/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210629.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, June 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 123
Headlines
20/20 EYE CARE: Desue Alleges Failure to Protect Patients' Info
20/20 EYE CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Bowen Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Tillis Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
ACCELLION INC: Desjardins Sues Over Data Breach on FTA Software
ALETTO JEWELERS: Roman Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Dwyer Suit Over Mislabeled Shoe Products
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Ringgold CREAMMA Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
ARDIAN CORP: Avila Must File Class Certification Bid by August 27
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Loses Amended Bid for Class Certification
ATERIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATLANTIC ADULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kazadavenko Claims
AXT HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Rapp Suit Claims
BALTIMORE, MD: Unemployed Workers Mull Class Action Lawsuit
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Joint Bid for Final Certification of Class OK'd
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beck Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Dekrey Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hapka Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Peiffer Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Wunsch Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Eldridge Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
BEST-LINE SHADES: July 8 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Vacated
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 29
BISMA SERVICE: Khan Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Gas Attendants
BLACK KNIGHT: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by March 1, 2022
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 16
BOYNE USA: Faces Calloway Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
BWK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Pozos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
C VIEWS NY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figa Suit Claims
CABOT OIL: Retirement System Suit Moved From M.D. Pa. to S.D. Tex.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Hanna Suit Alleges
CAPITAL ONE: Seeks July 19 Extension to Respond to Carr Class Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Illegally Installed Cell Towers, Pires Alleges
CHARTER FOODS: Burris Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Certification
CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Class Action Over Illinois Chemical Plant Fire
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action
CONTINENTAL WESTERN: Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines OK'd
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dunn Seeks to Certify Class of Coffee Purchasers
CREDIT BUREAU: Refiling of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 14
DAHER CLEANING: Alvarez et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DALLAS FOOD: Beasley Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
DETROIT PROPERTY: James Must File Class Cert. Proposed Notice
DISH NETWORK: Court Tosses Fuentes Bid for Class Certification
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Seeks Extension to Reply to Opposition
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Sutton Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 17, 2022
DIVINE FOODS: Blind Can't Access Website, Pascual Suit Claims
ENVOY AIR: Cartwright Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
ETOH MONITORING: 30-Day Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Court Junks Dotstrategy Bid to Certify Class
FEDEX CORP: Submission of Class Cert Stipulation Extended to July 6
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Hearing on July 16 Sought
FIELDWORKS LLC: Mathews Loses Bid for Class Certification
FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1
FIRST FINANCIAL: Oct. 1 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
FIRST INFLUENCE: Padilla Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dalrymple Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-350 Super Duty Trucks
FRANKFORD CANDY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FUNDING FAMILY: Knights Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
GEISINGER HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 19, 2022
GEO GROUP: Mistrial Declared in $1-A-Day Detainee Pay Suit
GREENFIELD WORLD: Naseri Suit Removed to C.D. California
GREENWICH ST: Online Store Inaccessible by Blind Users, Roman Says
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Files Bid for Conditional Certification
HAIN CELESTIAL: Boulware Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
HARVARD FORD: Finney Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Covarrubias Suit Goes to C.D. California
HEADSET ADVISOR: Maxey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HEALTH AID: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Beckham Suit Alleges
HENDERSON, NE: July 26 Extension to Class Cert. Response OK'd
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Henkel Wins Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
HIRA ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Ventura Suit Claims
HOME DEPOT: Reynosa Suit Removed to E.D. California
HONEST COMPANY: Navar Putative Class Suit Settled
INCGSGI INC: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
INDEPENDENT MEDIA: Karabas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
INDIE SEMICONDUCTOR: Tomczak Suit vs Thunder Bridge Discontinued
INDUS COMPANIES: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Reply to July 2
INVENTURE FOODS:Hiltz Sues Over Mislabeled Onion Snacks Products
J. M. SMUCKER: Folgers Coffee Packaging-Related Suits Underway
JMD EXCELSIOR: Mason Seeks Unpaid Wages for Medical Assistants
JP MORGAN: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Extended to July 19
KATERRA INC: Marvin Sues Over WARN Act Violation
KENTUCKY DOC: VanHouten Loses Class Certification Bid
KIMPTON HOTEL: July 23 New Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set
KIND LLC: Faces Chong Suit Over Mislabeled Chocolate Products
LYONS & DOUGHTY: Saroza Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
MARCO DESTIN: Seeks July 8 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
MARKWEST ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ison Suit Claims
MCDONALD'S USA: MLMLM, MAAKS Object to Ries Class Certification Bid
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Trust Fund Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Ohio
MERCEDES BENZ: December 15 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
MERRICK GARLAND: Class Cert. Bid Reply Extended to July 13
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lefkowtiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
MIDLAND CREDIT: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MIKE BROWN: Court Junks Thompson Bid for Class Certification
MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Semreen Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages & Tips
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Status Bid Must be Filed by Jan. 17, 2022
MRS BPO: George Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MYER HOLDINGS: FTI Consulting Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Settles Class Suit Over Bank Bill Swap Rate
NATIONAL CREDIT: Pleasant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
NCAA: Baker Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Bowman Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
NCAA: Butler Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Ede Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
NCAA: Facchine Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
NEUTROGENA CORP: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, French Says
NEW DOMINION: Cooper Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
NEW YORK DOC: Seeks August 6 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
NEW ZEALAND: Lake Alice Survivors Say Settlement Not Enough
NEWREZ LLC: Cardin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
NUTRIEN: Grayson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
OCUGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Vincent Wong Announces Securities Class Action Suit
OPERA TOWER: Short-Term Rentals Violate Ordinance, Dispoto Claims
OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings Pending Maney Class Cert. Bid
PACTIV LLC: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 6
PANDORA MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hoy Suit Claims
PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL: Ntam Sues Over Mortgage Service Practices
PARETEUM CORP: Loskot Putative Class Suit Underway
PARETEUM CORP: Putative Securities Class Suit in New York Underway
PARSLEY HEALTH: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PATTERSON COS: August 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PAYPAL INC: Refunds $12K Frozen Funds to Avert Illegal Seizure Suit
PENSAR BIG: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobs Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
PPH PROPERTIES: Burris Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
PROOFPOINT INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Coffman Says
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PROVENTION BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PROVENTION BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
RAPID CITY, SD: Class Action Filed Over Hideaway Hills Collapse
RELATED MANAGEMENT: English Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Olson Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
RIVERSIDE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges
SAG-AFTRA: Appoints New Nat'l Executive Director Amid Lawsuit
SCONZA CANDY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Bid to Amend Ruling on Class Cert. Nixed
SIX SLICE: Bailey Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Lose Class Certification Bid
SOUND BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOURCE RECEIVABLES: Bogomilsky Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
SPARC GROUP: Robey Sues Over Inflated, Fake Former Prices
SPRAGUE OPERATING: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 15, 2022
STATE FARM: Filing of Reply in Support of Class Cert. Extended
STATE FARM: Ritchie Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
STROM ENGINEERING: Bid to Extend Case Management Deadlines OK'd
SUBWAY: Class Action Over Tuna Mislabeling Class Action Pending
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Judge Set to Consider Parkersburg Class Action
TARO PHARMA: Bid for Class Approval in Opioid Related Suit Pending
TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery in Speakes Suit Ongoing
TARO PHARMA: Price Fixing Related Putative Class Suits Underway
TARO PHARMA: Putative Class Action Suit in Israel Underway
TD BANK: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Illegal ATM Fees
TEAM HEALTH: Must File Class Certification Response by July 9
TOTAL INSURANCE: Perrong Has Until August 31 to File Class Cert Bid
TRINITY HEALTH: Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
TULA LIFE: Morrissey Sues Over Mislabelled Cosmetic Products
TUSCANY MARBLE: Underpays Installer's Helpers, Avelar Suit Says
U.S. BANK: Mills Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
ULINE INC: Bray Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
UP MEDICAL CENTER: Biddle Files Suit in W.D. Pa.
VASCULAR BIOGENICS: Pomerantz Law Investigates Investor Claims
VERMONT: Hep C Treatment Guidelines Outlined in Settlement Deal
VOICE OF GUO: Zhang Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Supreme Court Tosses Suit Over Takata Airbags
WALMART INC: Coleman Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Contents
WELLS FARGO: Valery Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
WEST BRANDS: Pearson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
[*] Bill to Ban Arbitration Clauses in Health Insurance Launched
[*] Class Actions Filed in Nevada v. 10 Major Auto Insurance Cos.
[*] D&O Premiums Rise Despite U.S. Class Action Decline
*********
20/20 EYE CARE: Desue Alleges Failure to Protect Patients' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENSTON DESUE, individually and as legal guardian of N.D. and M.D.
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 20/20
EYE CARE NETWORK, INC. and ICARE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 0:21-cv-61275 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach
of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of confidence, violations of the Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols to
protect the private health and personally identifiable information
(PHI/PII) of their patients, including the Plaintiffs, following a
data breach on 20/20's systems. Allegedly, the Defendants
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiffs and putative Class members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their data systems
were protected; failing to disclose to patients the material fact
that they did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard their PII/PHI; failing to take available
steps to prevent the data breach; and failing to provide the
Plaintiffs and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the data
breach.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members face a substantial
increased risk of identity theft and they have had to and will
continue to spend significant time and money to protect themselves,
the suit says.
20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. is a managed vision care company that
offers third party administrative services, headquartered in
Hialeah, Florida.
iCare Health Solutions, LLC is an integrated specialty network and
administrator of comprehensive ocular care services located in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. McGee, Esq.
Francesca Kester, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: rmcgee@forthepeople.com
fkester@forthepeople.com
- and –
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
20/20 EYE CARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Bowen Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER BOWEN and BENJAMIN F. LIANG, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 20/20 EYE CARE
NETWORK, INC. and ICARE HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
0:21-cv-61292 (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, declaratory
judgment, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols to
protect the private health and personally identifiable information
(PHI/PII) of their patients, including the Plaintiffs, following a
data breach on 20/20's systems. The Defendants allegedly
disregarded the rights of the Plaintiffs and putative Class members
by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their data systems
were protected; failing to disclose to patients the material fact
that they did not have adequate computer systems and security
practices to safeguard their PII/PHI; failing to take available
steps to prevent the data breach; and failing to provide the
Plaintiffs and Class members prompt and accurate notice of the data
breach.
As a result, the Plaintiffs and Class members face a substantial
increased risk of identity theft and they have had to and will
continue to spend significant time and money to protect themselves,
says the suit.
20/20 Eye Care Network, Inc. is a managed vision care company that
offers third party administrative services, headquartered in
Hialeah, Florida.
iCare Health Solutions, LLC is an integrated specialty network and
administrator of comprehensive ocular care services located in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
Alexander C. Cohen, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
acohen@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK &DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
- and –
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
3M COMPANY: Tillis Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD TILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01909-RMG
(D.S.C., June 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit asserts.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
ACCELLION INC: Desjardins Sues Over Data Breach on FTA Software
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMIRESSE DESJARDINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCELLION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:21-cv-04743-SVK (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, third-party beneficiary
claim, and invasion of privacy.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly secure
and safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) that was
stored on its File Transfer Appliance (FTA) software. In December
2020 and January 2021, unauthorized persons exploited two separate
vulnerabilities in Accellion's software to access files and data
stored on or shared by numerous consumers with Accellion FTA. As a
result of the alleged data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members
face a substantial increased risk of identity theft and they have
had to and will continue to spend significant time and money to
protect themselves.
Accellion, Inc. is an American technology company specializing in
secure file sharing and collaboration, headquartered at 1804
Embarcadero Road, Suite 200, Palo Alto, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Mark A. Clifford, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
mclifford@tzlegal.com
- and –
Sabita Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
ALETTO JEWELERS: Roman Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ROMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALETTO JEWELERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05478-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.alettojewelers.com/, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the general public
through the website. These access barriers include, but not limited
to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links, (c)
redundant links, and (d) linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Aletto Jewelers, Inc. is an operator of an online jewelry store
located in Boca Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
ALLBIRDS INC: Faces Dwyer Suit Over Mislabeled Shoe Products
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA DWYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLBIRDS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:21-cv-05238 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2021) is an action against the
Defendant alleging mislabelling of its shoes product made from wool
("Product").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, based on
investigations into more than 100 large-scale wool operations, most
of which had been promoted in the same terms used by Allbirds - as
"sustainable" and "responsible" - "workers beat, stomped on, cut
open the skin of, and slit the throats of conscious, struggling
sheep."
Allbirds' emphasis on "transparency" is also false, deceptive and
misleading, "as it stonewalls any enquiries into its wool
sourcing," the suit says.
Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly
identify and describe the components, attributes and features of
the Product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives. The value of the Product that the Plaintiff purchased
was materially less than its value as represented by defendant. The
Defendant sold more of the Product and at a higher prices than it
would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in
additional profits at the expense of consumers, added the suit
Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
Allbirds, Inc. designs and manufactures footwear products. The
Company offers shoes made from merino wool for men, women, and
kids. [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
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Ringgold CREAMMA Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL RINGGOLD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No.
MER-L-001072-21, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on June 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
3:21-cv-12873 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace
Modernization Act (CREAMMA) and New Jersey public policy under New
Jersey common law by denying employment to the Plaintiff after he
tested positive for marijuana in a pre-employment drug screen.
Amazon.com.dedc, LLC is a limited liability company that merged
into Amazon.com Services, Inc., which is now known as Amazon.com
Services LLC, with its principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gabrielle Levin, Esq.
Stephanie L. Silvano, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: glevin@gibsondunn.com
ssilvano@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Timothy Loose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Venue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com
ARDIAN CORP: Avila Must File Class Certification Bid by August 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avila v. Ardian Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:18-cv-04795 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic
Block entered an order that by August 27, 2021 the plaintiff must
file their fully briefed motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.[CC]
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Brown Loses Amended Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORI BROWN v. ASSET
ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00795-JTN-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order that the Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Class Certification is denied.
Asset Acceptance is a debt buyer. Its primary business is the
purchasing of defaulted debts from lenders and subsequent
collection of those debts through normal debt collection
activities.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dfPX6t at no extra charge.[CC]
ATERIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 21 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Aterian, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ATER) alleging that the Company violated federal
securities laws.
Class Period: December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
Learn more about your recoverable losses in ATER:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/aterian-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17039&from=5
The filed complaint alleges that Aterian, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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.
Shareholders have until July 12, 2021 to petition the court for
lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the ATER lawsuit, please contact
J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link
above.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
ATLANTIC ADULT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kazadavenko Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
VADZIM KAZADAVENKO, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC ADULT DAY CARE CENTER
INC.; QUEENS BOROUGH DAY CARE, LLC; and DMITRY TSEPENYUK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03284 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Kazadavenko was employed by the Defendant as driver.
Atlantic Adult Day Care Center, Inc. is a provider established in
Brooklyn, New York specializing in adult day care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Telephone: (212) 392-4772
E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
milana@lipskylowe.com
AXT HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Rapp Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA RAPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AXT HOME CARE LLC d/b/a VISITING ANGELS,
TRAVIS DUNHAM, and MAI DUNHAM, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00420-DRC (S.D. Ohio, June 21, 2021) is a collective and
class action complaint brought against the Defendants to challenge
their alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a Home Health Aide
(HHA) from approximately May 22 to November 23, 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly-paid home care providers were not properly
compensated by the Defendants despite regularly working more than
40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants allegedly employed a
companywide policy of not paying them for all their compensable
work, such as location-to-location travel. As a result, their
lawfully earned overtime compensation for hours they have worked in
excess of 40 per workweek at the federally mandated overtime rate
were underpaid by the Defendants. In addition, the Defendants
failed to make, keep and preserve records of all the hours worked
by its home care providers, including the Plaintiff.
On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated home health
aides, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
Axt Home Care LLC d/b/a Visiting Angels provides in-home senior
care. Travis Dunham and Mai Dunham are husband and wife who jointly
own and operate Defendant Axt. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
34 N. High St., Suite 502
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 824-5770
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and –
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
Shannon M Draher, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
Massillon, OH 44646
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
BALTIMORE, MD: Unemployed Workers Mull Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBS Baltimore reports that the unemployed workers union held a
protest outside the governor's mansion on Saturday over Gov.
Hogan's decision to end federal unemployment benefits.
Earlier this month, the governor said he would end the enhanced
unemployment and reinstate work search requirements beginning July
3. Many leaders and residents have criticized his decision and have
urged the governor to reinstate the benefits.
In a joint letter, Baltimore city leaders said in part, "not only
will thousands in Baltimore be forced to seek work in hazardous
environments that fail to offer to living wages, but thousands more
will continue to endure joblessness with a weakened safety net."
The Governor's office released this statement following the
criticism:
"Our health and economic recovery continues to outpace the nation,
and we have reached the benchmark set by President Biden of
vaccinating 70 percent of adults," said Governor Hogan. "While
these federal programs provided important temporary relief,
vaccines and jobs are now in good supply. And we have a critical
problem where businesses across our state are trying to hire more
people, but many are facing severe worker shortages. After 12
consecutive months of job growth, we look forward to getting more
Marylanders back to work."
The unemployed workers union said they have plans to file a
class-action lawsuit. [GN]
BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL: Renewed Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, and all others
similarly situated, v. GREGORY SCOTT STEPHEN, BARNSTORMERS
BASKETBALL, INC. d/b/a BARNSTORMERS BASKETBALL OF IOWA, AMATEUR
ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., and ADIDAS AMERICA,
INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00005-JAJ-SHL (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting an amended proposed
class:
"All past or present Barnstormer Basketball, Inc. participants
who:
1. were affiliated with a Barnstormer Basketball, Inc. team at
any point in time between 2005 and April 5, 2018 while Greg
Stephen was involved with the organization; and
2. fell victim to Greg Stephen's illicit acts of secretly
procuring nude images and/or recordings of minors."
Barnstormers Basketball, Inc (BBI) is a non-profit corporation
founded/organized under the laws of the State of Iowa in 2004. BBI
fields club basketball teams for local youth athletes ranging from
4th through 11th grade. From approximately March to July, BBI's
teams travel to various tournaments around the country to compete
against other traveling club teams.
A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion to certify class dated
June 23, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3wZpJNp at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Guy R. Cook, Esq.
Laura N. Martino, Esq.
Benjamin T. Erickson, Esq.
GREFE & SIDNEY, P.L.C.
500 E. Court Ave., Ste. 200
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone: (515) 245-4300
Facsimile: (515) 245-4452
E-mail: gcook@grefesidney.com
lmartino@grefesidney.com
berickson@grefesidney.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant, Barnstormers Basketball, Inc.,
are
Brandon W. Lobberecht, Esq.
Betty, Neuman & McMahon, P.L.C.
1900 East 54 th Street
Davenport, IA 52807-2708
E-mail: martha.shaff@bettylawfirm.com
brandon.lobberechtl@bettylawfirm.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Adidas America, Inc., are:
Matthew A. Levin, Esq.
Stanton Gallegos, Esq.
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97201
E-mail: MattLevin@MarkowtizHerbold.com
StantonGallegos@MarkowitzHerbold.com
- and -
Connie Alt, Esq.
Molly Parker, Esq.
SHUTTLEWORTH & INGERSOLL, P.L.C.
115 3rd St. SE, No. 500
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
E-mail: cma@shuttleworthlaw.com
mmp@shuttleworthlaw.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Amateur Athletic Union of the
United States, Inc., are:
Jeffrey L. Goodman, Esq.
Nicole L. Keller, Esq.
GOODMAN LAW, P.C.
1501 42 nd Street. Suite 300
West Des Moines, IA 50266
E-mail: jeff@golawpc.com
nicole@golawpc.com
BATTELLE MEMORIAL: Joint Bid for Final Certification of Class OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ROTHE, CARLOS
MARTINEZ AND ANDREW BRYANT, Individually and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, v. BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE, Case No.
1:18-cv-03179-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge R. Brooke Jackson
entered an order:
1. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the interpretation
and implementation of the Settlement Agreement;
2. The parties' Joint Motion for Final Certification of Class
and Collective Action and for Final Approval of Settlement
Agreement is granted;
3. The Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and costs is
granted;
4. The parties' Settlement Agreement is approved;
5. Service award for named plaintiffs is approved;
6. Settlement Administrator (Simpluris, Inc.) costs are
approved;
7. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation in the Settlement
Agreement, Parties shall file a final report on payments to
the class members on or before; and
8. Parties shall file a Motion for Dismissal of claims with
prejudice.
The Plaintiffs Jason Rothe, Carlos Martinez, and Andrew Bryant, on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees of
Battelle, filed a Complaint in this Court alleging that Battelle
violated the FLSA and Colorado wage and hour laws, specifically the
Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWC"), and the Colorado Minimum Wage
Order. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees of Battelle at the Pueblo Chemical Depot,
Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant (PCAPP) in Pueblo, Colorado
were not paid for work performed during 30-minute meal breaks,
resulting in unpaid regular and overtime wages under state and
federal law.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35WsrY1 at no extra charge.[CC]
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Beck Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KENNETH BECK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00996, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00749-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. They have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
Anne T. Regan, Esq.
Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Telephone: (952) 941-4005
Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
aregan@hjlawfirm.com
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com
- and –
Drew R. Ball, Esq.
Steve McCann, Esq.
BALL & McCANN, P.C.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (872) 205-6556
E-mail: Drew@BallMcCannLaw.com
Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Dekrey Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRAD DEKREY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00639, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00744-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. They have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Alyssa J. Leary, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
alyssa.leary@zimmreed.com
- and –
Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Telephone: (480) 348-6415
E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
- and –
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
William Kalas, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
950 West University Drive
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
wk@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Hapka Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HAPKA FARMS, INC. and AMY HAPKA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP,
BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00685, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00746-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. These farmers have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, says the suit.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
332 Minnesota Street, Suite W1050
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 287-2100
Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
r.yard@rwblawfirm.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Peiffer Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DUANE PEIFFER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., PIONEER HI-BRED INTERNATIONAL,
INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION,
WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED
CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK
INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ,
INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-01239, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00750-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. The farmers have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, says the suit.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. is a producer of seeds for
agriculture, headquartered in Johnston, Iowa.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mstevens@gustafsongluek.com
- and –
Brian Douglas Penny, Esq.
GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (484) 342-0700
E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Suit Moved From D. Minn. to E.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TYLER SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00681, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00745-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. The farmers have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, the suit says.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
Christopher P. Renz, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-7300
E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com
- and –
Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq.
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Ste. 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
tcoates@msdlegal.com
BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Wunsch Farms Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled WUNSCH FARMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF
CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG
SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL
SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-00970, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:21-cv-00748-SEP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in the U.S. by
engaging in an anticompetitive scheme and unlawful conspiracy to
deprive farmers the opportunity to purchase crop inputs such as
seed and crop protection chemicals like fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides at transparent, competitive prices from electronic
platforms. The farmers have been forced to continue paying
supra-competitive prices for crop inputs purchased from inefficient
brick-and-mortar retailers, subject to the Defendants'
confidentiality requirements, says the suit.
Bayer CropScience LP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG,
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Corteva Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company,
headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware.
Cargill, Incorporated is an American privately held global food
corporation based in Minnetonka, Minnesota.
BASF Corporation is a multinational pharmaceutical, seed, and
chemical company, headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.
Syngenta Corporation is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Winfield Solutions, LLC is a company that manufactures and
distributes seed and crop protection products, headquartered in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.
Univar Solutions, Inc. is a global chemical and ingredients
distributor based in Illinois.
Federated Co-operatives Ltd. is a crop inputs retailer
headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
CHS Inc. is a regional agricultural cooperative, headquartered in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is a crop inputs wholesaler based in
Colorado.
GROWMARK, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Illinois.
GROWMARK FS, LLC is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in
Delaware.
Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered
in Idaho.
Tenkoz Inc. is a crop inputs retailer headquartered in Georgia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
mstevens@gustafsongluek.com
- and –
Brett Cebulash, Esq.
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Evan Rosin, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com
klandau@tcllaw.com
erosin@tcllaw.com
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Eldridge Suit Moved From N.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANA LYNETTE GREGORY ELDRIDGE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION
COMPANY, GERBER PRODUCTS CO., and JOHN DOE MANUFACTURERS, Case No.
1:21-cv-00283, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on June 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:21-cv-12910 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligent
misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, state consumer
protection statutes, and violations of the New York General
Business Law by advertising, labeling, and marketing their baby
foods as safe and natural when in fact the products contain
dangerous levels of toxic heavy metals.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Company is a manufacturer of baby foods, with
its headquarters in Amsterdam, New York.
Gerber Products Co. is a manufacturer of baby foods, with its
principal place of business in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (347) 353-1150
E-mail: melissa@feganscott.com
- and –
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
BEST-LINE SHADES: July 8 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOLORES VALENZUELA, et
al., v. BEST-LINE SHADES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07293-JSC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that the July 8, 2021
hearing date on the motion for class certification is vacated.
The Defendants shall file their opposition or statement of
non-opposition to the motion for class certification by June 29,
2021. The Plaintiffs reply is due July 13, 2021. The Court will
advise the parties of the hearing date upon completion of the
briefing.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative wage and hour class action
against their former employer Best-Line Shades and its owner and
president Jill Schaffer seeking to recover unpaid wages and
penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor
laws. Since the action was filed, the parties have repeatedly moved
to extend deadlines and missed filing deadlines, says the Court.
The briefing surrounding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is no exception. Although the parties missed the deadline to file
their stipulation regarding a class certification briefing
schedule, the Court granted the parties' late stipulation. Under
the stipulation, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
due May 28, 2021 and Defendants opposition was due June 15, 2021.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion late, on May 31, 2021, without
explanation, and to date, Defendants have not filed an opposition,
the Court adds.
