account. A disciplinary proceeding was launched against him, which he managed to halt via an order granted by the Labour Court in Johannesburg. Jacobs previously countered that he had uncovered fraud relating to the Secret Service Account and that other Crime Intelligence officers were suspects in this matter. Some within policing circles therefore viewed his reposting as Inspectorate head as a sidelining to move him away from what he had allegedly uncovered. More recently, Jacobs was the focus of a disciplinary hearing along with Lincoln. This hearing related to Lieutenant-Colonel Charl Kinnear, who was murdered outside his Bishop Lavis home in Cape Town on 18 September 2020. At the time of his death, Kinnear had been a member of Lincoln's Anti-Gang Unit. With Lincoln, he was investigating underworld crimes, including allegations that police officers in Gauteng were allegedly fraudulently creating firearm licences for suspects. This was very similar to what Project Impi had uncovered. Following Kinnear's murder, Jacobs and Lincoln faced allegations about the lack of security for Kinnear in the run-up to his assassination. They both therefore became the focus of disciplinary proceedings. However, both managed to have the labour court (in Johannesburg in the case of Jacobs, and Cape Town in Lincoln's case) order that the disciplinary proceedings be halted pending their referral of the matter to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC). This SSSBC hearing was set to be heard on 1 July. Both Lincoln and Jacobs, in affidavits in their labour court actions, said they felt "persecuted" within the police. Jacobs felt he was being targeted because of protected disclosures he had made about the Kinnear matter, including what he viewed as a "rogue" unit of Crime Intelligence officers operating in the Western Cape, and other alleged wrongdoing by SAPS members. Lincoln felt he was being targeted for pointing out failures of duty by senior colleagues. On June 2, Vearey said he had been the employee representative for both Jacobs and Lincoln in disciplinary hearings. "I will not stand for the same thing that's happened to me in this process to happen to General Jacobs and General Lincoln," he said. "They have walked a path with me that no others have walked, least of all anyone in national management of police." Referring to the disciplinary hearings against Jacobs and Lincoln and their having to get the labour court to order the police to halt these, Vearey said that he "could not stand by and allow . . . taxpayers' money to be used in vanity and power-mongering litigation". He said it was time for senior police bosses to be held individually responsible for corruption within police ranks. "It's time they are held to account." DM [GN] SUMMER WWK: July 16 Extension to File Class Cert. Response Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELSEY BRENNAN; KYLE COLEMAN; CARYN FRANKENFIELD; FRANK GALLINE; JOHN A. JOHNSTON; DAWN SNYDER; FREDRICK WAFF; CORY GERYAK; and SARA RINEY; individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. SUMMER WWK LLC; HL WOODS, a.k.a. HOWARD WOODS; and CHERELLE GEORGE, Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Defendant Cherelle George asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for her to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification through and including July 16, 2021. The requested extension of time corresponds with the extension recently granted to Defendant HL Woods via the Order entered on June 1, 2021. The Defendant Woods' counsel entered his appearance on June 1, 2021 and Defendant Woods' answer is due July 1, 2021. The Defendant George's counsel requests time to evaluate the Defendant Woods' responsive pleadings and additional time to confer with counsel for Woods and counsel for the Plaintiffs regarding class certification prior to responding to the Plaintiffs' motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel does not object to this extension and the extension will not unnecessarily delay the proceedings. A copy of the Defendant George's motion dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cuB7bO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James D. Fagan, Jr., Esq. Michael Blair Schoenfeld, Esq. STANFORD FAGAN, LLC 2540 Lakewood Ave. SW Atlanta, GA 303015 E-mail: jfagan@sfglawyers.com michaels@sfglawyers.com - and - Robert S. Giolito, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. GIOLITO, P.C. 1626 Montana Ave, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90403 E-mail: rgiolito@giolitolaw.com - and - Douglas H. Duerr, Esq. ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP 800 International Tower 229 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303 E-mail: duerr@elarbeethompson.com The Attorneys for the Defendant Cherelle George, are: Michael K. McGuffee, Esq. William S. Cleveland, Esq. POOLE HUFFMAN, LLC 3562 Habersham at Northlake Building J, Suite 200 Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: (404) 373-4008 E-mail: michaelm@poolehuffman.com billy@poolehuffman.com SUPERPLASTIC INC: Davis Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPERPLASTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04912-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff, who is a visually impaired and legally blind, claims that the Defendant has failed to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. During his visit to the Defendant's website, www.superplastic.com, on or around May 2021 with the intent of browsing and potentially making a purchase, he was denied access similar to that of a sighted individual due to multiple access barriers, which he has encountered and effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. Specifically, the website failed to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, to properly label title, and to distinguish one page from another. It also contained multiple broken links and headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and the keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible, the suit says. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to maintain its website to be accessible to individuals with visual impairment. Superplastic, Inc. is a vinyl toys and digital collectibles company that owns and operates he website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com TAHOE RESOURCES: July 1 Filing Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re TAHOE RESOURCES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. . 2:17-cv-01868-RFB-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff and Defendants, subject to the Court's approval, stipulate and agree to the following briefing schedule for Plaintiff's motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff shall file his class certification motion by July 1, 2021; 2. The Defendants shall file their opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification by September 1, 2021; and 3. The Plaintiff shall file his reply in support of his motion for class certification by October 29, 2021. Tahoe was a mining company and intermediate precious metals producer with silver and gold mines in Canada, Guatemala and Peru. It was founded in Vancouver, British Columbia by Kevin McArthur, former CEO of Glamis Gold and Goldcorp. A copy of the Parties' Stipulation dated June 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2T9ryIv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Robert W. Killorin, Esq. Megan M. Remmel, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com rkillorin@faruqilaw.com mremmel@faruqilaw.com - and - Martin A. Muckleroy, Esq. MUCKLEROY LUNT, LLC 6077 S. Fort Apache Rd., Ste 140 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Telephone: 702-907-0097 Facsimile: 702-938-4065 E-mail: martin@muckleroylunt.com The Attorneys for the Defendants Tahoe Resources, Inc., Elizabeth McGregor, Mark Sadler, Ronald W. Clayton, Edie Hofmeister and C. Kevin McArthur, are: Leslie Bryan Hart, Esq. FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 7800 Rancharrah Parkway Reno, NE 89511 Telephone: 775-788-2200 Facsimile: 775-786-1177 E-mail: lhart@fclaw.com vpeterson@fclaw.com - and - Scott J. Fisher, Esq. Karl R. Barnickol, Esq. NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP Telephone: (312) 269-8035 Facsimile: (312) 750-6520 E-mail: sfisher@nge.com TYRO PAYMENTS: May Face Second Class Action Over Summer Outage -------------------------------------------------------------- James Frost, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a second law firm has signalled the possibility of a class action against Tyro as the payments company pushes ahead with an accelerated remediation process and attempts to move on from its disastrous summer outage. [GN] UBIQUITI INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 19 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Ubiquiti securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Ubiquiti class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2069.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ubiquiti had downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2) the 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 Ubiquiti'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. To join the Ubiquiti class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2069.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] ULTA SALON: Walker Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages -------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE INC., Defendant, Case No. 513281/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 3, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged illegal and improper wage practices in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout his employment with the Defendant from in or around December 2018 until in or around August 2019 as a covered, non-exempt employee within the meaning of the NYLL, the Defendant failed and/or refused to pay him and other similarly situated employees for work performed during uncompensated meal breaks, for all hours they worked under 40 in a week at the straight or agreed upon rate, and for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Defendant allegedly failed to keep true and accurate time records for all hours worked by its employees, and failed to comply with the posting and notice requirements of the NYLL. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. offers customers prestige & mass cosmetics, makeup, fragrance, skincare, bath & body, haircare tools & salon, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Tel: (516) 625-0105 UNITED STATES: "Unlawful" Live Export Ban Suit Could Hit $800M -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Brann at abc.net.au reports that a successful class action against the federal government's 2011 snap ban on the live cattle trade to Indonesia, continues to attract new members and could end up costing the Commonwealth around $800 million. It has been a year since the Federal Court's historic ruling in favour of the northern cattle industry, determining that former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig acted with misfeasance when the then Gillard government introduced the ban in June 2011. Speaking to ABC Landline, class action facilitator Tracey Hayes said no compensation money had been paid out yet, except to the Brett family from the Northern Territory, who were the lead claimants in the class action. She said the class action was still open under a court-ordered process and was now attracting around 10 new members each week -- most noticeably from Queensland. "We're hearing a number of stories, some of them are incredibly difficult to listen to, how the [ban] affected their family and their operations," Ms Hayes said. "A lot of people have found it hard to step up, join the class action and ask for