/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210624.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 24, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 120 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Sion Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ADIDAS AMERICA: Lopez Has Until August 30 to File Class Status Bid AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Endorses Striking Class Action Suit AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Wickersham & Taft Attorneys Discuss Ruling ATERIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline ATERIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline BAIRD DRYWALL: Faces Britt Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BALTIMORE, MD: Mayor Brandon Scott Responds to ADA Class Action BEAUMONT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages, Kononowech Suit Claims BEAUTY LALA: Sun FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status BENIHANA NATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Vacate Class Discovery BERRY'S RELIABLE: 90 Days Extension to File Class Cert. Sought BLOCK.ONE: Settles Class Action Over EOS ICO for $27.5 Million CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Loses Class Certification Bid CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHINA SEA OF ABSECON: Resto Staff Sues Over Unpaid Wages CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 13 Deadline DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Lieff Cabraser Files Sexual Abuse Lawsuit DROP INC: Faces Seng Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages EML PAYMENTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Irish HQ Money-Laundering Issues FAT DOUGH: Shortchanges Drivers' Vehicle Reimbursements, Says Suit FCA US: Court Stays Filing of Class Certification Related Bid FREIGHT RITE: Underpays Delivery Drivers & Installers, Ortiz Says FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline FRIENDS PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Suit Alleges GEICO: Judge Denies Effort to Certify Appeal in Premiums Lawsuit GOOGLE LLC: Klotz Suit Moved From N.D. Ohio to N.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Montoya Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. California GOOGLE LLC: Smith Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to N.D. California IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Class Certification-Related Deadlines on Hold INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Suit Over Illegal Court Papers' Fees INTER-CON SECURITY: Beltran Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California JAGPREET ENTERPRISES: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JEREMY BUSH: Phillips-Addis Class Certification Bid Junked JESSICA CHOW: Bray Sues Over Negligence on Salgado PAGA Suit KENSINGTON SENIOR: Zakay Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit in Calif. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Parties File Class Certification Bid Briefings LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Court Tosses Hawkins Bid for Class Certification MALIVER PTY: Investors May Launch Class Action Against Auditors MARATHON REFINING: Parties Stipulate Class Certification Deadlines MATSON MONEY: Must Face Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme MONSANTO CO: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Roundup Settlement NAPA COUNTY, CA: Davis et al. Seek Correctional Officers' Unpaid OT NATIONAL MARINE: Class Action Over New Charter Boat Rules Okayed NEC NETWORKS: Faces Vereen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach NEOGENIS LABS: Sharifan Slams Mislabeled Health Supplements NEW YORK: Handgun Licensing Scheme Against 2nd Amendment, Frey Says OCUGEN INC: Howard G. Smith Discloses Securities Class Action OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Certification of FLSA Class in Jose Sought ONE MORE THAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Serrano Suit Claims ONTARIO ENERGY: Settles HVAC Equipment Lease Class Action PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline PFIZER CANADA: Faces Suit Over Ineffective Birth Control Pills PINNEGLE POINT: Underpays Convenience Store Workers, Petty Claims PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Notes of July 20 Plaintiff Deadline QUEBEC: Authorized Lawsuit Against Group RESPs Across Canada RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Texas ROHR INC: Court Enters Briefing Schedule for Class Cert. Bid RUBY'S DINER: Salvatierra Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages SECURITY NATIONAL: Schmitt Sues Over Non-Compliance of the FDCPA SEEMAN HOLTZ: Co-Founder's Death Not Connected to Class Action SHUTTERFLY INC: Paul Weiss Achieves Victory in Class Action Suit SIX FLAGS: Settles BIPA Law Violation Class Action for $36MM SURGICAL CARE: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Named Int. Co-Lead Counsel TARGET CORPORATION: Ross Sues Over Mislabeled Hand Sanitizers THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Munoz Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid OT UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Says Driver-Rating System May Be Racist UBIQUITI INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 19 Deadline UBIQUITI INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of July 19 Deadline UNITED ROAD: Court Vacates August 5 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid UNITED STATES: SBA Pauses Pandemic Relief Funds Following Lawsuit UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Class Status Bid Filing Due Dec. 17 USF REDDAWAY: Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California WAKE FOREST: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan WALMART INC: $102M Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgement Reversed WAXIE WAY: Carlton PAGA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees [*] McMillan Attorney Discusses Suit Pre-Authorization Stage [*] Russell McVeagh Provides N.Z., Global Class Action Update ********* 3M COMPANY: Sion Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01834-RMG (D.S.C., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products, says the suit. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq. BANNER LEGAL 445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (760) 479-5404 E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com - and – S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES 120 Fairmount Street Lowell, MA, 01852 Telephone: (978) 458-0507 E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com - and – Konstantine Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on June 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX) securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). AcelRx investors have until August 9, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your AcelRx 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/acelrx-pharmaceuticals-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. AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the treatment of acute pain. One of its lead product candidates is DSUVIA, which has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the management of acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings. On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, the FDA concluded that certain of AcelRx's promotional communications "make false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution violative." On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (2) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (3) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; 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 AcelRx securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 9, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. 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 H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] ADIDAS AMERICA: Lopez Has Until August 30 to File Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MONSERRAT LOPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ADIDAS AMERICA, INC., an Oregon corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00447-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge Mark C. Scarsi having reviewed the Parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation to Continue Class Certification Dates Pending Mediation, and good cause appearing thereof, entered an order that the deadlines for Class Certification are continued as follows: -- Deadline to File Motion for Class August 30, 2021 Certification: -- Deadline to File Opposition to the September 20, 2021 Motion for Class Certification: -- Deadline to File Reply October 11, 2021 -- Hearing Date on Motion for Class October 25, 2021 Certification: Adidas America designs and markets apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TKR4UO at no extra charge.[CC] AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Endorses Striking Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason M. Halper, Jonathan Watkins, and Adam Magid of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP wrote on National Law Review an article titled "Eighth Circuit Endorses Striking Class-Action Allegations on the Pleadings, Setting Appellate-Level Precedent for Early Termination of Putative Securities Class Actions". On June 3, 2021, in Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered class-action allegations in a putative securities fraud class action stricken on the pleadings under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed the matter to arbitration. The decision is significant not only for its broad application of an arbitration clause to federal securities fraud claims, but as a rare appellate-level endorsement for striking class allegations under Rule 12(f) -- which permits a court to strike from a pleading "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" -- prior to class discovery and a motion for class certification. More widespread adoption of the Eighth Circuit's approach would offer courts a powerful mechanism to dispose of inadequate class claims early in a case, while conserving judicial resources and reducing undue settlement pressure from the costs and uncertainties of class discovery and the class certification process. Background The plaintiff in this case is Mark Donelson, a high school graduate and Sam's Club employee who had no formal training in securities trading. In 2010, Donelson's investment advisor, Mark Sachse, told Donelson he was joining Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and asked Donelson to open an investment account with his new firm. Donelson and Sachse met at a restaurant, where Donelson signed an Ameriprise account application. The application included an acknowledgement in small print that the applicant had "received and read" a separate "Ameriprise Brokerage Client Agreement for Non-Qualified Brokerage Accounts" and "consent[ed] to all these terms and conditions with full knowledge and understanding of the information contained in the [client agreement]," including a "predispute arbitration clause." The arbitration clause in the client agreement, which Donelson allegedly never saw, read, or signed, provided for arbitration of "all controversies that may arise between us," except for a "putative or certified class action." Thereafter, Sachse allegedly engaged in improprieties in handling Donelson's investment account, including misrepresenting the account value, improper trading, and misrepresenting reparations for problems with the account. Alleging that other Ameriprise clients experienced similar improprieties, Donelson filed a putative class action against Sachse, Ameriprise, and Ameriprise officers in the Western District of Missouri, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and breach of fiduciary duty under Section 206 of the Investment Advisors Act. The defendants moved to strike the complaint's class-action allegations under Rule 12(f) and to compel arbitration, and the district court denied the motions. Applying Missouri law, the district court concluded that there was no meeting of the minds concerning arbitration, given that Donelson did not receive or sign the client agreement with the arbitration clause, and, in any event, the agreement was "illusory" since Ameriprise retained a unilateral right to amend its terms at any time.2 The district court further denied the motion to strike, noting that courts generally view Rule 12(f) motions with disfavor and that class treatment is more appropriately addressed on a motion for class certification.3 The defendants appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit's Decision A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed. As an initial matter, the Court held that the arbitration clause in the client agreement was valid and enforceable against Donelson, even if he never saw the provision or signed the agreement. According to the Court, it was sufficient for Donelson to sign a separate agreement -- his account application -- that expressly incorporated the arbitration clause by reference. Further, the Court concluded that the agreement was not "illusory" since Ameriprise provided Donelson an investment account, as promised, and could not amend the terms unless it gave 30-days' notice and Donelson subsequently used the account, signifying consent to any changes.4 The Court also held that the district court abused its discretion by declining to strike Donelson's class-action allegations. Noting that federal courts are split over propriety of striking class allegations under Rule 12(f) prior to a plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court explained that it is appropriate to do so if it is "apparent from the pleadings that the class cannot be certified" because "unsupportable class allegations bring 'impertinent' material into the pleading" and "permitting such allegations to remain would prejudice the defendant by requiring the mounting of a defense against claims that ultimately cannot be sustained."5 According to the Court, individualized determinations would have to be made with respect to multiple elements of the securities fraud claims pled by plaintiff, including whether defendants committed material misrepresentations, whether class members relied on the misrepresentations, and whether economic harm resulted from the misrepresentations. On that basis, the Court concluded that the class, as alleged, was not sufficiently "cohesive" to qualify for class-action status under Federal Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that the defendants "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class."6 Having disposed of the class-action aspect of the case, the Court ruled that the arbitration clause -- which exempted putative or certified class actions -- covered the dispute, and ordered the matter to arbitration.7 Implications The Eighth Circuit's decision is notable in that it enforced an arbitration clause with respect to federal securities fraud claims, despite evidence that the plaintiff never saw the clause or signed the agreement. Perhaps more significantly, the decision stands as a rare federal appellate-level endorsement for striking securities class-action allegations on the pleadings under Federal Rule 12(f), prior to class discovery and a motion for class certification. Although the Court cited a like-minded Sixth Circuit decision,8 and a favorable Fifth Circuit decision,9 other circuit courts have offered little guidance on the issue. At the same time, district courts are all over the map, with some flatly prohibiting Rule 12(f) motions in this context as procedurally improper,10 others declaring that such motions are disfavored but reserving the option to grant them in exceptional cases,11 and still others expressing broad openness to the concept.12 Illustrating the confusion, two recent decisions from the District of Massachusetts articulated seemingly contradictory views of the law, with one stressing the importance of permitting discovery before ruling on class-action status, and the other emphasizing the "considerable discretion" of district courts to resolve matters on the pleadings.13 Given this uneven landscape, the Eighth Circuit's endorsement could prove influential in broadening acceptance of the mechanism in appropriate cases. A viable Rule 12(f) defense could substantially alter the settlement dynamics in securities cases where flaws in a putative class action are evident on the pleadings. As the Supreme Court has noted, "extensive discovery and the potential for uncertainty and disruption in a lawsuit allow plaintiffs with weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies."14 Class discovery, which may proceed "on a gargantuan scale," is often a primary source of such pressure.15 In securities class actions, defendants receive only a brief reprieve from this pressure while the PSLRA discovery stay is in force pending a motion to dismiss.16 After denial of the motion to dismiss, however, the "in terrorem" effect of class discovery (which frequently overlaps with merits discovery, including depositions and expert witnesses) comes to bear in connection with plaintiff's motion for class certification.17 The ability to strike class allegations on the pleadings would enable courts to dispose of inadequate class claims at an early stage of the case, conserving judicial resources and protecting litigants from unnecessary discovery-related costs. It also would reduce distortions in the settlement process created by such cost and burden considerations.18 While the impact of Donelson outside the Eighth Circuit remains to be seen, securities defendants may want to consider a Rule 12(f) motion to strike in appropriate cases given its unique power to eviscerate a class action at the outset. 1 -- F.3d --, 2021 WL 2231396 (8th Cir. June 3, 2021). 2 See Donelson v. Ameriprise Fin. Servs. Inc., No. 4:18-cv-01023-HFS, at 4-9 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2019). 3 See id. at 9-11. 4 See Donelson, 2021 WL 2231396, at *4-6. 5 Id. at *7 (quoting 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1383 (3d ed.)). 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). 7 See Donelson, 2021 WL 2231396, at *6-9. The Court separately held that the class allegations should be stricken as to the claim for breach of fiduciary duty under 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6 (prohibited transactions by investment advisors) because there is no private cause of action for violations of that statute. Id. at *9. 8 See Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, 949 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming order granting pre-certification motion to strike; "Rule 23(c)(1)(A) says that the district court should decide whether to certify a class '[a]t an early practicable time' in the litigation, and nothing in the rules says that the court must await a motion by the plaintiffs."). 9 See John v. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co., 501 F.3d 443, 445 (5th Cir. 2007) ("Where it is facially apparent from the pleadings that there is no ascertainable class, a district court may dismiss the class allegation on the pleadings."). 10 See, e.g., Claiborne v. Water of Life Cmty. Church, No. EDCV 17-00771-VAP, 2017 WL 9565337, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017) ("The class allegations in Plaintiffs' FAC are not an insufficient defense nor are they redundant, immaterial, or scandalous. . . . Accordingly, the Court concludes the Motion to Strike is an improper Rule 12(f) motion and DENIES it."); Weske v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 698, 707 (D.N.J. 2013) (denying motion to strike as "premature" given the "early stage of the proceedings" but permitting defendant to renew argument "in response to a motion for class certification"). 11 See, e.g., Mazzola v. Roomster Corp., 849 F. Supp. 2d 395, 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Motions to strike are generally disfavored, and should be granted only when there is a strong reason for doing so.") (citation omitted); Reynolds v. Lifewatch, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 3d 503, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are rarely successful."); Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., 94 F. Supp. 3d 440, 447 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ("Courts rarely grant motions to strike . . . ."). 12 See, e.g., Davis v. Wells Fargo Advisors LLC, No. CV-13-01963-PHX-NVW, 2014 WL 1370278, at *5 (D. Ariz. Apr. 8, 2014) ("[I]f a class action cannot be maintained on the facts alleged in the complaint, 'a defendant may move to strike class allegations prior to discovery.'") (quoting Sanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978, 989-90 (N.D. Cal. 2009)); Mojica v. Securus Techs., Inc., No. 5:14-CV-5258, 2015 WL 429997, at *5 (W.D. Ark. Jan. 29, 2015) ("[T]his Court has liberal discretion when deciding whether to strike any portion of a pleading' under Rule 12(f) . . . .") (citation, internal quotation marks omitted). 13 Compare Savage v. City of Springfield, No. 3:18-CV-30164-KAR, 2021 WL 858409, at *8 (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2021) (district courts "should exercise caution when striking class action allegations based solely on the pleadings" because doing so requires a "court to preemptively terminate the class aspects of . . . litigation, solely on the basis of what is alleged in the complaint, and before plaintiffs are permitted to complete the discovery to which they would otherwise be entitled on questions relevant to class certification") (citation omitted), with Rovinelli v. Trans World Ent. Corp., No. CV 19-11304-DPW, 2021 WL 752822, at *6 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 2021) (district courts have "considerable discretion" to strike material under Rule 12(f) and "[j]udges in this District have demonstrated a willingness to grant motions to strike class allegations") (citations omitted). 14 Stoneridge Inv. Partners, LLC v. Sci.-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148, 163 (2008). 15 Nicholas Almendares, The False Allure of Settlement Pressure, 50 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 271, 290 (2018) (citation omitted). 16 See Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(b)(3), 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(B). 17 See Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 285 F.R.D. 294, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[B]ecause of the 'rigorous analysis' required by [the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes], courts are reluctant to bifurcate class-related discovery from discovery on the merits.") (collecting cases). 