Best-Line is doing business in interior design industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vZvA47 at no extra charge.[CC]
BISHOP OF CHARLESTON: Tuition Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tuition Payor 100, et al.,
v. The Bishop of Charleston, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00613-RMG
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel entered an amended
discovery and scheduling order as follows:
1. Class Discovery
The parties will initially undertake class discovery. The
Court made clear, however, that there is much overlap between
Rule 23 related issues and merits issues, and this is not an
invitation for discovery disputes over the scope of class
discovery. The class certification issues related to the
Plaintiffs' proposed "Tuition Class" appear to be primarily
legal in nature and require only minimal, if any, factual
discovery.
2. Numbers of Depositions and Interrogatories Allowed
The Defendants will be allowed up to 50 interrogatories and
depositions.
3. Confidentiality Order
The Court intends to issue a confidentiality order in this
matter. Counsel are directed to meet and confer within 10
days in an effort to reach an agreement on all or portions of
a proposed confidentiality order.
4. Anonymity of Named Parties
The Defense counsel advised the Court that the Defendants
object to the anonymous naming of Plaintiffs. Defendants are
directed to file a motion on this matter within 15 days of
this order. Once the briefing is completed, the Court will
rule on this issue.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings shall
be filed no later than July 6, 2021.
6. Expert Witnesses:
The deadlines for naming expert witnesses and providing their
written reports.
7. Records Custodian Witnesses
The deadline for filing and serving affidavits of records
custodians, set forth in the Conference and Scheduling
Order.
8. Class Certification Discovery
Discovery on class certification shall be completed no later
than October 15, 2021. All discovery requests shall be served
in time for responses thereto to be served by this deadline.
No motions relating to discovery shall be filed until counsel
have consulted and attempted to resolve the matter as
required by Local Civil Rule 7.02.
9. Class Certification Motion
The Plaintiffs must file their motion for class certification
on or before October 29, 2021.
10. Motions in Limine, Dispositive Motions, Daubert Motions,
Other Pre-Trial Deadlines, and Trial Date:
Within 10 days after the Court rules on the motion for class
certification, counsel must meet and confer on a revised scheduling
order addressing issues of the Conference and Scheduling Order.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/361R31r at no extra charge.[CC]
BISMA SERVICE: Khan Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Gas Attendants
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BISMA SERVICE CENTER, INC.,
MOHAMMED ANWAR KHAN, and UMAIR JAWAD, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05449 (S.D.N.Y., June 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law by failing to properly calculate and pay all
minimum and overtime wages, failing to pay spread of hours premium,
and failing to provide proper wage notices and wage statements.
The Plaintiff worked as a gas station attendant and assistant
manager at the Defendants' gas station and service center located
in midtown Manhattan, New York.
Bisma Service Center, Inc., doing business as Bisma Mobil Service
Station, is an owner and operator of a gas station and service
center, with its principal place of business at 718 11th Ave., New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
BLACK KNIGHT: Class Cert. Bid Must be Filed by March 1, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR J. FREDEERICKS, on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v. BLACK
KNIGHT SECURITY, INC., GENERAL INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No.
2:21-cv-00533-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville
entered a case management order that:
1. The parties shall move to amend the pleadings or add new
parties by August 16, 2021.
2. The parties shall complete fact discovery by January 17,
2022.
3. The Plaintiff's Expert Reports are due on or before November
30, 2021. The Defendant’s Expert Reports are due on or
before
January 17, 2022. Depositions of all experts shall be on or
before February 15, 2022. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification, Memorandum in Support, and all supporting
evidence shall be filed by March 1, 2022. The Defendant's
Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification and all
supporting evidence shall be filed by April 8, 2022. The
Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification, if any, shall be filed by April 29, 2022.
4. The parties shall complete the ADR process they selected by
September 30, 2021.
5. The Court will conduct a post-discovery status conference on
February 1, 2022.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hgKvl8 at no extra charge.[CC]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Filing of Class Status Bid Due August 16
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gabriel Patlan, et al., v.
BMW of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-09546-CCC-MF (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Mark Falk entered an order on the parties
stipulation to extend the dates for class certification briefing by
30 days, as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expert
reports
in support shall be filed by August 16, 2021.
-- Defendants' opposition to class certification and expert
reports in support shall be filed by October 18, 2021.
-- Plaintiffs' reply in further support of class certification
and rebuttal expert reports shall be filed by November 24,
2021.
BMW NA was established in 1975 as the United States importer of BMW
luxury/performance vehicles. BMW of North America assumed import
and distribution responsibilities for BMW motorcycles in 1980.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qsj243 at no extra charge.[CC]
BOYNE USA: Faces Calloway Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY CALLOWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOYNE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-00521 (W.D. Mich., June 21, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant seeking for declaratory
judgment, monetary and liquidated damages, and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Sales
Agent in Petoskey from March 2019 until April 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly or occasionally working
over 40 hours per week while he was employed by the Defendant, he
was improperly compensated for all hours he worked in excess of 40.
This is because the Defendant failed to include the value of the
commissions it paid to its Sales Agents in determining their
regular rate of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime
compensation. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated Sales Agents' overtime compensation were allegedly
underpaid.
Boyne USA, Inc. owns and operates resorts throughout the country,
including in Petoskey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
BWK CONSTRUCTION: Faces Pozos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO POZOS, VICTOR PILAMUNGA, JORGE VILLA, JOSE ROMERO, JORGE
PEREZ SAUCEDO, WILSON MENESES, RENE DARWIN HERNANDEZ, CLAUDIA
MANCO, AGUSTIN DELGADO, MILTON OCHOA, HENRY ROJAS, JUAN NARANJO
RODAS, SEGUNDO GUACHO, SEGUNDO RUBEN GARCIA, SEGUNDO EDGAR GARCIA,
DIEGO MACANELA, and MARTIN RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BWK Construction LLC.,
and NIGEL JOSEPH as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03278
(E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) seeks to recover damages for egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at BWK Construction in
New York.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as labor workers,
assistant labor workers, construction workers, carpenters, cement
masons, or other similarly titled personnel with substantially
similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing
the same sort of functions, other than the executive and management
positions, who have been subject to the Defendants' common
practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
including willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime
wage compensation.
BWK Construction LLC is a construction company based in Bronx, New
York owned by Defendant Nigel Joseph.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
C VIEWS NY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Figa Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
SIMCHA BUNIM FIGA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C VIEWS NY INC. D/B/A C VIEWS LOW
VOLTAGE; and JOSEPH KLEINMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03322
(E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as laborer.
C VIEWS NY INC. owns and operates a low voltage company located at
Brooklyn, New York, under the name C Views Low Voltage. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yair Bruck, Esq.
BRUCK LLP
1207 East 34th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11210
Telephone: (212) 593-9090
Facsimile: (212) 644-6667
CABOT OIL: Retirement System Suit Moved From M.D. Pa. to S.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DELAWARE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CABOT OIL & GAS CORPORATION, DAN O. DINGES, and SCOTT C. SCHROEDER,
Case No. 3:20-cv-01815, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:21-cv-02045 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 issuing
false and misleading statements about Cabot's internal
environmental controls and procedures in order to trade Cabot's
common stock at artificially inflated prices between October 23,
2015 and June 12, 2020.
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation is an independent oil and gas company
based in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq.
SAXTON & STUMP LLC
280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300
Lancaster, PA 17601
Telephone: (717) 556-1080
Facsimile: (717) 441-3810
E-mail: lfs@saxtonstump.com
- and –
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: danim@rgrdlaw.com
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
CAMPBELL SOUP: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Hanna Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN HANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY and PLUM, PBC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-12842 (D.N.J., June 22, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
unjust enrichment, and violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of Plum Organics
baby food products. The Defendants advertised and labeled the
products as organic, safe and healthy for infants and young
children. However, contrary to the Defendants' marketing
statements, the products contain harmful heavy metal contaminants
including inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a
result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered damages.
Campbell Soup Company is an American processed food and snack
company, with its principal place of business located in Camden,
New Jersey.
Plum, PBC is a manufacturer of baby foods and snack food products,
with its principal place of business located in San Francisco,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Brown II, Esq.
John M. Bradham, Esq.
Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 695-8050
E-mail: tbrown@msbllp.com
jbradham@msbllp.com
pkatzman@msbllp.com
- and –
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Jarrett W. Withrow, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
jarrett@akimlawfirm.com
CAPITAL ONE: Seeks July 19 Extension to Respond to Carr Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY N. CARR, SR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CAPITAL ONE
BANK (USA), N.A., a National Banking Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-02300-AT-JKL (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order:
1. extending the time for the Defendant to file its response to
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, through and including
July 19, 2021; and
2. vacating the 90-day class certification motion deadline, as
set forth in Local Rule 23.1(B).
This motion is timely, as it is filed before the deadline for
Defendant to respond to the Class Action Complaint. This motion is
filed for good cause, and not for delay or any other improper
purpose, the Parties say.
On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. On June 7, 2021,
the Defendant was served, which requires a response to Plaintiff's
Class Action Complaint on June 28, 2021. The Defendant requests a
three-week extension up to and including July 19, 2021, to answer,
move, plead, defend, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Class
Action Complaint.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2SBA03u at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff Jeffrey N. Carr, Sr. is represented by:
Justin T. Holcombe, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
133 Mirramont Lake Drive
Woodstock, GA 30189
Telephone: (770) 427-5600
Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
The Attorney for Defendants Capital One (USA), N.A., is:
M. Laughlin Allen, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Suite 2100, Promenade
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 443-5738
Facsimile: (404) 443-5773
E-mail: mlallen@mcguirewoods.com
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Illegally Installed Cell Towers, Pires Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER J. PIRES, JR., DIANE E. COOLEY, and JOHN SNOW, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No.
2021-0542 (Del. Ch., June 21, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendant for preliminary and mandatory injunction.
The case arises from the Defendant's wrongful installation of five
utility towers, purportedly communications antennas, on the east
side of route 1 in the Town of Dewey on sand dunes at the beach.
The Defendant installed three towers without any permits and two
towers with invalid permits. Verizon did not follow proper
procedures under the Dewey Beach code and rules to obtain permits
to install towers. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misconduct, the Plaintiffs' view and enjoyment of the beach and
their homes have been disrupted.
Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, is a
provider of wireless voice and data services, with its principal
place of business located at 512 E. Township Line Road, Bldg. 2,
Blue Bell, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher P. Simon, Esq.
David G. Holmes, Esq.
CROSS & SIMON, LLC
1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801-1380
Telephone: (302) 777-4200
Facsimile: (302) 777-4224
E-mail: csimon@crosslaw.com
dholmes@crosslaw.com
CHARTER FOODS: Burris Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOBY BURRIS and TASHA
THATCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CHARTER FOODS, INC., CHARTER CENTRAL, LLC, and CHARTER
FOODS NORTH, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00158-CEA-CRW (E.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
their proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective, defined
as:
"All individuals who are or have been employed by Defendants as
a Team Member and/or a Shift Lead under the supervision of
Michael Brungo from three years prior to the filing date of this
Complaint up until this FLSA Collective Action Class is finally
certified by the Court."
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as in hourly
positions, and were not paid for all time worked Specifically,
their time records were altered to reduce their compensation, and
they were encouraged or permitted to work off the clock. These
practices were pervasive for employees working under one of
Defendants' area managers, who enforced a strict policy against the
use and payment of overtime among front-line hourly employees.
Charter Foods is located in Morristown, Tennessee and is part of
the fast-food & quick-service restaurants industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3w0yPYI
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer B. Morton, Esq.
Maha M. Ayesh, Esq.
JENNIFER MORTON LAW, PLLC
8217 Pickens Gap Road
Knoxville, TN 37920
Telephone: (865) 579 0708
Facsimile: (865) 579-0787
E-mail: jen@jmortonlaw.com
maha@jmortonlaw.com
- and -
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com
lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Rd, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
CHEMTOOL INC: Faces Class Action Over Illinois Chemical Plant Fire
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC7 reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the
owners of the chemical plant that exploded and burned in Rockton.
At least two homeowners are involved in the lawsuit against
Chemtool and The Lubrizol Corporation.
The suit claims people are suffering health issues from the smoke,
and homes and yards were damaged and covered in debris.
A 2-mile evacuation order was lifted Friday, but the cause of the
fire is still under investigation.
While Lubrizol said they do not comment on legal matters, they did
say they are "devastated by this event and deeply regret the
disruption and inconvenience that is has caused area residents."
"We are committed to helping the community, including donations we
have made to the Northwestern Illinois Red Cross, the Northern
Illinois Food Bank and the Rockton Lions Club. We have also
arranged for removal of fire-related debris . . . This has already
helped many. Additionally, we have reimbursement claim forms posted
on our website for individuals and businesses. We will continue to
offer ongoing support to our neighbors as we needs emerge,"
according to the statement.
Lubrizol said residents can request service to have the
fire-related debris removed by visiting their website. [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Vincent Wong Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Contextlogic Inc.
(NASDAQ:WISH). 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.
Contextlogic Inc. (NASDAQ:WISH)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/contextlogic-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17014&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2021
This lawsuit is on behalf of investors who purchased WISH pursuant
or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with ContextLogic's December 16, 2020 initial public
stock offering or between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021.
In the registration statement and prospectus used to conduct the
initial public offering and throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about the strength
of ContextLogic's business operations and financial prospects by
overstating its then-present monthly active users ("MAUs") and MAU
growth trends.
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.
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]
CONTINENTAL WESTERN: Extension of Discovery & PTO Deadlines OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sero, Inc. v. Continental
Western Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-00776 (D. Or.), the
Hon. Judge Youlee Yim You entered an order granting the joint
motion for extension of discovery and PTO deadlines:
-- The Defendant's answer to amended complaint and motion for
judgment on the pleadings are due June 30, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion is due July
15, 2021.
-- The Defendant's Reply in support of its motion is due August
5, 2021.
-- The Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion is due 150 days
after final disposition of Defendant's motion.
-- The Defendants Opposition to Class Certification motion is
due 60 days after Plaintiff's Class Certification motion is
filed.
-- The Plaintiff's Reply in support of motion for Class
Certification: 45 days after Defendant's Opposition to Class
Certification is filed.
-- Deadline for parties to engage in Selected Form of ADR: 60
days after Plaintiff's Reply in support of Motion for Class
Certification is filed.
-- All discovery will be stayed pending the Courts final
disposition of Defendants' Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.
The nature of suit states contract -- insurance involving diversity
contract dispute.[CC]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Dunn Seeks to Certify Class of Coffee Purchasers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOPE DUNN an Individual v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation; MASSIMO
ZANETTI BEVERAGE USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; EXCELCO
TRADING, L.P, a New York Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through
50, Inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-01751-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying a class of:
"all persons who purchased Kirkland Signature (TM) Dark
Roast
Fine Ground Decaffeinated Arabica Coffee for personal use in
California since September 16, 2016;"
2. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative; and
3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel-Mark Lanier, Alex Brown,
Jonathan Wilkerson and Shalini Dogra-as Class Counsel.
The case is a false advertising suit alleging that Defendants
violated California's consumer protection statutes presents an
epitomal example of a lawsuit suitable for class action treatment.
The Defendants mislabeled every cannister of "Kirkland Signature
(TM) Dark Roast Fine Ground Decaffeinated Arabica Coffee" as "100%
Arabica Coffee" even though the Beans actually lacked a pure
arabica composition, and deceptively lead reasonable consumers to
believe the Beans were made solely from arabica beans, the
complaint says.
Costco is an American multinational corporation which operates a
chain of membership-only big-box retail stores. As of 2020, Costco
was the fifth largest retailer in the world, and the world's
largest retailer of choice and prime beef, organic foods,
rotisserie chicken, and wine as of 2016.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 24,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3quT93n
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Lanier, Esq.
Alex Brown, Esq.
Jonathan Wilkerson, Esq.
THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PC
wml@lanierlawfirm.com
E-mail: Alex.brown@lanierlawfirm.com
Jonathan.wilkerson@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
Shalini Dogra, Esq.
DOGRA LAW GROUP PC
2219 Main Street, Unit 239
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: (747) 234-6673
Facsimile: (310) 868-0170
E-mail: shalini@dogralawgroup.coma
CREDIT BUREAU: Refiling of Class Cert. Bid Extended to July 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNG GON KANG,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CREDIT
BUREAU CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-01359-AWI-SKO (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jordan M. Sartell entered an order extending
the current case management schedule in this case by 14 days, as
follows:
Case Management Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Refile and supplement June 30, 2021 July 14, 2021
Plaintiff's motion for
class certification
Opposition to motion for July 30, 2021 Aug. 11, 2021
class certification
Reply in support of class August 20, 2021 Sept. 1, 2021
certification
Hearing on motion for Sept. 13, 2021 Sept. 27, 2021
class certification
Status report with Nov. 2, 2021 Nov. 16, 2021
scheduling proposal
Status conference for Nov. 9, 2021 Nov. 23, 2021
further scheduling
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A7v7jg at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Amy E. Tabor, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
P.O. Box 1311
Monterrey, CA 93942
Telephone: (713) 751-0400
Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
cbc@caddellchapman.com
aet@caddellchapman.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey E. Faucette, Esq.
SKAGGS FAUCETTE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-295-1197
E-mail: Jeff@skaggsfaucette.com
- and -
Rachel Rodman, Esq.
CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
700 Sixth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 862-2210
DAHER CLEANING: Alvarez et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
OFELIA ALVAREZ and SILVIA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs v. DAHER CLEANING SERVICES OF TENNESSEE
COMPANY, a Tennessee Corporation, MARA DAHER-BOYER, individually,
and SIEGFRIED A. RICHTER, JR., individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00479 (M.D. Tenn., June 21, 2021) bring this collective
action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed by the
Defendants to provide cleaning services to the Defendants' clients
and customers at the Defendants' direction and control. Together
with other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs regularly
worked over 40 hours during the regular workweek, but they were
misclassified by the Defendants as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA. Instead of paying them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours they have worked in excess of 40 per
week, the Defendants paid them straight time or regular time for
each hour worked regardless of how many hours they have worked, the
suit says.
The Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime compensation against the
Defendants, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief
as the Court deems just and equitable.
Daher Cleaning Services of Tennessee Company provides cleaning,
disinfecting, air fogging, and sanitization services to government,
commercial, and residential customers in the Nashville, Tennessee
and Chattanooga, Tennessee areas. Defendant Mar Daher-Boyer is an
owner and founder of the Corporate Defendant. Siegfried A. Richter
is also an owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER,
HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Tel: (901) 754-8001
Fax: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
- and –
Marc A. Walwyn, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARC WALWYN
412 Georgia Ave., Ste. 102
Chattanooga, TN 37403
Tel: (423) 954-7266
Fax: (423) 763-1615
E-mail: marc@walwynlegal.com
DALLAS FOOD: Beasley Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------
KARA BEASLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DALLAS FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC d/b/a BUCKS
CABARET and CURTIS WISE, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01469-G (N.D.
Tex., June 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal kickbacks,
and unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff worked as a dancer/entertainer at Bucks Cabaret
located at 2150 California Crossing Rd., Dallas, Texas at various
times between 2015 and 2019.
Dallas Food & Beverage, LLC is an owner and operator of a club
under the name Bucks Cabaret located at 2150 California Crossing
Rd., Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
DETROIT PROPERTY: James Must File Class Cert. Proposed Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natalie James, et al., v.
Detroit Property Exchange, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-13601-SFC-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox entered an order that no
later than June 30, 2021, Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a proposed
notice that could be sent to class members, should the Court grant
their pending Motion for Class Certification and certify a class
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
Detroit Property Exchange is located in Detroit, Michigan, is part
of the commercial real estate management industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35TLGBA at no extra charge.[CC]
DISH NETWORK: Court Tosses Fuentes Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NARCISO FUENTES, v. DISH
NETWORK L.L.C. Case No. 4:16-cv-02001-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order denying Fuentes' motion for
class certification:
"All California consumers who, at any time 4 years preceding
the
filing of this action through the present :
(a) subscribed to purchase direct-broadcast satellite
television
from DISH NETWORK after receiving a sales presentation in
Spanish on DISH NETWORK's toll-free Spanish-only telephone
line, and
(b) by the time of TV equipment and service installation, had
signed only an English language contract presented by DISH
NETWORK;" and
"All California consumers who, at any time from 4 years
preceding the filing of this action through the present:
(a) subscribed to purchase direct-broadcast satellite
television from DISH NETWORK, for a 24-month term after
receiving a sales presentation in Spanish on DISH NETWORK's
toll-free Spanish-only line, and
(b) by the time of execution of [the] direct-broadcast
satellite
television agreement, were not provided with a translation
of the agreement in Spanish, that included a translation of
every term and condition in that agreement;"
The Court said, "By virtue of the Arbitration Ruling, Fuentes is
not required to arbitrate his claims. The arbitrator's primary
ruling that the clause is not enforceable under McGill is a legal
ruling based on the express terms of the arbitration clause and did
not depend on any of the factual circumstances that DISH argues are
unique to Fuentes. Although the Court agrees that resolution of
that issue would not overwhelm the litigation, as the court
concluded in Ehret, Fuentes does not seek relief under Rule
23(b)(3). Therefore, this case is unlike Ehret because predominance
is not an issue. Fuentes has not provided the Court with a
persuasive argument, or authority, that he, as someone not bound to
arbitrate, continues to have a legal interest in arguing the
arbitration clause is not enforceable against absent class members.
The Court concludes that prevents him from meeting his burden to
satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy factors." Accordingly,
the Court denies Fuentes' motion for class certification."
In August 2015, Fuentes, who alleges he only speaks Spanish,
received promotional materials in the mail from DISH. The
promotional materials were in Spanish, contained a telephone
number, and referred to an opportunity to obtain DISH satellite
television service for $31.99 for the first six months and $39.99
for the following six months. Fuentes called the number and spoke
with a DISH employee, Paulina Nunez, who spoke Spanish and who
"explained the terms of his rental of the satellite television
receivers and monthly television service." Fuentes did subscribe to
DISH, but he terminated his subscription in August 2017 and has not
subscribed since that time. DISH maintains a toll-free line for
prospective customers who speak Spanish, and the agents who receive
these calls provide "disclosures" to customers, which have not
changed in any significant way since 2012."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hf94hY at no extra charge.[CC]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Hinton Seeks Extension to Reply to Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUNDAY HINTON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01295-JDB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order extending by two weeks the time in which to reply
to Defendant DOC's oppositions to her Motion for Preliminary
Injunction and Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff's replies are now due on June 25, 2021, and
Plaintiff's request would extend her time to July 9, 2021.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vYAE8O
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Michelman, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
915 15th Street NW, Second Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 601-4267
E-mail: smichelman@acludc.org
DIVERSITY AT WORK: Sutton Must File Class Cert Bid by Jan. 17, 2022
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Sutton, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Karen L. Litkovitz
Diversity at Work Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00682-TSB
(S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting
the following deadlines:
November 17, 2021 Close of class certification/FLSA
decertification discovery
January 17, 2022 Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion
for Rule 23 class certification;
Deadline for Defendants to file motion
to
decertify the FLSA collective
To be set after the Deadline to file motions for summary
Court's Order on judgment:
either Rule 23
class certification
or FLSA
decertification
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35V0zDO at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for the Plaintiff and putative class, are:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Riley edward Kane, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513)-202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
The Counsel for the Defendants are:
Daniel J. Bennet, Esq.
BENNETT LAW GROUP, LLC
81 Mill Street, Suite 300
Gahanna, OH 43230
Telephone: (614) 416-8147
Facsimile: (614) 416-8153
E-mail: dan@danbennettlaw.com
DIVINE FOODS: Blind Can't Access Website, Pascual Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO PASCUAL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIVINE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05473-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.risebar.com, allegedly contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (a)
lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b) empty links, (c) redundant
links, and (d) linked images missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Divine Foods, Inc. is a protein bar manufacturing company doing
business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal
ENVOY AIR: Cartwright Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHEN CARTWRIGHT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ENVOY AIR, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH
50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV12609, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June
21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05049 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance, the
California Business and Professions Code, and applicable provisions
of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders including failure
to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums,
failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period
premiums, failure to pay accurate minimum wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, unlawful wage deductions, failure to
furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages
timely during employment, and unfair business practices.
Envoy Air, Inc. is an American regional airline headquartered in
Irving, Texas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael McGuinness, Esq.
Andrew Lichtenstein, Esq.
Racquel B. Martin, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18 Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
E-mail: mmcguinness@omm.com
alichtenstein@omm.com
rmartin@omm.com
ETOH MONITORING: 30-Day Extension to File Class Cert. Bid Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAKEEM MEADE and MARSHALL
SOOKRAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ETOH MONITORING, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01455-CJB-DMD (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension for class
certification bid to August 20, 2021.
The Defendant's counsel consented to this extension by email on
June 22, 2021. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
currently due on or before July 21, 2021.
The Plaintiffs say that there is an ongoing discovery dispute
between the parties which pertains to the identification and
contacting of putative class members and other potential witnesses.
The resolution of that dispute may be relevant to the parties'
briefing on and the Court's resolution of the class certification
motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 24, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A467tp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Most, Esq.
Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq.
MOST & ASSOCIATES
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 114, #101
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
- and
William R. Maurer, Esq.
Jaba Tsitsuashvili, Esq.