help. "But the judge has a very strong view on keeping the class action open to make sure we capture as many people as possible [affected by the ban]." Increasing cost Ms Hayes would not give exact figures on how many people and businesses were now signed up to the class action but said a closing date "was not too far away". She said the final payout from the class action was obviously on the rise. "We anticipate the quantum will be in excess of [the initially reported] $600 million and there will now be 10 years worth of compounding interest to be added onto that figure." She said those affected by the ban, who had yet to sign up to the class action, needed to get involved soon before it closes. ABC Rural understands that just last week, a major feedlot operator in Queensland joined the class action. In terms of the size of the final compensation payout, negotiations are ongoing between the cattle industry and the Commonwealth, but ultimately it will be decided by Justice Steven Rares. A deadline for payments has not been set. 10 year anniversary of ban Next week marks 10 years since the Federal Labor government suspended the live cattle trade to Indonesia. When former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig announced the snap ban at a press conference in Brisbane, Justin Dyer from Hayfield Station in the Northern Territory, was actually in Indonesia. "We heard there was a story forthcoming from Four Corners, with potentially explosive and damaging footage, so six of us old college-alumni went over to get some boots on the ground and see what was actually happening over there," Mr Dyer said. Mr Dyer said they visited Indonesian abattoirs every night. "The majority of the places I went to were pretty good, especially [abattoirs] using stun guns. "But then there were some butchers using ropes for restraining and it was pretty confronting, pretty shocking . . . . it was unacceptable." ESCAS animal welfare legacy Ten years on, Mr Dyer said it was important to look at the positives from that time, which includes the roll-out of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) and stun guns in abattoirs across Indonesia. "If that's the legacy we leave behind with ESCAS, a great system that allows us to export [stock] around the world, that lifts animal welfare standards overseas, then that's a fantastic story. "It was a stressful time for everyone in 2011, we were staring down the barrel . . . . but I think you've got to focus on the positives." Mr. Dyer said his family has joined the class action in the last month. "I guess we're looking to cover some interest bills . . . . and I guess we agreed as a family that it was a big effort [by industry] to go down that path and we wanted to put our names to it and support it, whether we get much compensation out of it is yet to be seen." [GN] VALE S.A.: CAAT Securities Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE VALE S.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-00526-RJD-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Lead Plaintiff Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pension Plan asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, consisting of: "all persons who purchased on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or other U.S. exchanges or in a U.S. transaction between October 27, 2016 and February 6, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), any of the following publicly-traded Vale securities: (1) Vale ADS; (2) 5.875% Guaranteed Notes due 2021; (3) 4.375% Guaranteed Notes due 2022; (4) 6.250% Guaranteed Notes due 2026; (5) 8.250% Guaranteed Notes due 2034; (6) 6.875% Guaranteed Notes due 2036; (7) 6.875% Guaranteed Notes due 2039; or (8) 5.625% Notes due 2042 (the "Class");" Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate family of any Defendant who is an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer or director of Vale during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) Vale's employee retirement and benefit plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in- interest, or assigns of any such excluded person; 2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative; and 3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel for the Class. This is a securities fraud class action brought against Vale and certain of its senior executives for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). This case arises from the horrific collapse on January 25, 2019 of Dam 1 of Vale's Corrego do Feijao iron ore mine near the town of Brumadinho in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Following the collapse, Brazil's Federal Police, state prosecutors, and other investigatory panels have concluded that Vale and its top executives improperly concealed and failed to correct known problems with Dam 1. In January 2020, state prosecutors charged Defendants Vale and Schvartsman, and 10 other Vale executives, with homicide and environmental crimes. Those cases remain ongoing. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly and publicly assured investors that Vale's dams were in "impeccable" condition, that Vale monitored and maintained its dams in accordance with the "strictest international practices" and mitigated operational risks "to guarantee that our overall risk level remains in accordance with our strategic guidelines," and that "life matters most" and "safety is our top priority." The Lead Plaintiff filed the Complaint on October 25, 2019. On December 13, 2019, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and Lead Plaintiff opposed on January 31, 2020. The Defendants replied on February 21, 2020. On May 20, 2020, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss in part. On June 3, 2020, the Defendants moved for reconsideration. Lead Plaintiff opposed on June 17, 2020, and the Court denied Defendants' motion on July 23, 2020. A copy of the the