18 See Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc., 366 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2004) ("[N]umerous courts and scholars have warned that settlements in large class actions can be divorced from the parties' underlying legal positions."). [GN] AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Wickersham & Taft Attorneys Discuss Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Halper, Esq., Adam Magid, Esq., and Jonathan Watkins, Esq., of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June 3, 2021, in Donelson v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered class-action allegations in a putative securities fraud class action stricken on the pleadings under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and directed the matter to arbitration. The decision is significant not only for its broad application of an arbitration clause to federal securities fraud claims, but as a rare appellate-level endorsement for striking class allegations under Rule 12(f) -- which permits a court to strike from a pleading "an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" -- prior to class discovery and a motion for class certification. More widespread adoption of the Eighth Circuit's approach would offer courts a powerful mechanism to dispose of inadequate class claims early in a case, while conserving judicial resources and reducing undue settlement pressure from the costs and uncertainties of class discovery and the class certification process. Background The plaintiff in this case is Mark Donelson, a high school graduate and Sam's Club employee who had no formal training in securities trading. In 2010, Donelson's investment advisor, Mark Sachse, told Donelson he was joining Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and asked Donelson to open an investment account with his new firm. Donelson and Sachse met at a restaurant, where Donelson signed an Ameriprise account application. The application included an acknowledgement in small print that the applicant had "received and read" a separate "Ameriprise Brokerage Client Agreement for Non-Qualified Brokerage Accounts" and "consent[ed] to all these terms and conditions with full knowledge and understanding of the information contained in the [client agreement]," including a "predispute arbitration clause." The arbitration clause in the client agreement, which Donelson allegedly never saw, read, or signed, provided for arbitration of "all controversies that may arise between us," except for a "putative or certified class action." Thereafter, Sachse allegedly engaged in improprieties in handling Donelson's investment account, including misrepresenting the account value, improper trading, and misrepresenting reparations for problems with the account. Alleging that other Ameriprise clients experienced similar improprieties, Donelson filed a putative class action against Sachse, Ameriprise, and Ameriprise officers in the Western District of Missouri, asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and breach of fiduciary duty under Section 206 of the Investment Advisors Act. The defendants moved to strike the complaint's class-action allegations under Rule 12(f) and to compel arbitration, and the district court denied the motions. Applying Missouri law, the district court concluded that there was no meeting of the minds concerning arbitration, given that Donelson did not receive or sign the client agreement with the arbitration clause, and, in any event, the agreement was "illusory" since Ameriprise retained a unilateral right to amend its terms at any time. The district court further denied the motion to strike, noting that courts generally view Rule 12(f) motions with disfavor and that class treatment is more appropriately addressed on a motion for class certification. The defendants appealed the ruling to the Eighth Circuit. The Eighth Circuit's Decision A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit reversed. As an initial matter, the Court held that the arbitration clause in the client agreement was valid and enforceable against Donelson, even if he never saw the provision or signed the agreement. According to the Court, it was sufficient for Donelson to sign a separate agreement -- his account application -- that expressly incorporated the arbitration clause by reference. Further, the Court concluded that the agreement was not "illusory" since Ameriprise provided Donelson an investment account, as promised, and could not amend the terms unless it gave 30-days' notice and Donelson subsequently used the account, signifying consent to any changes. The Court also held that the district court abused its discretion by declining to strike Donelson's class-action allegations. Noting that federal courts are split over propriety of striking class allegations under Rule 12(f) prior to a plaintiff's motion for class certification, the Court explained that it is appropriate to do so if it is "apparent from the pleadings that the class cannot be certified" because "unsupportable class allegations bring ‘impertinent' material into the pleading" and "permitting such allegations to remain would prejudice the defendant by requiring the mounting of a defense against claims that ultimately cannot be sustained." According to the Court, individualized determinations would have to be made with respect to multiple elements of the securities fraud claims pled by plaintiff, including whether defendants committed material misrepresentations, whether class members relied on the misrepresentations, and whether economic harm resulted from the misrepresentations. On that basis, the Court concluded that the class, as alleged, was not sufficiently "cohesive" to qualify for class-action status under Federal Rule 23(b)(2), which requires that the defendants "acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class." Having disposed of the class-action aspect of the case, the Court ruled that the arbitration clause -- which exempted putative or certified class actions -- covered the dispute, and ordered the matter to arbitration. Implications The Eighth Circuit's decision is notable in that it enforced an arbitration clause with respect to federal securities fraud claims, despite evidence that the plaintiff never saw the clause or signed the agreement. Perhaps more significantly, the decision stands as a rare federal appellate-level endorsement for striking securities class-action allegations on the pleadings under Federal Rule 12(f), prior to class discovery and a motion for class certification. Although the Court cited a like-minded Sixth Circuit decision, and a favorable Fifth Circuit decision, other circuit courts have offered little guidance on the issue. At the same time, district courts are all over the map, with some flatly prohibiting Rule 12(f) motions in this context as procedurally improper, others declaring that such motions are disfavored but reserving the option to grant them in exceptional cases, and still others expressing broad openness to the concept. Illustrating the confusion, two recent decisions from the District of Massachusetts articulated seemingly contradictory views of the law, with one stressing the importance of permitting discovery before ruling on class-action status, and the other emphasizing the "considerable discretion" of district courts to resolve matters on the pleadings. Given this uneven landscape, the Eighth Circuit's endorsement could prove influential in broadening acceptance of the mechanism in appropriate cases. A viable Rule 12(f) defense could substantially alter the settlement dynamics in securities cases where flaws in a putative class action are evident on the pleadings. As the Supreme Court has noted, "extensive discovery and the potential for uncertainty and disruption in a lawsuit allow plaintiffs with weak claims to extort settlements from innocent companies." Class discovery, which may proceed "on a gargantuan scale," is often a primary source of such pressure. In securities class actions, defendants receive only a brief reprieve from this pressure while the PSLRA discovery stay is in force pending a motion to dismiss. After denial of the motion to dismiss, however, the "in terrorem" effect of class discovery (which frequently overlaps with merits discovery, including depositions and expert witnesses) comes to bear in connection with plaintiff's motion for class certification. The ability to strike class allegations on the pleadings would enable courts to dispose of inadequate class claims at an early stage of the case, conserving judicial resources and protecting litigants from unnecessary discovery-related costs. It also would reduce distortions in the settlement process created by such cost and burden considerations. While the impact of Donelson outside the Eighth Circuit remains to be seen, securities defendants may want to consider a Rule 12(f) motion to strike in appropriate cases given its unique power to eviscerate a class action at the outset. [GN] ATERIAN INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATER) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=16817&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021 Class Period: December 1, 2020 - May 3, 2021 Allegations against ATER include that: (i) the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] ATERIAN INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 12 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 14 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Aterian, Inc. from December 1, 2020 through May 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"), inclusive. All investors who purchased shares of Aterian, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in your investment in shares of Aterian, Inc. you may, no later than July 12, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the shares of Aterian, Inc. On May 4, 2021, Culper Research published a scathing report, entitled "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to You." The research report accused the company of associating and having ties to convicted criminals, overhyping its AIMEE platform, and using "garbage" acquisitions to conceal its "ill-conceived core business." Culper Research also stated that "Aterian has been largely unsuccessful in convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its AIMEE AI platform, and at least 5 former employees and a former customer have expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy." On this news, Aterian's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or approximately 24% over the next two trading days to close at $15.72 per share on May 5, 2021. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 URL: http://www.whafh.com http://www.whafh.com[GN] BAIRD DRYWALL: Faces Britt Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH BRITT, individually, Plaintiff v. BAIRD DRYWALL & ACOUSTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-00365-EKD (W.D. Va., June 15, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated against the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant to work as a laborer on various construction jobs throughout the Roanoke and Shenandoah Valleys. The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay. The Defendant has willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly failing to pay minimum wages and/or overtime. The Plaintiff seeks money damages for all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages in an amount equal to all unpaid overtime, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other further relief permissible by law. Baird Drywall & Acoustic, Inc. is a sub-contractor who contracts with general contractors on specific construction projects. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 788-0808 Fax: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and – Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Tel: 434-218-3133 Fax: 434-321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and – Andrew S. Gerrish, Esq. Nathan H. Schnetzler, Esq. Glenn B. Williams, Esq. FRITH ANDERSON + PEAKE P.O. Box 1240 Roanoke, VA 24006-1240 Tel: (540) 772-4600 Fax: (540) 772-9167 E-mail: agerrish@faplawfirm.com nschnetzler@faplawfirm.com BALTIMORE, MD: Mayor Brandon Scott Responds to ADA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- WJZ CBS Baltimore reports that Mayor Brandon Scott has responded to the class-action lawsuit filed in regards to the city's past noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act by assembling a multi-agency task force. "My administration has inherited a host of longstanding challenges that we are committed to addressing with a true equity approach. It's long past time for leaders to commit to building a more accessible Baltimore that values our neighbors with disabilities and creates pathways for them to thrive," said Mayor Scott. The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the people with mobility disabilities that work, live and visit in Baltimore. The suit alleges that Baltimore's pedestrian right of way is inaccessible to people with disabilities. They are asking the court to grant injunctive relief, damages and attorney fees. The mayor assembled the multi-agency task to address Baltimore's ADA compliance and directed it to use all necessary measures to triage current accessibility complaints. The Department of Transportation will develop a remediation plan and a timetable. The task force is expected to provide an update later this summer. Baltimore City has emphasized the newly-elected Mayor's commitment to accessibility and equality for all Baltimore citizens and visitors. [GN] BEAUMONT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Wages, Kononowech Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER KONONOWECH, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. BEAUMONT HEALTH INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-11405-JEL-CI (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant seeking money damages and other relief for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a Cardiovascular Technician, alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him and other similarly situated Cardiovascular Technicians for all the hours they have performed duties for the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff is owed in unpaid base and overtime wages an amount of approximately $73,686.16, which was derived from his base wage for the "on-call hours" that increases his biweekly to 80, and his overtime wage for the "on-call" hours that exceed 80 in a biweekly work period. The wages owed to the Plaintiff is doubled pursuant to the FLSA's liquidated damages provision. However, the Defendant formally denied the Plaintiff's request for additional compensation on or January 8, 2021. Consequently, the Plaintiff initiated legal action to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff asserts. Beaumont Health Inc. operates a large chain of hospitals across Southeastern Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq. NACHTLAW, P.C. 101 N. Main Street, Suite 555 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Tel: (734) 663-7550 BEAUTY LALA: Sun FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MENGNI SUN, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. BEAUTY LALA INC. d/d/a Sasa Nails and Spa; NEW SA SA NAIL LLC d/b/a Sasa Nails and Spa; JIDONG WU a a/k/a Ji Dong Wu, LILI GAO a/k/a Li Li Gao, JINSONG HUANG a/k/a Jin Song Huang, LUJING WU a/k/a Lu Jing Wu, and GUANHUA HUANG a/k/a Guan Hua Huang , Case No. 3:20-cv-01925-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); 2. ordering the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing first and last name, last known address with apartment number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last known e- mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location, dates of employment and position of ALL current and former non-exempt and non- managerial employees employed at any time from December 28, 2017 (three years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide the name list, whichever is later; 3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in any relevant language via mail, email, text message, website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is complete and from existing employment records; 4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of dissemination of the notice and its translation; 5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website; 6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice may also be published to social media groups specifically targeting the Chinese-speaking American immigrant worker community; 7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently employed members of the collective, and the notice shall remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the workplace; 8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the the Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published in English, and Chinese; and 9. equitable tolling on the statute of limitation on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in Period. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zLGRbg at no extra charge.[CC] The Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential Rule 23 Class, is: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 BENIHANA NATIONAL: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Vacate Class Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE A. RAMIREZ and ANGEL SANDOVAL-RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BENIHANA NATIONAL CORP.; and DOES 100 inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-05575-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move Court on July 23, 2021 to enter an order vacating the class discovery and class certification until the class action settlement in the related matter of Ari Gold v. Benihana National Corp. (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2016-00022320) is finally resolved. This Motion is made on the fact that the Ari Gold settlement has received preliminary approval and is currently set for final approval hearing on July 23, 2021, that the Ari Gold settlement encompasses members of the class in this lawsuit, that Plaintiffs have objected to the Ari Gold settlement, and that, if their objection is overruled and all appellate review processes are exhausted and the settlement becomes final, the settlement will resolve the issues in this case. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class action against Benihana National in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action on behalf of all current and former teppanyaki chefs and cooks employed by Benihana: (1) failure to pay all wages; (2) failure to provide compliant meal periods; (3) failure to provide compliant rest periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate itemized earnings statements; and (6) unfair competition in violation of the California Labor Code. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zEseq5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Kim, Esq. Adam K. Tanouye, Esq. MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C. 475 El Camino Real, Suite 309 Millbrae, CA 94030 Telephone: (650) 697-8899 Facsimile: (650) 697-8896 E-mail: mkim@mhklawyers.com tanouye@mhklawyers.com BERRY'S RELIABLE: 90 Days Extension to File Class Cert. Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCINE DIXON on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated, v. BERRY'S RELIABLE RESOURCES, LLC, RHONDA WILLIAMS, RAEON WILLIAMS AND TYESE BERRY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00596-WBV-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline within which she is allowed to move for class certification by 90 days. The Plaintiff contend that her deadline to move for class certification is June 23, 2021. However, given that one defendant is in default, another defendant has yet to answer and the remaining two defendants are avoiding service, she seeks an additional 90 days within which to move for class certification. Berry's Reliable is an in home supportive care agency. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion dated June 16, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SYXzTZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net BLOCK.ONE: Settles Class Action Over EOS ICO for $27.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Steves, writing for Finance Feeds, reports that Block.one has reached a settlement with the Crypto Assets Opportunity Fund, which had filed a class action lawsuit related to the company's initial coin offering that took place between June 2017 and June 2018. Block.one is the firm behind EOSIO, an open-sourced blockchain software, and the cryptocurrency EOS: ranking #26 on coinmarketcap.com with a $4.8 billion market capitalization. The $27.5 million settlement will close the lawsuit and will allow the firm to focus on its most recently launched venture: the EOS-powered exchange Bullish. "Block.one believes this lawsuit was without merit and filled with numerous inaccuracies. However, accepting this settlement allows us to focus more time and energy on running our business and delivering new products", said Block.one in an official statement. The Securities and Exchange Commission had also pressed charged against Block.one for its unregistered ICO that raised $4 billion dollars in the course of a year. The firm settled charges with the SEC by paying a $24 million civil penalty in 2019. At the time, the order found that Block.one would use the capital raised in the ICO for general expenses, and also to develop software and promote blockchains based on that software. Block.one's offer and sale of 900 million tokens began shortly before the SEC released the DAO Report of Investigation and continued for nearly a year after the report's publication, eventually raising several billion dollars worth of digital assets globally, including a portion from US investors. Block.one did not register its ICO as a securities offering pursuant to the federal securities laws, nor did it qualify for or seek an exemption from the registration requirements, according to the SEC. What does this have to do with the SEC v. Ripple? The SEC charged Ripple Labs and co-founders Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen with conducting a $1.3 billion unregistered securities offering for selling XRP since 2013. "Issuers seeking the benefits of a public offering, including access to retail investors, broad distribution and a secondary trading market, must comply with the federal securities laws that require registration of offerings unless an exemption from registration applies," said Stephanie Avakian, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division, at the time of the complaint (December 2020), which states the XRP sales were used to finance the company's business. In its turn, Ripple claimed it never held an ICO. "Ripple denies it engaged in any offering of securities; denies the inaccurate characterization of the legal advice Ripple received regarding XRP; and denies that it engaged in a single ‘offering' of XRP." "The functionality and liquidity of XRP are wholly incompatible with securities regulation. To require XRP's registration as a security is to impair its main utility", the blockchain firm stated, adding that it never attempted to raise money on the promise of profits, which is the premise that gives the SEC authority to supervise the cryptocurrency ecosystem. At the time of the filed complaint, Adam Cochran, Partner at Cinneamhain Ventures, tweeted how the XRP case is worse than the cases against EOS and KIN. "They've got multiple document points of proof of centralization, acknowledgment of securities issues, and selling practices in writing. They've personally named the executives as liable, which the SEC does when they go for a kill shot. This is much more common in fraud action than general securities action. "EOS got lucky with a settlement, ambiguity, and the fact it was no longer found to be a security. Same with Kin [. . .] And this case will likely drag out for 2+ years before there is clarity. Crypto projects have a chance to settle and resolve if the SEC thinks they were only previously centralized. Centralized payment databases have no path to safety", Mr. Cochran explained. The SEC has argues that, unlike Bitcoin and Ethereum, XRP is a security due to its centralized nature -- there is a company in control -- and Ripple has consistently marketed the token as an investment opportunity. While true, Ripple holders were never promised a stake in the firm not to benefit directly from the business. It is said the firm and its co-founders' statements on future value promises are not legally enforceable. The SEC v. Ripple will most likely reach a settlement deal. The firm's Achilles heel is that the lawsuit is hampering its business growth and plans to go public. The regulator will use that to its advantage and stall as much as possible. You can read the highlights of the case here. The abovementioned class action lawsuit against block.one for the unregistered securities offering of EOS followed the firm's settlement with the SEC. Ripple could face a similar outcome for the class-action lawsuit brought forth against the blockchain firm. [GN] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Loses Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Chavez v. Charter Communications, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01341-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge entered an order that Mr. Chavez has failed to meet his burden of establishing Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement and his Motion for Class Certification is denied. The Court said, "Finally, in his motion, and again at the hearing on this matter, Chavez relied heavily on Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, a decision by the California Supreme Court, which held that, where "alleged class-wide policies and practices are either 11 designed or destined to assure" that employees spend more than 50% of their time on non-exempt tasks, the defendant's contention that some employees spent less than half of their time on non-exempt tasks did not cause individual issues to predominate as a matter of law. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Ct., Cal. 4th 319, 335, 337 (2004). The California Supreme Court, affirming the trial court's decision to certify the class, observed that while "any dispute over 'how the employee actually spends his or her time' of course, has the potential to generate individual issues," a trial court could reasonably conclude that "'the employer's realistic expectations' and 'the actual overall requirements of the job' are likely to prove susceptible of common proof."" On May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff Chavez filed this putative class action against the Defendant Charter in Orange County Superior Court, asserting twelve claims under California law for (1) failure to pay overtime wages, (2) failure to provide rest periods, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (5) failure to make semi-monthly payments, (6) waiting time penalties, (7) failing to maintain accurate records, (8) unfair business practices in violation of California's Business and Professions Code; (9) theft of labor; (10) unjust enrichment; (11) a representative action under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA; and (12) declaratory relief. On July 8, 2019, Charter removed the action to this Court, invoking subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Charter Communications is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zDylLk at no extra charge.[CC] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 6 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action is pending and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Nov. 26, 2019 - May 6, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CCXI Contact An Attorney Now: CCXI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 ChemoCentryx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCXI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The lawsuit focuses on ChemoCentryx's statements about its new drug application ("NDA") for its vasculitis drug candidate Avacopan. Beginning on Nov. 25, 2019, ChemoCentryx touted positive topline data from its Pivotal Phase III ADVOCATE trial demonstrating Avacopan's superiority over standard of care in ANCA-associated vasculitis and that the trial met both of its primary endpoints. This and subsequent positive announcements sent the price of CCXI soaring. The complaint alleges ChemoCentryx concealed that: (1) the trial's study design was flawed; (2) data from the trial raised serious safety concerns; and (3) these issues presented a substantial concern about the viability of ChemoCentryx's NDA. On May 4, 2021, the truth emerged when the FDA announced it had identified several areas of concern, including "uncertainties about the interpretability of the data and the clinical meaningfulness of these results." In addition, the document took issue with the complex trial design and the lack of long-term safety data. This news drove the price of ChemoCentryx shares crashing over 45% lower on May 4, 2021, wiping out as much as $1.5 billion of the company's market capitalization. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving ChemoCentryx misled investors about Avacopan's efficacy and safety," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a ChemoCentryx investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding ChemoCentryx should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email CCXI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] CHINA SEA OF ABSECON: Resto Staff Sues Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Peng Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chin Ma II, Inc., Lily Lin, Chei-Tzea Lin and Nai Yuh Lin, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-12507 (D. N.J., June 14, 2021), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs, including monetary damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law . Defendants operate as "China Sea of Absecon" a restaurant located in Absecon, New Jersey. Peng Liu was hired as delivery packager person and a helper from approximately December 16, 2005 to May 1, 2021. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Qinyu Fan, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: (718)353-8588 Fax: (718) 353-6288 Email: qfan@hanglaw.com CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 16 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming July 16, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased 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. Investors suffering losses on their ContextLogic 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 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 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] DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer Scientific Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company") (NYSE: DNMR) securities between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Danimer investors have until July 13, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On 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, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or roughly 13%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors. Then, on April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report, noting among other things, various inconsistencies with Danimer's historical and present claims regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and degradability, and the Company's expected profitability. On this news, Danimer's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated" production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection ("KDEP") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), all of which cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Company's internal controls. On this news, Danimer's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to close at $22.14 per share on May 4, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (2) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (3) Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; 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 Danimer 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 Danimer 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] DEVEREUX FOUNDATION: Lieff Cabraser Files Sexual Abuse Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lieff Cabraser and Sauder Schelkopf filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of children exposed to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse while in the care of The Devereux Foundation (d/b/a Devereux Advanced Behavioral Health) along with its staffing company QualityHealth Staffing, LLC. Through 21 facilities across 13 states, each year Devereux takes on responsibility for protecting more than 25,000 of our country's most vulnerable members: children with autism, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and specialty mental health needs, including youth in the child welfare system. As the complaint in the lawsuit alleges, instead of fulfilling its promise and solemn responsibility to protect these vulnerable individuals, Devereux instead exposed them to physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, by harboring predators and abusers on its staff, and by failing to enact or enforce safety measures and other policies to protect them. The complaint details hundreds of incidents of abuse against children in the care of Devereux, including batteries, sexual offenses, emotional abuse, and rape. In August 2020, the Philadelphia Inquirer released a devastating report detailing decades of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse inflicted upon these especially vulnerable children by Devereux staff members. The report reveals that "at least 41 children as young as 12, and with IQs as low as 50, have been raped or sexually assaulted by Devereux staff members in the last 25 years." After the Inquirer's August 2020 report was published, an additional 13 former Devereux students came forward with allegations of sexual abuse they experienced. These children were as young as 8 years old when they were sexually abused. Twelve of the children were allegedly abused in Pennsylvania Devereux facilities, and one was abused in a Delaware Devereux facility. Seven of those children reportedly complained to Devereux staff or a social worker while the abuse was happening, but their complaints were ignored and the abuse continued. The plaintiffs bring the lawsuit to hold Devereux accountable for the harm it has caused and to prevent this devastating abuse from happening to anyone else in Devereux's care. "The only thing more horrifying than the nature of the offenses against children uncovered here is their breadth," noted Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin, who represents the plaintiff and the class in the suit. "This callous and destructive treatment of children obviously needs to be stopped, and our plaintiff-clients feel a class action lawsuit is the most powerful and efficient means to bring about justice and change for these children." Devereux is a private behavioral health organization which operates 21 campuses in 13 states, annually treating more than 25,000 children and young adults with advanced behavioral, intellectual, developmental, and mental health needs. Included among Devereux's facilities and programs are residential treatment centers, psychiatric hospitals, group homes, supported living communities, schools, special education centers, and outpatient programs. Devereux regularly receives state and federal funding, examples of which include: funding from the Florida legislature to expand Devereux Florida's Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Program; funding from "a combination of contracts and private foundation and government grants, including the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs" for Devereux's Center for Effective Schools (a non-profit research and training center which is a division of Devereux Institute of Clinical and Professional Training and Research); grants from the Pennsylvania Department of Education to develop programs for Devereux CARES, which has been licensed as an "Approved Private School;" and a $40.2 million contract from the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement to house migrant youth at Devereux facilities in five states. "This is a class action about policy failures by Devereux that unnecessarily put all its patients -- including the named plaintiff -- at increased risk of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse," adds Sauder Shelkopf partner Joseph Sauder, who also represents the plaintiff in the suit. "That increased risk also manifested into abuse of Plaintiff and other Devereux patients, and Devereux exacerbated that trauma by improperly responding to that abuse." The suit advances claims that include negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, gross negligence, vicarious liability, assault and battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks injunctive as well as equitable relief. The injunctive relief sought includes the implementation of rigorous hiring and screening protocols; robust sexual reactivity training, increased supervision, revised guidelines governing staff/patient interactions, compliance with visibility requirements, and improved monitoring infrastructure. Contacts: Joseph G. Sauder SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (610) 200-0581 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 jgs@sstriallawyers.com Annika K. Martin LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 akmartin@lchb.com [GN] DROP INC: Faces Seng Suit Over Unsolicited Prerecorded Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SENG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DROP INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03213 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent a prerecorded voice message to his cellular telephone number ending in 0013 on May 19, 2021 in an attempt to promote its services. At no point in time did the Plaintiff provide the Defendant with his express written consent to be contacted by prerecorded message at the 0013 Number, the Plaintiff adds. The Defendant's unsolicited prerecorded messages have allegedly caused the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals additional harm in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, as well as inconvenience and disruption of his daily life. Drop Inc. provides software solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com EML PAYMENTS: Faces Lawsuit Over Irish HQ Money-Laundering Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Pollock, writing for the Independent, reports that EML Payments, the Australian fintech company which bought Prepaid Financial Services, may face a class action lawsuit over how it informed shareholders of the Central Bank of Ireland's money-laundering concerns at its Irish division. Australian law firm Shine Lawyers has said it is seeking compensation on behalf of shareholders who suffered losses after acquiring EML shares. It is looking for those who acquired shares between December 19, 2020, and May 17, 2021, to join a class action advertised on its website. According to one of Shine' online notices regarding EML, class actions practice leader Joshua Aylward said the firm was investigating whether EML's delayed response to the letter breached continuous disclosure laws. It would also consider whether EML engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. "EML did not request a trading halt for almost four days after learning of these concerns and then took another 48 hours to inform the market," he said. "When shareholders invest their money into a company, they do so with the belief that that company will comply with its continuous disclosure obligations. "Our claim will allege that EML failed in its obligations, significantly impacting share prices for thousands of investors." Neither EML or Shine responded to a request for comment on the potential class action. In May, EML made a market announcement regarding correspondence that its Co Meath-based subsidiary, PFS Card Services Ireland Limited, had received from the Central Bank of Ireland. The Central Bank raised in the correspondence its concerns relating to anti-money laundering/counter-terrorism financing, risk and control frameworks and governance at the Irish firm. EML said the Central Bank could issue directions that would materially impact its European operations. PFS's European business accounted for 27pc of group revenues in the first three months of the year. The company operated through its UK-regulated subsidiary until the end of last year when it was transferred to Ireland due to Brexit. Following the announcement on the Central Bank's concerns, EML's share price fell by around 45pc. In a trading update for the third quarter of its financial year, EML said it had retained solicitors Arthur Cox and professional services firm PwC to help it with the Central Bank of Ireland investigation. According to the update, the immediate one-off costs for legal and professional advisory fees are expected to be less than AU$2m (€1.27m) in its 2021 financial year. EML said it could not fully determine the financial effect of the Central Bank of Ireland investigation on its upcoming fiscal year. It added in the trading update that it "may see an impact of delayed programme launches" and transaction fees. In its trading update, EML said it remains in ongoing dialogue with the Central Bank regarding its concerns. It set up a project governance team to assist the Irish branch, and is also engaging with regulators in other regions. Since the announcement of the Central Bank investigation, EML has recovered half of the share price loss it sustained. Last year, EML bought PFS in a deal worth up to 216.9m euros. [GN] FAT DOUGH: Shortchanges Drivers' Vehicle Reimbursements, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Kilgore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fat Dough, Inc., Shan's Pizza, Inc., Big Al's Pizza, Inc., Happy Pizza People and Allan F. Erwin, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00699 (N.D. N.Y., June 14, 2021), seeks to recover damages for violation of wage and hour provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. They employed delivery drivers who drive their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to its customers. Kilgore claims that vehicle reimbursement rates are not commensurate with his actual expenses thus rendering his net pay below the mandated minimum wage rates. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St Paul Street Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com FCA US: Court Stays Filing of Class Certification Related Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MARKSBERRY v. FCA US LLC, et al., Case No. e 2:19-cv-02724-EFM-JPO (D. Kan.), the Hon Judge James P. O'Hara entered an order that: 1. The motion to stay is granted. All pretrial proceedings in this case, including new discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification, are stayed until further order of the court. 2. The Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification is due 14 days after any ruling on the motion for summary judgment that leaves class-claims at issue. 3. Counsel shall confer and submit an updated Rule 26(f) planning report to the undersigned’s chambers within 14 days of the later of (1) an order entering judgment on the potential class claims asserted against FCA (but leaving plaintiff’s claim against Landers McLarty pending) or (2) a ruling on any class-certification motion. FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJ1rWo at no extra charge.[CC] FREIGHT RITE: Underpays Delivery Drivers & Installers, Ortiz Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES ORTIZ and COLBY NESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREIGHT RITE, INC., US PACK LOGISTICS LLC, CAPITAL DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. a/k/a JLPDA, INC., SHEILA BACH, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01060-YK (M.D. Pa., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law by failing to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failing to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a given workweek, and making illegal deductions from their compensation. The Plaintiffs performed work for Freight Rite as delivery drivers and installers. Freight Rite, Inc. is a freight forwarding service in Toledo, Ohio. US Pack Logistics LLC is a logistics provider doing business in Pennsylvania. Capital Delivery Systems, Inc., also known as JLPDA, Inc. is a logistics company doing business in Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony T. Bowser, Esq. Solomon Z. Krevsky, Esq. KREVSKY BOWSER LLC 20 Erford Road, Suite 300A Lemoyne, PA 17043 Telephone: (717) 731-8600 E-mail: abowser@krevskybowser.com skrevsky@krevskybowser.com FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: FREQ) common stock between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Frequency investors have until August 2, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most significant which was a Phase 2a study that began in October 2019. In April 2020, Frequency's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), David L. Lucchino, began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling over 350,000 shares sold and earning over $10.5 million. On March 23, 2021, before the market opened, Frequency disclosed in a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, to close at $7.99 per share, thereby damaging investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Frequency's Phase 2a study did not yield positive results to support the commercialization of FX-322; and (2) that, 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 Frequency securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 2, 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 Frequency 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. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] FRIENDS PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Torres Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELE TORRES, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRIENDS PIZZA, LLC; LITTLE GIANTS PIZZA, LLC; PIZZEE BOY, LLC; and BRIAN EDLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01137 (N.D. Ohio, July 4, 2021) is brought against the Defendants' for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Torres was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver. FRIENDS PIZZA, LLC owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alyson S. Beridon, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 425 Walnut Street, Suite 2315 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2224 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: alysonb@bsjfirm.com GEICO: Judge Denies Effort to Certify Appeal in Premiums Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daphne Zhang, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal judge on June 14 denied Geico's effort to certify an interlocutory appeal in a suit alleging Geico has been unfairly profiting off the COVID-19 pandemic by charging "unconscionably excessive" premiums. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman said Geico failed to establish how an interlocutory appeal would accelerate the litigation process when its own online statement could have deceived customers by overcharging premiums when people were not regularly on the road during the lockdown last year. Last July, Briana Siegal filed a proposed class action against the auto insurer, alleging Geico overcharged premiums at a time people were not driving to work or school, causing fewer car accidents on the road. According to the suit, Geico and many auto insurers responded to the pandemic by creating discount programs, and Geico developed the "GEICO Giveback" program, which provided new or renewing customers discounts on their six- or 12-month policies. The auto insurer has stated on its website that "we are passing these savings on to our auto, motorcycle and RV customers," according to the suit. However, Judge Coleman said on June 14 the insurer's online statement "had the capacity to deceive consumers as to the portion of savings that Geico was passing on to them via the 'GEICO Giveback' program under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act." In March, the judge partially dismissed Geico's motion for summary judgment. Judge Coleman nixed Siegal's frustration of purpose, unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims against Geico but left intact the unfair and deceptive conduct claims. The auto insurer subsequently asked the court to certify an interlocutory appeal. It has called the proposed class action "far out of bounds," saying it's not prudent or legal to review its premium calculation as the customers asked it to. Geico has failed to establish how an interlocutory appeal "would speed up litigation for the simple reason that there are remaining claims in this lawsuit concerning the unfairness section of the ICFA," the judge said. According to the proposed class action, Siegal has alleged Geico's program applies a 15% discount on new and renewal auto insurance policies but doesn't apply it to premiums that customers have already paid or will continue to pay on policies already existing at the start of the pandemic. Siegal has pointed to reports from the Center for Economic Justice and the Consumer Federation of America, which found that at least a 30% minimum average premium refund would be needed to correct the "unfair windfall" insurers like Geico saw between mid-March and the end of April. Siegal is looking to represent a class of all Illinois drivers who purchased personal auto, motorcycle or RV insurance from Geico covering any portion of time between March 2020 and July 2020. Counsel for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment on June 14. Siegal is represented by Ryan R. Stephan, James B. Zouras and Teresa M. Becvar of Stephan Zouras LLP and Matthew H. Morgan, Robert L. Schug and Charles A. Delbridge of Nichols Kaster PLLP. Geico is represented by Lisa T. Scruggs of Duane Morris LLP. The case is Briana Siegal v. Geico Casualty Co. et al., case number 1:20-cv-04306, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Klotz Suit Moved From N.D. Ohio to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled AMANDA KLOTZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 5:21-cv-00833, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-04618-EJD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover money lost to illegal gambling through in-app purchases from the Google Play Store pursuant to Section 3763.02 of the Ohio Revised Code. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google Payment Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google LLC, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Breen, Esq. BREEN LAW, LLC 7761 Chetwood Close, Ste. 100 Columbus, OH 43054 Telephone: (614) 374-3324 E-mail: john@breenlegal.com - and – Wesley W. Barnett, Esq. Dargan Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com GOOGLE LLC: Montoya Suit Moved From D.N.M. to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ERICA MONTOYA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 1:21-cv-00339, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-04619-EJD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover money lost to illegal gambling through in-app purchases from the Google Play Store pursuant to Section 44-5-1 of the New Mexico Statutes. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google Payment Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google LLC, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY KENNEDY & IVES, PC 1000 2nd Street, N.W. Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 244-1400 Facsimile: (505) 244-1406 E-mail: jpk@civilrightslaw.com - and – John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com GOOGLE LLC: Smith Suit Moved From S.D. Miss. to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled EDGAR SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00053, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-04620-EJD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants to recover money lost to illegal gambling through in-app purchases from the Google Play Store pursuant to Section 87-1-5 of the Code of Mississippi. Google, LLC is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. Google Payment Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google LLC, with its principal place of business in Mountain View, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC 1438 North State Street Jackson, MS 39202 Telephone: (601) 624-4850 Facsimile: (866) 900-4850 E-mail: chris@weldylawfirm.com - and – John E. Norris, Esq. Dargan M. Ware, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 930-9900 Facsimile: (205) 930-9989 E-mail: jnorris@davisnorris.com dware@davisnorris.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Class Certification-Related Deadlines on Hold --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AHMAD ODEH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-17645-MCA-ESK (D.N.J.), the Hon Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order that the class certification-related deadlines set forth in the Court's May 11, 2021 Order are held in abeyance pending the July 15, 2021 hearing. Immunomedics develops, manufactures, and sells diagnostic imaging and therapeutic products. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gJc5ae at no extra charge.[CC] INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Faces Suit Over Illegal Court Papers' Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Chauncey Ross at indianagazette.com reports that Indiana County Prothonotary Randy Degenkolb readily provided a copy of a 50-page civil lawsuit from the docket of the county court -- and even pointed to where his name could be found, on the sixth, 21st and 31st pages, as a defendant in the case. He's not alone. Degenkolb and 52 other officials serving as prothonotaries across the state have been accused of overcharging local governments on the fees they pay to file papers in the county court system. Two eastern Pennsylvania school districts initiated a class action lawsuit against their local prothonotary and filed to represent all other schools, boroughs and townships who they claim have been charged filing fees greater than $10, a limit that the schools said is dictated by the Pennsylvania code governing second- through eighth-class counties. The lawsuit is filed in Commonwealth Court. It demands reimbursements from the counties to the local government filers for overcharges since April 2015, six years before the suit was filed. Degenkolb said he would follow his attorney's advice and not comment on the claims in the suit. A schedule of prothonotary office fees posted on the Indiana County website shows most filings cost less than $100. A handful cost $140. The highest fee, to lodge an appeal of an arbitration award, is $200. The list makes no distinction between private sector and public sector filers. Attorney Jesse Daniel, the solicitor for the prothonotary's office, checked in on May 12 to represent Degenkolb, and the Indiana County board of commissioners on June 9 hired Harrisburg law firm McNees Wallace & Nurick for the county's defense. The law firm has been advanced by the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania to represent most of the counties being sued. Some counties may choose not to defend, according to a published report. In Somerset County, an audit of overcharges as claimed in the lawsuit showed that the county would need to reimburse about $3,000 to the local schools, townships and boroughs for fees paid in excess of $10 per filing. "If we just assumed for argument's sake that the plaintiff was right about everything they claim, our exposure would be minimal," Somerset County Solicitor Michael Barbera told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. The Cambria County board of commissioners retained McNees Wallace & Nurick after Solicitor William Barbin advised the board. "The attorney fees could far surpass any actual amount that was allegedly overcharged," Barbin said, according to the newspaper. "It might be a whole lot cheaper to just refund the money right now," Barbin said. "We're double-checking that all things say what we think they say, and to make sure everything's calculated right and proper. But I intend to contact the political subdivisions who have filed complaints and other documents about refunds." The Chester Upland and Chichester school districts, of Delaware County, claimed in the suit that the counties have engaged in "unjust enrichment" at the expense of other public agencies. The schools' lawyers have asked Commonwealth Court judges to declare illegal the fees, as now being collected; to order the counties to issue refunds; to enjoin counties from overcharging subdivisions in the future; and to require the counties to pay all the legal fees for the lawsuit. The commonwealth court docket shows that some counties have been given deadlines as late as June 30 to respond before the suit proceeds. [GN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Beltran Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled GUILLERMO BELTRAN, LUIS JIMENEZ, FRANK ANICOCHE, JR., LOUIS DAWKINS, PAGANINI LOUISSAINT, JOSHUA BOLDEN, and RUDY DELAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.; ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, JR.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV14900, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01005 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to indemnify for necessary expenditures, failure to furnish compliant wage statements and maintain accurate pay records, failure to timely pay wages, failure to pay wages, and unfair competition. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. is a provider of security services in California. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Caitlin R. Johnson, Esq. Ryan S. Lee, Esq. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. 210 South De Lacey Avenue Pasadena, CA 91105 Telephone: (626) 535-2200 Facsimile: (626) 685-9120 E-mail: CJohnson@icsecurity.com RLee@icsecurity.com JAGPREET ENTERPRISES: Davis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated visually-impaired individuals, Plaintiff, v. Jagpreet Enterprises LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-05247 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2021), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is an Indian food company that owns and operates the website www.sukhis.myshopify.com offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services through delivery throughout the United States, including New York. Davis is legally blind and claims that said website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Tel: (732) 695-3282 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com JEREMY BUSH: Phillips-Addis Class Certification Bid Junked ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW J. PHILLIPS-ADDIS v. JEREMY BUSH, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00248-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon Judge Hala Y. Jarbou entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiff Phillips-Addis's requests for class certification and preliminary injunctive relief; 2. denying the Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief; 3. denying the Plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel and for discovery; 4. denying the Plaintiff's motions relating to his request for class certification; and 5. granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint, to the extent that Plaintiff's amended complaint relates strictly to his own alleged claims and injuries and meets the other specifications set forth in this order. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Skd5JS at no extra charge.[CC] JESSICA CHOW: Bray Sues Over Negligence on Salgado PAGA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ S.R. BRAY LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JESSICA R. CHOW; KARLIN, HIURA & LASOTA, LLP; OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV22625 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, professional negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to send copies of Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement, an order approving the C&R agreement, and the Separation and Waiver of Rehire and Re-employment Rights agreement to the Plaintiff with regards to a workers' compensation claim filed by Edward Salgado against S.R. Bray. As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions, Salgado demands penalties and reimbursement of his attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act. S.R. Bray LLC is a general contractor in Anaheim, California. Karlin, Hiura & Lasota, LLP is a law firm in Glendale, California. Old Republic General Insurance Corporation is an insurance company based in California. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. is an insurance company based in Clinton, Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Daniel Fuller, Esq. Ignacio J. Lazo, Esq. Cecilia A. Perkins, Esq. CADDEN & FULLER LLP 114 Pacifica, Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92618-3326 Telephone: (949) 788-0827 Facsimile: (949) 450-0650 E-mail: dfuller@caddenfiiller.com ilazo@caddenfuller.com cperkms@caddenfuller.com KENSINGTON SENIOR: Zakay Files Labor Class Action Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Northern California labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Kensington Redwood City, LLC and Kensington Senior Living, LLC (collectively, "Kensington Senior") for allegedly failing to provide employees with legally compliant meal and rest periods. The Kensington Senior class action lawsuit, Case No. 21-CIV-03030, is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit, Kensington Senior allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, and 1198 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (5) provide wages when due. Under California law, every employer shall pay to each employee, on the established payday for the period involved, not less than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in the payroll period, whether the remuneration is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise. Hours worked is defined in the applicable Wage Order as "the time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer and includes all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so." Kensington Senior allegedly required its employees to perform work before and after their scheduled shifts, as well as during their off-duty meal breaks. The lawsuit alleges Kensington Senior failed to compensate its employees for any of the time spent under the employer's control while working off-the-clock. As such, Kensington Senior allegedly failed to pay its employees the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked in a payroll period. If you would like to know more about the Kensington Senior lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom today by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are labor and employment law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to fighting for employees who have been wronged by their employers due to unfair employment practices. Contact one of their attorneys today if you need help with workplace issues regarding wage and hour, wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. [GN] LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: Parties File Class Certification Bid Briefings ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STUDENT A, STUDENT B, STUDENT C, and STUDENT D, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, v. LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC., d/b/a/ LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, Case No. 6:20-cv-00023-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Parties have agreed to a schedule for the submission of briefs in support or opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Parties ask the Court to enter an Order that: 1. The Defendant's Brief in Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification shall be filed with the Court and served on counsel of record on July 16, 2021. 2. The Plaintiffs' Reply Brief shall be filed with the Court and served on counsel of record on August 31, 2021. Liberty University is a private evangelical Christian university in Lynchburg, Virginia. It was founded by Jerry Falwell Sr. and Elmer L. Towns in 1971. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vJMnbh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Kyle McNew, Esq. J. Gregory Webb, Esq. Lisa S. Brook, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT 310 4th Street, NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: 434-951-7231 E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com gwebb@michiehamlett.com lbrook@michiehamlett.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Laura E. Reasons, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com lreasons@dicellolevitt.com - and - Matthew S. Miller, Esq. MATTHEW S. MILLER LLC 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 741-1085 E-mail: mmiller@msmillerlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Turner A. Broughton, Esq. Harold E. Johnson, Esq. Amanda H. Bird-Johnson, Esq. Williams Mullen, Esq. 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600 Richmond, VA 23218 Telephone: (804) 420-6000 Facsimile: (804) 420-6507 E-mail: tbroughton@williamsmullen.com hjohnson@williamsmullen.com abird-johnson@williamsmullen.com - and - Benjamin G. Chew, Esq. Michael Bowe, Esq. Michael Winograd, Esq. Jessica N. Meyers, Esq. Brown Rudnick LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 209-4800 Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 E-mail: mbowe@brownrudnick.com bchew@brownrudnick.com mwinograd@brownrudnick.com jmeyers@brownrudnick.com LUTHERAN SOCIAL: Court Tosses Hawkins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA HAWKINS, TYLER MOE, and PHILLIP GEISLER, v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF WISCONSIN AND UPPER MICHIGAN, INC., COMMUNITY TRANSITION CENTER, and EAU CLAIRE COUNTY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00352-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon Judge James D. Peterson entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and 2. directing the Plaintiffs until June 22, 2021, to inform the court whether they intend to file a renewed motion for class certification. -- If they do, the court will set a briefing schedule, strike the remaining schedule, and reset it after resolving plaintiffs' motion. Otherwise, the court will deny the motion for class certification with prejudice and keep the current schedule. The Court said "In the context of arguing against appointment of class counsel, Lutheran Social Services observes that counsel didn't object to any of the conditions imposed on the named plaintiffs during criminal proceedings. That has little to do with the adequacy of class counsel in this case, but it does raise other questions that could affect whether class certification is appropriate: (1) does a failure to object to conditions during criminal proceedings qualify as a waiver or otherwise preclude the program participant from challenging the condition in a subsequent civil case?; (2) if a class member did object and received an adverse ruling in state court, is the class member precluded from raising the same issue in a civil case; and (3) do either of those issues raise individualized questions affecting class certification? The parties should address those questions if plaintiffs choose to file a renewed motion." The Plaintiffs propose the following class: "[A]ll persons who were referred by Eau Claire County Circuit Court to [Community Transition Center's] testing program as a condition of their pre-conviction, pre-trial, bond since April 17, 2014." This is a proposed class action challenging a pretrial bond release program in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin. The Plaintiffs say that the county created the program, the Community Transition Center runs the program, and Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin runs the center. Each of the named plaintiffs participated in the program, and they ask to represent a class of all others who have participated in the program since 2014. They contend that the program subjected them to unreasonable searches, forced them to incriminate themselves, allowed defendants to disclose private information, imposed excessive bail conditions on them, denied them due process, and impermissibly delegated judicial authority to other entities. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UgvibD at no extra charge.[CC] MALIVER PTY: Investors May Launch Class Action Against Auditors --------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Zhang, writing for Accountants Daily, reports that investors who had self-managed super funds with Ms Caddick could launch a potential class action against auditors who oversaw the records and were involved in preparing the financial statements, as reported by the AAP. It was reported that Ms Caddick co-ordinated the preparation of fraudulent documents for the auditors of a number of SMSFs, who appeared to have merely ticked off the documents they received. Insolvency firm Jones Partners, who are appointed as the provisional liquidators of Ms Caddick's company, Maliver Pty Ltd, stated that a possible class action could be taken against the auditors and other professionals involved. "Such possible claims would need to be further evaluated but are likely to be against the auditor and potentially other professionals involved in the audit process and may possibly take the form of a class action," Jones Partners principal Bruce Gleeson said in a media statement. The case is set to return to the Federal Court this month, with the firm seeking to be appointed final liquidators so they can begin redistributing funds to investors. The firm has identified a number of assets they'll reclaim including two properties in Dover Heights and Edgecliff, shares, jewellery purchased using the stolen money and two luxury cars. The company is also investigating whether it can claim tax refunds from the Australian Taxation Office, as a significant majority of the taxable income of Maliver was fictitious. Investors will be updated on the progress of the matter on 23 June. A previous position paper by Bridges Lawyers referenced ASIC evidence that revealed Ms Caddick had 42 "known or potential" investors over just an 18-month period from January 2018 to June 2020. Just under $675,000 remains in cash accounts held by Ms Caddick and her now-collapsed company Maliver, according to affidavits made as part of the proceedings. It had found that investors had lodged tax returns detailing these holdings "for many years", and several had SMSFs that were independently audited "in some cases over a five-year period" without any red flags being raised, the paper states. Previously, Jones Partners had also revealed in a media paper that a review of Ms Caddick's own SMSF revealed fictitious portfolio statements, contract notes and bank statements so as to inflate the value of assets in her SMSF. The 49-year-old, accused of misappropriating about $25 million of investors' funds, went missing hours after corporate watchdog ASIC executed a November 2020 search warrant at her house. [GN] MARATHON REFINING: Parties Stipulate Class Certification Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, WARREN KOSTENUK ANTHONY ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties make the following stipulated requests: 1. Class Certification Deadlines: That the Court continues the class certification dates as follows: opening brief due by August 6, 2021; responsive brief due by October 6, 2021; and reply brief due on October 27, 2021 with the hearing date for the motion set for the week of November 15, 2021, or other date thereafter for which the Court is available. 2. Expert Discovery Deadlines: That the Court continues the deadline for disclosure of opening expert reports to August 6, 2021 and for rebuttal expert reports to September 6, 2021, and continues the expert discovery cutoff date to November 5, 2021. Marathon Petroleum is an independent company, which engages in refining, marketing, and transportation of petroleum products in the United States. A copy of the Parties motion dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qbpn3A at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kristina L. Hillman, Esq. Jannah V. Manansala, Esq. Roberta D. Perkins, Esq. Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq. Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq. Kara L. Gordon, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 1375 55th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (510) 337-1001 Facsimile: (510) 337-1023 E-Mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net khillman@unioncounsel.net manansala@unioncounsel.net rperkins@unioncounsel.net anazarov@unioncounsel.net mcasillas@unioncounsel.net kgordon@unioncounsel.net - and - Aaron Kaufmann, Esq. David Pogrel, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com dpogrel@leonardcarder.com The Defendant is represented by: William J. Dritsas, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-Mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com - and - Timothy M. Rusche, Esq. Mary D. Manesis, Esq. Amanda I. Fry, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com mmanesis@seyfarth.com afry@seyfarth.com - and - Michael W. Kopp, Esq. SEYFARTH SHOW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2250 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 E-Mail: mkopp@seyfarth.com MATSON MONEY: Must Face Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Georgia federal judge declined to end a $10 million proposed class action against several investment advisers over an alleged Ponzi scheme run by a now-fugitive, but trimmed securities violations and breach of contract claims from the case. U.S. District Judge William Ray II on June 9 said investment advisers Matson Money Inc. may yet to win a dismissal, but for now, there's enough evidence backing the allegations against it to let plaintiffs move forward with discovery. [GN] MONSANTO CO: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Roundup Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a group of consumers asked a Delaware federal court on June 14 to preliminarily approve a deal under which Monsanto Co. has agreed to pay up to $45 million to resolve nationwide proposed class claims alleging the agrochemical giant fraudulently marketed its weed killer Roundup without disclosing its potential cancer links. [GN] NAPA COUNTY, CA: Davis et al. Seek Correctional Officers' Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, KATINA DAVIS, JAE STEWARD, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF NAPA, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-04603 (N.D. Cal., June 15, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt Correctional Officers in the County jail system, allege that the Defendant failed to compensate them and other similarly situated correctional officers for all the time they have spent performing duties. Specifically, since January 2017, they regularly completed their 12-hour assigned shifts per day plus additional 30-minute pre-shift and 30-minute post-shift duties. However, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied them of overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the suit says. The Plaintiffs bring this complaint, on their own behalf and other similarly situated correctional officers, against the Defendant seeking to recover a complete and accurate accounting of all back pay compensation due and owing to which they were entitled and monetary damages in the form of back pay compensation for unpaid overtime, as well as liquidated damages equal to their unpaid overtime wages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and disbursements, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. County of Napa operates a correctional facility and/or jail. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Gauger, Esq. Kerianne R. Steele, Esq. Tiffany L. Crain, Esq. Abel Rodriguez, Esq. WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD A Professional Corporation 431 I Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 443-6600 Fax: (916) 442-0244 E-mail: mgauger@unioncounsel.net ksteele@unioncounsel.net tcrain@unioncounsel.net abelrodriguez@unioncounsel.net NATIONAL MARINE: Class Action Over New Charter Boat Rules Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that six captains and five companies from Florida and Louisiana can represent others in a lawsuit challenging new federal regulations for nearly 1,300 charter boats across the Gulf of Mexico, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan certified the suit early this month as a class action for the people who take small groups of anglers into the Gulf. She rejected an argument that some charter captains support the regulations. "The claims and defenses of class representatives are typical of the claims of the class as a whole," she wrote on June 2. The lawsuit contends that privacy and other rights are violated by regulations which require permanently active tracking devices on the boats. The suit also challenges requirements to report information including the crew size, number of customers, the fee charged to each and the amount and price of fuel. Although the regulations took effect in January, the government has not yet set a date for requiring the devices, said Judy Pino, spokeswoman for the nonprofit law firm New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represents the captains. The captains consider the tracking device "the regulatory equivalent of an ‘ankle bracelet' (or anchor bracelet!) that constantly monitors their businesses and personal lives," the firm said in a news release. The firm's aim, according to its website, is "to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies." The devices amount to warrantless searches for information that could be turned over to law enforcement and other agencies, said the lawsuit filed in August against the National Marine Fisheries Service, also called NOAA Fisheries, and its parent agencies. NOAA Fisheries did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the agency generally does not discuss pending litigation. The trackers would keep tabs on their boats not just while they were used for fishing but on sightseeing trips and personal recreation and even dinners on board, the lawsuit said. It was filed for captains Billy Wells, of River Ridge, Louisiana; Allen Alburn, Kraig Dafcik, Joey Dobin and Jim Rinckey, of Naples, Florida, and Frank Ventimiglia, of Fort Myers, Florida, and their companies. "Mr. Walburn also operates boats in Alaska where the NOAA requirement is simply to have a paper logbook of locations where fishing occurs and fish is caught," the lawsuit said. Since the customers also have to sign them, the logbooks are more reliable than electronic reports as well as being less intrusive and expensive, it said. In addition to NOAA Fisheries; defendants are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Commerce Department, and each agency's top administrator. [GN] NEC NETWORKS: Faces Vereen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- MARK VEREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEC NETWORKS; LLC D/B/A CAPTURERX; and MIDTOWN HEALTH CENTER, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00536 (W.D. Tex. July 4, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for their failure to adequately secure and safeguard electronically stored the Plaintiff's personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"). According to the complaint, on February 11, 2021, the Defendant CaptureRx learned that an unauthorized actor breached its system and accessed the electronic files containing the PII and PHI of the Defendant Midtown's customers, including the Plaintiff's and Class Members' data (the "Data Breach"). The data included, at least, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth and prescription information. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals. Allegedly, the exposed PII and PHI of the Plaintiff and Class Members can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII and PHI to criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of their birthdates and specific medical treatment information in the form of prescription information. Nec Networks, L.L.C. provides management services on a contract or fee basis. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -and- Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com -and- Gary E. Mason, Esq. David Lietz, Esq. MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640-1160 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dlietz@masonllp.com NEOGENIS LABS: Sharifan Slams Mislabeled Health Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------- Abdee Sharifan on behalf of himself and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Neogenis Labs, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01940 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2021), seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages, costs of suit incurred, including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further relief, in law or in equity, for violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act, various states' deceptive trade practices statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Neogenis Labs, Inc. markets nitric oxide supplements in the nutritional market. Sharifan says that these products are dietary supplements and are regulated by the FDA as food, not as drugs. Defendant allegedly markets these products as having health benefits but are not required to submit the products to the FDA for approval. These products include the new "superbeets" products that do not contain superbeets and do not enhance nitric oxide production. However, Defendants continue to market and sell these products by claiming they contain superbeets and enhance nitric oxide production, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty Hardin, Esq. Ryan Higgins, Esq. Daniel R. Dutko, Esq. RUSTY HARDIN & ASSOCIATES LLP 5 Houston Center 1401 McKinney Street, Suite 2250 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 652-9000 Facsimile: (713) 652-9800 Email: rhardin@rustyhardin.com ddutko@rustyhardin.com rhiggins@rustyhardin.com NEW YORK: Handgun Licensing Scheme Against 2nd Amendment, Frey Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JASON FREY, BRIANNA FREY, JACK CHENG, and WILLIAM SAPPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, Acting Superintendent of the New York State Police, in his official capacity, NEW YORK CITY, New York, and DERMOT SHEA, in his official capacity as NYPD Police Commissioner, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-05334 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Second Amendment right. In this case, the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the New York State's discretionary handgun licensing scheme under Penal Law Sections 400.00(1)(b) and (n) violate the Second Amendment by reducing the Second Amendment right to a mere privilege. Allegedly, the scheme unconstitutionally infringes upon the preexisting individual right of the Plaintiffs and all other individuals who have been issued a valid New York State pistol license to bear arms for self-protection by, inter alia, (i) banning the unrestricted open carriage of a handgun; (ii) criminalizing the open carriage of a handgun; and (iii) restricting the validity of an unrestricted carry license based on the county of issuance. New York City is a governmental subdivision of New York State. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy L. Bellantoni, Esq. THE BELLANTONI LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Overhill Road, Suite 400 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (914) 367-0090 Facsimile: (888) 763-9761 E-mail: abell@bellantoni-law.com OCUGEN INC: Howard G. Smith Discloses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ocugen, Inc. ("Ocugen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OCGN) securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ocugen investors have until August 16, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Ocugen 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. Ocugen is a biopharmaceutical company. Pursuant to an agreement with Bharat Biotech, Ocugen has the exclusive right to develop, manufacture, and commercialize COVAXIN, a vaccine candidate for COVID-19. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen announced that it would submit a biologics license application ("BLA") for COVAXIN, which has a longer approval process than an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application, and that it anticipated conducting an additional clinical trial to support the submission. On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.62 per share, or 28%, to close at $6.69 per share on June 10, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the information submitted to the FDA was insufficient to support an EUA, (2) Ocugen would not file an Emergency Use Authorization with the FDA; 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 Ocugen 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] OLIVER HOSPITALITY: Certification of FLSA Class in Jose Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRSTEN E. JOSE, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. OLIVER HOSPITALITY, LLC, and CH TENNESSEE, LLC d/b/a CHARLESTOWNE HOTELS, Case No. 3:21-cv-00269 (M.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a class of: "individuals and authorizing notice to be sent to these individuals in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)." The Defendants seek to preserve their right to move to decertify this class at an appropriate time in this litigation. However, by agreeing to resolve the issue of conditional class certification and notice, the Parties submit that they are preserving judicial resources and ensuring the efficient litigation of Plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the Parties move this Court to set a deadline for when the Defendants must answer Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective Action Complaint. The Parties submit that it would be most efficient to allow all individuals to join this litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) before requiring the Defendants to answer Plaintiffs' First Amended Collective Action Complaint. Moreover, setting the Answer deadline after the close of the notice period will not delay the litigation of this matter. On April 2, 2021, the Plaintiff Kirsten Jose initiated this action by filing a Collective Action Complaint against Defendant Oliver Hospitality, LLC under the FLSA seeking minimum wage and overtime wage compensation for servers and bartenders employed at the Fairlane Hotel in Nashville, Tennessee from April 1, 2018 to the present. Subsequently, on April 28, 2021 the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Collective Action Complaint adding CH Tennessee, LLC as a Defendant, which Plaintiff claims was a joint employer along with Defendant Oliver Hospitality, LLC from the inception of the Fairlane Hotel in 2018 to on or about March 2020. Oliver Hospitality is a hotel and restaurant management company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35FwIio at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. David W. Garrison, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Philips Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com The Defendants are represented by: Aron Z. Karabel, Esq. Casey M. Duhart, Esq. WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP 511 Union St., Suite 2700 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-6380 Facsimile: (615) 244-6804 E-mail: aron.karabel@wallerlaw.com casey.duhart@wallerlaw.com ONE MORE THAI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Serrano Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS SERRANO; MACEDONIO FELIX; and PRIMITIVO FELIX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ONE MORE THAI CORP. (D/B/A ONE MORE THAI); KASIYA DJOKIC; and SIRIWADEE JAREEPRASIT, Defendants, seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs. ONE MORE THAI CORP. owns and operates a Thai restaurant located at New York, New York under the name "One More Thai". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ONTARIO ENERGY: Settles HVAC Equipment Lease Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Foreman & Company Professional Corporation on June 14 disclosed that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Ontario Energy Group and Home Trust Company (collectively the "Defendants"). The class action relates to lease/rental and maintenance agreements for household equipment (like furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters, and filters), entered into in Ontario between May 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016, which are alleged to have failed to comply with legal requirements under Ontario's Consumer Protection Act, 2002. The action sought damages and other remedies for class members. Ontario Energy Group is a company that entered into lease agreements with Ontario consumers for the installation, rental, and servicing of HVAC equipment. Home Trust Company is alleged to have purchased an interest in the lease agreements, collected money from class members under the lease agreements, and to have registered "liens" against consumers' homes. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Defendants have agreed to pay CAD $14,950,000 (the "Settlement Funds") for the benefit of class members in addition to other specified relief including debt management and the cancellation and forgiveness of certain agreements entirely in exceptional circumstances. Ontario Energy Group has also agreed to implement various contractual changes to its consumer agreements on a go-forward basis. The settlement, which was negotiated over more than two years with the assistance of the retired Chief Justice of Ontario acting as a neutral mediator, is not an admission by the Defendants of liability, fault, or wrongdoing, but is a compromise of disputed claims. The settlement must be approved by the Court before it becomes effective. The plan for distributing the Settlement Funds to class members must also be approved by the Court before payments can be made. Full copies of the Settlement Agreement and the proposed plan for distributing Settlement Funds are posted for review at https://www.foremancompany.com/ontario-energy-group. Class members have the right to submit comments or objections for consideration by the Court. The deadline for providing those comments to Class Counsel is September 13, 2021. If you are a class member who wants to be included in the class action, you do not need to do anything. If you do not want to be included in this class action, you must "opt-out" by September 13, 2021. For more detailed information, class members are encouraged to visit https://www.foremancompany.com/ontario-energy-group. Foreman & Company represents class members in this case. Based in London, Ontario, Foreman & Company has more than 20 years' experience in class action litigation and expertise in a full range of class action matters. For further information: Media contact: Foreman & Company, Jonathan Foreman, jforeman@foremancompany.com [GN] PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Pomerantz Law Reminds of June 28 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Peloton Interactive, Inc. ("Peloton" or the "Company")(NASDAQ: PTON) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02925, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Peloton between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Peloton securities during the Class Period, you have until June 28, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Peloton provides interactive fitness products such as the Peloton Bike and the Peloton Tread+ and Tread, which include touchscreens that stream live and on-demand classes. Peloton also provides connected fitness subscriptions and access to live and on-demand classes. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) in addition to the tragic death of a child, Peloton's Tread+ had caused a serious safety threat to children and pets as there were multiple incidents of injury to both; (ii) safety was not a priority to Peloton as Defendants were aware of serious injuries and death resulting from the Tread+ yet did not recall or suggest a halt of the use of the Tread+; (iii) as a result of the safety concerns, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") declared the Tread+ posed a serious risk to public health and safety resulting in its urgent recommendation for consumers with small children to cease using the Tread+; (iv) the CPSC also found a safety threat to Tread+ users if they lost their balance; (v) Tread featured similar safety concerns; (vi) merely reinforcing safety warnings would be insufficient; (vii) the CPSC and Peloton would issue a recall of the Tread+ and Tread; (viii) issues with the Tread+ and Tread were not patchable via software updates; (ix) Defendants were not fully cooperating with the CPSC; (x) as opposed to Defendants' statements, CPSC statements were not misleading or inaccurate; and (xi) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Peloton's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On April 17, 2021, a day the market was closed, the CPSC issued a press release entitled "CPSC Warns Consumers: Stop Using the Peloton Tread+" alerting the public to dangers, including death, associated with the Peloton Tread+. That same day, Peloton issued a press release entitled "PELOTON REFUTES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION CLAIMS: CPSC PUBLISHES MISLEADING, INACCURATE BULLETIN ON TREAD+ PRODUCT SAFETY" which attempted to rebut the CPSC's warnings. Following these disclosures, Peloton's stock price fell $16.28 per share, or 14%, over the next three trading days to close at $99.93 per share on April 21, 2021, damaging investors. Then, on May 5, 2021, during market hours, the CPSC issued a statement entitled "Statement of Acting Chairman Robert Adler on the Recall of the Peloton Tread + and Tread" which announced that the CPSC and Peloton had come to an agreement to protect users of the Peloton Tread+ and Tread products, which required Peloton to immediately stop selling and distributing both the Tread+ and Tread products in the United States and refund the full purchase price to consumers who wish to return their treadmills. That same day, Peloton posted an article entitled "CPSC and Peloton Announce: Recall of Tread+ Treadmills After One Child Death and 70 Incidents; Recall of Tread Treadmills Due to Risk of Injury" to its website, which, among other things, acknowledged that Peloton made a mistake in its initial response to the CPSC's request that Defendants recall the Tread+ and should have engaged more productively with the CPSC from the outset. Following these disclosures, Peloton's stock price fell $14.08 per share, or 14.56%, to close at $82.62 per share on May 5, 2021, further damaging investors. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] PFIZER CANADA: Faces Suit Over Ineffective Birth Control Pills -------------------------------------------------------------- Tessa Vikander of CTV News (Canada) reports that a national class action lawsuit against the pharmaceutical companies behind Alesse birth control will go forward in B.C. courts. Two women, Taylor Janet MacKinnon and Alysa McIntosh, who say they got pregnant while taking Alesse, are leading the lawsuit, which was recently certified as a class action suit by a B.C. supreme court judge. In the documents, both women share their stories of unexpected pregnancies, one having had a miscarriage and the other, who eventually gave birth to a child. They allege the companies were "high-handed, wanton and reckless" by producing and continuing to market a pill that they say was ineffective. People from across Canada who were prescribed and took Alesse between January 1, 2017 and April 30, 2019 will be allowed to join the lawsuit, which is being stewarded by lawyers at Vancouver firm Rice Harbut Elliott, among others. Before a class action lawsuit can be heard, a judge must first agree that the case should be heard as a class action suit. "In this action, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants, Pfizer Canada Inc. and Wyeth Canada, negligently failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that Alesse was safe and effective for its intended use," reads the June 7 ruling that said the case would proceed. While the judge's ruling means the class action lawsuit can proceed and be joined by other Alesse users, the allegations against the drug's manufacturers have not been proven in court. The women say there were "manufacturing defects in Alesse" between 2017 and 2019, which is backed up in part by a Health Canada advisory from December 2017, reads the ruling. The agency told consumers it had received complaints about broken and undersized pills in packages of Alesse 21 and Alesse 28, and issued a warning. MacKinnon had been taking Alesse for several years to prevent pregnancy, and says she always took them as directed. At the beginning of December 2017, her pharmacist advised her of the recall and told her to check her pills for abnormalities. However, about 10 days later she discovered that she was already five weeks pregnant. MacKinnon alleges she contacted Health Canada and Pfizer to alert them about what happened, but that neither provided her with much information. She gave birth to a daughter about nine months later. She was 24 at the time of the birth, and says the early and unexpected pregnancy caused both financial and career instability. "MacKinnon says she wished to have children someday but not at such a young age," reads the judge's ruling. "She would have preferred that she and her partner were more established in their careers and financially stable before having children … she has not been able to find work as a certified dental assistant following the birth of her daughter." Meanwhile, McIntosh, who had been taking Alesse for about 11 months -- also as directed -- discovered she was pregnant at the end of October 2017, only to have a miscarriage near the beginning of December, when the fetus was about nine weeks old. Lawyers had packages of Alesse tested by a lab, which found that some of the pills did not contain the amount of estrogen that was advertised on the packaging. The pills tested weren't even the visibly broken or damaged pills that Health Canada had warned of. "The plaintiffs say that an inference can be drawn that estrogen levels would be even lower in chipped or broken pills … (and the) testing demonstrates issues with estrogen levels that go beyond broken or chipped pills," says the ruling. According to the ruling, lawyers say that 138 people have contacted them to be part of the case, and Health Canada has a record of 38 people who had issues with the birth control. The overlap between the two lists is not yet known, and notice of the class action case has not yet been widely circulated. Both women say the companies were negligent and are seeking financial damages. They also allege that by continuing to market Alesse despite the recalls and known issues, the companies deceived and misled consumers. But the companies deny any wrongdoing. While the complainants will rely on three expert witnesses who say the lower levels of estrogen were likely to reduce the effectiveness of Alesse at preventing pregnancy, an expert witness for the companies disagrees. According to the ruling, that expert will argue that the reduced amount of estrogen in the pills was "within an acceptable range of deviation" that has "no impact on pregnancy rates." The companies also argue that the amount of estrogen in their pills was within a range accepted by Health Canada. The judge notes that the women and others who apply to be part of the class action case may have difficulty proving that the pills had reduced effectiveness, but said they presented enough information to be certified and allowed to proceed with their case. Provincial health-care services from across the country are also joining the class action case, and will be seeking to recover the health-care costs associated with what they say was negligence from Pfizer and Wyeth. [GN] PINNEGLE POINT: Underpays Convenience Store Workers, Petty Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- TINA PETTY and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), Plaintiff v. PINNEGLE POINT LLC d/b/a PINNEGLE POINT FOOD MART and KELECHUKWU UKAUMUNNA, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01390-E (N.D. Tex., June 15, 2021) alleges the Defendants of violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a convenience store and food mart worker from on or about August 2019 to on or about July 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that throughout her employment with the Defendants, she regularly worked over 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants did not properly compensate her, failed to pay her the correct extra halftime overtime premium rate for hours she worked in excess of 40 per week, inaccurately paid her a rate of $9.00 per hour instead of her base rate of $9.50, and repeatedly and willfully made numerous deductions from her paychecks. As a result, despite working overtime hours, the Plaintiff was never paid overtime at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated convenience store and food mart workers to recover all unpaid wages from the Defendants, as well as other damages and relief as the Court finds reasonable under the circumstances. Pinnegle Point d/b/a Pinnegle Point Food Mart operates a convenience store and food mart owned by Kelechukwu Ukaumunna. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC 5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 234 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (214) 420-3366 Fax: (214) 206-9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com PROVENTION BIO: Rosen Notes of July 20 Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB) between November 2, 2020 and April 8, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important July 20, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Provention Bio 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 Provention Bio class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2101.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 20, 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. [GN] QUEBEC: Authorized Lawsuit Against Group RESPs Across Canada ------------------------------------------------------------ Erica Alini at Global News reports that a Quebec class-action lawsuit against providers of group registered educations savings plans (group RESPs) could have ripple effects across Canada. The lawsuit, which was authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec on March 31, targets six group RESP providers alleging that the sales charges or enrolment fees they have been charging in Quebec are unlawful and, in some cases, abusive. Authorization of a class-action lawsuit in Quebec is similar to a certification of a class-action lawsuit in other provinces. Specifically, the lawsuit is targeting Canadians C.S.T. Consultants Inc. and Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation; Kaleido Growth (previously Universitas Management) and Kaleido Foundation (Previously Universitas Foundation Of Canada); Knowledge First Financial (previously Heritage Education Funds Inc.) and Knowledge First Foundation; Heritage Education Funds and Heritage Educational Foundation; Children's Education Funds Inc. and Children's Educational Foundation Of Canada; and Global RESP Corporation along with Global Educational Trust Foundation. Group RESP providers typically manage the scholarship plans through non-profit foundations or trusts but market and administer the plan through a so-called "distributor," a for-profit corporation with close ties to the foundation. Group RESPs are a type of group investment that pools funds from a number of individual accounts. Parents typically buy shares -- called units -- of the plan, which is usually based on the child's birth date. Families make contributions on a set schedule and receive the funds -- coming from contributions, government grants and investment returns -- at maturity, usually when the children turn 18, if they attend a qualifying higher education institution. All Quebec residents who, at any point since July 19, 2013, signed a contract with any of the group RESP providers named in the lawsuit and were charged fees above $200 per plan are included in the class, according to court documents. Of those Quebec residents, those who have cancelled their RESP plan after that date and claim they lost more than 20 per cent of their contributions due to enrolment, sales or membership fees are also included in a sub-class focused on the question of whether the charges were abusive. While the scope of the lawsuit is limited to Quebec, it could invite similar lawsuits in other provinces, especially if successful, says Gail Henderson, a law professor at Queen's University. There is no trial date yet for the Quebec lawsuit, and class-action lawsuits can take years to work their way through the courts. But Joey Zukran of Montreal-based LPC Avocat, who represents the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, says he's already at work with counsel in Ontario to bring a similar case forward that would cover the rest of Canada. The lawsuit could also prompt provincial securities regulators across the country to revisit some of the rules around group RESP products, particularly those on enrolment fees, Henderson adds. Speaking to Global News via email, all the defendants denied the allegations. Lead plaintiff reportedly lost nearly $12K to fees The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Montreal resident Qing Wang, lost $11,720 to enrolment fees charged by C.S.T. for two RESP plans he'd opened for his two children, the lawsuit alleges. The sum is equal to nearly 60 per cent of the roughly $20,000 Wang contributed to both plans over a period of about two years, according to the lawsuit. Wang's case is emblematic of how fees charged by the defendant group RESP providers violate Quebec laws and regulations in two respects, the lawsuit alleges. First, it is alleged that the fee schemes contravene a regulation of Quebec's Securities Act that caps the fees at $200 per scholarship plan. Instead, the group RESP providers have been charging $200 per unit, according to the lawsuit. Charging per plan vs. per unit can make a big difference. Usually, generating enough payments at maturity to fund a child's higher education requires purchasing multiple units of a plan, Henderson says. With group RESP subscribers charged $200 per unit, "those are the fees (that) do add up," she says. Wang, for example, claims he had subscribed to 58.6 units for his two children, which resulted in a total of $11,720 in fees. The Quebec regulation that says scholarship plan dealers should charge no more than $200 per plan is based on guidance that applies to all other provinces as well, according to Henderson. But that guidance "isn't necessarily binding," she adds. The second issue the lawsuit raises is whether the way the fees are charged makes them abusive in some cases under Quebec's civil code. Enrolment fees for group RESPs are front-loaded with 100 per cent of subscribers' contributions going to fees until half of the fees are paid off. After that, 50 per cent of contributions go to fees until the fees are completely paid off. This structure means that subscribers who cease to participate in the plan in the first few months of years may have to forfeit all or a significant part of their contributions because of the fees, which are non-refundable. The lawsuit argues in this case, the fees should be considered abusive under article 1437 of the Quebec Civil Code. Henderson notes that subscribers may lose a majority of their contributions to fees not only if they withdraw early from the plan but also if the group RESP provider terminates their plan because of missing or late contributions. Families, especially those on a limited income, may fall behind on payments because of financial hardship, she notes. Wang, the lead plaintiff, lost 60 per cent of his contributions to fees when he decided to move both his children's RESPs to individual RESPs at CIBC, according to the lawsuit. RESPs help parents save for their children's education after high school. Investments held inside an RESP grow tax-free, and the government pitches in extra money by topping up contributions (up to a certain limit). There is also additional funding for low-income families that doesn't require contributions. But group RESPs are significantly different from individual or family RESPs that Canadians can open at financial institutions like banks, credit unions and mutual fund companies. Group RESPs can only be offered by scholarship plan dealers. The amount of money each child stands to receive for their post-secondary studies depends on how many units the family purchased, how much money is in the pooled account, and how many children attend post-secondary school that year. If families withdraw early, have their plans terminated because they can't keep up with payments, or if their children don't end up attending an eligible secondary institution, the money earned on their contributions is often redistributed among the other participants who remain in the plan until maturity and whose children continue their studies as expected. "A group RESP is for people who are fairly certain that the child will attend post-secondary school and who can make regular payments for many years," according to group RESP education materials provided by the non-profit SEED Winnipeg. "For people who may not be able to make regular payments or whose children may not attend post-secondary school, there are other types of RESPs which may be more suitable." And group RESPs generally come with high fees and strict rules about maintaining eligibility, although consumers are entitled to receiving their money back if they withdraw from the plan within 60 days. The defendants maintain the fees they charge are fully compliant with applicable national and provincial regulations. "Our organization adheres to the highest regulatory and ethical standards supported by strong corporate governance and financial oversight. In compliance with regulatory requirements, we undergo rigorous approvals, both at the provincial and federal level, with every investment product we introduce," Peter Lewis, chief revenue officer at C.S.T. Consultants told Global News via email. "For a typical investor, our total fees combined would represent the equivalent of about a 1 – 1.5 per cent annual management fee when averaged over 18 years. Our upfront fee model results in lower fees over time, compared to other structures where fees are taken as a percentage of the total assets under management," he wrote. "Most importantly," he also said, "our company refunds 50 per cent of the sales fees when a student attends post-secondary school, boosting the overall amount available for their education." The lawsuit, he noted, "disputes an industry-wide, accepted fee structure that has been in place -- at least -- since 1979 and approved by regulators." Several of the defendants noted their fee amounts and structures are clearly disclosed, including in prospectuses that subscribers receive upon or before signing in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. "As with all others in our sector, fees are collected in order to cover the costs of the management of accounts, associated investments and administration costs, for what is normally an 18-25 year commitment," Global Education Trust Foundation said in a statement via email. "Moreover, some plans may qualify for a full reimbursement of fees on maturity," it said. Global RESP Corporation, surrendered its registration as a scholarship plan dealer in March 2020 as part of a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission after what regulators called "continued non-compliance with Ontario securities law" by both the corporation and its related investment fund manager Global Growth Assets Inc. (GGAI). "By their very nature, RESPs are a long-term savings vehicle that are designed to deliver the best outcomes for subscribers and beneficiaries over their 18+ year lifetime," Knowledge First Financial's chief compliance officer, Darrell Bartlett, wrote via email. He also said that since 2012 the group RESP provider has "gradually transitioned" from group scholarship plans and ceased to sell those types of plans entirely in 2020. "In 2022, all remaining group RESP plans managed by the company and its subsidiaries will be transferred to individual RESP plans, which were specifically created to better meet the evolving needs of the market, providing greater flexibility, ownership, and ease of use to subscribers and beneficiaries," Bartlett wrote via email. Knowledge First Financial acquired Heritage Education in 2018. Is disclosing the fees enough? While regulators across Canada tightened rules around disclosure requirements for group RESP providers in 2013, the lawsuit may prompt provincial securities commissions "to go back and take a look at the rules relating to the enrollment fees specifically," Henderson says. Among the information scholarship plan providers have to provide subscribers is a so-called "plan summary," a document of a few pages that is supposed to describe in plain language how the group plans work, what fees are involved and the risks involved, Henderson says. But group plans are "often aggressively sold, including to vulnerable investors who have little investing experience or who may not be fluent in English or French, the languages in which they are generally sold here in Canada," the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has previously told Global News. Wang signed up for the group RESPs for his two children just days after immigrating from China, according to the lawsuit. Upon his arrival, Wang and his family stayed in a property owned by a C.S.T. agent "who immediately introduced and sold the RESP plans to Mr. Wang," the documents read. Wang does not speak English well, according to Zukran. Another issue is that families often learn about group plans from a salesperson working for the group plan provider. "That person is paid probably solely based on sales commissions, which is what the enrollment fees are there to cover. So they have an incentive to sell you as many units as possible in this particular plan," Henderson says. Nor do group plan salespeople have to make subscribers aware of the option of opening an individual or family RESP at a financial institution, she adds. As well, a 2018 research report on group RESPs co-authored by Henderson for SEED Winnipeg found that compliance reviews of group RESPs revealed "breaches of securities regulations related to selling plans to low-income investors for whom they were not suitable." Low-income subscribers may be more likely to exit the plans before maturity, the report noted. "The question is whether disclosure really does sufficiently protect these investors," Henderson says. [GN] RANGE RESOURCES: Jacobowitz Securities Suit Moved to N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled HOWARD JACOBOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, JEFFREY L. VENTURA, MARK S. SCUCCHI, and ROGER S. MANNY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00301, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Texas assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00751-P to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding Range Resources' business, operations, and compliance policies in order to artificially increase the prices of Range Resources common stock between April 29, 2016 and February 10, 2021. Range Resources Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305 Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and – Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ROHR INC: Court Enters Briefing Schedule for Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHANIEL MORGAN, an individual; MICHAEL BEVAN, an individual; individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROHR, INC., a corporation; HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND, d/b/a UTC AEROSPACE SYSTEMS d/b/a COLLINS AEROSPACE; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG (S.D. Cal.), the Hon Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel entered an order that: 1. The deadline for Defendants to file their Opposition papers to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is June 25, 2021; 2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply papers in support of their Motion for Class Certification is August 2, 2021; and 3. The hearing on the Motion shall be continued to August 19, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2D. Rohr, Inc. is an aerospace manufacturing company based in Chula Vista, California, south of San Diego. It is a wholly owned unit of the Collins Aerospace division of Raytheon Technologies; it was founded in 1940 by Frederick H. Rohr as Rohr Aircraft. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zChSap at no extra charge.[CC] RUBY'S DINER: Salvatierra Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS SALVATIERRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUBY'S DINER #11 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV22465 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, wages not timely paid upon termination, non-compliant wage statements, failure to pay overtime, and retaliation. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt employee in Palos Verdes, California from October 2017 until October 2, 2020. Ruby's Diner #11 is a restaurant owner and operator located at 550 Deep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GARY R. CARLIN, APC 301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 E-mail: gary@garycarlinlaw.com SECURITY NATIONAL: Schmitt Sues Over Non-Compliance of the FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- DESIREE M. SCHMITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SECURITY NATIONAL SERVICING CORPORATION d/b/a SN SERVICING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01188-JPC (N.D. Ohio, June 15, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Residential Mortgage Loan Act. The Plaintiff has entered into a mortgage loan with non-party Republic Bank on September 17, 2004 that was subsequently modified through a "LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT with DEFERMENT" effective September 1, 2012. According to the complaint, the Defendant currently services the Plaintiff's loan on behalf of the purported assignee of the Plaintiff's loan pursuant to a contractual agreement between the Defendant and FT 171. Pursuant to the terms of the Plaintiff's modified loan, she is required to make periodic "monthly payments" of principal and interest in the amount of $996.42 until the entire balance was paid in full; to pay a "late charge" if "monthly payment" was not paid within 15 days after it is due; and failure to timely make each required "monthly payment", her loan would be in default. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff failed to make her "monthly payments" on her loan in March 2014 and thereafter. Subsequently, the Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff stating that her loan was in default and that she was required to pay the delinquent balance, plus "late charges" by a specified "Cure Date" and failure to comply may result in acceleration of her loan and the commencement of foreclosure proceedings. The Plaintiff, however, did not make any further payments after receiving the letter following the plain terms of her loan that she was no longer required to make "monthly payments" on her loan after it was accelerated. The previous servicer of the Plaintiff's loan has filed a foreclosure action against the Plaintiff, on behalf of the previous assignee of the Plaintiff's loan, on or about August 2, 2017. Accordingly, the Defendant has no right to collect "monthly payments" and to impose any late charges from the Plaintiff upon obtaining the servicing rights, the complaint asserts. Security National Servicing Corporation is a debt collector. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Daniel M. Solar, Esq. Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Tel: (216) 373-0539 E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com dsolar@dannlaw.com bflick@dannlaw.com - and – Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 440-0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com SEEMAN HOLTZ: Co-Founder's Death Not Connected to Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Delevingne, writing for Reuters, reports that the co-founder of a Florida financial firm facing investor lawsuits alleging securities fraud has died by suicide, and a spokesperson on June 14 denied wrongdoing, saying the death was not connected to a class action lawsuit filed recently. Eric Holtz, the 54-year-old co-founder of the Seeman Holtz Family of Companies in Boca Raton, took his own life on June 11 in California, the company spokesperson confirmed. Lawsuits claim that Holtz, business partner Marshal Seeman and their insurance and financial firm defrauded elderly investors in South Florida using life insurance policy-backed notes. The most recent, a class action filed June 7 in South Florida federal court on behalf of 76-year-old Broward County resident Fanny Millstein, alleges the firm sold securities without proper licenses or external controls, resulting in unreturned funds. The Seeman Holtz spokesperson said that the company had only learned of this lawsuit on June 14. "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and believe this case is without merit," he wrote. "There is no indication that Eric's tragic passing is in any way related to this filing," he added. The Seeman Holtz investment notes, which the firm called "longevity linked assets," were described as collateralized by life insurance policies issued to third parties that promised to pay a "substantial premium" upon the death of the insured, according to the class action. The notes were sold as safe and easy to cash out of at maturity, according to the lawsuit. But Millstein was told that the firm was undergoing "financial problems" and needed more time to return her money, which never happened, according to the class action. "The effects have been devastating for Plaintiff. At age 76, Fanny Millstein should not be forced to contemplate that her and her husband's life savings invested with Seeman Holtz have vanished," the lawsuit said. Attorney Scott Silver, who represents plaintiffs in the class action, said his team had spoken to nearly 100 investors with similar experiences. They represent more than $100 million invested in the Seeman Holtz securities, and Silver believes the actual dollar amount is far greater. The lawsuit said the firm has been "unwilling or unable" to provide information about the value of the notes or the assets. The new class action follows similar pending lawsuits filed earlier this year by Silver and other attorneys in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. The Seeman Holtz spokesperson said the company also denies the allegations in those lawsuits. Seeman, president of Seeman Holtz, did not respond to direct messages seeking comment. [GN] SHUTTERFLY INC: Paul Weiss Achieves Victory in Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that Paul, Weiss achieved a victory for Shutterfly, Inc. in the class action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed dismissal of a securities lawsuit against Shutterfly and certain of its officers and directors challenging statements in a proxy statement issued in connection with the 2019 acquisition of Shutterfly by funds managed by Apollo Global Management. The complaint filed by a Shutterfly shareholder took issue with the proxy's references to two separate sets of financial projections: a "management case" reflecting management's view about Shutterfly's likely future performance, and a lower "sensitivity case" based on fully disclosed assumptions that were concededly more pessimistic than management anticipated. Plaintiff alleged that only the management case was accurate, and that the sensitivity case had been manufactured in order to obtain a fairness opinion supporting the consideration offered by Apollo. Plaintiff therefore claimed that the sensitivity case and the valuation ranges based on those projections were misleading in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. In May 2020, Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning that the alleged misrepresentations were not false or misleading and were immaterial as a matter of law. A Third Circuit panel unanimously affirmed in a 23-page unpublished opinion written by Judge Anthony Scirica. It held that the only purported misstatements plaintiff challenged on appeal -- valuation ranges prepared by Shutterfly's financial advisor based on the sensitivity case -- were not misleading, and that they were immaterial based on abundant cautionary disclosures in the proxy. The panel also held that plaintiff had failed to satisfy the enhanced pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA. Founded in 1999, Shutterfly, Inc. is the leading digital retailer and manufacturer of high-quality personalized products and services. The Paul, Weiss litigation team included litigation partner Lew Clayton (Picture), who argued the appeal and the motion to dismiss before the district court, and counsel Daniel Mason and Paul Paterson. Involved fees earner: Lewis Clayton -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Daniel Mason -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Paul Paterson -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Law Firms: Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison; Clients: Shutterfly Inc. [GN] SIX FLAGS: Settles BIPA Law Violation Class Action for $36MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Mansur, writing for Capitol News Illinois, reports that Six Flags Great America has agreed to a $36 million settlement to end a class-action lawsuit over the amusement park's use of finger-scan entry gates. Six Flags doesn't admit to any fault or liability as part of the agreement, which is subject to final approval at a court hearing in October. The lawsuit, filed in Lake County, claims that the finger scan violates the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act, which regulates how companies can use an individual's biometric data -- such as a fingerprint or a scan of the hand or face geometry. The law, passed in 2008, was first the state or federal law to establish a person's individual right to sue over biometric privacy rights. It also requires that entities must have written consent from a person before collecting and storing that person's biometric information. The law also provides damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Stacy Rosenbach, the lead plaintiff in the case against Six Flags, sued the Gurnee amusement park in 2016 on behalf of her son, Alexander, who provided his fingerprint to gain entry, without first giving his consent. The case eventually reached the Illinois Supreme Court. The question before the high court was whether a violation under BIPA must allege actual injury or harm, rather than basing the violation entirely on the injury or harm that occurs when biometric data is collected without a person's consent. Six Flags argued that there was not an actual injury because the biometric data was not breached or stolen. In 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that "an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights" in order to qualify as an "aggrieved" person under BIPA, and be entitled to damages and other relief. After the Supreme Court ruling, both parties entered into mediation. The Lake County Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement agreement last month and the settlement was recently made public. Under the agreement, people who first had their finger scanned when entering Six Flags Great America between Oct. 1, 2013, and April 30, 2016, can receive up to $200, over five installments. People who first had their finger scanned when entering the park between May 1, 2016, and Dec. 31, 2018, can receive up to $60, in five installments. Mark Bulgarelli, an attorney with Progressive Law Group LLC in Evanston, is one of the lawyers representing Six Flags. Phillip A. Bock, of Chicago-based Bock, Hatch & Oppenheim LLC, represents the class of plaintiffs. Neither responded to a request for comment. Earlier this year, Facebook finalized a $650 million settlement agreement with Facebook users in Illinois. The settlement arose from a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company violated BIPA when it collected and stored the biometric data of Facebook users in Illinois without proper notice and consent. The settlement applies to users in Illinois who had created and stored a face template through Facebook after June 7, 2011. High-profile BIPA litigation prompted some lawmakers in Illinois to propose changes to the law this spring that would have provided entities with a 30-day window to "cure" a potential BIPA violation, otherwise they would be subject to litigation. The legislation, House Bill 559, never received a full vote in the House or Senate. [GN] SURGICAL CARE: Joseph Saveri Law Firm Named Int. Co-Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrea R. Wood of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois named the Joseph Saveri Law Firm as interim co-lead counsel in an antitrust class action lawsuit against Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA), United Surgical Partners International (USPI), and an unnamed co-conspirator. The suit alleges these companies entered into agreements not to compete for one another's senior-level employees. These so-called "no-poach" agreements enabled these companies to avoid paying competitive wages to retain their senior-staff. The lawsuit is brought by a former employee of SCA on behalf of a proposed class of all senior-level employees of these companies (at minimum, "Director" and above) between May 2010 and October 2017, when the agreements were allegedly in effect. SCA, which is owned by United Healthgroup, Inc., is one of the largest providers of outpatient surgery in the United States with over 230 outpatient medical care facilities nationwide. USPI, owned by Tenet Healthcare Corporation, is part of a provider network with 550 outpatient and other medical facilities, 110,000 employees, and approximately 5,000 physician partners, serving 10 million patients annually across 28 states. In labor markets, workers benefit from a competitive environment: Ideally, employers compete against one another to hire employees who have the training and skills to enhance the employers' services and brands, resulting in higher compensation and benefits for those employees. In contrast, unlawful no-poach agreements suppress wages for employees who might have sought better opportunities with competing employers but were not hired because of the conspiracy. These no-poach agreements further limit compensation for all of the defendants' senior-level health care employees—even those who did not seek other job opportunities—because companies adhere to a policy of internal equity, generally compensating workers of similar titles and job descriptions equally. In January, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted SCA for these anticompetitive agreements. In its indictment, the DOJ alleged SCA conspired with other outpatient health care companies to suppress competition for senior-level employees in violation of federal antitrust laws. The DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, separate from civil liability that SCA, USPI, and their unnamed co-conspirator may face from employees affected by their anticompetitive conduct. "This is an important case in which unlawful agreements effectively suppressed wages for workers and where these companies denied their employees access to a better life and the right to be paid the true value of their skills and talent. We are proud to represent the proposed class of affected employees and have extensive case leadership experience that will help provide a successful resolution," says Joseph Saveri, counsel for the plaintiff. The Firm's original complaint was entitled Spradling v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC., case number 21-cv-01324, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This and several other cases have been reassigned and will be consolidated in front of Judge Wood in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. ABOUT THE FIRM The Joseph Saveri Law Firm is one of the country's most acclaimed, successful boutique firms, specializing in antitrust, class actions, and complex litigation on behalf of national and international consumers, purchasers, and employees across diverse industries. For further information on our practice and accomplishments on behalf of our clients, please visit www.saverilawfirm.com. [GN] TARGET CORPORATION: Ross Sues Over Mislabeled Hand Sanitizers ------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE ROSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-03028 (N.D. Ill., July 5, 2021) alleges that the Defendant mislabeled its hand sanitizer products. According to the complaint the Defendant manufactures, markets, labels and sells alcohol based hand sanitizer products under its up&up private label brand that purports to kill 99.99% of germs. The front label statement is allegedly false because there is no scientific study which indicates any alcohol-based hand sanitizer kills 99.99 of germs. The front label statement is misleading because alcohol-based hand sanitizers, such as the Product, are incapable of killing many types of germs, including the most harmful and prevalent germs. The Product is not able to kill other germs of significance, such as protozoan cysts, bacterial spores, parasites like Giardia, and Clostridium difficile, which causes diarrhea, the suit says. Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores. The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants through its branded proprietary credit cards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Munoz Sues Over Call Center Staff's Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- GABRIELA MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMAS L. CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00558 (D.N.M., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated call center employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to pay work during meal period breaks, and failing to pay work during rest period breaks. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a call center employee in Alamogordo, New Mexico from approximately October 2018 until May 2019. Thomas L. Cardella & Associates, Inc. is a global customer engagement and contact center company based in Iowa. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin Anderson, Esq. Lauren Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Says Driver-Rating System May Be Racist ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ethan Baron of East Bay Times reports that in a hearing in June about a lawsuit against the Bay Area ride-hailing giant by an Asian driver claiming the star-based ratings system puts non-white drivers at risk of termination, San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria said that "the inference that Uber's practice is racially discriminatory is . . . strong," according to a new report. Terminated driver Thomas Liu is seeking class-action status, to bring into the lawsuit "hundreds, if not thousands" of non-white former drivers his suit claims were fired because of the rating system. "Uber has long known that relying on a system that depends on passenger evaluation of drivers is discriminatory, as Uber is aware that passengers frequently discriminate against Uber drivers," the suit filed in October alleges. Liu's suit claims that to keep their jobs, Uber drivers must maintain a minimum average rating that "has frequently been set very high, even close to a perfect a score." Liu was terminated because his rating fell below 4.6 stars out of five, the suit alleges. Judge Chhabria said in the hearing Thursday that a body of research indicates that when online marketplaces tie employment to consumers' ratings, discriminatory terminations may result, according to legal-affairs website Law360. Liu, who according to the suit is from San Diego and has a slight accent, claims that while driving for Uber until he was "deactivated" in October 2015, he noticed some passengers appeared hostile to him because of his race. "For example, he noticed riders cancelling ride requests after he had already accepted the ride and the rider was able to view his picture," the suit alleges. "He also experienced riders asking where he was from in an unfriendly way." The suit claims Uber had earlier publicly acknowledged that it knew its customers' actions regarding drivers could be affected by racial bias. "In the past, before it allowed tipping on the app, Uber tried to justify its refusal to add a method for passengers to tip drivers through the app based upon its assertion that passengers discriminate against racial minorities, and Uber professed concern that allowing tipping would therefore discriminate against minority drivers in the wages they would receive," the suit claims. Uber, in a 2016 blog post, said, "tipping is influenced by personal bias" and linked to a research paper that said both White and Black people tipped White restaurant servers and taxi drivers better than Black servers and drivers. In a court filing last month, Uber said, "Ratings for any given ride can be affected by numerous issues that have nothing to do with the race of – or possibly even the service provided by - the driver." Liu, Uber said, was speculating rather than offering facts. "And even if Liu could offer enough facts to make his disparate impact claims plausible, he has nothing more than conjecture on top of conjecture to claim that Uber intentionally discriminated against non-white drivers by using its neutral rating system," Uber said in the filing. Liu is seeking unspecified damages for himself and other allegedly affected drivers, plus a court order banning Uber from using its star-based ratings system to terminate drivers. [GN] UBIQUITI INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of July 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action is pending and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Jan. 11, 2021 - Mar. 30, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/UI Contact an Attorney Now: UI@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE: UI) Securities Fraud Class Action: The complaint centers on Defendants' false disclosures concerning the nature and scope of a serious security breach incident at Ubiquiti. Specifically, on Jan. 11, 2021, Ubiquiti urged customers to change their passwords and enable multi-factor authentication after it became aware of unauthorized access to certain of its IT systems hosted by a third-party cloud provider. Defendants also downplayed the seriousness of the incident and repeatedly stated that they only became aware of the breach in Jan. 2021. But, on Mar. 30, 2021, the truth emerged when KrebsOnSecurity reported that a Ubiquiti security professional who worked on the company's response to the breach said (1) work actually began in Dec. 2020, (2) "[t]he breach was massive, customer data was at risk, access to customers' devices deployed in corporations and homes around the world was at risk," and (3) the Jan. 11, 2021 breach disclosure was "downplayed and purposefully written to imply that a 3rd party cloud vendor was at risk and that Ubiquiti was merely a casualty of that, instead of the target of the attack." This news drove the price of Ubiquity shares sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Ubiquiti intentionally misrepresented the security of a core business," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are an Ubiquiti investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Ubiquiti should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email UI@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] UBIQUITI INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of July 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investigators of a class action lawsuit against Ubiquiti, Inc. ("Ubiquiti" or the "Company") (NYSE: UI) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Ubiquiti securities between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana Swartz for additional information at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. Ubiquiti develops and markets equipment and technology platforms for high-capacity internet access, unified information technology, and consumer electronics. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had downplayed a data breach to its system in January 2021; (2) attackers had obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers and obtained access to, among other things, all databases, all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies; (3) as a result, intruders already had credentials needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 30, 2021, after the market closed, Krebs on Security published an article entitled "Whistleblower: Ubiquiti Breach ‘Catastrophic,'" which stated that the Company's assertion that hackers had only gained unauthorized access to certain of its information hosted by a third-party cloud provider was false and that the Company had been aware since December 2020 that attackers had "administrative access to all Ubiquiti [Amazon Web Services] accounts, including . . . all user database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on (SSO) cookies." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $50.70, or 14.5%, to close at $298.30 per share on March 31, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. What You Can Do If you purchased Ubiquiti securities between January 11, 2021 and March 30, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Rhiana Swartz at (844) 818-6980 or rswartz@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 19, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. [GN] UNITED ROAD: Court Vacates August 5 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENSON M. SALES; ANDRE CLEMONS on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC.; URS MIDWEST, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No. 4:19-cv-08404-JST (N.D. Cal., Filed November 18, 2019), the Hon Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order vacating the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification currently scheduled for August 5, 2021, subject to resetting after completion of briefing. United Road provides vehicle transportation logistics solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2TJkwKR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. Matthew Crawford, Esq. MARA LAW FIRM, P.C. 2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com jvecchi@maralawfirm.com mcrawford@maralawfirm.com - and - Hunter Pyle, Esq. HUNTER PYLE LAW 428 13 th Street, Floor 11 Oakland, CA 94612 E-mail: hunter@hunterpylelaw.com UNITED STATES: SBA Pauses Pandemic Relief Funds Following Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amy McCarthy, writing for Eater, reports that on Friday, June 11, the Small Business Administration paused the disbursement of pandemic relief funds to thousands of minority-owned businesses. The decision comes after a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction on the release of the funds following a lawsuit from a Dallas-Fort Worth restaurant that alleges the program's plan to distribute funds to businesses owned by women, veterans, and racial minorities is unconstitutional. The pause in disbursement prevents more than 2,900 of those businesses from receiving COVID relief funds allocated in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, according to Reuters. The lawsuit was filed by a legal advocacy group called America First Legal, founded by Stephen Miller and Mark Meadows, both aides to former president Donald Trump, on behalf of a Keller restaurant called the Lost Cajun. (Note: the Reuters piece refers to the restaurant as "Blessed Cajuns," which is the limited liability corporation that operates the Lost Cajun.) In the suit, the Lost Cajun owners Janice Smith and Jason Smith, along with Pennsylvania restaurant owner Eric Nyman, allege that the Small Business Administration's plan to distribute pandemic relief funds to small businesses is unconstitutional. The owners of the Lost Cajun are white and claim that the decision does not provide them equal protection under the law, as required by the United States Constitution. According to the lawsuit, Janice Smith and Jason Smith applied for assistance from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund on May 5 and discovered that they were entitled to more than $187,000 in relief. Neither of the owners qualifies for prioritization as a "socially disadvantaged individual," which means that their application wouldn't be processed until after that 21-day period in which the Administration has been directed to process applications from those groups. Of course, the Biden Administration's guidance does not prohibit white business owners from obtaining relief from the fund, it just requires that the Small Business Administration prioritize applications from women-owned, minority-owned, and veteran-owned businesses for the first 21 days that applications are open. The suit alleges that the Smiths are "being subjected to unconstitutional race and sex discrimination by the "priorities" that the statute commands for minority- and women-owned businesses," and that because more than half of the requests for Restaurant Revitalization Fund monies were made by business owners under those categories, it's possible "that the entire $28.6 billion that Congress allocated to the Restaurant Revitalization Fund will be depleted before the plaintiffs can even be considered for relief under the program." The lawsuit opens the door for a class action suit, in which "all restaurant owners and restaurants in the United States who are encountering or who will encounter race or sex discrimination from the Small Business Administration," could be potentially entitled to relief from the court. A similar lawsuit, filed in Tennessee in May, also alleged that the program was discriminating against white people by prioritizing minority-owned businesses. That suit is still pending, but unlike in the Texas case, Tennessee judge Travis McDonough denied the group's request for an injunction that would've paused the disbursement of funds. An appellate court later overturned McDonough's decision. The temporary injunction issued by District Judge Reed O'Connor allows the Small Business Administration to continue disbursing funds to "non-priority" applicants, according to Reuters, but it's unclear when the more than 2,900 businesses whose applications were impacted by the injunction will be able to receive their funds. The Biden administration has vowed that it will continue to fight the Texas judge's injunction in court, but it remains a mystery when Restaurant Revitalization Fund applicants who applied as "socially disadvantaged individuals" will be able to receive the funds they need. [GN] UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Class Status Bid Filing Due Dec. 17 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA SMITH and EMMA NEDLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Case No. 2:20-cv-02086-TJS (), the Hon Judge Timothy J. Savage entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact and expert discovery relating to class certification shall be completed by November 29, 2021. 2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than December 17, 2021. 3. The Defendants' responses to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than January 7, 2021. 4. The Plaintiffs shall file their reply to the defendant’s response no later than January 17, 2021. 5. Oral argument on the plaintiff’s motion for class certification shall be heard on Monday, February 14, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 9A. The University of Pennsylvania is a private Ivy League research university in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The university, established as the College of Philadelphia, claims a founding date of 1740 and is one of the nine colonial colleges chartered prior to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. A copy of the Court's order dated June 15, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35DZK1R at no extra charge.[CC] USF REDDAWAY: Hernandez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled LEOVARDO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USF REDDAWAY INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2105818, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 16, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01012 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to accurately pay overtime, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay all wages owed at termination, failure to furnish an itemized wage statement upon payment of wages, and unfair competition. USF Reddaway Inc. is an American trucking company based in Oregon. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ronald J. Holland, Esq. Pankit J. Doshi, Esq. Saniya Ahmed, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 415 Mission St., Suite 5600 San Francisco, CA 94105 2533 Telephone: (628) 218-3800 Facsimile: (628) 877-0107 E-mail: rjholland@mwe.com pdoshi@mwe.com sahmed@mwe.com WAKE FOREST: Faces Class Action Over Employee Retirement Plan ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that the employees' retirement benefits committee of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is being sued by three former employees who claim the committee failed its fiduciary oversight duties. Also listed as defendants are Wake Forest Baptist and its board of directors, as well as the individual committee members. The lawsuit was filed June 3 in the federal Middle District of N.C. by Tanajah Clark, Shelley Garnick and Zoe Jones. They are requesting class-action status. The lawsuit involves the system's 403(b) plan and covers the period from June 4, 2015, to the present. The lawsuit lists the plan as overseeing $2.3 billion in assets at the end of 2019. At that asset level, it is considered as a "jumbo plan" in the defined contribution plan marketplace. The lawsuit cites the 403(b) as among the largest of its kind nationally. "As a jumbo plan, the plan has substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against participants' investments," according to the lawsuit. "Defendants, however, did not try to reduce the plan's expenses or exercise appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was offered in the plan to ensure it was prudent." The plaintiffs claim the retirement benefits committee also failed "to control the plan's administrative and recordkeeping costs." As a result, plaintiffs "have suffered injuries as a result of defendants' mismanagement of the plan." "At all times, during the class period, defendants knew or should have known of the existence of cheaper share classes, and therefore also should have immediately identified the prudence of transferring the plan's funds into these alternative investments. "There is no good-faith explanation for utilizing high-cost share classes when lower-cost share classes are available for the exact same investment." Wake Forest Baptist officials could not be immediately reached for comment on the lawsuit. Other examples The lawsuit appears similar to defined-compensation retirement plan lawsuits filed against Novant Health and BB&T Corp. in the past six years. In September 2016, Novant and plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit agreed to a settlement plan valued at $101 million. The lawsuit was filed in March 2014. That includes a final settlement fund of $32 million that included attorneys fees, along with $69 million that represented "the value of the reduction in administrative and investment management fees" of the Novant defined contribution retirement plans. The named plaintiffs received an additional $25,000 settlement payment. Novant was accused of breaching its fiduciary duties by causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third-party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. and brokerage firm D.L. Davis & Co. of Winston-Salem. According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, there were about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009. The lawsuit covered the period from Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015, and has 70,683 potential beneficiaries. In December 2018, BB&T agreed to pay $24 million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit targeting the bank and managers of its 401(k) plan. The lawsuit was filed by 12 named plaintiffs in May 2016. The BB&T plan had more than $1 billion in assets at the end of 2014 within six proprietary Sterling Capital Management LLC funds. Altogether, 63 percent of the plan's $2.93 billion in assets were invested in proprietary BB&T options as of Dec. 31, 2014. The agreement even though BB&T disputed the allegations and denies liabilities for any alleged fiduciary breaches or ERISA violations. There was the potential for 67,000 current and former employee claimants, considering the settlement time frame of Sept. 4, 2009, to Oct. 25, 2018. The law firm of law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton also represented the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The lawsuit claims participants are being charged excessive fees for often underperforming proprietary mutual funds. About one-third of the settlement fund went toward attorneys' fees and expenses. The named plaintiffs received an additional $20,000 settlement payment. [GN] WALMART INC: $102M Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgement Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------- Mia Farber and Scott P. Jang of Jackson Lewis P.C. wrote on the National Law Review an article titled $102 Million Pay Stub, Meal Break Judgment Against Walmart Reversed. In a significant victory for California employers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a $102 million award against Walmart in a suit alleging that the retailer violated the California Labor Code's wage statement and meal-break provisions. The decision is Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., May 28, 2021, No. 19-16184. The Ninth Circuit's opinion is an important clarification of the cognizable harm required to establish Article III standing under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and the Labor Code's wage statement requirements. The critical takeaways: An employee does not have standing to bring PAGA claims in federal court for alleged Labor Code violations that the employee themselves did not suffer. An employer may make lump-sum payments as a retroactive adjustment to employees' overtime rate to factor in bonus payments without identifying a corresponding "hourly rate" for the payment on employees' wage statements. Performance bonuses Walmart provides "MyShare" performance bonuses to certain employees at the end of each quarter. Because the bonus must be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime wages under California law, Walmart makes a retroactive adjustment to employees' overtime pay by calculating the difference between employees' overtime rate over the quarter and the overtime rate that would have been in effect if the MyShare bonus had already been factored in. The employer then reports both the bonus and the adjusted overtime pay as lump sums on the wage statements issued to employees at the end of each quarter. The lawsuit and the $102 million award In a California class action and PAGA action that was removed to federal court, the plaintiff alleged that Walmart violated Labor Code section 226(a)(9) by failing to identify the hourly rates and hours worked associated with the retroactive overtime payment on employees' wage statements and violated section 226(a)(6) by failing to identify the start and end dates of these pay periods in its final pay statements. The plaintiff also asserted that the employer violated Labor Code section 226.7 by failing to factor in the MyShare bonus into the employees' "regular rate of compensation" when paying employees meal break premiums for missed or untimely meal breaks. After a bench trial, the district court determined that the plaintiff did not suffer a meal-break violation. And, because the plaintiff could not show his claims were typical of class members who suffered meal-break violations, the court decertified the meal-break class. However, the district court allowed the plaintiff to seek PAGA penalties, based on the meal-break violations incurred by other employees. In addition, the court held that Walmart's semi-monthly and final pay wage statements violated sections 226(a)(6) and 226(a)(9). The court awarded the plaintiff nearly $102 million: $48 million in statutory penalties and an additional $48 million in PAGA penalties for the section 226(a)(9) violation; $5.8 million in PAGA penalties for the final-wage-statement claim; and $70,000 in PAGA penalties for the meal-break claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded the wage statement claims with instructions to enter judgment for Walmart. The Ninth Circuit also vacated the judgment and penalties against Walmart on the meal-break claim and remanded with instructions to remand the claim to state court. Meal-break claims: no injury, no standing The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring a PAGA claim for meal period violations because he did not personally suffer a meal period injury. The appeals court rejected the plaintiff's contention that he did not have to suffer an individual injury because PAGA is a qui tam statute (in which a private individual sues on behalf of the government to vindicate a public right). Despite numerous similarities, PAGA claims are not traditional qui tam actions, the court explained. PAGA claims involve the interests of nonparty individuals (not just the state and the plaintiff) who are entitled to a portion of the penalties and also are bound by the PAGA judgment. Also, in a PAGA action, the State of California fully assigns the claims to the employee who is deputized under the statute to bring the claims. In contrast, in qui tam actions, the government is the real party in interest, and merely partially assigns the claim to a private individual acting in the state's interest. Wage statement claims: standing, but no violation The Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff did have standing to bring his wage-statement claims, finding that a violation of section 226(a) creates a cognizable (i.e., "concrete and particularized") Article III injury. In reaching this conclusion, the court undertook a two-part inquiry. The court first found that section 226(a) protects a concrete interest in receiving accurate information about wages in employee pay statements and that Walmart could violate a "concrete interest" if it did, in fact, fail to disclose statutorily required information on the wage statements The court wrote, "Even if Walmart pays its employees every penny owed, those employees suffer a real risk of harm if they cannot access the information required by § 226(a)." Nonetheless, on the merits, the Ninth Circuit held Walmart's wage statements and final pay statements provided all the information required under the statute. Rejecting the district court's holding that the wage statements violated section 226(a) because they did not include the requisite "hourly rates" and "hours worked" associated with the overtime adjustment, the Ninth Circuit found there was no "hourly rate in effect" for the bonus-based overtime pay adjustment. Rather, "[i] is a non-discretionary, after-the-fact adjustment to compensation based on the overtime hours worked and the average of overtime rates over a quarter (or six [semi-monthly] pay periods)." Thus, Walmart's pay statements satisfied the Labor Code requirements. Nor did Walmart's final pay statements run afoul of the statute. The plaintiff alleged that Walmart violated section 226 because it did not include "the dates of the period for which the employee is paid" on the plaintiff's "Statement of Final Pay," which he received upon being discharged mid-pay period. However, under the plain language of the statute, Walmart had the option of furnishing a separate final pay wage statement with the required pay-period dates to terminated employees in the ordinary course of business at the end of the next semimonthly pay period. What it means for employers The Magadia decision is a welcome relief for California employers facing a barrage of claims alleging technical violations of the state's wage statement laws. In particular, although the Ninth Circuit found that "informational injury" may be cognizable for Article III standing in federal court, it clarified that employers, in rewarding incentive bonuses to employees, need not undertake rigorous computations to identify a fictional "hourly rate" when awarding after-the-fact overtime premiums based on those bonuses. [GN] WAXIE WAY: Carlton PAGA Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees ------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS CARLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAXIE WAY, LLC; WAXIE'S ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00026158-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 16, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 including failing to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and owing during employment and upon termination of employment, and failing to reimburse all necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in California. Waxie Way, LLC is a limited liability company located at 9353 Waxie Way, San Diego, California. Waxie's Enterprises, LLC is a limited liability company located at 9353 Waxie Way, San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Talia Lux, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 [*] McMillan Attorney Discusses Suit Pre-Authorization Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseane Chretien, Esq., and Sidney Elbaz, Esq., of McMillan LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in Quebec, a defendant in a class action who wishes to introduce evidence at the pre-authorization stage by way of an affidavit must first obtain the court's approval. Once admitted, the plaintiff may ask to depose the affiant. This right to depose is the subject of conflicting case law from Superior Court judges. Two articles of the Code of Civil Procedure are relevant. First, article 222 provides that a party may summon the affiant to be deposed not only on the facts alleged in the declaration, but on all other relevant facts. Inheriting the principles developed under the former article 93 C.C.P., many argue that the right to proceed with such an examination is a strict right; the only change being the broadening of the content of the examination to all relevant facts. In matters of class action, the administration of evidence is subject to the prior approval of the court. Article 574 para. 3 C.C.P. would thus influence the principles of article 222 C.C.P. by allowing only the evidence relevant to the evaluation of the criteria for the authorization of a class action. For certain judges, article 574 C.C.P. imposes on the court the duty to ensure that the examination of the declarant is necessary in the assessment of the criteria for authorization. Assessing the credibility of the affiant will not be considered sufficient, since the credibility of the witness would only be relevant for the merits of the dispute not the authorization of the class action. Invoking their judicial discretion, judges of the Superior Court have rejected requests for depositions that were deemed unnecessary or that went beyond the narrow scope of the evidence permitted at that the pre-authorization stage. In contrast, other judges are of the opinion that the right to depose an affiant remains a strict right with the purpose of testing the veracity of the statements made by the affiant. In at least one case the court has stated that judicial discretion should serve only to limit the scope of the deposition, which would be limited to questions pertaining to the content of the statements rather all the relevant facts at issue in the case. The judges of the Superior Court thus seem to agree that their judicial discretion plays a role on how such depositions ought to be conducted. These depositions are limited in scope. They may not cover all the facts in dispute, but rather are limited to the elements relevant to the evaluation of the authorization criteria and the statements made in the declaration. In Quebec, the right for defendants to depose the proposed class representative at the pre-authorization stage is subject to leave from the court and is often restricted to very limited topics. Whether or not class counsel has a strict right to depose the affiant (usually a Defendant) remains unsettled. However if such a strict right indeed exists it further accentuates the asymmetry of the pre-authorization process in favour of the Plaintiffs. [GN] [*] Russell McVeagh Provides N.Z., Global Class Action Update ------------------------------------------------------------- Polly Pope, Esq., Chris Curran, Esq., and Kirsten Massey, Esq., of Russell McVeagh, in an article for Lexology, report that representative or class actions continue to grow and develop in New Zealand and around the globe. Recent developments within our borders The Crown settles kiwifruit action The Crown settled, on the cusp of a Supreme Court hearing, with 200 kiwifruit growers seeking $450m following the PSA3 bacteria outbreak. Opt-in or opt-out? The Supreme Court has allowed class actions to be brought on an "opt-out" basis (that is on behalf of all persons within the defined class unless they formally elect not to be included) James Hardie v White Trial begins On 17 May 2021, a 15 week-long class action trial began in the Auckland High Court. 1000 owners of leak prone homes are seeking $220m in damages resulting from allegedly defective cladding made by James Hardie Common Fund Orders How will NZ courts deal with opt-out proceedings when not all class members have a contract with the litigation funder? NZ may take inspiration from Australia, where common fund orders and funding equalisation orders have been used to avoid "free-riders" and ensure the cost of the litigation funding are spread across the group. The Court in Southern Response Earthquake Services v Ross will be considering this issue soon. Feltex Class Action comes to an end The proceeding began in 2008 but was finally dismissed in 2021 following the plaintiff's non-compliance with Court orders. Russell McVeagh acted in the proceeding throughout. Recent developments beyond our borders COVID-19 and Class Actions COVID-19 class actions around the world so far include: – proceedings seeking ticket refunds for cancelled events; – insurance claims raising difficult questions about how policies react to epidemic/ pandemic events; – claims for misrepresentation of COVID-19 risks to shareholders; and – employee claims for failure to provide sufficient protective gear. Technology class actions Modern technology and social media provide new ways for a large number of people to be affected by wrongful acts at once. For example, TikTok recently settled a class action dispute for $92m over a claim it illegally collected private and personally identifiable data of Americans using the app. Developments across the ditch may predict our future Australian class actions and litigation funding is under scrutiny through ongoing inquiries, reports, and regulatory changes. Their role in Australia is hotly contested. Might NZ's Law Commission process avoid some of that debate? Climate change and class actions Recently a group of Australian teenagers brought a case against the Environment Minister for approving a coal mining extension project they argued would endanger their future. The Australian Federal Court identified a new legal obligation for climate change related harm to young people. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***