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
600 University Street, Suite 1730
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 957-1300
E-mail: wmaurer@ij.org
jtsitsuashvili@ij.org
EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Settlement Class Gets Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVERGREEN
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERIES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00184-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
motions to certify the class, finally approving the settlement, and
awarding attorney fees.
The certified class for settlement purposes is defined as:
"All natural persons residing in the United States whose
consumer report as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1681a(d) was
obtained by Evergreen, from TransUnion LLC, for the purpose of
collecting a debt arising out of any driving ticket violation in
the United States. The class excludes all persons who have filed
for bankruptcy. The relevant class period 1s March 23, 2018 to
present."
Mr. Rodriguez and the class are represented by two attorneys, who
charge $475 per hour and $400 per hour. To determine whether those
rates are reasonable, the Court must look to the prevailing rates
for attorneys of similar reputation and ability in the community in
which the Court sits. Ordinarily the party requesting fees must
demonstrate the prevailing rate, but the Court may also rely on
"its own familiarity with the legal market". Based on those
factors, the Court concludes that Mr. Rodriguez's attorneys' rates
are reasonable. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. AllianceOne Receivables,
Inc., Case No. C15-1224-RAJ (W.D. Wash.) (approving rates of $450
per hour and $350 per hour for Plaintiff's attorneys when they were
less experienced).
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xXusiB at no extra charge.[CC]
FACEBOOK INC: Court Junks Dotstrategy Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOTSTRATEGY, CO., v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00170-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William alsup entered an order that the remainder of
Facebook's arguments against certification need not be considered,
thus class certification must be denied.
The Court said, "The Plaintiff does not meaningfully dispute the
above but, perhaps sensing doom, tries to shift our focus from the
invalid clicks statement to Facebook's authenticity policy because
while class members likely did not see the former, they certainly
saw the latter. however, the authenticity policy is not the
representation at issue."
The Plaintiff alleges the defendant represented it would not charge
plaintiff when defendant determined that a fake account clicked on
plaintiff's advertisements, but defendant has failed to refund it
even after defendant removed an account from its platform because
it was fake. Plaintiff now seeks to represent a class of similarly
aggrieved advertisers. Because plaintiff fails to establish a
presumption that class members were exposed to the allegedly
misleading statements, the motion for class certification must be
denied.
The Plaintiff dotStrategy, a for-profit corporation headquartered
in Conway, Arkansas, operated the generic top-level domain registry
for the "buzz" domain name.
Facebook is an American multinational conglomerate based in Menlo
Park, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gWWd5d at no extra charge.[CC]
FEDEX CORP: Submission of Class Cert Stipulation Extended to July 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERMAN OVERPECK; SHANNON
SOBASZKIEWICZ and KEVIN STERLING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and as a proxy of the state of
California on behalf of aggrieved employees, v. FEDEX CORPORATION
and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-07553-PJH
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order
that the Parties' deadline to submit a stipulation to the Court or
brief statement of any disagreements regarding page limits for
Plaintiffs' reply briefing in support of their motion for class
certification and whether Plaintiffs will file a consolidated or
partially consolidated reply to FedEx Ground's and FedEx Corp.'s
opposition briefs is continued from June 21, 2021 to July 6, 2021.
FedEx is an American multinational delivery services company
headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UCLi85 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
Deanna Maxfield, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JEREMY PASTERNAK
354 Pine Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 376-1710
Facsimile: (415) 693-0393
E-mail :jdp@pasternaklaw.com
dm@pasternaklaw.com
- and -
Joshua Konecky, Esq.
Nathan Piller, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
npiller@schneiderwallace.com
Attorneys for the Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,
are:
Brandy T. Cody, Esq.
Sean F. Daley, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main St., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone (949) 851-2424
Facsimile (949) 851-0152
E-mail: bcody@fisherphillips.com
sdaley@fisherphillips.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant FedEx Corporation, are:
Barak J. Babcock, Esq.
Stephanie A. Stroup, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
3620 Hacks Cross Road, Building B -- 3rd Floor
Memphis, TN 38125
Telephone: (901) 434-8523
Facsimile: (901) 492-9930
E-mail: barak.babcock@fedex.com
sastroup@fedex.com
FEDEX GROUND: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Hearing on July 16 Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE HINDS, an
individual, and TYRONE POWELL, an individual, on behalf of
themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and BAY RIM SERVICES, INC., a California corporation,
Case No. 4:18-cv-01431-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties jointly
stipulate to and respectfully request that the Court enter an order
continuing the hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification from July 2, 2021 to July 16, 2021.
Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A3ep4M
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Lilach Halperin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
mike@consumeradvocates.com
lilach@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
J. Jason Hill, Esq.
COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
605 C Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 595-3001
Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
ikhoury@ckslaw.com
jhill@ckslaw.com
- and -
Joseph Clapp, Esq.
AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: (510) 590-7115
Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
E-mail: jc@asmlawyers.com
The Counsel for FedEx Ground Package System, are:
Brandy Thompson Cody, Esq.
Sean F. Daley, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
E-mail bcody@fisherphillips.com
The Counsel for Bay Rim Services, Inc., are:
Craig B. Rashkis, Esq.
Stephen A. Horner, Esq.
FARWELL RASHKIS, LLP
223 West Main Street, Suite B
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Telephone: (408) 399-0505
Facsimile: (408) 399-4321
E-mail: steve@farwellrashkis.com
FIELDWORKS LLC: Mathews Loses Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MATHEWS v.
FIELDWORKS, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-06057-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification of:
"All employees or prospective employees of Defendant that
suffered an adverse employment action on or after February 21,
2018, that was based, in whole or in part, on information
contained in a Consumer Report, and who were not provided a copy
of the Consumer Report by the Defendant in advance of the
adverse action."
The Court says, "The Defendant cites Martinez v. Triple S
Properties, Case No. 17-cv-03195 RK, 2019 WL 1646405 (W.D. Mo.,
April 16, 2019), in which this Court considered a proposed class
consisting of people who were denied leases based on consumer
credit reports but did not receive the proper adverse action notice
from the defendant landlord. Here, the Court similarly finds that
individual questions overwhelm common questions. Although the
question of whether Defendant's adverse action policy violates the
FCRA and such violation was willful will be resolved by common
evidence, including Defendant's forms and procedures, individual
evaluations of damages will be required to assess statutory damages
because section 1681n(a)(1)(A) of the FCRA does not set a fixed
statutory penalty amount. Further, the evaluation of predominance
in this case is analogous with that in Martinez, in which the prima
facie showing of liability depended on an individualized showing of
whether the leasing decision as to each class member was based in
whole or in part on a consumer report or entirely on some other
source, such as a lease application or public record. The same will
be true of Plaintiff’s proposed class. Demonstrating prima facie
liability here depends on an individualized showing whether the
basis of the adverse action as to each class member was the
consumer report or another source."
The Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendant employer. The
Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to give Plaintiff and those
similarly situated to him a copy of their consumer report before it
took adverse action against them based on those consumer reports in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Specifically, the Plaintiff claims Defendant used a Consumer
Report, as defined by the FCRA, to take adverse employment action
against Plaintiff and other members of the putative adverse action
class. The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the FCRA by failing
to provide Plaintiff and other adverse action class members with
(1) a copy of the Consumer Report that was used to take adverse
employment action against them prior to the adverse action and (2)
a reasonable time to review, dispute, contest, address, and/or
otherwise challenge any information or inaccuracies within the
Consumer Reports prior to the adverse action.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2U8bWpi at no extra charge.[CC]
FIRST FINANCIAL: Class Certification Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jackson, v. First
Financial Investment Fund V, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00078 (D.
Utah), the Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Romero entered an order granting
motion for extension of time to answer and extending class
certification deadline.
The Defendants have up to and including July 26, 2021 to file a
response to Plaintiffs Complaint and the parties new deadline for
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is extended to October 1,
2021, says Judge Romero on June 23, 2021.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.[CC]
FIRST FINANCIAL: Oct. 1 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Filing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA JACKSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC AND GURSTEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
Case No. 1:21-cv-00078-CMR (D. Utah), the Parties stipulate and ask
the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Defendants
to file a response to Plaintiffs' Complaint, up to and including
July 26, 2021.
The parties agree to a proportional extension to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification deadline, which is currently set for 90
days from the date of service of Defendants. The parties propose
the new deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be
October 1, 2021.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hbR4oG at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David McGlothlin, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2633 E Indian School Road, Suite 460
Phoenix, AZ 85016
E-mail: david@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
- and -
Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
MORRISON LAW GROUP
290 25 th St., Suite 102
Ogden, UT 84401
E-mail: therondmorrison@gmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Abigail M. Dizon-Maughan, Esq.
Stephen H. Turner, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
6550 South Millrock Drive, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
Telephone: (801) 562-5555
Facsimile: (801) 562-5510
E-mail: Abby.Dizon-Maughan@lewisbrisbois.com
Stephen.Turner@lewisbrisbois.co
FIRST INFLUENCE: Padilla Sues Over Unlawful Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Choi Padilla, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
those aggrieved individuals who are similarly situated v. FIRST
INFLUENCE, INC., a California corporation, JUNG YUN CHOI, an
individual; JULIANHI CHOI, an individual; ANDREW MORIN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. 21STCV21848
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, Cty. June 10, 2021), arises from the
Defendants' unlawful misclassification of the Plaintiff as an
independent contractor and the Defendants' failure to provide
Plaintiff the agreed-upon equity Plaintiff vested in the company.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants unlawfully characterized
Plaintiff as an independent contractor, avoiding the payment of
overtime, payroll taxes, workers' compensation insurance,
unemployment insurance benefits, and other business expenses,
thereby increasing the company's profits, at Plaintiff's expense.
Further, on multiple occasions during the working relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants officers promised
Plaintiff 10% equity in FIRST INFLUENCE, but never delivered on
said promises. Instead, Defendants unlawfully attempted to buy
Plaintiff out of her equity for one dollar.
The Plaintiff performed work for Defendants as a purported
"consultant" misclassified as an independent contractor.
FIRST INFLUENCE is social media marketing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul J. Denis, Esq.
Ethan E. Rasi, Esq.
DENIS & RASI, PC
38 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (714) 242-4557;
Facsimile: (213) 443-9601
Email: pdenis@denisrasilaw.com
erasi@denisrasilaw.com
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Dalrymple Files FDCPA Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Jeffrey Dalrymple, William
Smiling, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00279-RJC-DCK
(W.D.N.C., June 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
FirstSource Advantage -- http://www.firstsourceadvantage.com/-- is
a large debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over F-350 Super Duty Trucks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carcomplaints.com reports that a Ford F-350 class action lawsuit
alleges model year 2020 trucks were sold with incorrect tire and
payload labels which makes the trucks less valuable than they
should be.
According to the Ford F-350 class action lawsuit, the complaint
includes:
"All individuals in the United States who, prior to March 2021,
purchased or leased any 2020 Ford F-Super Duty: F350 configured
with the 6.7L Diesel Engine, Single Rear Wheels (SRW), 4x4, Crew
Cab, Long Box, and either the 12k or 12.4k Gross Vehicle Weight
Ratings (GVWR)."
In February 2021, Ford announced a recall of nearly 10,000 model
year 2020 F-350 trucks with overstated payload capacity ratings on
the tire and loading information labels, overstated accessory
reserve capacity values on the safety certification labels and
overstated weight info on the truck camper loading documents.
Ford said a driver could experience increased stopping distances if
the suspensions were overloaded. Additionally, the automaker said
in February it was unaware of any injuries or crashes caused by the
incorrect labels.
The class action alleges Ford told F-350 owners that no repairs or
refunds would be offered other than through Ford's standard
warranties.
Ford dealerships were told to replace the incorrect labels and
documents.
According to plaintiff David M. Rathmann, the tire and loading
information label said the payload capacity was 4,576 pounds when
he purchased the F-350. But once he was notified about the label
recall, the plaintiff learned the correct payload capacity was
4,237 pounds.
The Ford F-350 class action lawsuit also alleges the plaintiff's
truck was equipped with a safety certification label that
incorrectly said the front axle accessory reserve capacity was 926
pounds, and the total accessory reserve capacity was 1,141 pounds.
However, in May 2021 the plaintiff received a replacement label as
part of the F-350 recall. The class action lawsuit says the front
axle accessory reserve capacity was in fact 834 pounds, and the
total accessory reserve capacity was 803 pounds.
Ford also provided the plaintiff with a new truck camper loading
document that said the cargo weight rating was 3,305 pounds.
The plaintiff says Ford didn't tell him the payload and weight load
capabilities were wrong when he purchased the truck, and none of
the nearly 10,000 F-350 truck owners would have purchased the
vehicles if Ford would have told them the ratings were incorrect.
The Ford F-350 class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division: David M.
Rathmann, vs. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiff is represented by Nix Patterson, LLP, Paranjpe
Mahadass Ruemke LLP, and Daniels & Tredennick PLLC. [GN]
FRANKFORD CANDY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frankford Candy LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Frankford Candy LLC,
Frankford Candy & Chocolate Co. Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05513
(S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Frankford Candy & Chocolate Company --
https://www.frankfordcandy.com/ -- is an American candy
manufacturer, located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, founded in
1947 by Sam Himmelstein.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
FUNDING FAMILY: Knights Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Funding Family
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Ben Knights, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Funding Family LLC,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:21-cv-05085 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Funding Family -- https://thefundingfamily.com/ -- offers a
variety of different sources of commercial funding for small
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Phone: (323) 306-4234
Fax: (866) 633-0228
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
GEISINGER HEALTH: Extension of Time to File Class Cert. Bid OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GEISINGER HEALTH AND EVANGELICAL
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL HEALTHCARE WORKERS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case
No. 4:21-cv-00196-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew W. Brann
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' Uncontested Motion to
Extend Time to Move for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xVhCS4 at no extra charge.[CC]
GENERAL MOTORS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due August 19, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: DURAMAX DIESEL LITIGATION, Case No.
1:17-cv-11661-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Thomas L.
Ludington entered an amended case management and scheduling order:
Deadline for Completing Fact Witness September 30, 2021
Depositions
Plaintiffs' Expert Disclosures October 28, 2021
Depositions of Plaintiffs' Nov. 1-Dec. 23, 2021
Experts
Defendants' Expert Disclosures February 4, 2022
Depositions of Defendants' Experts Feb. 7-April 4, 2022
Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert April 18, 2022
Disclosures (if appropriate)
Depositions of rebuttal experts, if April 21-May 26, 2022
any, limited to rebuttal reports and
materials produced therewith
Defendants' Sur-rebuttal Expert June 9, 2022
Disclosures (if appropriate)
Depositions of sur-rebuttal experts, June 14-July 15, 2022
if any, limited to sur-rebuttal
reports and materials produced
therewith
Summary Judgment Motions August 19, 2022
Plaintiffs' Class Certification August 19, 2022
Motion
Parties' Daubert Motions August 19, 2022
Oppositions to Summary Judgment October 28, 2022
Motions
Defendants' Oppositions to Class
Certification Motion
Oppositions to Daubert Motions
Summary Judgment Reply Briefs December 16, 2022
Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Reply Brief
Daubert Reply Briefs
A copy of the Court's order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vZeYJF at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Class Plaintiffs, are:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Garth D. Wojtanowicz, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
garthw@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
ssa@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (212) 584-0700
E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
The Counsel for Anderton Plaintiffs, are:
Eric D. Pearson, Esq.
Charles W. Miller, Esq.
HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON
6363 N. State Hwy 161, Suite 450
Irving, TX 75038
Telephone: (214) 237-9001
E-mail: eric@hop-law.com
charles@hop-law.com
- and -
Richard C. Sheppard, Esq.
Charles T. Hewitt, Esq.
SMITH AND BROOKER, P.C.
703 Washington Ave.
Bay City, MI 48708-5732
Telephone: (989) 892-2595
E-mail: rcs@smithbrooker.com
cth@smithbrooker.com
The Counsel for Defendant General Motors LLC, are:
Renee D. Smith, Esq.
Leslie M. Smith, Esq.
Katherine W. Warner, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862 2310
E-mail: renee.smith@kirkland.com
leslie.smith@kirkland.com
kate.warner@kirkland.com
- and -
Michael P. Cooney, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
400 Renaissance Center
Detroit, MI 48243
Telephone: 313-568-6955
E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com
Counsel for Defendants Robert Bosch LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH,
are:
Abena A. Mainoo, Esq.
Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Esq.
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
Matthew D. Slater, Esq.
One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 225-2000
E-mail: amainoo@cgsh.com
cboccuzzi@cgsh.com
mslater@cgsh.com
- and -
William R. Jansen, Esq.
Jonathan E. Lauderbach, Esq.
Michael G. Brady, Esq.
WARNER N ORCROSS & J UDD LLP
2000 Town Center, Suite 2700
Southfield, MI 48075
Telephone: (248) 784-5022
E-mail: wjansen@wnj.com
jlauderbach@wnj.com
mbrady@wnj.com
GEO GROUP: Mistrial Declared in $1-A-Day Detainee Pay Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kelly, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in
Washington has declared a mistrial in a challenge to GEO Group
Inc's practice of paying immigrant detainees who participate in a
work program $1 a day, after a jury deadlocked during three days of
deliberations.
U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan in Tacoma on Thursday granted
GEO's motion for a mistrial over the objections of the Washington
Attorney General's office and a group of detainees.
GEO in its motion said the nine-person jury had been unable to come
to a unanimous verdict on the company's claim that it was entitled
to governmental immunity because it operated a detention center in
Tacoma under a government contract.
The AG and the private plaintiffs in response said the jury may
still be able to render a verdict on liability without deciding
whether GEO was immune from the claims.
The three-week trial was conducted via Zoom, and marked the first
time a federal court has held a virtual trial in a class-action
case, according to court filings.
Jamal Whitehead of Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, the lead lawyer for
the detainees, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. Nor did GEO and its lead lawyer, Joan Mell of III Branches
Law Firm.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in a statement said the
mistrial "allows us to re-try the claim again in front of a new
jury."
GEO had pushed for an in-person trial. The company said virtual
proceedings were inappropriate because the case involves thousands
of detainees and hundreds of exhibits, and was too complex to be
heard by a remote jury that could become distracted or have
technical issues.
Florida-based GEO said that with COVID-19 vaccines being
distributed across the country, an in-person trial could
potentially take place in 2021.
In the class-action lawsuit, a group of detainees at the 1,575-bed
facility said the company paid them $1 per day to clean, do
laundry, wash dishes and staff a barber shop and library.
Regulations adopted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in
2011 require private detention center operators to pay detainees at
least $1 per day for their labor.
But the plaintiffs claimed GEO was using them as cheap labor
instead of hiring workers to do the jobs. They said detainees who
performed work were GEO's employees under state law because they
were "engaged, suffered, or permitted to work," and were entitled
to earn the minimum wage of $12 per hour.
The case was consolidated with a separate 2017 lawsuit by the state
AG's office also claiming GEO was required to pay detainees the
state minimum wage.
Washington's minimum wage law does not apply to state jails, but
the AG and the private plaintiffs claim that GEO is not exempt
because it is a private company holding people facing civil, not
criminal, charges.
The cases are Washington v. GEO Group Inc and Nwauzor v. GEO Group
Inc, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Nos. 3:17-cv-05806, and 3:17-cv-05769.
For the private plaintiffs: Jamal Whitehead of Schroeter Goldmark &
Bender
For the state: Marsha Chien and Andrea Brenneke of the Washington
attorney general's office
For GEO: Joan Mell of III Branches Law Firm Daniel Wiessner [GN]
GREENFIELD WORLD: Naseri Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Omid Naseri, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Greenfield World Trade, Inc. doing
business as: The Legacy Companies, Case No.
30-02021-01196179-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior Court
State of CA County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01084-CJC-KES to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Greenfield World Trade -- http://www.greenfieldworld.com/-- has
been servicing the foodservice industry for over 20 years.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: ak@kazlg.com
- and -
Adib Hashemi Assassi, Esq.
BLACK OAK LAW FIRM
1100 West Town And Country Road, Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Phone: (800) 500-0101
Fax: (800) 500-0301
Email: adib@blackoaklaw.com
- and -
Jason A Ibey, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
321 North Mall Drive Suite R108
St George, UT 84790
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: jason@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel T. Rockey, Esq.
Adam Andrew Vukovic, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4070
Phone: (415) 675-3400
Fax: (415) 675-3434
Email: Daniel.Rockey@bclplaw.com
adam.vukovic@bclplaw.com
GREENWICH ST: Online Store Inaccessible by Blind Users, Roman Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ROMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GREENWICH ST JEWELERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-05479-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.greenwichjewelers.com/, allegedly contains access
barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the
benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the
general public through the website. These access barriers include,
but not limited to: (a) lack of alternative text (alt-text), (b)
empty links, (c) redundant links, and (d) linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Greenwich St Jewelers, LLC is an operator of an online jewelry
store doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Ward Files Bid for Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WARD, Individually
and For Others Similarly Situated v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a
BARTECH GROUP, INC. and CORPORATE EMPLOYMENT RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a
BARTECH STAFFING, Case No. 2:20-cv-10283-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Motion for
conditional certification and authorizing him to send notice to the
Straight Time Employees described as:
"All current and former Bartech employees who were paid
straight
time for overtime at any time during the past 3 years"
Discovery confirms Bartech subjected 363 Straight Time Employees to
its illegal straight time for overtime pay practice that violates
the FLSA.(Bartech's records identifying the Straight Time Employees
who are paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked). In that
discovery, Bartech admitted the Straight Time Employees are
similarly situated and that it maintains a common straight time for
overtime policy that uniformly applied these workers. Accordingly,
the Court should conditionally certify the putative class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 23,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h53Khg
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
litkin@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
25892 Woodward Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
Telephone: (248) 542-6300
E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com
HAIN CELESTIAL: Boulware Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Content
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIKEITA BOULWARE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-03511-EK-ST (E.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby food
products under the brand name Earth's Best Organics. The Defendant
advertised and labeled its products as organic, safe and healthy
for children. However, contrary to the Defendant's marketing
statements, the products contain harmful heavy metal contaminants
including inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a
result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiff and the Class lost money and suffered damages, the suit
alleges.
Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products,
with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
John M. Bradham, Esq.
MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 695-8050
E-mail: pkatzman@msbllp.com
jbradham@msbllp.com
- and –
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
Jarrett W. Withrow, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
E-mail: eric@akimlawfirm.com
roy@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
jarrett@akimlawfirm.com
HARVARD FORD: Finney Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Harvard Ford, LLC.
The case is styled as Heather Finney, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Harvard Ford, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-03130 (N.D. Ill., June 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Harvard Ford -- https://www.harvardfordofharvard.com/ -- in Harvard
is a full service dealership for a variety of new & used cars cars,
parts, service, and financing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Ignacio Javier Hiraldo
IJH LAW
1200 Brickell Ave Suite 1950
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (786) 496-4469
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Covarrubias Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MANUEL COVARRUBIAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION
CO., HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE CONSTRUCTION GROUP, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV15486, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June
21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05037 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide minimum wages, failure to provide
overtime wages, failure to pay wages at the time of termination,
failure to pay timely wages, and unlawful and unfair business
practices.
Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Co. is a construction company based
in San Francisco, California.
Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Group is a construction company
based in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ronald W. Novotny, Esq.
Jon M. Setoguchi, Esq.
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A Professional Law Corporation
12800 Center Court Drive South, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703-9364
Telephone: (562) 653-3200
Facsimile: (562) 653-3333
E-mail: RNovotny@aalrr.com
JSetoguchi@aalrr.com
HEADSET ADVISOR: Maxey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Headset Advisor, et
al. The case is styled as Sarah Maxey, on her own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Headset Advisor, Does
1-25, Case No. 34-2021-00302280-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 10, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Civil - Unlimited."
Headset Advisor -- https://headsetadvisor.com/ -- offers the best
office headsets that improve employee's efficiency & allows for
all-day comfort.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
WHITEHEAD EMPLOYMENT LAW
7700 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 930
Irvine, CA 92618-3051
Phone: 949-674-4922
Email: jacob@jnwpc.com
HEALTH AID: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Beckham Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DESHAWN BECKHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH AID OF OHIO, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CV 21 949165 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl., June 23, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, invasion of privacy,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols to
protect the private health and personally identifiable information
(PHI/PII) of its customers, including the Plaintiff, following a
data breach on its systems. Allegedly, the Defendant disregarded
the rights of the Plaintiff and putative Class members by
recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure its data systems were protected; failing to
disclose to its customers the material fact that it did not have
adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard their
PII/PHI; failing to take available steps to prevent the data
breach; and failing to provide the Plaintiff and Class members
prompt and accurate notice of the data breach.
As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members face a substantial
increased risk of identity theft and they have had to and will
continue to spend significant time and money to protect themselves,
says the suit.
Health Aid of Ohio, Inc. is a full-service provider of home medical
equipment headquartered in Parma, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
Cincinnati, OH 45209
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
zschaengold@msdlegal.com
- and –
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, LLC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
HENDERSON, NE: July 26 Extension to Class Cert. Response OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY WOODBURN, THOMAS
WOODBURN, JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF HENDERSON; DOES I through V,
inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I through V, inclusive, Case No.
2:19-cv-01488-JAD-VCF (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Cam Ferenbach
entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation for an extension
of time for Plaintiffs to file their reply to Defendant's Response
to Plaintiff's Motion for Collective Action up to and including
July 26, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 24, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A288WV at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean K. Claggett, Esq.
Joseph N. Mott, Esq.