Lead Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ctAIpZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Lead Counsel for the Class, are: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Melinda Campbell, Esq. Aaron Schwartz, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 - and - Brian Alexander, Esq. Brent J. LaPointe, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 VIRGIN GALACTIC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic" or the "Company") (NYSE: SPCE) securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 3021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Virgin Galactic investors have until July 27, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Virgin Galactic investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed by a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor, 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("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. On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced in a press release "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 company 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. 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) for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; 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 Virgin Galactic securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] VIRGIN GALACTIC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: New York, N.Y., June 2, 2021. Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Virgin Galactic securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Virgin Galactic class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2087.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) for accounting purposes, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (2) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (3) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the business confirmation of SCH, a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Virgin Galactic class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2087.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Alvarado Seeks to Certify Class of Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM'S WEST, INC., an Arkansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the proposed class; 2. appointing the Plaintiff as class representative; and 3. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel. The Plaintiff's claims and the claims she is asserting on behalf of the class are similar and all related to Walmart's practice of utilizing its employees' personal cell phones in store operations. She adds that not only has Walmart conceded that using employees' personal cell phones to assist in store operations is necessary and a benefit for which it finally has agreed to begin paying. She alleges, describing working conditions in 25 of 30 Sam's Club stores in California throughout the Class Period, confirm that Walmart has been relying on employees' mobile technology for years without paying for it. Walmart owns and operates 29 "Sam's Club" branded stores in California. Sam's Club stores sell consumer merchandise to the public through a membership-only model. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 7, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gqKKta at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mstahle@maternlawgroup.com WASHINGTON DOC: Court Tosses Hudson Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SAMUEL HUDSON, JR., v. STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ROBERT HERZOG, DANIELLE ARMBRUSTER, JEFFERY UTTECHT, PAT BARRERA, KELLY L. HODGSON, CS3 SMS, and J. ROBERTS, Case No. 4:21-cv-05039-TOR (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Thomas O. Rice entered an order denying motion for class certification and order to amend or voluntarily dismiss complaint. The Court said, "If the Plaintiff amends his complaint and the Court finds the amended complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim, the amended complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2). Such a dismissal would count as one of the dismissals under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). Alternatively, the Court will permit Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint pursuant to Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff may submit the attached Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss the Complaint within 60 days of the date of this Order or risk dismissal under 28 U.S.C. sections 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2), and a "strike” under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g). A voluntary dismissal within this 60-day period will not count as a strike. The Plaintiff is still obligated to pay the full filing fee of $350.00. However, if Plaintiff elects to take a voluntary dismissal within the 60-day period, Plaintiff may 16 simultaneously file a separate Affidavit (or declaration under penalty of perjury) and Motion to waive collection of the remaining balance of the filing fee in this action. The Court will grant such a motion only for good cause shown. In no event will prior partial payments be refunded to Plaintiff." The Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center (CRCC). He challenges statutory deductions made to the Economic Impact Payment (EIP) he received in December 2020, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The Plaintiff also brings this action against Defendant Jeffery Uttecht in his supervisory role as Superintendent of the CRCC. The Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) is a department of the government of the state of Washington. WADOC is responsible for administering adult corrections programs operated by the State of Washington. This includes state correctional institutions and programs for people supervised in the community. A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cyp7Goat no extra charge.