4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NE 89107
Telephone: (702) 655-2346
Facsimile: (702) 655-3763
E-mail: sclaggett@claggettlaw.com
joey@claggettlaw.com
The City of Henderson is represented by:
Ethan Thomas, Esq.
Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
Las Vegas, NE
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Henkel Wins Rule 23 Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHELSEA HENKEL, et al., on
behalf of : herself and others similarly situated, v. HIGHGATE
HOTELS, LP, et al., Case No. (), the Hon. Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
says in a memorandum that the Plaintiff's motions for class
certification under Rule 23 for both servers and housekeepers will
be granted, but the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification under the FLSA will be denied.
The court finds that denial of conditional certification is
warranted in this case in light of the significant differences
presented by the relatively small sample of the potential
collective members under current consideration. The court would
need to conduct individualized inquiries with respect to each
putative collective and within subparts of each collective—a task
ill-suited for singular collective resolution as proposed in this
case. Therefore, on these additional grounds, the court will deny
Henkel's motion for conditional certification.
Henkel initiated this action via a collective and class action
complaint on July 23, 2015, against the Defendants. Henkel amended
her complaint as of right on October 2, 2015, and Defendants
responded by filing a motion to dismiss. Once ripe, the court
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on November 20, 2016, and
permitted Henkel to file an amended complaint. Shortly after Henkel
filed a second amended complaint, the parties stipulated to permit
Henkel to file a third amended complaint. Henkel filed her third
amended complaint on October 24, 2016.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated June 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xWHYTA at no extra
charge.[CC]
HIRA ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Ventura Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE VENTURA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HIRA ASSOCIATES NEW YORK LLC d/b/a The Bagel
Wagon, NEELKUMAR PATEL and AEJAL PATEL, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03478 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint alleging the Defendants of violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or about 2011
to in or about January 24, 2021 to perform non-exempt duties,
including preparing food, cooking, washing dishes and cleaning the
premises.
The Plaintiff asserts that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he regularly worked more than40 hours in a workweek.
However, the Defendant deprived him of his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him an additional
"spread of hours" premium for each workday that was longer than10
hours from its start to its finish including break. In addition,
the Defendants willfully failed to maintain accurate records of the
hours worked by and wages paid to the Plaintiff and the Collective
Action Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide them
with an accurate wage statement with every payment of wages and
with written notice upon hire, and failed to post notices
explaining wage and hour requirements in conspicuous places
required by the FLSA and NYLL, the Plaintiff asserts.
Hira Associates New York LLC d/b/a The Bagel Wagon operates a
restaurant and retail bakery business owned by the Individual
Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
HOME DEPOT: Reynosa Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Salvador Reynosa, Jr., Natalie Heredia, Alberto
Muniz, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a
Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-00640 was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 22,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01096-WBS-KJN to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.
The Home Depot, Inc., commonly known as Home Depot --
https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is the largest home improvement
retailer in the United States, supplying tools, construction
products, and services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
Andrew Gavin Ronan, Esq.
Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
Christine T. LeVu, Esq.
Jeffrey S. Herman, Esq.
Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
Nicholas J De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG, & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037
Fax: (858) 551-1232
Phone: (858) 551-1223
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
andrew@bamlawca.com
aj@bamlawca.com
christine@bamlawca.com
jeffrey@bamlawca.com
kyle@bamlawca.com
nick@bamlawca.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
Alexander L. Grodan, Esq.
David James Rashe, Esq.
Mayra Negrete, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (714) 830-0600
Fax: (714) 830-0700
Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
alexander.grodan@morganlewis.com
david.rashe@morganlewis.com
mayra.negrete@morganlewis.com
HONEST COMPANY: Navar Putative Class Suit Settled
-------------------------------------------------
The Honest Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the putative class
action suit initiated by Rosaura Navar has been settled.
On January 28, 2021, Rosaura Navar filed a putative class action
compliant (Rosaura Navar, et al. v. The Honest Company, Inc., Los
Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV03381) alleging that
the Company violated California's Unfair Competition Law by failing
to comply with California's Automatic Renewal Law.
The complaint demands restitution, injunctive and declaratory
relief. This matter was settled in April 2021 for an immaterial
amount.
The loss on settlement was recorded in accrued expenses in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets as of March 31,
2021.
The Honest Company, Inc. is a digitally-native, mission-driven
brand focused on leading the clean lifestyle movement, creating a
community for conscious consumers and seeking to disrupt multiple
consumer product categories. The company is based in Los Angeles,
California.
INCGSGI INC: Conditional Certification of Collective Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE VELA, on his own
behalf and On behalf of those similarly situated, v. INCGSGI, INC.,
a Florida Profit Corporation, and DANIEL K. COSTOULAS,
Individually, Case No. 2:21-cv-00059-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order approving conditional
certification and court-authorized notice under Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for a stay of
the proceedings.
The collective action shall consist of the following individuals to
be conditionally certified and receive notice of this lawsuit
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b):
"All individuals who worked for INCGSGI, Inc. as a Security
Guard at any time and who did not receive overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week from [three
years prior to the Court's order granting certification] to the
present."
On January 22, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On
March 26, 2021, Defendants filed their Answer and Affirmative
Defenses. The Parties, through their respective counsel, have
conferred in good faith regarding the issue of conditional
certification under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vWijZK at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Orlando, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
E-Mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael G. Fink, Esq.
MIKE FINK LAW FIRM, P.A.
1500 Royal Palm Sq. Blvd., Unit 101
Fort Myers, FL 33919
Telephone: (239) 939-1906
E-mail: Mfink@mikefinklaw.net
INDEPENDENT MEDIA: Karabas Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRIS KARABAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INDEPENDENT MEDIA, INC.; SUSANNE
PREISSLER; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21SMCV01078,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05090 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act including breach of
written employment agreement, breach of sales agreement,
misclassification as independent contractor, inaccurate wage
statements, failure to provide wages when due, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely provide employee records,
failure to provide paid sick leave, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,
hostile work environment, retaliation, and unfair business
practices.
Independent Media, Inc. is a video production service company in
Los Angeles, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patricia L. Glaser, Esq.
Kerry Garvis Wright, Esq.
Jillian P. Harris, Esq.
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3000
Facsimile: (310) 556-2920
E-mail: pglaser@glaserweil.com
kgarviswright@glaserweil.com
jharris@glaserweil.com
INDIE SEMICONDUCTOR: Tomczak Suit vs Thunder Bridge Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indie Semiconductor, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 16, 2021, that on
May 11, 2021, the putative class action complaint in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, captioned Tomczak v. Thunder Bridge
Acquisition II, et al. (Case No. 650808/2021) was voluntarily
discontinued.
indie Semiconductor, Inc. operates as an auto-tech company. The
Company offers automotive semiconductors and software platforms.
Indie Semiconductor serves customers worldwide. The company is
based in Aliso Viejo, California.
INDUS COMPANIES: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Bid Reply to July 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rodney Nelson, v. Indus
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00982-JLG-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Defendants asks the Court for an order granting
additional 10 days to file a memorandum in opposition to
Plaintiff's Request for conditional certification.
The Plaintiff has consented to the extension. This request is not
made to cause undue delay, but rather to afford counsel adequate
time to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Additional time is necessary
due to a Trial and Preliminary Injunction in the preceding week.
This motion would cause Defendants' Memorandum in Opposition to be
due on July 2, 2021, the Defendants say.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 23, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jiuTQH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorney for Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated,
are:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com
- and -
The Attorneys for Defendants, Riverview Hotel, LLC and Indus
Companies, Inc., are:
Thomas N. Spyker, Esq.
Patrick Kasson, Esq.
REMINGER CO., L.P.A.
200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 228-1311
Facsimile: (614) 232-2410
E-mail: pkasson@reminger.com
tspyker@reminger.com
INVENTURE FOODS:Hiltz Sues Over Mislabeled Onion Snacks Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL HILTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INVENTURE FOODS, INC., Case No.
1:21-cv-03140 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2021) alleges that the Defendant
mislabeled its "OnionRings Snacks" under the TGI Fridays brand
("Product").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that by labeling the Product
as "Onion Snacks," consumers will get the false impression the
Product contains onions as an ingredient in an appreciable, non de
minimis amount. Instead, the Product is fried corn meal with added
onion powder, a seasoning, the third most predominant ingredient.
Had the Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, no less than $2.19 per bag, higher than it would
otherwise be sold for, absent the misleading representations and
omissions.
Inventure Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets a variety of owned
or licensed branded snack foods. The Company also offers private
label potato chips. [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
J. M. SMUCKER: Folgers Coffee Packaging-Related Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The J. M. Smucker Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to
defend putative class action suits related to the packaging of
Folgers coffee.
The company is a defendant in nine pending putative class action
lawsuits filed in federal courts in California, Florida, Illinois,
Missouri, Texas, Washington, and Washington D.C. The plaintiffs in
those actions assert claims arising under various state laws for
false advertising, consumer protection, deceptive and unfair trade
practices, and similar statutes.
Their claims are premised on allegations that the company had
misrepresented the number of servings that can be made from various
canisters of Folgers coffee on the packaging for those products.
Five of the lawsuits have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.
J. M. Smucker said, "Similar claims have been asserted against
certain retailers of our Folgers coffee products, and indemnity
claims have been asserted by such retailers against us. Various
other potential plaintiffs have threatened to assert similar claims
against us."
The J. M. Smucker Company is a manufacturer and marketer of branded
food and beverage products and pet food and pet snacks in North
America. The Company's segments include U.S. Retail Coffee, U.S.
Retail Consumer Foods, U.S. Retail Pet Foods, and International and
Foodservice. The company was founded in 1897 and is headquartered
in Orrville, Ohio.
JMD EXCELSIOR: Mason Seeks Unpaid Wages for Medical Assistants
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MASON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JMD EXCELSIOR LLC DBA MT. VERNON HOUSE
ASSISTED LIVING, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00227-JRG (E.D. Tex.,
June 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Texas state law by
failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
medical assistants minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Ms. Mason worked for the Defendant as a medical attendant in Mt.
Vernon, Texas from approximately July 19, 2019 to January 27,
2021.
JMD Excelsior LLC, doing business as Mt. Vernon House Assisted
Living, is an assisted living facility operator in Mount Vernon,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
HOMMEL LAW FIRM
5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
Tyler, TX 75703
Telephone: (903) 596-7100
JP MORGAN: Class Status Bid Filing Deadline Extended to July 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, et al., v.
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan entered an order that
the time for the plaintiffs to submit a consolidated motion for
conditional class certification of a settlement class in connection
with plaintiffs' proposed settlements with Australia and New
Zealand Banking Group Ltd., Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Morgan
Stanley, and Morgan Stanley Australia Limited and for related
relief is extended to and including July 19, 2021.
JPMorgan is an American multinational investment bank and financial
services holding company headquartered in New York City. JPMorgan
Chase is incorporated in Delaware. As a "Bulge Bracket" bank, it is
a major provider of various investment banking and financial
services.
A copy of the Court's orde dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vZSNDc at no extra charge.[CC]
KATERRA INC: Marvin Sues Over WARN Act Violation
------------------------------------------------
Clifford Marvin, Todd Irving and Joseph Russomanno, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. KATERRA INC., Case
No. 21-03440 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., for S.D. Tex., June 10, 2021),
is brought on behalf of former employees who worked for Defendant
and who were terminated without cause as part of, or as the result
of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by Defendant beginning
on or about June 4, 2021, who were not provided 60 days advance
written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and its
state law counterparts, California Labor Code Section 1400 –
1408, and the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss
Notification Act, ("New Jersey WARN Act").
The Plaintiffs were terminated along with approximately 700 other
similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable
result of a mass layoffs or plant shutdowns ordered by the
Defendant. These terminations failed to give Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant at least 60 days'
advance notice of termination, as required by the WARN Acts. As a
consequence of the violation, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees of the Defendant seek their statutory remedies,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant at the Defendant's
facility.
The Defendant is a Building platform focused on the construction
and assembly of high-quality apartment buildings through the use of
modular building components that are assembled on site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter J. Cicack, Esq.
HAWASH CICACK & GASTON LLP
3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77019
Phone: (713) 658-9003
Facsimile: (713) 658-9015
Email: wcicack@hcgllp.com
- and -
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
Email: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
KENTUCKY DOC: VanHouten Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIFSEYVIND REINIER
VANHOUTEN, et al., v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Case No. 5:21-cv-00153-KKC (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Karen K.
Caldwell entered an order:
1. Plaintiff VanHouten's motion to appoint counsel is denied;
2. Plaintiff VanHouten's motion for class certification is
denied;
3. The Clerk of the Court shall send VanHouten a copy of the
Court's civil rights complaint form. Consistent with the
guidance set forth above, (a) VanHouten must file a new
complaint specific only to his own claims under the United
States Constitution and/or RLUIPA, or (b) the Plaintiffs may
join together in their claims if they do so properly under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
4. VanHouten and/or the rest of the co-Plaintiffs shall file
this amended complaint within 30 days; and
5. Any Plaintiff whose claims are not properly joined with
VanHouten's but who nevertheless wish to seek relief in
federal court may obtain his own complaint form from the
Clerk of the Court.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections is a state agency of the
Kentucky Justice & Public Safety Cabinet that operates state-owned
adult correctional facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Tb7i9F at no extra charge.[CC]
KIMPTON HOTEL: July 23 New Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAKE THOMAS, et al., v.
KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01860-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney granting the Parties
stipulation for new briefing and hearing schedule for the Motion
for class certification as follows:
-- July 23, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their Motion;
-- August 20, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Defendant to file its opposition to
the Motion;
-- September 9, 2021 Shall be the new deadline for
Plaintiffs to file their reply in
support of the Motion; and
-- October 1, 2021 Shall be the new hearing date for the
Motion, or such other time thereafter
at the Court's earliest convenience.
Kimpton Hotel is a San Francisco, California, based hotel and
restaurant brand owned by the Intercontinental Hotels Group.
Founded in 1981 by Bill Kimpton and led by Chief Executive Officer
Mike DeFrino, the group was the largest chain of boutique hotels in
the United States in 2011.
A copy of Parties' stipulation dated June 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gQCRin at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Proposed Class, are:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Robert J. Dart, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
E-mail: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group,
LLC, are:
Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD & SMITH, LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 250-1800
Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
E-mail: Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Michael K. Johnson, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGARD & SMITH, LLP
2185 North California Boulevard, Suite 300
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 478-3273
Facsimile: (925) 478-3260
Michael.Johnson@lewisbrisbois.com
KIND LLC: Faces Chong Suit Over Mislabeled Chocolate Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CHONG; and ZACK SCHWARTZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIND LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:21-cv-04528-KAW (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2021) seeks redress the
Defendant's deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its
products.
According to the complaint, the Defendant prominently labels its
products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving
depending on the product, such as "10g PROTEIN" on the label of its
Dark Chocolate Clusters. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that
each product will provide the actual amount of protein per serving
that the front of the product package claims it will.
In truth, however, the Defendant's products do not deliver the
amount of protein that the labels claim. Based on amino acid
content testing, the Defendant's products contain less protein than
claimed, meaning, for example, rather than having 10 grams of
protein per serving, Defendant's Dark Chocolate Clusters product
actually has only 8.4 gram, the suit says.
The Defendant's alleged misrepresentations and misbranding caused
the Plaintiffs and members of the class to pay a price premium for
the products.
Kind LLC was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business
includes the wholesale distribution of a general line of groceries.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. Mccrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 336-6545
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
LYONS & DOUGHTY: Saroza Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NESTOR SAROZA v. LYONS,
DOUGHTY & VELDHUIS, P.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-00523-RBK-AMD (D.N.J.),
the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order that
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class is denied as moot;
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted;
3. Defendant's Motion to Seal is granted; and
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot.
Lyons & Doughty operates as a law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qwMaqH at no extra charge.[CC]
MARCO DESTIN: Seeks July 8 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON RAMOS, v. MARCO
DESTIN INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00064-MCR-EM (N.D. Fla.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order extending up through and
including July 8, 2021 in which to file its response to Plaintiff's
Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and for any
further relief this Court deems proper.
On June 14, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its Motion to Conditionally
Certify Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice under 29
U.S.C/216(b)) and its Memorandum in Support of Motion to
Conditionally Certify Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). The Defendant's Response to the Motion is
due by June 28, 2021.
The Defendant requires additional time to obtain and review
relevant material and to consult with client regarding the issues
raised in Plaintiff's Motion. The Defendant respectfully requests
an additional 10-days from the current due date of June 28, 2021,
to file its response to Plaintiff's Motion. The requested brief
extension is not sought for delay or any improper purpose.
Marco Destin is located in Miami, Florida, and is part of the
lothing stores industry.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gQy7ZY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
JACKSON + JACKSON
1992 Lewis Turner Blvd. Suite 1023
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net
jjackson@jackson-law.net
The Defendant is represented by:
Marian Kennady, Esq.
HOFFMAN, LARIN & AGNETTI, P.A.
909 N. Miami Beach Blvd., Suite 201
Miami, FL 33162
Telephone: (305) 653-5555
E-mail: pleadings@hlalaw.com;
mkennady@hlalaw.com
MARKWEST ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ison Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN ISON; and CHRIS HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MARKWEST ENERGY PARTNERS,
LP, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00333 (S.D.W. Va., June 10, 2021)
is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as inspectors.
MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. provides natural gas services. The
Company engages in gathering, processing, transportation, storage,
and marketing of natural gas and crude oil. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
James S. Nelson, Esq.
POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC
405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-2889
Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
-and-
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
-and-
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MCDONALD'S USA: MLMLM, MAAKS Object to Ries Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNA RIES, KATLYN BARBER,
EMILY ANIBAL AND JOANNE BISHOP, v. McDONALD'S USA, LLC, McDONALD'S
CORPORATION, MLMLM CORP., and MAAKS, INC., Case No.
1:20-cv-00002-HYJ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Defendants MLMLM
Corporation and MAAKS, Inc. file their motion for determination
that class certification is not appropriate for this case.
This lawsuit alleges that all of the Defendants violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections
2000e, et seq., and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act,
Mich. Comp. Laws section 37.2101, et seq. Employment litigation
that challenges a particular employment practice, may be suited
for resolution by a class action if there is a single question that
can be resolved by the same, common, evidence.
This lawsuit, however, is based upon alleged harassment by a low
level former MLMLM employee named Shawn Banks. All the Plaintiffs
had different relationships and experiences with Mr. Banks.
Resolving the discrimination claims by each Plaintiff requires a
detailed review of the evidence particular to each of them.
McDonald's USA operates a chain of restaurants. The Company offers
products such as burgers, sandwiches, chicken, salads, shakes,
smoothies, coffee, and beverages. Maaks is part of the Fast-Food &
Quick-Service Restaurants Industry.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gUeujB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants MLMLM and MAAKS are represented by:
C. Thomas Ludden, Esq.
Jessica Lynn Wynn, Esq.
LIPSON NEILSON P.C.
3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Telephone: (248) 593-5000
E-mail: tludden@lipsonneilson.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Trust Fund Sues Over Opioid Crisis in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC., and MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED
STATES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01218-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 21,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust
enrichment and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations.
The case arises from the integral role of the Defendants in
creating and deepening the opioid crisis in Ohio. The Defendants
knew of the dangers of opioids, and of the misconduct of opioid
manufacturer Purdue Pharma, but nonetheless they advised Purdue and
implemented a strategy to increase the sales of OxyContin, a
brand-name opioid. The Plaintiffs bring this action to recover
damages from the Defendants and to eliminate the hazard to public
health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic, to abate the
nuisance caused thereby, and to recoup monies that has been spent,
or will be spent, because of the Defendants' alleged conduct in
fueling the epidemic.
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund is a
multi-employer trust fund established to provide health and welfare
benefits to collectively bargained members represented by Bakers'
Union Local No. 19 and Teamsters Local No. 507, with its principal
place of business located at 9665 Rockside Road, Valley View,
Ohio.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George H. Faulkner, Esq.
Joseph C. Hoffman, Jr., Esq.
Jonah D. Grabelsky, Esq.
FAULKNER, HOFFMAN & PHILLIPS, LLC
20445 Emerald Parkway Dr. Ste. 210
Cleveland, OH 44135
Telephone: (216) 781-3600
E-mail: faulkner@fhplaw.com
hoffman@fhplaw.com
grabelsky@fhplaw.com
- and –
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
MERCEDES BENZ: December 15 Deadline for Class Cert. Bid Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORY HAZDOVAC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC, and DOES MBUSA 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 3:20-cv-00377-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an initial case management scheduling order as follows:
Description of Event Deadline
Deadline for fact discovery November 16, 2021
Deadline for mediation December 1, 2021
Deadline for any motion for December 15, 2021
class certification, and for
disclosures and reports of
any experts Plaintiff intends
to rely on at class certification
Deadline for any opposition to March 14, 2022
a motion for class certification;
for Defendant's disclosures and
reports of any experts Defendant
intends to rely on at class
certification; and for any motion
by MBUSA to limit or exclude
Plaintiff's class certification
expert testimony based on Daubert
or any other basis
Deadline for Plaintiff's reply in May 12, 2022
support of a motion for class
certification; deadline for
Plaintiff to respond to MBUSA's
class certification expert
testimony based on Daubert or
any other basis
Hearing on motion for class June 24, 2022, or on a
certification date convenient to the
Court
Mercedes-Benz is the distributor for passenger cars of Daimler AG
in the United States located in Sandy Springs, Georgia, USA. It is
a subsidiary of Daimler AG and today sells cars from the
Mercedes-Benz brand.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qszL77 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 432-8492
E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
abasser@pomlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Troy M. Yoshino, Esq.
Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
Jenny L. Grantz, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 954 0200
Facsimile: (415) 393 9887
E-mail: troy.yoshino@squirepb.com
eric.knapp@squirepb.com
jenny.grantz@squirepb.com
MERRICK GARLAND: Class Cert. Bid Reply Extended to July 13
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES E. MURPHY v. MERRICK
B. GARLAND, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00070-JEJ-KM (M.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Karoline Mehalchick entered an order granting the
Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time.
THe Defendants may respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class
and Motions to Appoint Counsel by no later than July 13, 2021.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35Tza53 at no extra charge.[CC]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Lefkowtiz Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Itty Lefkowtiz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:21-cv-12914 (D.N.J., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Weiss Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Mandel Weiss,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:21-cv-05516 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/
-- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions
for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MIKE BROWN: Court Junks Thompson Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR V. THOMPSON v. MIKE
BROWN et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00106-JTN-MV (W.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Janet T. Neff entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
request for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gZE5rE at no extra charge.[CC]
MITCHELL RESTAURANT: Semreen Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages & Tips
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAKAN SEMREEN, Plaintiff v. MITCHELL RESTAURANT DELI,
INC., MOKTHAR M ISSAH and MICHAEL ISSAH, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03473 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2021) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
in June 2016 until April 2020.
The Plaintiff claims that at the beginning of his employment with
the Defendants during which he was assigned to train under another
server, he worked two shifts of about 5-8 hours each. However, he
was not paid any compensation for these two shifts. Thereafter and
continuing until the end of his employment, the Plaintiff generally
worked 10 hours per day and/or more than 40 hours per week, but he
was only paid a base wage of $50 per week.
According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff his lawfully earned wages for each hour
of employment, as well as his lawfully earned overtime compensation
and "spread of hours" premiums. Moreover, the Defendant failed to
maintain accurate and sufficient time and pay records; failed to
provide the Plaintiff with an accurate wage statement with every
payment of wages; failed to provide a written notice that they
intended to take any tip credit; and failed to display, in a place
accessible to employees and in a visually conspicuous manner, the
notices of employee rights to receive the minimum wage and overtime
pay and a copy of New York Labor Law Section 193 regarding the
prohibition on illegal deductions from wages. Additionally, the
Defendants unlawfully retained a share of the tips collected by the
Plaintiff by requiring him to turn over to ownership a percentage
of tips collected from tables he served, the suit added.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective and class
action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
persons to recover all unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
compensation and an additional and equal amount as liquidated
damages from the Defendants. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, and other
relief as the Court shall deem just and proper.
Mitchell Restaurant Deli, Inc. operates a restaurant under the
trade name Piquant Restaurant. Defendants Mokthar M Issa and
Michael Issa are the co-owners, shareholders, directors,
supervisors, managing agents, and proprietors of the restaurant.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (718) 669-0714
E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Status Bid Must be Filed by Jan. 17, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lenorowitz v. Mosquito
Squad, et al, Case No. 3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Janet Bond Arterton entered a scheduling order following ruling
denying motion to dismiss in open court on June 17, 2021:
1. All discovery will close December 17, 2021.
2. Any motions to join or to amend shall be filed by August 17,
2021.
3. The parties' Status Report shall be filed by December 10,
2021.
4. Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification will be filed by January 17, 2022.
Mosquito Squad is a leading mosquito control company.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35WNIRj at no extra charge.[CC]
MRS BPO: George Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Jason George, Robert Kaylor, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, a New
Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00154-MR-WCM (W.D.N.C., June
11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
MRS BPO, L.L.C. -- https://portal.mrsbpo.com/ -- provides business
process outsourcing services. The Company offers back office,
accounts receivable, and customer relationship management
services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
MYER HOLDINGS: FTI Consulting Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Alok Khare, Esq., Dawna Wright, Esq., and Erica Rose, Esq., of FTI
Consulting Asia Pacific, in an article for Lexology, report that in
late 2019, the first superior court judgment in a shareholder class
action in Australia was handed down by Justice Beach of the Federal
Court of Australia in TPT Patrol Pty Ltd as trustee for Amies
Superannuation Fund v Myer Holdings Limited.
The seminal decision (a win for Myer) clarifies several important
questions that had been 'known unknowns' until this point, offering
important lessons to economists, solicitors, and in-house counsel.
This paper explores in two parts the decision's implications from a
forensic, economic, and accounting perspective – and touches on
the unsolved mysteries that may be resolved in the next Australian
judgment. In part I, we discuss key learnings from the Myer
decision regarding disclosures and implications for the solicitors
and in-house counsel.
In part II, we discuss key learnings from the Myer decision
regarding economic and forensic analyses.
The Myer decision confirms the importance of meeting continuous
disclosure obligations as well disseminating information through
analyst interactions. The decision also underscores the importance
for in-house counsel of 'taking stock' during rapid decision making
to create detailed disclosure chains that will survive a forensic
audit. This is particularly important in a market environment
impacted by a global pandemic, as companies are forced to make
sudden decisions, change business plans following unusual market
conditions, and revise forecasts.
The Myer Case: Background
Myer is one of Australia's largest department store groups,
operating 60 stores across Australia. On 11 September 2014, in a
session with analysts and financial journalists, Myer's Chief
Executive Officer, Bernie Brooks, disclosed that he expected Myer's
FY2015 NPAT to be higher than FY2014 NPAT, which was announced that
day to be $98.5m.
On 2 March 2015, Myer told analysts the company was assessing its
continuous disclosure obligations with reference to analyst NPAT
consensus.
On 19 March 2015, Myer announced that the company expected its NPAT
to be between $75 million and $80 million, excluding one-time
costs. Following this announcement, the Myer share price declined
by more than 10%. Finally, on 1 September 2015, Myer reported FY15
NPAT of $77.5 million.
The applicant claimed that Myer's representations caused losses to
its shareholders by artificially inflating the Myer stock price
between 11 September 2014 and 19 March 2015. Shareholders also
claimed that Myer should have instead made a series of
counterfactual disclosures.2
The Court's decision: Continuous disclosure breach -- but no loss
The Court concluded that, while Myer did breach its continuous
disclosure obligation, the applicant failed to prove that the
shareholders suffered any recoverable loss due to the breach
The decision means companies cannot walk away from their disclosure
obligations simply because they think that the information at issue
was already public, as they can still be found to have breached the
continuous disclosure rules. However, it also matters for
applicants considering filing class actions. If the impact of the
counterfactual disclosure is already factored into the share price
on the date it should have been issued, the applicants won't be
able to recover any damages under an inflation-based measure for
estimating shareholder losses.
ASSESSING LOSS PER SHARE
In the Myer matter, the applicant only offered an inflationbased
measure for its loss analysis, and the court accepted that. There
are other 'loss per share' measures that the applicant could have
offered. The Myer Decision articulates four different methodologies
for assessing loss per share
The Court did not express a preferred method. So that will be one
of the issues left for another judgment. But at least now we have
greater clarity on the methods that will be considered by the
Court, as we are dealing with a set of 'known unknowns' rather than
'unknown unknowns'.
In our view, the most significant implication of the decision is
the confirmation that, for all potential loss per share measures,
the loss per share for a shareholder depends on the 'price paid'
when the shareholder acquired his interests.
For an inflation-based measure, experts in Australian shareholder
matters can estimate losses per share as the inflation at the time
of purchase (i.e. the cash outflow that would not have occurred but
for the misconduct) taking into account any offsetting gains if
shares are sold at an inflated price.
As the Myer decision confirms, the inflation would depend not just
on the company disclosures but also on all other relevant public
information disclosed (including analyst reports and company
conference calls).
LEARNINGS FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL
Continuous disclosure obligations in complex organisations have
always been very challenging. The current need to respond rapidly
to volatile market conditions makes it even harder for in-house
counsel to manage this issue.
However, the Myer case underscores the importance of "pressing
pause" during rapid decision making to create detailed disclosure
chains that will survive a forensic audit.
In reaching its decision, the Court undertook a very detailed and
forensic analysis of 'who knew what when'. Weekly and daily
financial information was examined, looking at how that information
was factored into the company's financial forecasts as well as
what, when and how it was presented to the Board.
The Court looked not only at the official minutes of the Board
meetings, but also at the communications before and after the
meetings. It even considered the recollections of Directors about
the context of the discussions.
In-house counsel need to ensure the organisation can balance the
competing priorities between supporting the disclosure audit trail
and practicing good 'information governance'. On the one hand, the
need to retain support for their disclosure audit trails means
ensuring that the necessary data is retained. On the other hand,
good information governance means a data retention and disposal
policy that retains only what is necessary. Counsel needs to know
what data is held, why it is held, and where it is held.
Because the damages a company may have to pay critically depend
upon all public information related to the alleged breach, it is
important to provide as many details to analysts as the company
reasonably can about the expected future cash flows, including
potential risks, limitations to future forecasts, and any potential
business strategy changes being planned.
LEARNINGS FOR SOLICITORS
The Myer case is also a good example of the difficulties solicitors
face in instructing experts on issues of quantum before the Court
has decided the question of liability.
In our experience, one of the most difficult aspects of assessing
loss (in any type of litigation) is articulating an appropriate
counterfactual scenario and quantifying the related damages. The
Myer case makes clear that instructing solicitors need to take care
to ask the right questions from their experts.
With respect to the 'how' to instruct experts, the Myer decision
emphasises that the assumptions need to be grounded in commercial
reality. The Court went to great lengths to establish, in detail,
the typical trading cycles and reporting patterns of the company.
Instructing solicitors and their experts should examine whether the
inflation analysis for the proposed counterfactual disclosure
requires several assumptions (some of which may depend on other
assumptions). The presence of excessive assumptions may be an
indication that the counterfactual is 'too hypothetical' and not
grounded in reality, and there is a risk that if one set of
assumptions doesn't hold, the rest can come down like a house of
cards.
As to the 'when' to instruct experts, often a court's decision on
liability is required in order to identify the appropriate
counterfactual scenario to quantify. This is sometimes addressed by
having experts model multiple scenarios from the beginning, by
bifurcating a hearing between questions of liability and quantum,
by referring the issue of quantum to a special referee, or by
having experts undertake further work on quantification after a
decision has been handed down. In the Myer judgment, his Honour has
stated a clear preference for having two opposing experts as
opposed to one Court-appointed expert or special referee. However,
this case also provides a good example of a scenario whereby a
court's decision on the correct counterfactual analysis had a
direct impact on the appropriate analysis of quantum by the
experts. It is, therefore, an example of the benefit of
post-hearing expert analysis.
We will discuss the learnings from the Myer decision for expert
analysis in the next part. The Myer decision provides important
insight on the acceptable approaches for damage calculations and
ways in which a defendant's expert might rebut them. [GN]
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Settles Class Suit Over Bank Bill Swap Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Simpkins, writing for Mortgage Business, reports that the
major bank has reached an agreement to settle a class action in the
US over the bank bill swap rate.
In 2016, the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York brought the case against NAB and the other big four banks, as
well as 32 other institutions, in relation to the bank bill swap
rate (BBSW), the primary interest rate benchmark used in Australian
financial market.
The class action also related to the trading of BBSW-based
products.
According to the US claim, the defendants had made "hundreds of
millions of dollars" in profits by "artificially fixing BBSW-based
derivatives prices at levels that benefitted their trading books".
While the claims against NAB have been dismissed on jurisdictional
grounds, the bank stated, there remained a possibility that the
dismissal could be reversed and the claims could be reinstated.
The bank has made the settlement, without admission of liability,
although it remains subject to negotiation and the execution of
complete settlement terms and court approval.
The settlement is being paid with provisions NAB had previously
raised. The bank said its financial impact is "not substantial".
Similarly, CBA and ANZ reached settlements for the class action in
March.
Westpac signed agreements to settle two class actions against it in
the US in relation to trading activity in the Australian BBSW
market, in October last year.
A number of banks involved in the claim, including the big four,
were also the subject of legal proceedings brought by ASIC alleging
"unconscionable conduct and market manipulation in relation to…
setting the bank bill swap reference rate".
In November 2017, the Federal Court of Australia approved a
settlement between ANZ and ASIC that required the major bank to pay
a total of $50 million in charges.
In January 2018, ASIC began civil penalty proceedings against CBA
for its alleged involvement in setting the BBSW between January and
October 2012, which resulted in the major bank acknowledging that
it "attempted to engage in unconscionable conduct" and paying $5
million as part of an in-principle settlement. [GN]
NATIONAL CREDIT: Pleasant Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Credit
Adjusters, L.L.C. The case is styled as Ellis Pleasant, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. National Credit
Adjusters, L.L.C., a Kansas corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-00478-NCT-LPA (M.D.N.C., June 11, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
National Credit Adjusters -- http://ncaks.com/-- has specialized
in facilitating the resolution of delinquent account
receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
NCAA: Baker Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dan Baker, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01537, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03310 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NCAA: Bowman Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the National
Collegiate Athletic Association. The case is styled as Kone Bowman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:21-cv-01860-JMS-DLP (S.D. Ind., June 22, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NCAA: Butler Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lessie Butler, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01497, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03306 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NCAA: Ede Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------
The case styled as Daniel Ede, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:21-cv-01640, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 23,
2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-03367 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Raizner, Esq.
RAIZNER SLANIA, LLP
2402 Dunlavy Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-9099
Fax: (713) 554-9098
Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com
The Defendant appears pro se.
NCAA: Facchine Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Lorraine Facchine, Individually and on behalf of
the Estate of Larry Facchine, Deceased; Joseph A. Kolodziej,
Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Anthony M. Kolodziej,
Deceased, along with other similarly situated individuals v. The
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. MDL 2492, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois Southern, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on June 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00814-NBF to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association --
https://www.ncaa.org/ -- is a non-profit organization which
regulates athletes of 1,268 North American institutions and
conferences.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason E. Luckasevic, Esq.
GOLDBERG, PERSKY & WHITE
11 Stanwix Street, Suite 1800
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 471-3980
Email: jluckasevic@gpwlaw.com
NEUTROGENA CORP: Sunscreen Products Contain Benzene, French Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHELLI FRENCH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEUTROGENA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-05048 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violation
of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
Neutrogena sunscreen products. The Defendant's products are
adulterated and contained harmful level of benzene, a carcinogenic
impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not include benzene as one of the
listed ingredients on the products' labels. As a result of the
Defendant's alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class
members have been injured and harmed after being exposed to high
levels of acutely-toxic benzene.
Neutrogena Corporation is a manufacturer of skin care hair care and
cosmetics, with its headquarters at 5760 W 96th Street, Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
NEW DOMINION: Cooper Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Cooper, on behalf of the Certified
Class of others similarly situated v. New Dominion LLC, National
Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh PA, Case No. CJ-21-00530
was removed from the District Court of Cleveland County, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on June
22, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00641-G to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.
New Dominion, LLC -- http://www.newdominion.net/-- specializes in
recovering oil and natural gas from existing reservoirs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A Poarch, Jr., Esq.
LAE OFFICES OF BAILEY & POARCH
301 E Eufaula
Norman, OK 73069
Phone: (405) 329-6600
Fax: (405) 329-6634
Email: dpoarch@baileyandpoarch.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Ellen Mary Van Meir, Esq.
NICOLAIDES FINK THORPE MICHAELIDES SULLI
2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1210
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (469) 290-9045
Fax: (469) 290-9041
Email: evanmeir@nicolaidesllp.com
- and -
Steven E Holden, Esq.
HOLDEN & CARR-TULSA
15 E Fifth St, Suite 3900
Tulsa, OK 74103
Phone: (918) 295-8888
Fax: (918) 295-8889
Email: hm@HoldenLitigation.com
NEW YORK DOC: Seeks August 6 Extension to Reply to Class Cert. Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raymond v. DOCCS, et al.,
Case No. 9:20-cv-01380-DNH-CFH (N.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order that the current deadline to file a
response to the pending motion be extended 45 days from today,
until Friday, August 6, 2021.
The New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision is the department of the New York State government that
maintains the state prisons and parole system.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRCXfd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert J. Rock, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
Telephone: (518) 776-2603
E-mail: Robert.Rock@ag.ny.gov
NEW ZEALAND: Lake Alice Survivors Say Settlement Not Enough
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Ellingham, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Children
locked up at Lake Alice psychiatric hospital and subjected to
sexual abuse and electric shock therapy that was dished out for
spurious reasons are continuing their fight for justice and fair
compensation.
When she was prime minister, Helen Clark apologised on behalf of
the Government to patients of the institution's child and
adolescent unit, which operated from 1972 until 1978, near Marton.
That Labour-led Government settled with those who were part of a
class action through lawyer Grant Cameron.
But Lake Alice survivors who gave evidence at the first week of the
Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care's examination of the
unit, being heard in Auckland, say this isn't enough.
They have argued for fair compensation and help with mental health
problems they trace back to their traumatic experiences at Lake
Alice.
They also want to see the man who gave them electro-convulsive
treatment, psychiatrist Dr Selwyn Leeks, charged. The commission
has heard he raped a young female patient.
Police reopened an investigation into Leeks in 2018. He is 92,
lives in Australia and is said to be in poor health.
The inquiry's second week begins on Monday with evidence from a
psychiatric nurse who worked in the unit from 1974-76.
That afternoon Cameron is expected to begin giving evidence.
On Friday, the inquiry heard from Malcolm Richards, who was part of
Cameron's class action.
The Hawke's Bay man was sent to Lake Alice as a 15-year-old for two
months in late 1975. Richards said he shouldn't have been taken to
a psychiatric hospital just because he had depression and was from
a violent home.
At Lake Alice he was given electro-convulsive therapy, including to
his genitalia. He was pumped full of drugs and suspects he was
raped.
He recalled nurses "every so often" saying of someone given
electro-convulsive therapy: "He didn't make it."
Royal Commission chairwoman Judge Coral Shaw asked what he meant
and Richards said he'd been told children had died.
Richards said he suffered from memory problems that affected his
working life. He found out in the mid-1990s that Lake Alice had
closed and that felt like a weight lifted off his shoulders,
because he couldn't be taken back.
Richards had been in a stable relationship for 19 years, but
continued to be stressed and suffered from nightmares.
His fight for justice hadn't relented.
He was part of the Cameron legal settlement and was given $60,000,
although he only received about $35,000 after legal fees.
Richards first made a police complaint about Leeks in the early
1980s, but wasn't taken seriously.
"The policeman never took my statement," Richards said of his visit
to the Hastings police station. "He told me I was a troublemaker
and these things didn't happen in New Zealand. He threatened me
with arrest for wasting police time."
Cameron told those part of the class action to make police
complaints about Leeks in the early 2000s, but to his
disappointment Richards was too unwell.
Later that decade survivors made another push to see Leeks
charged.
"We lobbied to get the matter reopened and were very hopeful. It
was bitterly disappointing that the police were not going to charge
Dr Leeks with cruelty to a child because there was insufficient
evidence."
Richards didn't give up, lobbying politicians for an inquiry and
continuing to complain to police.
Richards wanted to take a private prosecution against Leeks, but
couldn't find a lawyer to help him. He is awaiting a decision about
his claim to the United Nations Committee Against Torture.
The inquiry continues. [GN]
NEWREZ LLC: Cardin Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NewRez LLC. The case
is styled as Gregg T. Cardin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NewRez LLC doing business as:
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 1:21-cv-03350 (N.D. Ill.,
June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Newrez -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a national wholesale
mortgage lender that offers agency and non-agency lending solutions
to brokers and community banks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
NUTRIEN: Grayson Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BOBBY GRAYSON, III, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NUTRIEN; NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS,
INC.; WESTERN FARM SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 286503, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of Tulare, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on June 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-00986-NONE-BAM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, wages not timely paid during employment, non-compliant wage
statements, failure to keep requisite payroll records, unreimbursed
business expenses, and unfair business practices.
Nutrien is a Canadian fertilizer company based in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan.
Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc. is an agriculture inputs company located
in Loveland, Colorado.
Western Farm Service, Inc. is a chemicals company based in
Stockton, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Evan R. Moses, Esq.
Christopher W. Decker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: evan.moses@ogletree.com
christopher.decker@ogletree.com
OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen publicly traded
securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 17, 2021 to apply
to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Click https://www.bespc.com/cases/OCGN to participate in the
action.
On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it planned to submit to the
FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for COVAXIN,
a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen
announced that it "will no longer pursue an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to "pursue
submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although we were close to finalizing our EUA application
for submission, we received a recommendation from the FDA to pursue
a BLA path," and that "this will extend our timelines."
Shares of Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the
same day, based on this news.
On June 10, 2021, the Company said it would no longer pursue a EUA
for Covaxin and would instead aim to file for a full U.S. approval
of the shot.
On this news, the stock price plummeted and closed on June 11, 2021
at $6.69 per share, representing a 25.17% drop from the June 10,
2021 closing price of $9.31 per share.
The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the information that Ocugen submitted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to
support an EUA; (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and
(iii) as a result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as
defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Ocugen shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
Tel: (212) 355-4648
E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
http://www.bespc.com/[GN]
OCUGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 20
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) between
February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 17,
2021.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Ocugen 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 Ocugen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2107.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 August 17, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the information submitted to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for the development
of a COVID-19 vaccine candidate was insufficient to support an
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"); (2) Ocugen would not file an
EUA with the FDA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Ocugen's
financial statements, as well as defendants' statements about
Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
To join the Ocugen class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2107.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Contacts:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
OCUGEN INC: Vincent Wong Announces Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class actions has
commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Ocugen, Inc.
(NASDAQ:OCGN). 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.
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17014&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
Class Period: February 2, 2021 - June 10, 2021
Allegations against OCGN include that: (i) the information
submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was
insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"),
(ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.
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]
OPERA TOWER: Short-Term Rentals Violate Ordinance, Dispoto Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DISPOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPERA TOWER, LLC; OPERA TOWER CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.; JOSEPH ARTHUR; MICHAEL SMITH; and DEAN WARHAFT,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-22263 (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty,
negligence, and nuisance.
The Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for their
promotion and permission of daily or short-term rentals of the
Opera Tower Condominium units. Under an ordinance in Miami,
Florida, short-term rentals (rentals less than 30 days) are not
allowed for multi-family apartments, such as Opera Tower
Condominium. However, due to the Defendants' approval,
approximately 200 units at the condominium are actively listed and
available for short term rentals. As a result of the Defendants'
alleged misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class members have had their
property values decrease due to the short-term rentals.
Opera Tower, LLC is a residential real estate development company
located in Miami, Florida.
Opera Tower Condominium Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit
corporation that operates the Opera Tower Condominium located at
1750 North Bayshore Drive, Miami Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
Erika R. Willis, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Ste. 201H, #105
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352-504-3301
E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
mpeterson@vandwlaw.com
ewillis@vandwlaw.com
kstroly@vandwlaw.com
- and –
John F. Romano, Esq.
Corey B. Friedman, Esq.
ROMANO LAW GROUP
Post Office Box 21349
West Palm Beach, FL 33416-1349
Telephone: (561) 533-6700
Facsimile: (561) 533-1285
E-mail: service@romanolawgroup.com
john@romanolawgroup.com
corey@romanolawgroup.com
andrea@romanolawgroup.com
danyel@romanolawgroup.com
OREGON DOC: Seeks to Stay Proceedings Pending Maney Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON M. HANNA (legal
name) Formerly, TIMOTHY A. HINKHOUSE, v. COLETTE PETERS TYLER
BLEWETT LIEUTENANT ROBINSON SEARGENT IRVING OFFICER PLOURD OFFICER
H. COCHELL OFFICER CARRILLO OFFICER NIELSEN OFFICER DAVID, Case No.
2:21-cv-00493-SB (D. Or.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an
order staying the case pending the resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney et al. v. Brown et al., Case No.
6:20-cv-00570.
This motion relates to the ongoing COVID-19 litigation against the
Oregon Department of Corrections and/or related persons in the
District of Oregon. The Defendants will be seeking a brief stay of
all individual federal cases that could fit within the putative
classes of plaintiffs in Maney pending resolution of the motion for
class certification in Maney.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated June 22, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AbOjg6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracy Ickes White, Esq.
SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Telephone: (503) 947-4700
Facsimile: (503) 947-4791
E-mail: Tracy.I.White@doj.state.or.us
PACTIV LLC: Class Status Bid Filing Extended to August 6
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK WILSON individually,
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. PACTIV LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:20-cv-01691-SB-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld Jr. entered an order
modifying the Order Setting Class Certification Briefing Schedule
as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed Date
Plaintiff's Motion for June 25, 2021 August 6, 2021
Class Certification Filing
Deadline
Defendant's Opposition Aug. 6, 2021 Sept. 17, 2021
Deadline
Reply Deadline Sept. 3, 2021 Oct. 15, 2021
Hearing
Pactiv is a manufacturer and distributor of food packaging and
foodservice products, supplying packers, processors, supermarkets,
restaurants, institutions and foodservice outlets across North
America.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2U8NdAU at no extra charge.[CC]
PANDORA MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Hoy Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
OLIVER HOY; and KEVIN JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PANDORA MARKETING LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-06441 (W.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) is an
action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of
the Defendants in negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, without any express consent, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Pandora Media, LLC is a music and podcast discovery platform. The
Company offers radio stations available to stream on computers and
mobile phones. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
11 Broadway, Suite 615
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (877) 333-9427
Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
-and-
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
PARAMOUNT RESIDENTIAL: Ntam Sues Over Mortgage Service Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR NTAM, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. PARAMOUNT
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01583-JEB (D.D.C., June 10, 2021) alleges that the
Defendant places its interest and pattern of unsafe and unsound
mortgage service practices above the remedial rights of homeowners
and consumers in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant unfairly and deceptively
ignores its statutory and contractual duties including those which
were agreed to as part of its license/registration to legally
operate in the District of Columbia and nationwide. The Defendant's
practices are compounded when homeowners, like Ntam and the
putative class members, try in good faith to resolve their
situation and the Defendant disregards its duty to conduct a
reasonable investigation of their notices of error and makes
material misstatements of law in reply which confirm the underlying
claim in this matter, says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's alleged
violations, Ntam and the class members have been proximately harmed
by the Defendant's publishing of derogatory information to the
credit reporting agencies subject to disputes regarding the
borrower's payments and sums claimed due. The Plaintiff has also
been further damaged by the Defendant's failure to correct its
incorrect servicing records by performing a reasonable
investigation of his Qualified Written Requests/Notices of Error
and the status of Ntam's mortgage loan.
Paramount Residential Mortgage Group, Inc. is a collector and
licensed mortgage servicer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
10125 Colesville Road, Suite 378
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Telephone: (301) 448-1304
PARETEUM CORP: Loskot Putative Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------
Pareteum Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action suit initiated by Douglas Loskot.
Douglas Loskot v. Pareteum Corporation, et al., is a putative class
action pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Mateo.
It was filed on May 29, 2020 on behalf of all former shareholders
of iPass Inc. who received shares of the Company's common stock
pursuant to a February 12, 2019 exchange tender offer. The
defendants are the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O'Donnell,
Victor Bozzo, Yves van Sante, Robert Lippert and Luis
Jimenez-Tunon.
The Complaint alleges that the Loskot Defendants caused the Company
to issue materially false or misleading statements in SEC filings
submitted in connection with the tender offer in violation of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
Pareteum Corporation formerly known as Elephant Talk
Communications, Inc., is an international provider of business
software and services to the telecommunications and financial
services industry. Pareteum Corporation is based in New York, New
York.
PARETEUM CORP: Putative Securities Class Suit in New York Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pareteum Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to
defend a putative securities class action suit entitled, In re
Pareteum Securities Litigation.
In re Pareteum Securities Litigation is the consolidation of
various putative class actions that were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The cases were assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who
consolidated the actions on January 10, 2020 and named the Pareteum
Shareholder Investor Group as the Lead Plaintiff.
The Lead Plaintiff is asserting claims on behalf of purported
purchasers and/or acquirers of Company securities between December
14, 2017 and October 21, 2019.
The defendants are the Company, Robert H. Turner, Edward O'Donnell,
Victor Bozzo, Denis McCarthy, Dawson James Securities Inc., and
Squar Milner LLP.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants caused the Company to
issue certain materially false or misleading statements in SEC
filings and other public pronouncements in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act.
The Lead Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages with
interest for itself and the other class members for all damages
sustained as a result of Defendants' alleged wrongdoing and
reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in the case.
Pareteum Corporation formerly known as Elephant Talk
Communications, Inc., is an international provider of business
software and services to the telecommunications and financial
services industry. Pareteum Corporation is based in New York, New
York.
PARSLEY HEALTH: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Parsley Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Parsley Health, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-05470 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Parsley Health -- https://www.parsleyhealth.com/ -- is a new kind
of healthcare service that integrates technology, nutrition,
wellness and prevention into cutting-edge primary care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Phone: (929) 575-4175
Fax: (929) 575-4195
Email: joseph@cml.legal
PATTERSON COS: August 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Saxena White P.A. regarding the Patterson Companies,
Inc. Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF
CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 26, 2013 AND
FEBRUARY 28, 2018, INCLUSIVE
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, that the lawsuit that is now pending
in that Court under the caption Plymouth County Retirement System
v. Patterson Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-cv-00871-MJD-HB
(D. Minn.) (the "Action") against Patterson Companies, Inc.
("Patterson") and Scott Anderson, a former Patterson officer, has
been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for
certain persons and entities that are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of
Class Action ("Notice").