[CC] WASHINGTON PRIME: Rosen Law Reminds of July 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Washington Prime Group Inc. (NYSE: WPG) between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 23, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Washington Prime Group securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Washington Prime Group class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2102.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Washington Prime Group's financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) as a result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became due; 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. To join the Washington Prime Group class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2102.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] WASHINGTON TRUST: Court Certifies Class of Account Holders ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERNEST YOUNG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE WASHINGTON TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-00524-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Hon. Judge William E. Smith entered an order 1. granting motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 2. certifying a class of: "all current and former Account Holders at WTC who were charged Multiple NSF Fees between October 23, 2015 and December 31, 2020, as determined by WTC’s consulting expert through a process previously disclosed to, and approved by, Class Counsel." 3. appointing Cohen & Malad, LLP, Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, and Kaliel PLLC as Class Counsel. 4. appointing Ernest Young as Class Representative; 5. appointing KCC as Settlement Administrator; and 6. setting Class Certification deadlines: Event Time for Compliance Deadline for Settlement Administrator Within 30 days from to E-mail and Mail Notice entry of this Order Deadline for final approval motion 45 days after entry of and motion requesting attorneys' this Order fees and expenses, and class representative service awards Deadline for Class Member 60 days after Notice Objections has been issued Deadline for Opt-Outs 60 days after Notice has been issued Deadline for response to objections, 14 days prior to the if any Final Approval Hearing Final Approval Hearing September 15, 2021 A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35gA5vT at no extra charge.[CC] WFM PRIVATE: Parties to Narrow Scope of Kellman Discovery Dispute ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHOSHA KELLMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WFM PRIVATE LABEL, L.P., WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., WHOLE FOODS MARKET SERVICES, INC., and WHOLE FOODS MARKET DISTRIBUTION, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-06584-LB (N.D. Cal.), the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to the Court's direction during the February 4, 2021 Case Management Conference, the Parties have diligently met and conferred in order to narrow the scope of their discovery dispute as set forth in their January 29, 2021 joint letter. 2. Also pursuant to the Court's direction, the Parties jointly proposed a revised case scheduling order on March 17, 2021, which the Court approved. 3. The Parties have made substantial progress in narrowing the scope of their discovery dispute, but require additional time to determine whether they can reach a resolution without the Court's assistance, and to complete any revised document production and depositions with the benefit of this resolution. 4. The Parties have begun to schedule depositions, but in light of the schedules of both witnesses and counsel, will also require additional time to complete these depositions. 5. The parties, therefore, propose the following revised case schedule: Case Event Filing Date/Disclosure Date/Hearing Date ADR Completion Date TBD Complete depositions of previously Aug. 20, 2021 noticed witnesses Class Certification opening Sept. 17, 2021 expert reports Class Certification rebuttal Oct. 15, 2021 expert reports Class Certification expert Nov. 5, 2021 depositions Motions for class certification Nov. 19, 2021 Oppositions to motions for Dec. 24, 2021 class certification Replies to motions for Jan. 28, 2022 class certification Hearing date for motions March 3, 2022 for class certification and/or further case-management conference Further case-management conference May 5, 2022 Last hearing date for dispositive July 21, 2022 motions and/or further case-management conference A copy of the Parties stipulation dated June 4, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v9k7yi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian R. Blackman, Esq. J.T. Wells Blaxter, Esq. David P. Adams, Esq. BLAXTER | BLACKMAN LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-7700 E-mail: bblackman@blaxterlaw.com wblaxter@blaxterlaw.com dadams@blaxterlaw.com WORTHY FLAVORS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORTHY FLAVORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-04999-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff claims that he was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual when he visited the Defendant's website, www.worthyflavors.com, in May 2021 in an attempt to browse and potentially make a purchase. The Defendant's website allegedly lacked of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation. Specifically, the Plaintiff was unable to differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to adequately describe its content. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination due to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1, which would provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Worthy Flavors, LLC is a produce delivery company that owns ad operates the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Ave., Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***