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class Members. If you have not yet received the Notice, you
may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Notice
Administrator at:
Patterson Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 43391
Providence, RI 02940-3391
1-888-729-5720
www.PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 394-3399
Lucas F. Olts, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
1-800-449-4900
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and
holdings in Patterson Companies, Inc. common stock. You will
automatically be included in the Class. If you are a Class Member
and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by
the proceedings in this Action, including all past, present, and
future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable. At this time there has been no monetary recovery, and
there is no guarantee that one will be obtained in the future.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than
August 18, 2021 in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the full printed Notice. Please note, if you decide to exclude
yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. Pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within
the Court's discretion as to whether a second opportunity to
request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a
settlement in the Action.
Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator or by visiting
www.PattersonSecuritiesClassAction.com.
Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
For the District of Minnesota [GN]
PAYPAL INC: Refunds $12K Frozen Funds to Avert Illegal Seizure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Hintze, writing for cardschat, reports that California-based
online wallet PayPal refunded $12,000 of seized fantasy-football
entry fees to Chris Moneymaker in the hopes of forestalling a
class-action lawsuit threatened against the site over its allegedly
illegal seizure policies. Moneymaker, the 2003 WSOP Main Event
winner, announced late on Thursday that PayPal had suddenly
reversed course on its seizure of the funds and will allow him to
withdraw his balance.
Moneymaker, a huge sports fan when not at the poker tables, first
took his dispute with PayPal to social media in May. He and his
attorney, Eric Bensamochan, declared that while it was legal for
PayPal to boot customers off its platform for violating its
anti-gambling policies -- as Moneymaker had -- it was illegal for
the company to pocket the seized funds.
Moneymaker and Bensamochan (who has been in poker-news features of
late for his role as Todd Witteles' defense attorney in Mike
Postle's frivolous $330 million defamation lawsuit), put out a
public call for other possible litigants who had money seized by
PayPal in similar circumstances. Dozens of potential plaintiffs
have already responded to the call to join.
Expected lawsuit gathers steam despite Moneymaker receiving refund
Despite PayPal's attempt to defuse the situation by returning the
$12,000 to Moneymaker, the effort against PayPal's allegedly
illegal seizures continues to grow:
Moneymaker, still irate over the situation, declared he will remain
involved in the expected class-action suit, which could be filed by
the end of June:
PayPal's belated refund does little to appease
Both Moneymaker and Bensamochan offered comments to CardsChat News
following PayPal's change of heart over the seizure in the wake of
the social-media heat. Bensamochan specializes in this type of
civil litigation, making the promised class action a serious threat
to PayPal's image.
"PayPal, clearly feeling the heat from the pending litigation,"
Bensamochan said. "[They] thought that by simply giving Chris
Moneymaker his money back, that things would end. They could not be
more incorrect. Mr. Moneymaker will continue to consult with the
Bensamochan Firm in proceeding with the class action on behalf of
the thousands and thousands of people who have had their
hard-earned money seized at will and with impunity by PayPal."
Moneymaker's comment was more personal, though every bit as
sincere. "I mean just the fact that Paypal can do this to anyone,"
he reiterated. "And if you do not have a platform or hire a lawyer
and pay legal fees, it will just work for them. They are nothing
but thieves." [GN]
PENSAR BIG: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pensar Big, Inc. The
case is styled as Graciela Torres, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Pensar Big, Inc. d/b/a
El Pollo Loco, a California Corporation, Case No. 21PSCV00485 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 10, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
El Pollo Loco -- https://www.elpolloloco.com/ -- is the name of two
independent restaurant chains that are controlled by different
companies: El Pollo Loco El Pollo Loco Both companies specialize in
Mexican-style grilled chicken and were founded by Juan Francisco
Ochoa.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Perez, Esq.
LAW OFFCIES OF ALEXANDER J. PEREZ
58 West Portal Ave., Ste. 286
San Francisco, CA 94127-1304
Phone: 415-785-7775
Email: perezlawoffice@att.net
PNY TECHNOLOGIES: Jacobs Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DJAKARTA JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PNY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-04190, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 22, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-03354 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's
False Advertising Law, the California's Unfair and Deceptive Acts
and Practices, and the California's Unfair Competition Law by
misrepresenting the amount of power its power banks can transfer to
portable electronic devices (PEDs).
PNY Technologies, Inc. is a manufacturer of chargers for portable
electronic devices (PEDs), with its principal place of business at
100 Jefferson Rd., Parsippany, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
BROWN NERI SMITH & KHAN LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2080
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 593-9890
Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com
- and –
William F. Cash III, Esq.
Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
Brenton J. Goodman, Esq.
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN,
BARR, MOUGEY, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 435-7140
Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com
mschultz@levinlaw.com
bgoodman@levinlaw.com
- and –
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
Bradley Silverman, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
1 North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3290
Facsimile: (914) 908-6708
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
bsilverman@fbfglaw.com
PPH PROPERTIES: Burris Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Illegal Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAZIRRA BURRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PPH PROPERTIES I, LLC dba SILK EXOTIC
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; SCOTT KRAHN; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00777-LA (E.D. Wis., June 23, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act including failure to pay minimum wages, illegal
kickbacks, unlawful taking of tips, and forced tip sharing.
The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer at Silk Exotic Gentlemen's
Club located at 730 North Old World Third Street, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin beginning of June 2021.
PPH Properties I, LLC, doing business as Silk Exotic Gentlemen's
Club, is an operator of an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 730 North Old World Third Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LLP
12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Telephone: (310) 507-7924
Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
- and –
Jay Urban, Esq.
URBAN & TAYLOR S.C.
Urban Taylor Law Building
4701 N. Port Washington Rd.
Milwaukee, WI 53212
Telephone: (414) 906-1700
E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Spira Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Spira, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional
Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03543 (E.D.N.Y., June 23,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. -- https://www.pcbinc.org/ --
provides healthcare revenue cycle management solutions. The Company
offers insurance follow-up, medical debt collections, revenue cycle
consulting, skip tracing, and practice management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
735 Central Avenue
Woodmere, NY 11598
Phone: (516) 668-6945
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
PROOFPOINT INC: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Coffman Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE COFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROOFPOINT, INC., DANA EVAN,
KRISTEN GIL, GARY STEELE, MICHAEL JOHNSON, ELIZABETH RAFAEL,
RICHARD WALLACE, JONATHAN FEIBER, KEVIN HARVEY, and LEYLA SEKA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-04760 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially
deficient and misleading Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2021.
The Proxy is materially deficient and misleading because, inter
alia, it allegedly fails to disclose material information
regarding: (i) the Company's financial projections; (ii) the data
and inputs underlying the financial analyses performed by the
Company's financial advisor Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; and (iii)
Morgan Stanley's potential conflicts of interest. The omissions and
false and misleading statements in the Proxy are material in that a
reasonable stockholder would consider them important in deciding
how to vote on the proposed merger between Proofpoint and Thoma
Bravo, LP or seek to exercise their appraisal rights.
Proofpoint, Inc. is a cybersecurity company, with its principal
executive offices located at 925 West Maude Avenue, Sunnyvale,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
9100 Wilshire Blvd. #725 E.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 208-2800
Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
- and –
Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
WEISSLAW LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 682-3025
Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
- and –
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 860-9158
Facsimile: (212) 214-0506
E-mail: raymond@bespc.com
PROVENTION BIO: Gross Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17004&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Allegations against PRVB include that: (i) the teplizumab Biologics
License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and
would require additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA
lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to
believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the
teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization
timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) 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.
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]
PROVENTION BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 20 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
Verus International, Inc. (OTC PINK:VRUS)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT VRUS:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/verus-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17021&from=1
Class Period: June 17, 2019 - November 8, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Verus lacked the requisite resources, infrastructure and/or
expertise to exploit its Big League Foods brand and its MLB
license; (ii) the company's issues in production ramp-up were not
fully resolved to enable the company to fulfill customer orders;
(iii) as a result, the company's prospects and outlook were not as
represented; (iv) the company's internal controls for financial
reporting and accounting were not sufficient with specific respect
to stock-based compensation and classification of equity
instruments; (v) as a result, the company's financial results,
outlook and prospects were materially worse than represented; and
(vi) as a result of the foregoing, the company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT PRVB:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17021&from=1
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the teplizumab Biologics License Application ("BLA") was deficient
in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure
U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT OCGN:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17021&from=1
Class Period: February 2, 2021 - June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the information submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") was insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization
("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as
well as Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
PROVENTION BIO: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on June 21 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.
ACAD Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17032&wire=1
PRVB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17032&wire=1
OCGN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17032&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:ACAD)
ACAD Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 15, 2020 -
April 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Acadia
Pharmaceuticals Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the materials
submitted in support of the pimavanserin supplemental new drug
application (sDNA) contained statistical and design deficiencies;
(ii) accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary
support that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed;
(iii) the Food and Drug Administration Agency was unlikely to
approve the pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
PRVB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 2, 2020
- April 8, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Provention Bio, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the teplizumab
Biologics License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its
submitted form and would require additional data to secure U.S.
Food and Drug Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the
teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led
investors to believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus
overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the
commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)
OCGN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 2, 2021
- June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-information-request-form?prid=17032&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ocugen,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) the information submitted to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to support an
Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"), (ii) Ocugen would not file an
EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements about
Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
PURECYCLE TECH: Klein Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 20 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of the
following companies. There is no cost to participate in the suit.
If you suffered a loss, you have until the lead plaintiff deadline
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCT)
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
The complaint alleges that during the class period PureCycle
Technologies, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the technology
PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents
serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the
availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to
commercialize the licensed technology are significant; (iii)
PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in PCT:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17030&from=1
Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:DNMR)
Class Period: October 5, 2020 - May 4, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 13, 2021
The DNMR lawsuit alleges Danimer Scientific, Inc. made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose during
the class period that: (i) Danimer had deficient internal controls;
(ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its
operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii) Defendants had
overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and
landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
Learn about your recoverable losses in DNMR:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/danimer-scientific-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17030&from=1
Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI)
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - March 20, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2021
According to the complaint, Ubiquiti Inc. allegedly made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had downplayed the data breach in January 2021; (2)
attackers had obtained administrative access to Ubiquiti's servers
and obtained access to, among other things, all databases, all user
database credentials, and secrets required to forge single sign-on
(SSO) cookies; (3) as a result, intruders already had credentials
needed to remotely access Ubiquiti's customers' systems; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in UI:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/ubiquiti-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17030&from=1
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. If you suffered a loss during the class
period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact J.
Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit the webpages
provided.
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
RAPID CITY, SD: Class Action Filed Over Hideaway Hills Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an abandoned gypsum mine in Black
Hawk that was exposed by a sinkhole in 2020 may extend farther than
current mapped areas show, according to a geophysical study.
Mohammad Sadeghi, a professor of geological engineering at Montana
Technical University who led the study, says there's the
possibility that the mine extends below Interstate 90. The group
recommends that further research be done in the area.
More than 40 people from 15 homes in the Hideaway Hills
neighborhood were forced to evacuate after the collapse in April
2020 in Black Hawk, which is located about eight miles northwest of
Rapid City.
There are at least two lawsuits filed in relation to the collapse,
one of which is one step closer to class-action status, the Rapid
City Journal reported.
The Fitzgerald Law firm of Rapid City filed a lawsuit against
developers and county and state entities. Fox Rothschild, a large
national law firm, filed one against state government.
Hideaway Hills residents are also seeking answers to a potential
loss of sewage service due to the mine.
Sadeghi has presented his team's research methods to Hideaway Hills
residents and said he believed the sinkhole opened due to surface
water infiltrating the ground and seeping into the roof of the mine
that dissolved gypsum. [GN]
RELATED MANAGEMENT: English Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK ENGLISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY LP and THE
RELATED COMPANIES, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05475
(S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
straight wages, failure to comply with notice and recordkeeping
requirements, and failure to provide accurate wage statements.
Mr. English was employed by the Defendants as an assistant chief
engineer from April 17, 2017 to July 2019.
Related Management Company LP is a privately owned real estate firm
in New York, New York.
The Related Companies, L.P. is a privately owned real estate firm
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
Jason Giaimo, Esq.
McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
RENEWABLE ENERGY: Olson Suit Moved From C.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRIS OLSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC., RANDOLPH
L. HOWARD, CYNTHIA J. WARNER, CHAD STONE, and TODD ROBINSON, Case
No. 2:21-cv-02244, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on June 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-05127-UA 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 filing
materially false and misleading statements regarding Renewable
Energy Group's business, operations, and prospects to artificially
increase Renewable Energy securities between May 3, 2018 and
February 25, 2021.
Renewable Energy Group, Inc. is a producer of advanced biofuels,
with its principal executive offices located in Ames, Iowa. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
RIVERSIDE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Martin Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSIDE PIZZA COMPANY; and LEONARD J.
NAUGLE, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00670 (E.D. Mo., June 10,
2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Davis was employed by the Defendants as delivery driver.
RIVERSIDE PIZZA COMPANY owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchise
stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Forester, Esq
FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Facsimile: (469) 399-1070
E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com
SAG-AFTRA: Appoints New Nat'l Executive Director Amid Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Fuster, writing for The Wrap, reports that SAG-AFTRA
announced on Wednesday that COO Duncan Crabtree-Ireland will
succeed David White as the guild's new national executive director
starting on June 21.
Having served as White's second-in-command since 2010 and as the
union's general counsel since 2006, Crabtree-Ireland's promotion
was confirmed in a special meeting of the SAG-AFTRA National Board
of Directors, which approved with 64.8% of the vote.
"It is an honor to accept this position and I look forward to
continuing to work with members, the National Board, local boards,
officers and staff in this new role," Crabtree-Ireland said in a
statement. "Together, we will build on the successes that have been
achieved in recent years, as well as strategizing and innovating
for the future as we navigate the dramatic changes taking place in
our industry. I am grateful to the National Board for its vote of
confidence and remain in awe of SAG-AFTRA's remarkable history and
service to its members."
"I couldn't be more pleased that our board has selected Duncan
Crabtree-Ireland as national executive director. Duncan is a
natural choice, an experienced leader and well respected by members
and staff," said guild president Gabrielle Carteris. "I am
confident that under his leadership, the union will continue
building on the achievements and stability he has overseen working
alongside David White over the past dozen years. I congratulate
Duncan and look forward to working with him in his new capacity."
Crabtree-Ireland has been involved in multiple key initiatives for
SAG-AFTRA during his time at the guild, most recently as the main
point of contact between the organization and other guilds and
studios during the development of Hollywood's COVID-19 safety
protocols and the Return-to-Work Agreement that allowed film and TV
shoots to resume last fall.
SAG-AFTRA National Executive Director David P White to Step Down
He was also a key figure in the merger between SAG and AFTRA in
2012, oversaw negotiations for the first ever union contract
between the guild and Spanish network Telemundo and served as the
guild's lead music contract negotiator, securing landmark
compensation terms for music and music videos used on streaming
platforms.
Crabtree-Ireland will take the national executive director spot
during a busy time for the guild, as SAG-AFTRA continues to monitor
the COVID-19 vaccination process to determine when safety protocols
may be lifted and whether labor groups should push for vaccines to
be mandatory to return to work later this year.
The SAG-AFTRA Health Plan is also facing heat from some members for
its changes to minimum earnings requirements to qualify for the
plan, leading to thousands of retirees losing their coverage and
being forced to find alternate Medicare supplement coverage. A
class-action lawsuit was filed by ten members against the SAG-AFTRA
Health Plan trustees last December, claiming that the changes are a
form of age discrimination. [GN]
SCONZA CANDY: Roman Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sconza Candy Company.
The case is styled as Juan Roman, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Sconza Candy Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-05515 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sconza Chocolates -- https://sconza.com/ -- is a quality and
innovative confectionery manufacturer since 1939.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
SGS AUTOMOTIVE: Carroll Bid to Amend Ruling on Class Cert. Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR CARROLL v. SGS
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00537-SDD-SDJ (M.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly D. Dick entered an order denying
Carroll's motion to alter, amend or reconsider ruling on motion for
class certification.
This Court clearly cited that principle in its Ruling, stating that
"[u]ltimately, this Court exercises its discretion as the
gatekeeper of expert testimony to exclude Verkhovskaya's report."
Thus, insofar as Carroll argues that the Court was clearly in error
because of the scope of its ruling, the Court disagrees. With
Carroll having failed to present substantial grounds for
reconsideration, his motion shall be denied.
On November 30, 2020, the Court granted SGS's Daubert Motion to
Exclude Class Expert, finding that the report of Carroll's
proffered expert witness, Anya Verkhovskaya, should be excluded
because her "methodology [was] insufficiently reliable and of
limited utility." Carroll now urges the Court to reconsider that
ruling because the Court excluded Verkhovskaya's report in its
entirety when, in Carroll's view, "certain aspects of [the] report
were not challenged," including her "conclusions related to sorting
and filtering data. SGS opposes the motion, arguing that it "fails
to address the procedural standard required to justify
reconsideration, much less show that the applicable legal standard
has been met." After reviewing the parties' briefs and the
applicable law, the Court agrees with SGS.
SGS Automotive was founded in 1980. The Company's line of business
includes providing the inspection and weighing of goods in
connection with transportation or in the operation of fixed
facilities for motor vehicle transportation.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jublZN at no extra charge.[CC]
SIX SLICE: Bailey Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Bailey, On behalf
of himself and those similarly situated, v. Six Slice Acquisitions,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00432-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order expanding the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective as conditionally certified and authorizing
him to send notice of the pendency of this action to the following
employees:
"All delivery drivers who work or worked at any Marco's Pizza
Location owned/operated by Defendants Six Slice Acquisitions,
LLC; Seven Slice, LLC; Big Deal Properties, LLC; On the Rise
Properties, LLC; RRBB Enterprises, LLC; Five Slices, LLC; BWD
Acquisitions, LLC; Bischel Winner, LLC; Brian Drescher; William
Jones; Gary Mount; Bob Mount; Rick Drescher II; Rick Drescher
Sr.; and/or Tim Bischel from March 11, 2018, to present."
This is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza delivery
drivers who work at Defendants' Marco's Pizza franchise stores. The
Plaintiff Bailey alleges that the Defendants' pizza delivery
drivers are all employed according to the same terms and that those
terms result in a violation of the FLSA.
Bailey filed the lawsuit on behalf of pizza delivery drivers who
work at Defendants' Marco's Pizza franchise stores on March 28,
2020. On November 30, 2020, the Court granted conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action with respect to the
delivery drivers who worked at three of the Defendants' Marco's
stores.
Six Slice is in the pizzeria, chain business.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated June 22,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qsfeQ5
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
Riley Edward Kane, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 202-0710
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
rkane@billerkimble.com
SKILLZ INC: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 20 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:ACAD)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/acadia-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17022&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 21, 2021
Class Period: June 15, 2020 - April 4, 2021
Allegations against ACAD include that: (i) the materials submitted
in support of the pimavanserin supplemental new drug application
(sDNA) contained statistical and design deficiencies; (ii)
accordingly, the pimavanserin sNDA lacked the evidentiary support
that the Company had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii)
the Food and Drug Administration Agency was unlikely to approve the
pimavanserin sNDA in its present form; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. (NYSE:EBS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/emergent-biosolutions-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17022&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 21, 2021
Class Period: April 24, 2020 - April 16, 2021
Allegations against EBS include that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore
plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the
likelihood for massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding
contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent's
facility led to a string of FDA citations; (iii) the Company
previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of
COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated
from manufacturing standards; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability
and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its
Baltimore manufacturing site were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:SKLZ)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/skillz-inc-f-k-a-flying-eagle-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=17022&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021
Class Period: December 16, 2020 - April 19, 2021
Allegations against SKLZ include that: representations relating to
certain of Skillz's business operations, performance metrics and
ultimate valuation, including, among others, Skillz's ability to
attract new end-users, future profitability, the shrinking
popularity of its hosted games that accounted for 88% of its
revenue, and the Company's valuation. For example, one of the
Company's objectively unrealistic promises included the
unsupportable claim that the Company was valued at $3.5 billon,
based on revenue projections in excess of $550 million for 2022.
However, the Company failed to inform investors that downloads of
the games that account for a majority share of its revenue have
been declining since at least November 2020. In reality, the
Company's prospects for attaining that revenue scale was far from
realistic given its size, market share, reliance on thirdparty app
stores, declining downloads of its most popular games and,
critically, the enormous amount of incentive Bonus Payments that
Skillz routinely provides to its gamer customers, a fact that
investors were misled about. These Bonus Payments are routinely
provided to its customers, who are expected to use them for game
entry fees, which, in turn, artificially inflates Skillz revenue.
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]
SMITH & WESSON: Shooting Victims Lose Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2021, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2021, that the suit in Canada by
two victims of a shooting that took place in Toronto, has not been
certified as a class action.
The company is a defendant in a putative class proceeding before
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Canada.
The action was filed on December 16, 2019. The action claims
CAD$50 million in aggregate general damages, CAD$100 million in
aggregate punitive damages, special damages in an unspecified
amount, together with interest and legal costs.
The named plaintiffs are two victims of a shooting that took place
in Toronto on July 22, 2018 and their family members.
One victim was shot and injured during the shooting. The other
suffered unspecified injuries while fleeing the shooting. The
plaintiffs are seeking to certify a claim on behalf of classes that
include all persons who were killed or injured in the shooting and
their immediate family members. The plaintiffs allege negligent
design and public nuisance. The case has not been certified as a
class action.
On July 13, 2020, the company filed a Notice of Motion for an order
striking the claim and dismissing the action in its entirety. On
February 11, 2021, the court granted the company's motion in part,
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in public nuisance and strict
liability. The court declined to strike the negligent design
claim, and ordered that the claim proceed to a certification
motion.
The certification motion is scheduled to be heard in March of 2022.
On March 2, 2021, we filed a motion for leave to appeal the court's
refusal to strike the negligent design claim with the Divisional
Court, Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
No hearing date for that motion has yet been set.
Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. manufactures firearms. The Company
offers pistols, revolvers, rifles, handcuffs, and other related
products and accessories for consumers, law enforcement, and
security agencies. Smith & Wesson Brands serves customers in the
United States. The company is based in Springfield, Massachusetts.
SOUND BRANDS: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sound Brands, LLC.
The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Sound Brands, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05509 (S.D.N.Y., June 23, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Sound Brands -- https://drinksound.com/ -- is a food and beverages
company who make tea-based sparkling beverages that are completely
unsweetened.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
SOURCE RECEIVABLES: Bogomilsky Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Source Receivables
Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Nechama D.
Bogomilsky, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Source Receivables Management, LLC, LVNV Funding, LLC,
Case No. 7:21-cv-05456 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Source Receivables Management, LLC -- http://sourcerm.com/-- is a
collection agency located in Greensboro, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADAM J. FISHBEIN
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Phone: (516) 791-4400
Fax: (516) 791-4411
Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
SPARC GROUP: Robey Sues Over Inflated, Fake Former Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
Christa Robey and Maureen Reynolds, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SPARC GROUP LLC, Case No.
BER-L-003772-21 (N.J. Super. Ct., Bergen Cty., June 10, 2021), is
brought against the Defendant under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act; the New Jersey Truth in Consumer, Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act; the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act; and New Jersey
common law, alleging violations of federal and New Jersey state
pricing regulations by advertising inflated, fake former prices and
purported sales and percentage-off discounts.
The complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in a uniform policy of
advertising and displaying fictitious purported former prices and
percentage-off discounts in the advertising, marketing, and sale of
apparel and other personal items sold and offered for sale in its
physical, brick-and-mortar Aeropostale retail stores in New Jersey.
For years, Aeropostale has perpetrated a massive false discount
advertising scheme across nearly all of its Aeropostale-branded
products and sales channels (i.e., in Aeropostale's
brick-and-mortar retail stores and on the Aeropostale website).
Specifically, Aeropostale advertises perpetual or near perpetual
storewide "sales" and percentage-off discounts--typically 50% to
70% off—from Aeropostale's self-created list prices for all of
its products. Aeropostale represents its list prices, which are
printed on price tags attached to the items it sells and are
advertised on its website with a slash-through, to be the "regular"
and normal selling prices of the items. The list prices function as
reference prices from which the advertised sales and discounts are
calculated. Aeropostale also advertises "free" offers such as "Buy
1 Get 1 Free" or "Buy 1 Get 2 Free," where Aeropostale represents
that it will include one or two more of a given item (or of a
specified similar item) for "free" if the customer pays the list
price for the item.
Aeropostale's purported sales, discounts, and reference prices are
false, however, because Aeropostale never or only rarely offers or
sells its products at the advertised list price. Rather,
Aeropostale invents and displays inflated and fictitious list
prices in order to enable it to advertise perpetual discounts and
store-wide "sale" events to induce customers to purchase its
products. Aeropostale's purported "free" offers are likewise false
because Aeropostale directly recovers the cost of the "free" items
by first doubling or tripling the first item's selling price to the
inflated--and otherwise never charged--list price.
The Plaintiffs, as well as Defendant's other Aeropostale customers,
were harmed because they would not have purchased the items at the
prices they paid had they known the items had not been regularly
offered or sold at the higher list price. Customers like Plaintiffs
did not enjoy the actual discounts Defendant represented and
promised to them, and the items they purchased were not in fact
worth the inflated amount that Defendant represented to them, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased falsely-discounted products from the
Defendant's physical, brick-and-mortar Aeropostale retail stores in
New Jersey.
The Defendant owns and operates Aeropostale, a designer and retail
seller of casual clothing and accessories that primarily targets
the teen and young adult market.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
Shane T. Prince, Esq.
DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre
525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: (856) 797-9951
Fax: (856) 797-9978
- and -
Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone: (425) 233-8650
Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
SPRAGUE OPERATING: Class Status Bid Filing Due Feb. 15, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Agudelo v. Sprague
Operating Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00407-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.),
the Hon. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. entered an order that:
1. All factual discovery to be used in support of or in
opposition to a motion for class certification shall be
completed by Monday, November 15, 2021 (approximately five
months from initial disclosures exchanged on or before June
9, 2021).
2. On or before July 30, 2021, the parties will confer to
identify an outside mediator and schedule a mediation session
to be held between November 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021 on
mutually available date.
3. If the case is not resolved, the Plaintiff shall make its
expert witness disclosures as required by Fed.R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2) with respect to any expert testimony to be used in
support of class certification by February 1, 2021.
4. Defendant shall depose any experts disclosed by Plaintiff in
support of class certification by March 1, 2022.
5. Defendant shall make its expert witness disclosures with
respect to any expert testimony to be used in opposition to
class certification as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
by March 30, 2022.
6. Plaintiff shall depose any experts disclosed by Defendant in
opposition to class certification by April 29, 2022.
7. Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or
before February 15, 2022.
8. Defendant shall file its opposition to the motion for class
certification on before May 20, 2022.
9. Plaintiff shall file her reply to Defendant’s opposition on
or before June 10, 2022.
10. Nothing in the discovery schedule shall prevent the parties
from disclosing information regarding expert analysis
developed or anticipated testimony that might be offered in
order for the parties to have a productive mediation session.
The parties anticipate that such exchanges will be helpful
and necessary for meaningful settlement discussions at any
mediation and further anticipate that such disclosures will
be subject to the privilege that would attach to mediation
discussions and communications.
11. After a decision on class certification, the Court will
conduct a conference to set a schedule for any remaining
discovery necessary prior to trial.
Sprague retails petroleum products. The Company offers home heating
oil, diesel and residual fuels, kerosene, low-sulfur diesel, bio
fuels, bunker fuels, and gasoline products. Sprague provides energy
market updates and fuel management services throughout the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xRZmJ6 at no extra charge.[CC]
STATE FARM: Filing of Reply in Support of Class Cert. Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEGANT MASSAGE, LLC d/b/a
LIGHT STREAM SPA, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
2:20-cv-00265-RAJ-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lawrence R.
Leonard entered an order granting the consent motion to extend by
seven days the deadline to file reply in support of motion for
class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) up to and including June
30, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed its Motion for Class Certification Under Rule
23(b)(2) on May 27, 2021. On May 26, 2021, the Plaintiff also filed
a Motion to Bifurcate the Issues of Liability and Damages and Amend
the Scheduling Order to Apply to the Putative Rule 23 (b)(2) Class
Only. On June 2, 2021, Defendants filed an Emergency Motion to File
a Response to the Motion for Class Certification and Motion to
Bifurcate.
On June 3, 2021, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for an
Extension, extending the deadlines to file oppositions to the
Motion for Class Certification and the Motion to Bifurcate by seven
days. On June 16, 2021, the Defendants filed their Opposition to
the Motion to Bifurcate and on June 17, 2021, Defendants filed
their Opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.
State Farm operates as an insurance company.
A copy of the Court's Order dated June 23, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xWTQFd at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Plaintiff and the proposed Class, are:
William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
Marc C. Greco, Esq.
Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
580 East Main Street, Suite 600
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 625-6787
Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
marcg@glasserlaw.com
kip@glasserlaw.com
michael@glasserlaw.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
Jordan Jacobson, Esq.
Lauren M. McGinley, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
mtroutner@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
lmcginley@ktmc.com
– and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
ltaylor@carellabyrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
STATE FARM: Ritchie Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICIA RITCHIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 21-CA-003697, was removed from the Circuit Court
of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
June 23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 8:21-cv-01515-CEH-TGW to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff brings this action to seek a declaration that the
Defendant's use of the Autosource system to value vehicles is
invalid under the Florida Statute Section 626.9743(5).
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is an insurance
company based in Bloomington, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Johanna W. Clark, Esq.
CARLTON FIELDS, P.A.
450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 849-0300
Facsimile: (407) 648-9099
- and –
Daniel F. Diffley, Esq.
Cassandra K. Johnson, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 W. Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
STROM ENGINEERING: Bid to Extend Case Management Deadlines OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RALPH SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STROM
ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-00147-MRH-PLD (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Patricia L. Dodge entered an order granting the
Parties' Joint Motion to Extend Certain Case Management Deadlines:
a. Class certification discovery with the exception of Gregory
Kountz's deposition shall be completed by July 9, 2021.
b. Mr. Kountz's deposition will take place on August 5, 2021.
c. Plaintiff's expert report as to class certification is due by
September 3, 2021.
d. Defendant's expert report as to class certification is due by
October 5, 2021.
e. Discovery of class certification experts shall be completed
by November 4, 2021.
f. Plaintiff's motion for class action certification, memorandum
in support, and all supporting evidence shall be filed by
November 4, 2021.
g. Defendant's memorandum in opposition to class certification
and all supporting evidence shall be filed by December 3,
2021.
h. Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification shall be
filed by December 17, 2021.
i. The Court will hold a telephone conference on July 12, 2021
at 9:30 a.m.
Strom Engineering provides strategic planning, temporary
workforces, and full service labor solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 22, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zXOA6h at no extra charge.[CC]
SUBWAY: Class Action Over Tuna Mislabeling Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Cavaliere, writing for Yahoo!News, reports that earlier
this year, Subway got hit with a lawsuit alleging its tuna was not
actually tuna.
The country's biggest sandwich chain called the lawsuit meritless
and maintains it buys only skipjack and yellowfin tuna from
fisheries with stocks that aren't overfished.
Seeking to get to the bottom of the mystery, The New York Times on
Sunday published a report with results of a commercial lab analysis
of "60 inches' worth of Subway tuna sandwiches" purchased from
three locations in Los Angeles. The tuna meat was removed, frozen,
and shipped for testing.
The results, per an email sent to The Times: "No amplifiable tuna
DNA was present in the sample and so we obtained no amplification
products from the DNA. Therefore, we cannot identify the species."
A representative for the lab told The Times that the results
pointed to two possible scenarios. "One, it's so heavily processed
that whatever we could pull out, we couldn't make an
identification," the person said. "Or we got some and there's just
nothing there that's tuna."
Tuna experts also emphasized to The Times that once fish like tuna
had been cooked, its protein would become broken down, or
denatured, making it difficult to identify.
The newspaper also notes that it's not the first to try to uncover
whether Subway's popular tuna sandwich does indeed contain all
tuna. "Inside Edition" did its own investigation in New York and
found the tuna purchased in the sandwiches was in fact tuna.
Subway, however, continues to fight a class-action complaint filed
in the US District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging it makes false claims about its tuna meat.
The lawsuit alleges "independent testing repeatedly affirmed"
Subway made the tuna product with no tuna fish, but it did not name
the agencies that conducted such tests. The suit also claims Subway
profits off mislabeling the tuna products by using cheaper
ingredients.
Subway has dismissed the claims as baseless.
"These claims are meritless," a Subway representative said in a
statement to Insider in January. "Tuna is one of our most popular
sandwiches. Our restaurants receive 100% wild-caught tuna, mix it
with mayonnaise, and serve on a freshly made sandwich to our
guests."
"Subway will vigorously defend itself against these and any other
baseless efforts to mischaracterize and tarnish the high-quality
products that Subway and its franchisees provide to their
customers," the statement added. [GN]
SURNAIK HOLDINGS: Judge Set to Consider Parkersburg Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The State Journal, reports that a special
judge is considering -- for a second time -- whether to certify a
class action involving an October 2017 Parkersburg warehouse fire
whose billowing cloud of black smoke was visible for miles and that
burned for eight days.
If certified, the class would involve individuals from Parkersburg,
Vienna, Blennerhasset, Lubeck, Washington and Waverly, as well as
from Belpre, Ohio.
Special Judge Thomas A. Bedell in mid-2019 approved the
certification of a class action against Surnaik Holdings of WV LLC,
the owner of the warehouse. The attorneys for Surnaik Holdings last
September filed for a petition for writ of prohibition with the
West Virginia Supreme Court.
Last November, a 4-1 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice
Evan Jenkins vacated the certification and sent the matter back to
Bedell. The opinion created a syllabus point finding that "a class
action may be certified only if the circuit court is satisfied,
after a thorough analysis, that the predominance and superiority
prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) have been satisfied." The majority
opinion focused heavily on rulings in the past 10 years by the U.S.
Supreme Court and U.S. appeals courts.
The lone justice dissenting was Margaret Workman, who called the
majority "flatly wrong in its analysis of the facts" and also
opined that the decision was creating "unnecessary delay in this
case, and portends a sea change in our approach to class action
cases -- a change for the worse."
Justice John Hutchison concurred. However, while he agreed that a
circuit judge "weighing a motion under Rule 23 must conduct a
'thorough analysis' that gives 'careful consideration to each
factor set forth in the rule," he didn't believe "that this is
something new for circuit judges" in West Virginia. Hutchinson
added that he believes the predominance and superiority
requirements "have always been a part of this Court's class action
jurisprudence, and are really nothing more than flexible guidelines
for a circuit court to use to ensure a class action is the best way
to resolve a case."
Hutchison's concurring opinion also discussed the case in brief.
"My sense, and the sense of my colleagues, is that a class action
is probably the best way to address the alleged injuries to the
thousands of residents impacted by the warehouse fire. This was a
massive week-long fire that consumed an entire warehouse in
Parkersburg. In just the first 12 hours, firefighters pumped six
million gallons of water onto the fire, much of which may have
flowed back into a nearby river. The warehouse fire incinerated
everything, including tons of toxic materials like PVCs,
formaldehyde, and styrene, and then vented poisonous smoke into the
air of the surrounding city. The fire was so extensive that the
governor declared a state of emergency, and the county commission
declared it a disaster."
Bedell, a 29 1/2-year circuit judge in Harrison County, and the
attorneys have been working on the case since it was sent back.
In a court hearing earlier this month, Bedell told plaintiff
attorney Alex McLaughlin and defense attorney Ryan McCune Donovan
that his second decision on certification would be forthcoming
likely very early this summer. Bedell also predicted that whatever
his decision, there would be a filing with the state Supreme Court,
and therefore set a status conference Sept. 17 to keep the matter
on the court's docket.
Donovan, of Hissam Forman Donovan Ritchie PLLC of Charleston, and
McLaughlin, of Calwell Luce diTrapano PLLC, also of Charleston,
briefly discussed the case for WV News / The State Journal.
"From our perspective, class actions like this one play two
critical roles in the administration of justice," McLaughlin wrote.
"First, they can make large numbers of court cases much more
efficient and cost-effective by resolving in one trial the issue or
issues that are common and identical for all the potential class
members. In some cases, as Surnaik's counsel pointed out at the
hearing, one class action trial can actually resolve all of the
issues for sometimes thousands of class members. This case is not
exactly like that.
"In this case, the single class action trial can resolve, for all
class members (people affected by smoke from the fire), all of the
issues surrounding Surnaik's "fault" or legal responsibility for
the fire -- questions such as whether Surnaik maintained a
sprinkler system at the warehouse (we allege it did not), whether
Surnaik should have maintained such a sprinkler system, why it did
or did not maintain a sprinkler system, and what Surnaik thought
would be the consequences of not having a sprinkler system in the
event of fire (consequences both in terms of a potential insurance
windfall to Surnaik, on the one hand, compared with the potential
for nuisance and smoke invading Surnaik's neighbors' homes, on the
other hand)," McLaughlin wrote.
"We believe that it is much more efficient to resolve all of those
common issues in one trial, even if the Court might then have to
preside over thousands of mini-trials or hearings on damages about
the extent to which individual homes were invaded by smoke and how
that smoke invasion impacted individual homeowners' comfort and
enjoyment in their own homes, and, in some cases, their health. The
alternative to this, at least legally speaking, is to require those
thousands of individuals to file individual cases and then for the
Court to preside over thousands of full-blown trials, each of which
would include not just individual presentations of damages but also
individual presentations and evidence about Surnaik's 'fault' or
legal responsibility for the fire. So a class action turns
thousands of full-blown trials, each of which might take a week or
more when the "fault" issues are included, into one big trial on
common issues, lasting a week or two, and then thousands of
mini-trials or mini-hearings, each lasting only a couple of hours.
That efficiency is, in our view, in the words of Justice Hutchison,
'judicial bang for the buck,'" McLaughlin wrote.
"The argument Surnaik made at the recent hearing, that it will be
'inefficient' to proceed as a class action because the court will
still have to preside over thousands of hours of testimony about
individual damages from thousands of plaintiffs, pre-supposes that
in the absence of a class action those claims will simply
disappear. In other words, Surnaik's lawyer knows that, even if
each individual small claim is meritorious and deserving of a day
in court, no reasonable lawyer will incur the time and expense of
proving all the elements of a case against Surnaik in order to
recover damages for one homeowner for one week of smoke invasion
and the resulting discomfort and inconvenience," McLaughlin wrote.
"The total costs of bringing a lawsuit include relatively small
fees like court filing fees and fees for the preparation of
official transcripts, which add up, and also large costs like
significant attorney time and the costs of paying expert witnesses.
For proving a complicated set of facts like those surrounding the
'fault' issues in this case, those costs quickly add up to tens of
thousands of dollars. The practical effect of this is that an
individual can have a meritorious claim against a defendant who
engaged in an egregious act of wrongdoing and selfishness, and yet
not be able to pay for his or her day in court, because the
potential recovery does not justify the expense," McLaughlin
wrote.
"This brings us to the second critical role that class actions play
in the administration of justice: They provide a means by which
small claims, like these, can be combined together so that the
potential outcome of the lawsuit justifies the costs of prosecuting
the claims. Viewed this way, the dispute about class actions is
really a dispute about whether small claimants should be permitted
to have their day in court, at least when one defendant harms many
individuals through a common course of conduct, or whether those
defendants should be permitted to get away with hurting many people
but each in a small way," McLaughlin wrote.
"Of course, Surnaik denies the allegations we have made against it
-- that it made a decision not to maintain a sprinkler system
because it wanted the insurance windfall from a total loss and did
not care whether smoke from such a fire disrupted the lives and
invaded the homes of its neighbors. It is Surnaik's right to deny
those allegations and make us prove them. All we want is our day in
court and an opportunity to prove those allegations so that
individuals impacted by the conduct might have a chance to recover
their losses from it. A class action provides an efficient means
for doing this," McLaughlin wrote.
Donovan countered that "Surnaik maintains that this suit has no
merit and should not be certified as a class action. The
plaintiff's own expert testified that as many as 90% of the
proposed class members were not exposed to perceptible amounts of
smoke at all. Even for those who were potentially exposed, the
plaintiff is not seeking damages for personal injury or actual
property damage. At most, the plaintiff seeks damages for the
temporary 'invasion' of his property by smoke from the fire --
basically, a 'bad smell' case. For essentially this reason, two
similar suits arising from the same fire were dismissed by a
federal judge. A third, filed by some of the state's best
plaintiff's class action attorneys, was voluntarily abandoned."
"It is simply not possible to fairly adjudicate this case as a
class action. At the class certification hearing, the plaintiff's
lawyer conceded that he had no real plan for even identifying the
members of the class. And the plaintiff's plan for trying the case
involves tens of thousands of mini-trials that would consume the
court's docket for years and years to come. The plaintiff isn't
worried about these details, however, because he knows that in
reality, almost any defendant who faces a certified class —
especially a local business like Surnaik -- will be forced to
settle. The plaintiff's lawyers hope to collect hundreds of
thousands or millions in fees, and each class member will receive a
few bucks. Most class members won't even find it worthwhile to file
a claim," Donovan wrote.
"Thankfully, in a number of recent opinions, our Supreme Court has
indicated that it intends to strictly enforce the requirements of
Rule 23. The first time this case went to the Supreme Court, it
tossed out the trial court's class certification order and sent it
back for a more thorough analysis. Specifically, the Court
indicated that, in the future, motions for class certification in
our state courts should be held to the same rigorous standards as
those applied around the country and, in particular, in our federal
courts. Surnaik has every confidence that if the trial court
follows the Supreme Court's guidance, the plaintiff's motion for
class certification will be denied," Donovan wrote.
"Class actions are an important tool that play an vital role in our
legal system -- resolving nearly identical claims in an efficient
and fair manner. But when used as the plaintiff proposes here -- to
aggregate thousands of highly individualized claims in an effort to
force business into unfair settlements that inure mostly to the
benefit of the plaintiff's lawyers -- that tool is abused," Donovan
wrote. [GN]
TARO PHARMA: Bid for Class Approval in Opioid Related Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the
application for class action approval in the putative
opioids-related class action in Israel, is pending.
In June 2020, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
opioids-related class action pending in Israel, in which the
claimant alleges that the Company did not provide sufficient
disclosure regarding the risks associated with opioid use in
violation of the Israeli Consumer Protection Act.
The Company filed its defense to the application for class action
approval on May 2, 2021.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.
TARO PHARMA: Limited Discovery in Speakes Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that limited
discovery is ongoing in the class action suit entitled, Speakes v.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
The Company and two of its former officers are named as defendants
in a putative shareholder class action entitled Speakes v. Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., filed October 25, 2016, which is
now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
It generally alleges that the defendants made material
misstatements and omissions in connection with an alleged
conspiracy to fix drug prices.
On September 24, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss.
The case is proceeding with limited discovery.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.
TARO PHARMA: Price Fixing Related Putative Class Suits Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend putative class action suits related to price
fixing and bid rigging to nearly all generic pharmaceutical
products.
The Company, its subsidiaries and, with respect to a complaint
brought by U.S. State Attorneys General (AG) and a complaint
brought by putative classes of indirect reseller plaintiffs (IRPs),
a former member of Taro U.S.A.'s commercial team have been named as
defendants in numerous putative class action lawsuits and
additional lawsuits brought by and/or on behalf of purchasers and
payors of several generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S. and
Canada.
The lawsuits allege that the Company, its subsidiaries, and/or, in
the AG and IRP complaints, the concerned individual, have conspired
with competitors to fix prices, rig bids, or allocate customers
with respect to certain products, and also allege an industry-wide
conspiracy as to nearly all generic pharmaceutical products.
Each of the cases that were filed in U.S. federal court has been
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated proceedings under the
caption In re: Generic Drug Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2724.
The Court had sequenced the lawsuits into separate groups for
purposes of briefing motions to dismiss. Defendants filed motions
to dismiss complaints in the first group. On October 16, 2018, the
Court denied the motions with respect to the federal law claims. On
February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motions with respect to the state law claims.
Certain cases are proceeding in discovery. In May 2021, the Court
designated certain complaints naming Taro U.S.A. as "bellwether"
cases to begin the sequencing of proceedings.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.
TARO PHARMA: Putative Class Action Suit in Israel Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit in Israel.
In July 2019, the Company received a motion to approve a class
action against 30 companies located in Haifa Bay, Israel, including
the Company.
The claimant, a civil association in Haifa Bay, claims that the
industrial activity of the 30 companies allegedly caused higher
percentages of lung cancer among Haifa Bay residents compared to
the average in Israel.
At this stage, the claimant seeks to receive district court
approval for the motion to approve a class action.
The 30 companies have filed a procedural motion asking the court to
determine whether the legal connection between the alleged conduct
and the alleged damages should be resolved prior to the court’s
ruling on class certification.
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., a science-based pharmaceutical
company, engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Canada, Israel, and
internationally. The company was founded in 1959 and is based in
Haifa Bay, Israel. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is a
subsidiary of Alkaloida Chemical Company Zrt.
TD BANK: Must Face Class Action Suit Over Illegal ATM Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that TD
Bank has lost a round in a court fight over its ATM fees.
A federal judge declined to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that
claims TD has overcharged its customers who use ATMs outside the
bank's network.
The suit challenges a TD policy of charging two fees of $3 each
when customers check their account's balance while withdrawing
money from an out-of-network ATM.
In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler said the lawsuit
made "persuasive" arguments that the language in TD's contract with
ATM users is ambiguous.
That allowed the suit's breach-of-contract claim to survive TD's
motion for dismissal.
Attorneys for TD customers assert the wording allows the bank to
charge only a single $3 charge for each out-of-network withdrawal,
Kugler's ruling said.
In contrast, the Camden judge noted, TD asserts its account
agreements and fee schedule "explicitly authorize and conspicuously
disclose" the multiple charges.
The dispute "can be boiled down to disagreement over how the word
'each' is interpreted in the fee schedule," said Kugler.
In TD's view, "each" indicates a fee applies to "every one of" a
customer's transactions on an out-of-network ATM, the ruling said.
The lawsuit, however, asserts the contract "promises that TD Bank
will assess a single (out-of-network) fee . .. even if an
accountholder conducts multiple functions while using an ATM."
The suit also argues a balance inquiry, "especially one undertaken
in conjunction with a cash withdrawal, is not reasonably understood
as a stand-alone, fee-worthy event."
And it notes TD, prior to amending its fee schedule last year,
"never disclosed it could or would assess $6 or more on a single,
30-second ATM cash withdrawals."
Customers typically pay a third, separate fee of $3 to the operator
of the out-of-network AT
Attorneys for TD and the proposed class of bank customers did not
respond to requests for comment.
The suit was filed in the names of two New York women who objected
to being charged for balance inquiries during transactions in 2014
and 2016. It seeks to represent all TD customers who received two
charges from the Cherry Hill-based bank for an out-of-network ATM
withdrawal.
TD, which has more than 1,100 offices along the East Coast, does
not charge its customers for transactions on the bank's ATMs. [GN]
TEAM HEALTH: Must File Class Certification Response by July 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Team Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-21174 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Jose E Martinez entered an order granting the Defendants' unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file response to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification.
The defendants shall file the response on or before July 9, 2021,
says Judge Martinez.
The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
TeamHealth is a physician practice in the U.S. founded in 1979 and
based in Knoxville, Tennessee, pursuing medical outsourcing.[CC]
TOTAL INSURANCE: Perrong Has Until August 31 to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW PERRONG,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. TOTAL INSURANCE BROKERS, LLC, Case No.
8:20-cv-01905-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody
Jr., entered an scheduling and case management order as follows:
Plaintiff(s) Expert Disclosure: August 31, 2021
Class Certification Motion August 31, 2021
Deadline:
Defendant(s) Expert Disclosure: October 18, 2021
Discovery Deadline: November 15, 2021
Dispositive Motion Deadline: September 13, 2021
Daubert Motion Deadline: September 13, 2021
Total Insurance is located in Tampa, Florida, and is part of the
Health Insurance Carriers Industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 21, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xP48qN at no extra charge.[CC]
TRINITY HEALTH: Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Trinity Health Corporation, Case No.
21CECG01454 was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
June 23, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-00994-NONE-EPG
to the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Trinity Health -- https://www.trinity-health.org/ -- is an American
not-for-profit Catholic health system operating 92 hospitals in 22
states, including 120 continuing care locations encompassing home
care, hospice, PACE and senior living facilities. Based in Livonia,
Michigan, Trinity Health employs more than 120,000 people including
5,300 physicians.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
KEEGAN & BAKER LLP
6156 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Phone: (760) 929-9303
Fax: (760) 929-9260
Email: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Courtney Leigh Turco, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6265
Fax: (213) 996-3265
- and -
Monder Khoury, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 276-6505
Fax: (415) 276-6599
Email: mikekhoury@dwt.com
- and -
Spencer Stephen Persson, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 633-6800
Fax: (213) 633-6899
Email: spencerpersson@dwt.com
TULA LIFE: Morrissey Sues Over Mislabelled Cosmetic Products
------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY MORRISSEY; TAMMY CARPENTER; AIZA EJAZ; and JULIE GURDIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TULA LIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2021L000646
(Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., June 11, 2021) is an action alleging that
the Defendant mislabelled its cosmetic products as containing
"probiotics."
According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells the
Tula Cosmetics as cosmetics containing "probiotics." However, the
Tula Cosmetics do not contain probiotics because the microbial
derived ingredients assigned the "probiotic" moniker are purchased
in a dead state, and the preservatives, i.e. antimicrobial
chemicals, employed in the Tula Cosmetics would render any
probiotic cultures inert and therefore useless.
However, contrary to the Defendant's representation, the Tula
Cosmetics cannot contain active probiotics. The Tula Cosmetics
contain preservatives that are intended to prevent or decrease
microbial growth and therefore render any active probiotic
ingredients inert, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have paid to purchase
Defendant's Tula Cosmetics, or would not have paid as much as they
did to purchase them, had they known that they did not in fact
contain "probiotics." The Plaintiffs and Class Members thus
suffered monetary damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged
deceptive and false representations.
Tula Life, Inc. owns and operates beauty supply stores. The Company
offers anti-aging cream, cleanser, serum, skincare, and other
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES P.C.
8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 201-0575
E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
-and-
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
-and-
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
bscott@bursor.com
-and-
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT MANSOUR SUCIU
& TOMINA PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyer.com
TUSCANY MARBLE: Underpays Installer's Helpers, Avelar Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER AVELAR, JULIO CASTRO, EDWIN GUEVARA, RUBEN GUEVARA, JORGE
MOJICA, JAIME REYES, NELSON RIOS, ALEXANDER ALFARO, and DANIEL
MEJIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. JOHN ARMATO, YVETTE ARMATO a/ka/ YVETTE BAHAMONDE,
TUSCANY MARBLE AND GRANITE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03483 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failure to issue
proper wage statements, and failure to issue proper notifications
of pay rate.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as installer's
helpers or stone finishers at any time between 2015 and 2020.
Tuscany Marble and Granite, Inc. is a marble supplier with its
principal place of business in Deer Park, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (212) 991-8960
E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com
- and –
Bruce McBrien, Esq.
MCBRIEN LAW PC
140 Fell Ct., Suite 305
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 403-0335
E-mail: bruce@mcbrienlaw.com
U.S. BANK: Mills Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LAUREEN MILLS, PATRICK DIMMICK, and MARIEL CAMPOS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. U.S.
BANK, N.A. dba US BANK; U.S. BANCORP; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 37-2021-00004898-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June
23, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-01154-DMS-MDD 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 wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal breaks and related premiums,
failure to provide rest breaks and related premiums, failure to
timely pay wages due upon separation of employment, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unlawful and unfair
business practices.
U.S. Bank, N.A., doing business as US Bank, is a banking firm based
in Minnesota.
U.S. Bancorp is an American bank holding company based in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-1000
Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
E-mail: jfife@winston.com
- and –
Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
Jason S. Campbell, Esq.
Tristan R. Kirk, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
Telephone: (213) 615-1700
Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
E-mail: ewoodhead@winston.com
jscampbell@winston.com
ULINE INC: Bray Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JERIMY BRAY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ULINE, INC. and DOES 1 to 50, Case No.
CIVSB2112058, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on June 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01031 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay
split shift premiums, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to
provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums, failure
to provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums,
failure to maintain accurate employment records, failure to pay
wages timely during employment, failure to pay all wages earned and
unpaid at separation, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair competition.
Uline, Inc. is a company that offers shipping and other business
supplies, headquartered in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
- and –
Briana Labriola, Esq.
Bryce Farrington, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-7900
Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
E-mail: briana.labriola@ogletree.com
bryce.farrington@ogletree.com
UP MEDICAL CENTER: Biddle Files Suit in W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The University of
Pittsburgh Medical Center, et al. The case is styled as Mark
Biddle, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, CHARLES J. HILTON
P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW, NEC NETWORKS, LLC doing business as:
CAPTURERX, Case No. 2:21-cv-00815-RJC (W.D. Pa., June 23, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) --
https://www.upmc.com/ -- is a $21 billion integrated global
nonprofit health enterprise that has 90,000 employees, 40 hospitals
with more than 8,000 licensed beds, 700 clinical locations
including outpatient sites and doctors' offices, a 3.8
million-member health insurance division, as well as commercial and
international ventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Bruzzese, Esq.
2315 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-8676
Fax: (877) 433-4898
Email: mjb@mjblawoffice.com
VASCULAR BIOGENICS: Pomerantz Law Investigates Investor Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Vascular Biogenics Ltd. ("VBL" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VBLT).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether Vascular and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On June 15, 2021, VBL issued a press release "provid[ing] an update
on its ongoing OVAL Phase 3 study investigating ofranergene
obadenovec (VB-111), for the treatment of platinum-resistant
ovarian cancer." Specifically, VBL disclosed that "[t]he Company
was notified by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that
clearance of new VB-111 batches for use in the U.S. is currently
pending the completion of a technical review by the Chemistry,
Manufacturing, and Controls (CMC) group, which is evaluating the
comparability of VB-111 manufacturing between different source
sites. Until new batches are cleared, the Company anticipates a
temporary shortage of study drug supply for the U.S. Accordingly,
recruitment of new patients in the U.S. will be temporarily paused.
Treatment will continue as usual for all U.S. patients currently
enrolled. To-date, the study has enrolled approximately 75% of the
planned 400-patients." On this news, VBL's stock price fell sharply
during intraday trading on June 15, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
VERMONT: Hep C Treatment Guidelines Outlined in Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan J. Keays, writing for VtDigger, reports that guidelines for
how the state Department of Corrections will care for incarcerated
individuals with hepatitis C are outlined in a settlement agreement
in a class-action lawsuit brought over the lack of treatment for
many prisoners.
The 18-page document was filed in the case brought in May 2019 by
the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Harvard Law School's Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation,
and the law firm of Costello, Valente & Gentry in Brattleboro.
The lawsuit claimed that the denial of needed medication for
incarcerated people with hepatitis C is a violation of the Eighth
Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. The legal
action alleged that treatment was offered only to incarcerated
individuals whose hepatitis C met a certain standard of severity,
while others were regarded as having only mild or early liver
disease and ineligible for medication. The settlement agreement
requires a judge's approval.
A motion stating that the parties had reached a settlement was
submitted in court last month, but terms of the deal were kept
under wraps. The latest filing outlines the conditions of the
agreement.
"Under the settlement agreement," the court filing stated,
"defendants agree not to categorically limit access to DAA
[direct-acting antiviral] treatment for sentenced inmates who will
remain in confinement for more than 4 to 6 months based on disease
severity, disciplinary record, or substance use." Hepatitis C,
according to the lawsuit, can lead to permanent liver damage,
cancer and death if not treated. To treat hepatitis C, the filing
stated, a pill needs to be taken daily for eight to 12 weeks to
cure the disease.
In addition, according to the recently filed settlement document,
the corrections department agreed to do the following:
-- Screen individuals for hepatitis C upon admission into
Department of Corrections custody.
-- Provide treatment and screening data for two years to the
attorneys bringing the lawsuit, to allow monitoring of the
implementation of the agreement.
-- Notify class members -- incarcerated people -- of the
settlement.
-- Pay $3,000 for costs and attorneys fees to parties who
brought the lawsuit.
The deal also calls for the judge to retain jurisdiction of the
matter for two years to ensure the terms are met. Rachel Feldman, a
spokesperson for the corrections department, said Friday that it's
the department's policy not to comment on pending litigation. She
declined to comment further. Jay Diaz, general counsel for the ACLU
of Vermont, also declined to comment when reached Friday.
Kevin Costello, director of Litigation Center for Health Law &
Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, submitted a filing urging
the judge to accept the settlement agreement. "Upon commencing
settlement negotiations in January 2021," Costello's filing stated,
"the parties worked through difficult disagreements, and it is my
belief that each side dedicated extensive resources to advance
their clients' positions."
The agreement will also benefit those who do not currently have
hepatitis C, according to the filing.
"Prisoners who may have HCV, but remain undiagnosed, may
unknowingly transmit the disease to others either in prison or upon
release," the settlement stated. "HCV screening and treatment in
the prison population has been shown to markedly reduce the
transmission of the disease -- and deaths related to the disease --
outside prisons."
Legal actions over hepatitis C treatment for incarcerated
individuals have been brought by ACLU affiliates and other
organizations in several states. Terms of settlements in those
cases have varied.
For example, in Colorado, as part of the settlement, the state
agreed to spend a specific amount of money for the treatment of
those in state custody with hepatitis.
The treatment of incarcerated individuals in Vermont for hepatitis
C was the subject of a legislative hearing in 2018. At the
proceeding, witness testimony revealed 258 people in custody in
2017 had the disease, but the corrections department treated just
one of them.
According to the lawsuit, the corrections department in 2018
started providing medication to those in state custody on a more
regular basis. However, the lawsuit stated, when the complaint was
filed in 2019, more than 200 incarcerated individuals remained
untreated.
When the lawsuit was filed two years ago, Centurion Managed Care
was the health care provider for the corrections department. On
July 1, 2020, VitalCore Health Strategies became the corrections
department's contracted health care provider.
Documents filed along with the settlement stated that VitalCore had
already updated its policy for treating individuals with hepatitis
C. That treatment process will continue to be followed as part of
the agreement.
VitalCore's policy, like the settlement agreement, ensures
direct-acting antiviral treatment for incarcerated individuals
sentenced to remain in state custody for more than four to six
months. Also, the treatment will not "categorically" limit
treatment based on factors such as the severity of the disease.
VitalCore's policy also includes:
-- Individuals entering the corrections system are offered
opt-out screening for hepatitis C.
-- Sentenced prisoners will be treated "as soon as possible" if
the course of treatment can be completed during that incarcerated
individual's time in custody, determined to be four to six months.
-- "Especially compromised" incarcerated individuals will be
referred immediately to a medical provider for assessment and care,
even if the person is likely to be held in confinement for less
than four to six months.
-- Incarcerated individuals with hepatitis C, but without
cirrhosis, will be treated by prescribers within the corrections
system.
-- Those in state custody with cirrhosis will be referred for
treatment to an academic medical center.
-- People entering the corrections system already receiving
treatment will stay on that treatment unless there is a clinical
reason to stop it. [GN]
VOICE OF GUO: Zhang Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONG ZHANG, XIAODAN WANG, and CHONG SHEN RAPHANELLA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VOICE
OF GUO MEDIA, INC., GTV MEDIA GROUP, INC., SARACA MEDIA GROUP INC.,
RULE OF LAW FOUNDATION III, INC., RULE OF LAW SOCIETY IV INC., SARA
WEI A/K/A LIHONG WEI LAFRENZ, AND WENGUI GUO A/K/A MILES GUO A/K/A
HO WAN KWOK A/K/A MILES KWOK A/K/A NAN WU A/K/A HAOYUN GUO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01079-SMB (D. Ariz., June 21, 2021) is
a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, common
law fraud, common law conspiracy to defraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of Sections 44-1991 and 44-1998 of
the Arizona Revised Statutes.
The case arises from the Defendants' purported sale of unregistered
securities to unsophisticated investors in the Chinese diaspora to
their detriment and to the benefit of Defendant Miles Guo, a
wealthy Chinese businessman with a multi-media empire, his
associate Lihong Wei Lafrenz, and their affiliates. Mr. Guo,
through his media empire and other social media platforms, touted
investments in GTV Media Group, Inc. (GTV). These investments were
purportedly opportunities to be on the ground floor of a new media
platform designed to allow its members to exchange in the free flow
of information about the People's Republic of China outside of
government control and influence and thereby provide an alternative
means of communication for those within Chinese communities around
the world. Through a relentless media campaign, Guo and Wei
convinced the Plaintiffs and the Class to invest their hard-earned
income in an apparently worthless venture. The purported GTV
securities were never registered per state or federal regulations,
the suit says.
Voice of Guo Media, Inc. is a media company located in Scottsdale,
Arizona.
GTV Media Group, Inc. is a media company, with its principal place
of business in New York.
Saraca Media Group Inc. is a media firm based in New York, New
York.
Rule of Law Foundation III, Inc. is a charitable non-profit
organization in New York, New York.
Rule of Law Society IV Inc. is a charitable non-profit organization
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: guiney@whafh.com
- and –
LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP
137 W. 25th St.
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 302-2400
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Supreme Court Tosses Suit Over Takata Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for CarAdvice, reports that in a decision
regarded by the car industry as a victory for common sense, the
Supreme Court of NSW has dismissed a civil class action against
Volkswagen over potentially faulty Takata airbags that had been
replaced during a recall -- and which had not been deemed
responsible for any fatalities here or overseas.
The plaintiff claimed Volkswagen vehicles were "not of acceptable
quality for the purposes of . . . Australian Consumer Law" because
certain airbags "had propensity to degrade when exposed to moisture
and temperature fluctuations."
However, the court was told the plaintiff had no problem with the
airbag in his vehicle and it had not been involved in an incident
that would have caused the airbag to deploy.
In a decision handed down on 18 June 2021 in the NSW Supreme Court
-- Dwyer v Volkswagen Group Australia -- Justice James Stevenson
said: "For the reasons that follow, I am not able to accept any of
the bases on which the plaintiff put his damages claim."
The court heard Volkswagen Germany had tested some 20,000
potentially faulty Takata airbags fitted to vehicles built since
2005 -- sourced from various climates and regions around the world
-- but all had deployed as the manufacturer intended.
Justice Stevenson said: "Had (the plaintiff) been involved in such
an accident, whether before or after his original airbag was
replaced, I see no basis to conclude that the airbag would have
operated in anything other than in the way it was designed to
operate."
In summary, Justice Stevenson said: "There is thus no evidence
that, in fact, the airbag in his car would not have deployed as
intended."
Further, Justice Stevenson said: "The plaintiff is only entitled to
damages for the loss that he has actually suffered."
Volkswagen Australia replaced the Takata airbag in the plaintiff's
car in 2019 -- at no cost to the plaintiff -- during the vehicle's
60,000km service. "The plaintiff incurred no out of pocket expenses
while the airbag in his car was being replaced," said Justice
Stevenson.
Even though there were no reports of Takata airbags deploying
incorrectly -- and no Volkswagen cars were recalled as part of the
Takata safety campaign in Europe -- Volkswagen nevertheless joined
the Takata recall locally, at the instruction of the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and recalled some
101,759 Volkswagens, 38,978 Audis, and 17,595 Skoda cars.
The landmark ruling is likely to set a precedent for other vehicle
manufacturers who have replaced, repaired, or rectified potentially
faulty components that have been the subject of a recall.
A statement from Volkswagen Australia said in part: "As was shown
in evidence, there have been no incidents reported of a Takata
airbag rupture in any relevant Volkswagen vehicles in the field
globally. In compliance with the mandatory recall notice issued by
the Australian Government, Volkswagen Group Australia replaced the
Takata airbags that were subject of the proceeding at no cost to
the owner."
Although the Takata airbag scandal involved two dozen brands and
more than 100 million vehicles globally -- including more than 3
million cars and more than 4 million airbag inflators in Australia,
CarAdvice understands five other other manufacturers -- namely
Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Subaru and BMW -- are facing similar
action locally but their cases are yet to be determined. [GN]
WALMART INC: Coleman Sues Over Baby Foods' Heavy Metal Contents
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDI COLEMAN, TIFFANY NEAL, FELICIA DYKES, DOMINICK GROSSI,
GALENA GUTIERREZ, ANTHONY HARRISON, VITO SCAROLA, MELISSA DINOVI,
and BAYLEE SCHAEFER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:21-cv-00115-JM (E.D. Ark., June 23, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation,
fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the Indiana's
Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the New York
General Business Law, and the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive and
misleading advertising, labeling and marketing of its baby foods
under the brand name Parent's Choice. The Defendant advertised and
labeled its products as organic, safe and healthy for children.
However, contrary to the Defendant's marketing statements, the baby
foods contain harmful heavy metal contaminants including inorganic
arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury. As a result of the Defendant's
misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and the Class lost
money and suffered damages, the suit says.
Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hank Bates, Esq.
Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 W. 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (888) 551-9944
Facsimile: (501) 312-8500
E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
toldham@cbplaw.com
- and –
Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Zachary Rynar, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
184 Atlantic Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
E-mail: sbloch@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
zrynar@sgtlaw.com
- and –
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Erin G. Comite, Esq.
Sean T. Masson, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park A venue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
ecomite@scott-scott.com
smasson@scott-scott.com
- and –
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 JFK Boulevard, Ste. 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 277-5770
Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Valery Class Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ERNST VALERY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-08874, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 22,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-05464-JPO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of 42 U.S.
Constitution by discriminating against black banking customers and
impairing their rights to make and enforce their banking contract
with Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company, with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association, with its
principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jared H. Beck, Esq.
Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
Victor Arca, Esq.
BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
Corporate Park at Kendall
12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
Miami, FL 33186
Telephone: (305) 234-2060
Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
elizabeth@beckandlee.com
victor@beckandlee.com
WEST BRANDS: Pearson Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL PEARSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WEST BRANDS, LLC; VERY GOOD TOURING,
INC.; KANYE WEST; AJR FILMS INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 20STCV31684, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on June 21, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-05022 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code, and applicable provisions of the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders including failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide rest breaks,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide itemized wage
statements, failure to timely pay wages at termination, and
unlawful and unfair business practices.
West Brands, LLC is a holding company based in Los Angeles,
California.
Very Good Touring, Inc. is a touring company located in Calabasas,
California.
AJR Films Inc. is a full-service production company based in Los
Angeles, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ashley Farrell Pickett, Esq.
Bryan W. Patton, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
Telephone: (310) 586-7700
Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
E-mail: farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com
pattonbw@gtlaw.com
- and –
Britany M. Engelman, Esq.
ENGELMAN LAW, APC
9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 424-5889
Facsimile: (310) 693-5480
E-mail: bme@engelmanlawfirm.com
[*] Bill to Ban Arbitration Clauses in Health Insurance Launched
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan M Block, writing for Seeking Alpha, reports that
legislation introduced in the House of Representatives would ban
mandatory arbitration clauses in health insurance contracts so that
consumers could bring legal action against insurers.
The bill, the Justice for Patients Act, was introduced on June 16
by Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.).
Many insurers currently have mandatory arbitration clauses so that
if a member has a dispute over a claim or coverage is denied, the
only way to seek recourse is through arbitration, rather than suing
the company or joining a class-action lawsuit.
H.R. 3947 aims to change that, Porter says, by allowing consumers
to take insurers to court over bad faith claims settlement
practices, fraud, and denying treatment.
The legislation has been endorsed by groups including the American
Association for Justice, Public Citizen, and Social Security Works.
[GN]
[*] Class Actions Filed in Nevada v. 10 Major Auto Insurance Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that even though Americans drove less in
2020 due to the pandemic, early estimates of crash fatalities from
the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration reveal the largest projected number of deaths
since 2007.
According to NHSTA, an estimated 38,680 people died in motor
vehicle traffic crashes last year, representing an increase of
about 7.2% as compared to the 36,096 fatalities reported in 2019.
Preliminary data from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
show vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2020 fell by about 430.2
billion miles–a 13.2% decrease. The fatality rate for 2020 was
1.37 fatalities per 100 million VMT, up from 1.11 fatalities per
100 million VMT in 2019.
NHTSA's analysis shows that the main behaviors that drove this
increase include: impaired driving, speeding and failure to wear a
seat belt.
While passenger vehicle occupants had the largest number of
fatalities, accounting for 23,395 of the 38,680 (up 5%),
motorcyclists saw the biggest increase in crash deaths, rising 9%
to 5,015.
Deaths among bike riders also increased, rising 5% to 846, while
pedestrian deaths were estimated at about the same levels in 2020
and 2019.
NHSTA said crashes involving a large truck were among the few areas
where the agency projects a declining number of deaths in 2020, but
the drop was only 2%. Crash fatalities among people aged 65 fell by
about 9%.
Crash factors reviewed by NHTSA that showed the largest increases
in 2020 as compared to 2019 included:
* Occupant ejection, up 20%.
* Unrestrained occupants of passenger vehicles, up 15%.
* Crashes on urban interstates, up 15%
* Crashes on urban local/collector roads, up 12%;
* Speeding-related crashes, up 11%
Nighttime driving produced an 11% jump in crash deaths, and deaths
from weekend crashes rose 9%.
Demographically, non-Hispanic Black drivers were the most impacted,
with crash deaths rising 23%.
Auto Insurers
The NHTSA data is consistent with reports from auto insurers that
cited a reduction in the number of claims during 2020 but an
increase in the severity of claims due to fatalities. Many insurers
returned premiums and lowered rates to reflect the reduction in
claims. Still, many personal auto insurers reported healthy profits
in 2020.
Fitch Rating reported that the premiums returned and rebated, while
substantial, "did not fully offset loss cost benefits derived from
lower frequency."
Auto claims statistics from Allstate, Progressive and GEICO show
that frequency dropped by 27-30% in 2020 for physical damage
claims, and by 25-30 for bodily injury. In contrast, in 2019, the
frequency declines for these coverages were in the 0-4 percent
range.
Still, Fitch noted, declines in frequency were partly offset by
jumps in claims severity last year: 8-10 percent for physical
damage and 12-13% for bodily injury.
Accidents occurring at higher speeds in less crowded traffic
conditions and distracted driving are thought to be contributors to
the severity trends.
Fitch does not see the 2020 profits of auto insurers as
sustainable.
"Further pricing pressure is likely in response to recent operating
success and as companies strive to retain policyholders, which will
contribute to a reversion to pre-pandemic performance levels in
2021," Fitch predicts.
Mark Sektnan, vice president of the American Property Casualty
Insurance Association, said insurers "took immediate action" when
driving was reduced in 2020, and that auto insurers voluntarily
provided more than $14 billion in refunds and credits to
policyholders for reduced driving during the pandemic.
Some contend that insurers should have done more to account for the
drop in driving and crashes.
California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has said insurers in
his state have continued to "overcharge drivers" despite reduced
risk of accidents during the pandemic.
Class action lawsuits have been filed in Nevada against 10 major
auto insurance companies, contending that the companies charged
excessive insurance premiums during the pandemic.
The industry has pushed back against critics.
"The 2020 increase in road fatalities suggests that despite
improved automobile technologies and auto safety laws, driver
behavior is deteriorating at a rapid pace," said Stef Zielezienski,
executive vice president and chief legal officer for the American
Property Casualty Insurance Association.
"Trends in reckless driving could prove even more fatal as traffic
volume starts to return to pre-pandemic levels. These dangerous
trends, combined with increasing litigation, medical, and auto
repair costs impact the marketplace," Zielezienski added. [GN]
[*] D&O Premiums Rise Despite U.S. Class Action Decline
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bryant, writing for Bloomberg Opinion, reports that Elon Musk
was on to something when he complained that the cost of insurance
to protect company directors and officers from shareholder
litigation has gotten out of control. The impulsive Tesla Inc. boss
may be an unlikely spokesperson for the unfairness of these
spiraling fees, but they reveal something about this age of
corporate misadventure and trigger-happy lawyers. It's bad for
shareholders, companies and insurers alike.
When executives get sued, the payouts can be steep. Take the recent
270 million-euro ($320 million) settlement between Volkswagen AG
and its directors' and officers' insurers over former executives'
alleged mishandling of Dieselgate. 1 In the U.S., Wells Fargo &
Co.'s D&O insurers agreed to fork out $240 million in 2019 over the
bank's fake customer accounts scandal.
Securities law is becoming an enormous catchall. It's no longer
just accounting issues that bosses have to worry about. It's
cybersecurity breaches, data privacy lapses, environmental
calamities and sexual impropriety too. Social media is another
potential minefield: Musk and Tesla's board was sued earlier this
year over his tweets.
For years insurers underpriced D&O policies, which cover negligence
but not criminal behavior by executives. They've incurred losses as
the frequency and severity of claims has soared. It's no wonder
they've been hiking their rates. The average D&O premium paid by
U.S. listed companies has risen 56% in the past year, according to
broker Aon Plc. U.K. company D&O rates jumped an eye-watering 130%
in 2020 to levels last seen in the wake of Enron's collapse,
according to another insurance broker, Marsh. Rates for FTSE-100
companies have almost quadrupled, it said.
Punchy Premiums
The cost of U.K. D&O liability insurance is the highest in almost
20 years
Emerging sectors like cannabis, cryptocurrency and blank-check
companies are having particular difficulties finding adequate
coverage because insurers have less visibility on what the
potential risks might be. Several SPAC mergers involving
electric-vehicle companies have already sparked shareholder
lawsuits, including at Canoo Inc., Nikola Corp. and Lordstown
Motors Corp. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has
emboldened disgruntled shareholders by raising doubts about whether
the very optimistic financial projections SPAC executives tout
enjoy legal protection.
Insurers are also getting pickier about who they cover and by how
much. Sometimes they push back: Chubb Ltd. is sparring with the
former chief executive officer of Wirecard AG over who should pick
up his legal bills following the German fintech's collapse.
Large companies are generally able to swallow these costs, albeit
reluctantly. 2 However, smaller businesses might have no choice but
to accept lower coverage limits or a higher deductible, potentially
hindering their ability to attract talented directors and stifling
the good kind of corporate risk-taking. Some firms may even decide
that becoming a public company just isn't worth the hassle.
Few boards are willing to go without D&O coverage altogether,
something Warren Buffett famously insisted on at Berkshire Hathaway
Inc. so as to make directors more wary of "messing up."
Fortunately, some firms have found innovative workarounds to this
insurance headache.
Musk's surprising response was to offer to insure fellow board
members himself before backtracking after proxy advisors objected
due to the potential for conflicts of interest. The chairman of
medical technology company Pulse Biosciences Inc. did something
similar.
A better option might be to create what's called a captive insurer,
an in-house insurance subsidiary that underwrites the company's D&O
risk. Canadian cannabis company Hexo Corp. set aside C$30 million
($24 million) to do so in a move it estimates will save up to C$15
million in yearly premiums.
Rocketing D&O premiums are also the result of the sheer volume and
expense of the securities litigation companies are getting hit with
nowadays, some of which is meritless. Such complaints remain
elevated compared to historic levels even though the number of new
U.S. class action cases fell by a fifth last year, partly due to
there being fewer contested M&A deals during the pandemic. Wider
availability of litigation finance has helped fuel more lawsuits
and some top corporate lawyers now charge more than $1,800 per
hour.
Legal Liability
The number of new U.S. class action securities cases filed yearly
remains high
There may be some relief in sight as higher premiums lure more
competition. But companies hoping for outright price cuts may be
disappointed unless policymakers do more to rein in spurious
lawsuits. Boards can help too by improving corporate governance.
There will always be tension between shareholders' important right
to seek legal redress and ensuring companies don't spend all their
time in court. Soaring D&O premiums indicate that balance is
increasingly out of kilter. Only the lawyers can be content.
1. In this instance, Volkswagen was the one making a claim on its
D&O policy. The payout was in relation to former executives' crisis
response management, not the emissions manipulation.
2. Costs vary a lot according to the size of the company, what's
insured and where it's listed. FTSE-100 companies pay an average of
£21,000 per million of cover, compared to £45,000 per million in
the U.S., according to Marsh. [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 ***